Jackson-Long v. Village of Matteson et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM Opinion Signed by the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan on 12/14/2011: Mailed notice (mw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
EVLICIA JACKSON-LONG,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
VILLAGE OF MATTESON, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 11 C 3191

MEMORANDUM OPINION
SAMUEL DER-YEGHIAYAN, District Judge
This matter is before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. For the
reasons stated below, the motion to dismiss is granted.

BACKGROUND
Defendants Sergeant Michael Jones and Detective Jeremy Sims (Sims)
(collectively referred to as “Individual Defendants”) are police officers for Defendant
Village of Matteson. In May 2009, Individual Defendants and other unknown
officers allegedly conducted surveillance of Plaintiff Evlicia Jackson-Long’s
(Jackson-Long) residence (Barn Owl Drive Residence) in Matteson, Illinois.
Individual Defendants allegedly then obtained a search warrant (Search Warrant) and
1

raided the Barn Owl Drive Residence in search of illegal drugs and evidence of a
drug distribution operation. Jackson-Long asserts that it should have been apparent
to officers conducting surveillance that she was operating a daycare business at the
residence. Jackson-Long claims that she placed video surveillance cameras at her
residence to protect the children at her daycare operations. Jackson-Long contends
that Individual Defendants omitted facts regarding the daycare operations from the
Search Warrant application and accompanying affidavit (Affidavit). Specifically,
Sims allegedly indicated that drug trafficking operations often use video cameras to
conduct counter-surveillance and Sims allegedly failed to indicate that the daycare
operations at the Barn Owl Drive Residence provided a legitimate explanation for the
video cameras.
Jackson-Long also alleges that, in order to harass and humiliate her, Individual
Defendants delayed the execution of the Search Warrant until children from the
daycare were present. Jackson-Long includes in her complaint claims alleging an
unlawful search and seizure brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Section 1983).
Jackson-Long contends that Defendants purposefully delayed the execution of the
Search Warrant. Defendants move to dismiss all claims.

LEGAL STANDARD

2

In ruling on a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) (Rule 12(b)(6)), a court must “accept as true all of the allegations
contained in a complaint” and make reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)(stating that the tenet is “inapplicable
to legal conclusions”); Thompson v. Ill. Dep’t of Prof’l Regulation, 300 F.3d 750,
753 (7th Cir. 2002). To defeat a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (internal quotations omitted)(quoting
in part Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A complaint that
contains factual allegations that are “merely consistent with a defendant’s liability
. . . stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to
relief.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (internal quotations omitted).

DISCUSSION

I. Section 1983 Unlawful Search Claims
Defendants argue that Jackson-Long has failed to present facts that plausibly
suggest any unlawful search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. An affidavit by
a law enforcement officer “supporting a search warrant carries with it a presumption

3

of validity.” Suarez v. Town of Ogden Dunes, Ind., 581 F.3d 591, 596 (7th Cir.
2009). If a plaintiff challenges the information provided by law enforcement officers
in support of a search warrant, the plaintiff must show “that the officers knowingly or
intentionally or with a reckless disregard for the truth made false statements to the
judicial officer and show that the false statements were necessary to the judicial
officer’s determination that probable cause existed.” Id. (internal quotations
omitted)(quoting Molina ex rel. Molina v. Cooper, 325 F.3d 963, 968 (7th Cir.
2003)). The same standard is applied when a plaintiff alleges that the officers made
material omissions from the information provided in support of the search warrant.
Id.
Although Jackson-Long asserts that Sims purposefully omitted information
from the Affidavit, the pleadings do not indicate that, even if such an omission was
made, it was a material omission. See Parkey v. Sample, 623 F.3d 1163, 1165 (7th
Cir. 2010)(indicating that a plaintiff needs to show that the officer applying for a
search warrant “knowingly or intentionally or with a reckless disregard for the truth
made misstatements to the magistrate and show the statements were necessary to the
magistrate’s probable cause determination”)(internal quotations omitted)(quoting
Molina, 325 F.3d at 968).
The crux of Jackson-Long’s unlawful search claims is her contention that

4

when requesting the search warrant from the state court judge, Sims indicated that
video cameras are used by drug traffickers to conduct counter-surveillance and failed
to inform the judge that Jackson-Long was operating a daycare facility. (Ans. 2).
Jackson-Long argues that such information would have explained the use of video
cameras at the Barn Owl Drive Residence. However, Jackson-Long fails to
recognize that, aside from Sims’ statements regarding the use of video cameras, in
support of the Search Warrant Sims provided ample other facts indicating that
evidence relating to a drug trafficking operation was located at the Barn Owl Drive
Residence.
Defendants have attached to their motion to dismiss a copy of the Affidavit
signed by Sims. A court can consider a document attached as an exhibit to a motion
to dismiss, without converting the motion into a summary judgment motion, if the
document was “referred to in the plaintiff’s complaint and [is] central to [the
plaintiff’s] claim.” McCready v. eBay, Inc., 453 F.3d 882, 891 (7th Cir.
2006)(internal quotations omitted)(quoting Wright v. Assoc. Ins. Cos., 29 F.3d 1244,
1248 (7th Cir. 1994)). In this case, Jackson-Long specifically references in her
complaint the Search Warrant, the application for the Search Warrant, and the
“accompanying affidavit. . . .” (Compl. Par. 6). Jackson-Long also bases her
unlawful search claims on her contention that Sims failed to include certain

5

information in the Affidavit. Thus, the Affidavit is referenced in the complaint and
is central to Jackson-Long’s claims, and can be considered in ruling on the instant
motion to dismiss.
Although Jackson-Long contends that Sims should have included information
in the Affidavit regarding the daycare operation, Jackson-Long has not alleged any
facts in her complaint that would contradict any of the facts set forth in the Affidavit.
Sims indicates in the Affidavit that he has extensive experience in investigating
violations of state narcotics laws and is familiar with the tactics used by narcotics
traffickers. (Aff. 4). Sims also indicates that he discovered that Jackson-Long and
her husband, Roy Long (Long), were connected to a residence at 6229 Streamwood
Lane (Streamwood Lane Residence), which was being used for a drug trafficking
operation. Sims explains in the Affidavit that in 2009, based on citizen calls, police
officers were dispatched to the Streamwood Lane Residence to investigate a burglary
in progress. (Aff. 4). Police officers stopped a vehicle fleeing from the scene of the
burglary (Vehicle). (Aff. 4). In the Vehicle, police found plastic bags containing
cannabis and boxes with individually wrapped bricks of cannabis. (Aff. 5). Police
recovered 237 pounds of cannabis from the Vehicle. (Aff. 5). One of the occupants
of the Vehicle informed police that he thought that there was a thousand pounds of
cannabis in the Streamwood Lane Residence. (Aff. 5).

6

Police then inspected the outside of the Streamwood Lane Residence and
found cardboard boxes matching those found in the Vehicle. (Aff. 5). Police also
observed, through an open storm door, various bags and boxes in the garage similar
to those found in the Vehicle. (Aff. 5). Police also detected a strong odor of
cannabis and observed bags of suspected cannabis and cannabis residue in the
garage. (Aff. 5). The Streamwood Lane Residence also had security cameras
mounted outside that provided a view of the house and garage. (Aff. 6).
Police obtained a search warrant for the Streamwood Lane Residence and
garage, and upon searching the buildings, it appeared that no one resided at that
residence. (Aff. 6). The garage contained cannabis and various items such as
packing materials and a digital scale, indicating that the garage was being used for a
drug trafficking operation. (Aff. 6-7). Police also found various evidence in the
Streamwood Lane Residence and garage that connected Jackson-Long and Long to
the Streamwood Lane Residence. For example, inside the Streamwood Lane
Residence and garage, police discovered various pieces of mail addressed to Long or
Jackson-Long. (Aff. 6). Some mail also was addressed to the Ya-Ya Learning
Center. (Aff. 6). In addition, police discovered photos, and through contacts and
driver’s license records, police were able to verify that the photos were of Long and
Jackson-Long. (Aff. 7). Jackson-Long and Long were also listed as residents of the

7

Streamwood Lane Residence on certain utilities records. (Aff. 6).
Police also discovered a connection between Long, Jackson-Long, and one of
the occupants of the Vehicle (Occupant), who was caught fleeing from the burglary.
(Aff. 7). The Occupant indicated that although he did not know Long or JacksonLong by name, he was acquainted with them. (Aff. 7). The Occupant also indicated
that he knew Long from past gang-related activities. (Aff. 7). The Occupant stated
that he broke into the garage because he knew that large amounts of cannabis were
located there and that he fled when an audible alarm went off during the burglary.
(Aff. 7). Police also discovered that, although no one apparently was living at the
Streamwood Lane Residence, Long had been seen there by a neighbor less than a day
before the burglary. (Aff. 5).
Police then did further investigation and discovered that Jackson-Long and
Long had another residence, the Barn Owl Drive Residence. (Aff. 8). Police also
discovered that, although Jackson-Long and Long lacked any apparent sources of
income, they had deposited certain funds in a bank account, owned various
properties, and had six vehicles. (Aff. 10-11). Police also discovered that Long has
five previous arrests and one criminal conviction for involvement with cannabis.
(Aff. 12).
Sims indicated in his Affidavit that, based on his prior experience, narcotics

8

traffickers keep documents that contain records of their transactions and their efforts
to launder money. (Aff. 4). Sims had evidence of an ongoing drug trafficking
operation at the Streamwood Lane Residence, which was owned by Long and
contained mail and photos of both Long and Jackson-Long, and at which Long had
recently been seen at by neighbors. The search of the Streamwood Lane Residence
indicated that no one resided at the residence and police did not discover any records
concerning the drug trafficking operation or any records indicating how funds from
the operation were being laundered. Sims thus had a reasonable basis for the
purposes of the Search Warrant to conclude that records of the operation and money
laundering were present at the Barn Owl Drive Residence where Long and JacksonLong resided.
Based on Sims’ investigation, he had probable cause to believe that there was
evidence of a drug trafficking operation being operated by Long and possibly
Jackson-Long and evidence showing that Long and Jackson-Long resided at the Barn
Owl Drive Residence. Even if Sims had known that Jackson-Long was operating a
daycare operation and had specified in the Affidavit that it appeared that JacksonLong was operating a day-care operation at the Barn Owl Drive Residence, such
facts in no way would negate the ample information indicating that evidence relating
to a drug trafficking operation was located at the Barn Owl Drive Residence. There

9

were facts presented by Sims far beyond the fact that there were security cameras at
the Barn Owl Drive Residence that provided probable cause for the Search Warrant.
Also, even if facts were presented by Sims that indicated that Jackson-Long was
operating a legitimate business at the Barn Owl Drive Residence, such facts, for the
purposes of the Search Warrant, would in no way contradict the evidence tying Long
to the drug trafficking operation and indicating that Long resided at the Barn Owl
Drive Residence.
Whether the police ultimately discovered any evidence of drug trafficking
operations at the Barn Owl Drive Residence is irrelevant for the purposes of
assessing whether police had probable cause for the Search Warrant. See Guzman v.
City of Chicago, 565 F.3d 393, 396 (7th Cir. 2009)(stating that “the validity of the
warrant is assessed on the basis of the information that the officers disclosed, or had
a duty to discover and to disclose, to the issuing Magistrate” and that “[i]nformation
that emerges after the warrant is issued has no bearing on this analysis”). The
Affidavit, which is referenced by Jackson-Long herself in her complaint, and the
facts in the Affidavit, which are not contradicted by Jackson-Long’s complaint,
clearly show that Sims had collected sufficient evidence to form a reasonable belief
that evidence relating to a drug trafficking operation was located at the Barn Owl
Drive Residence for the purposes of the Search Warrant.

10

Jackson-Long also argues in her response to the instant motion that her
constitutional rights were violated because Defendants allegedly executed the Search
Warrant “when kids were present (but not their parents), (with guns drawn) . . . .”
(Ans. 1). There is, however, no such allegation in the complaint regarding drawn
guns, and Jackson-Long cannot augment her complaint in her response to the motion
to dismiss in order to avoid dismissal. Defendants also correctly point out that even
if children from the daycare operation were present when the Search Warrant was
executed, that, in and of itself, fails to suggest any violation of Jackson-Long’s
constitutional rights. In addition, even if Sims delayed the execution of the Search
Warrant as alleged by Jackson-Long until children from daycare operation were
present, that would not indicate a constitutional violation. Thus, even when
accepting Jackson-Long’s allegations as true, there are not sufficient facts to indicate
a violation of Jackson-Long’s constitutional rights. Individual Officers had probable
cause to search the Barn Owl Drive Residence, and Jackson-Long has not alleged
facts that plausibly suggest any constitutional violation. Therefore, Defendants’
motion to dismiss is granted.
The court notes that to the extent that Jackson-Long seeks to bring any state
law claims, she has not provided sufficient facts to plausibly suggest any state law
claims and, even if she had done so, after considering all of the pertinent factors

11

available to the court and, as a matter of discretion, the court would decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any properly brought state law claims. See
Wright v. Associated Ins. Cos., 29 F.3d 1244, 1251-52 (7th Cir. 1994); Williams
Electronics Games, Inc. v. Garrity, 479 F.3d 904, 906-07 (7th Cir. 2007); Timm v.
Mead Corp., 32 F.3d 273, 277 (7th Cir. 1994).

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.

___________________________________
Samuel Der-Yeghiayan
United States District Court Judge
Dated: December 14, 2011

12