1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL BONSLATER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No.:

)

) Judge

CITY OF CHICAGO, and, CHICAGO POLICE )

OFFICER ALVAREZ JR., Star # 16131, )

OFFICER DE LEON, Star # 16360, and ) 

SERGEANT BROWN, Star #2235, )

Star #16360, Officer Star #2235, )

and the City of Chicago )

)

Defendants. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

COMPLAINT

NOW COMES Plaintiff, MICHAEL BONSLATER, by and through counsel, Jared S. 

Kosoglad, P.C., complaining of the Defendants, the City of Chicago, and Chicago Police 

Officers Alvarez, Jr. Star #16131, Officer De Leon Star #16360, and Sergeant Brown, Star 

#2235, and states as follows: 

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a civil action seeking damages against defendants for committing acts under color 

of law that deprived Plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United 

States. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03140 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/27/20 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1
2

JURISDICTION

2. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to the judicial code 28 U.S.C. § 1331 

and 1343 (a); the Constitution of the United States; and pendent jurisdiction as provided 

under U.S.C. § 1367(a).

PARTIES

3. PLAINTIFF MICHAEL BONSLATER (“Mr. Bonslater”) is a citizen of the United States 

of America who resides in Chicago, Illinois. 

4. DEFENDANTS Chicago Police Officers Alvarez, Jr. Star #16131, Officer De Leon, Star 

#16131, and Sergeant Brown, Star #2235 (“Individual Defendants”), were at the time of 

this occurrence, duly licensed police officers with the Chicago Police Department. At all 

times relevant to this Complaint, the Individual Defendants acted under color of law and 

within the scope of their employment with the Chicago Police Department and City of 

Chicago. They are sued in their individual capacity.

5. DEFENDANT City of Chicago is a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of 

Illinois and is the principal and employer of the Individual Defendants. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. On January 7, 2019, Plaintiff worked as a driver for the ride-sharing application UBER 

and stopped to get gas at the CITGO station located at or near 6700 S Cottage Grove 

Avenue in Chicago, Illinois.

7. An individual who worked at CITGO notified Chicago Police about other individuals 

causing a minor disturbance at the gas station. Multiple Chicago Police Officers 

responded to the request and engaged the unrelated individuals, including Defendant 

Brown.

Case: 1:20-cv-03140 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/27/20 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:2
3

8. Plaintiff observed the police/citizen encounter and began to record the event. While 

recording, Plaintiff was located a safe distance from the encounter and did nothing to 

obstruct the officers.

9. As Plaintiff recorded the encounter, Defendants Alvarez Jr. and De Leon arrived and 

initiated a confrontation with the Plaintiff. 

10. Prior to the confrontation, Defendants Alvarez Jr. and De Leon lacked probable cause or 

reasonable suspicion to believe Plaintiff had committed, was committing, or was about to 

commit an offense.

11. At all times, Plaintiff had the permission of CITGO to be on the gas station property and 

acted lawfully in observing and recording Chicago Police Officers performing their 

public duties in a public forum. 

12. Defendants Alvarez Jr. and De Leon confronted Plaintiff solely because he was in the act 

of recording other police officers and to prevent Plaintiff from making a record of the 

police performing their public duties in a public forum. 

13. Defendants Alvarez Jr. and De Leon Star unlawfully ordered Plaintiff to move away from 

the gas station and stop recording their fellow Chicago Police Officers, even though 

Plaintiff was a customer and not engaged in any wrongdoing or other unlawful activity.

14. In response to the hostility of the Chicago Police, Plaintiff requested the presence of a 

sergeant.

15. Defendant Sergeant Brown approached and unlawfully ordered Plaintiff to leave the gas 

station immediately. Defendant Brown lacked any lawful authority to provide that order.

16. Before Plaintiff had any opportunity to respond, the Individual Defendants, acting 

together and in concert, arrested Plaintiff. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03140 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/27/20 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:3
4

17. Plaintiff’s arrest lacked probable cause or any other lawful basis. 

18. Subsequent to Plaintiff’s arrest, the Individual Defendants acting together and in concert, 

attempted to manufacture a trespassing charge against Plaintiff by attempting to coerce a 

person, who upon information and belief was a CITGO agent, to sign a baseless 

trespassing charge against Plaintiff. The individual refused to sign the baseless 

complaint.

19. As a direct and proximate cause of the Individual Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff 

suffered damages, including but not limited to lost time, lost freedom, emotional distress, 

and loss of his constitutional rights and his dignity.

COUNT I: First Amendment- Retaliation

Against All Individual Defendants

20. Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges the above paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 

21. Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Plaintiff has a right to act as a 

citizen journalist and record the performance of public officers performing their duties in 

a public forum. 

22. Furthermore, Plaintiff has the unfettered right to use his speech to request the presence of 

a Chicago Police sergeant during an encounter with officers. 

23. Plaintiff’s person was unlawfully seized by unlawful orders to move and leave the gas 

station, to which Plaintiff partially acquiesced. Plaintiff was further unlawfully seized by 

the unlawful handcuffing of his hands. 

24. The unlawful seizures of Plaintiff were done in retaliation for Plaintiff’s exercise of his 

First Amendment right to act as a citizen journalist to publicly record police officers 

performing their public duties in a public forum. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03140 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/27/20 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:4
5

25. The retaliation arises as a result of a widespread prevailing mentality amongst Chicago 

Police Officers and the City of Chicago itself that the use of their police authority over 

the citizenry should not be subject to review and that police officers must protect each 

other by obstructing citizens from collecting, acquiring, and creating evidence of police 

misconduct. 

26. The aforementioned actions of the Defendants were the direct and proximate cause of the 

Constitutional violations set forth above, and directly and proximately caused Plaintiff to 

suffer, without limitation, lost time, emotional distress, loss of liberty, and a deprivation 

of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and his dignity. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages, 

punitive damages, the costs of this action and attorneys’ fees, and any such other and further 

relief as this Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT II: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Illegal Seizure

Against All Defendants

27. Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges the above paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

28. The actions of the defendants constituted a show of authority that restrained Plaintiff’s 

liberty, and Plaintiff submitted to the Defendants’ show of authority.

29. The Defendants detained Plaintiff without probable cause or any other lawful basis.

30. The Defendants lacked even a reasonable suspicion to stop Plaintiff.

31. The conduct of the Defendants was in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United 

States Constitution.

32. The aforementioned actions of the Defendants were the direct and proximate cause of the 

Constitutional violations set forth above, and directly and proximately caused Plaintiff to 

Case: 1:20-cv-03140 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/27/20 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:5
6

suffer, without limitation, lost time, emotional distress, loss of liberty, and a deprivation 

of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and his dignity. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages, 

punitive damages, the costs of this action and attorneys’ fees, and any such other and further 

relief as this Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT III:745 ILCS 10/9-102 – Indemnification

Against Defendant City of Chicago

33. Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth 

herein.

34. Defendant City of Chicago is the employer of Defendant Officers.

35. Defendant Officers committed the acts alleged above under color of law and in the scope 

of their employment as employees of the City of Chicago.

WHEREFORE, should Defendant Officers be found liable on one or more of the claims set 

forth above, Plaintiff demands that, pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/9-102, City of Chicago be 

found liable for any judgment plaintiff obtains against said defendant, as well as attorneys’

fees and costs awarded.

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38 on all issues so 

triable. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03140 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/27/20 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:6
7

Dated: May 27, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

MICHAEL BONSLATER

By: s/ Jared Kosoglad____

Plaintiff’s Attorney

Jared S. Kosoglad, P.C.

223 W. Jackson, Suite 200

Chicago, IL 60606

T: 312-513-6000

E: jared@jaredlaw.com

Case: 1:20-cv-03140 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/27/20 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:7