2 Answer To Complaint

Case: 1:06-cv-03400 Document #: 13 Filed: 08/17/06 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:33
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
EDDIE BAKER; )
CAROLYN SIMMONS BAKER; )
TIFFANY ALTMAN; ) No. 06 C 3400
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. ) Judge Manning
)
THE CITY OF CHICAGO, ) Magistrate Judge Nolan
a Municipal Corporation; and )
Chicago Police Officers ) Jury Demand
ERIC ELKINS, Star 5894; )
DONALD STORY, Star 7960; and )
Unknown Chicago Police Officers )
John Does and Jane Roes 1-10; )
)
Defendants. )
DEFENDANT CITY OF CHICAGO’S ANSWER, DEFENSES

AND JURY DEMAND TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
Defendant, City of Chicago, (“City”) by Mara S. Georges, Corporation Counsel for the
City of Chicago, answers the Complaint and states:
1. This is an action for money damages brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
ANSWER: The City admits Plaintiffs have brought this purported cause of action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution. The City denies it violated Plaintiffs’ rights or caused him any injury.
2. Jurisdiction for Plaintiffs' federal claims is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and

1343(a). Jurisdiction for Plaintiffs' state claims is based on supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
ANSWER: The City admits this Court has jurisdiction, but denies that it violated
Plaintiffs’ rights or caused them any injury.
3. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), in that the claims
arose in this district as alleged below.
-1-
ANSWER: The City admits venue is proper.
Parties
4. Plaintiffs are citizens of the United States, and residents of the City of Chicago.
ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph.
5. Defendant Police Officers are duly appointed and sworn City of Chicago police
officers. At all times material to this complaint, the Defendant-Officers were acting in the course
and scope of their employment, and under color of state law, ordinance and/or regulation.
ANSWER: The City admits the Defendant Police Officers are City of Chicago
police officers. The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph.
6. The Defendant-Officers are sued in their individual capacities.
ANSWER: The City admits the allegations contained in this paragraph.
7. The CITY OF CHICAGO is a municipal corporation, duly incorporated under the

laws of the State of Illinois, and is the employer and principal of the Defendant-Officers.
Facts
8. On or about October 3,2005, after going to a gas station, Plaintiff EDDIE

BAKER was walking back to his home located at 6146 South Ashland, 2nd floor.
ANSWER: The City admits that according to a Chicago Police Department Arrest
Report (“arrest report”) Plaintiff Eddie Baker was arrested on October 3, 2005, at 6146
South Ashland.
9. After EDDIE BAKER had opened his door and began entering his home, he
noticed some police officers back up down his street in an unmarked police car. The officers
then yelled for Plaintiff to "Come here!”

10. When the officers yelled at EDDIE BAKER, he was already in his house. After
they yelled, EDDIE BAKER just shut the door and went inside his home.
-2-
ANSWER: The City admits that according to the arrest report, the arresting
officers approached Plaintiff Eddie Baker to conduct a field interview. The City admits
that according to the arrest report, the arresting officers exited the squad car and Plaintiff
fled into the doorway of the arrest location. The City is without information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph.
11. Several minutes later, several Defendant-Officers started to try to forcibly gain
entry into EDDIE BAKER's home.
ANSWER: The City admits that according to the arrest report, the arresting
officers obtained signed consent to search the arrest location. The City is without
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained
in this paragraph.
12. When EDDIE BAKER discovered that people were seemingly trying to break
into his house, he called 911.

13. About 7-10 police officers were able to forcibly gain entry into Plaintiffs' home.

14. More police officers were trying to get in the back door, but initially were not
able to because there is a gate. But then the officers broke the gate to get in.

15. When the officers came inside, EDDIE BAKER was on the phone with 911.

16. In the home at this time was Plaintiff EDDIE BAKER, his wife CAROLYN
BAKER, their 20 year-old daughter TIFFANY ALTMAN, and their 4 year-old son, Diante
Baker.

17. Most of the Defendant-Officers entered the home with their guns drawn and
-3-
pointed at Plaintiffs.

18. Guns were pointed at EDDIE BAKER while he was on the phone talking to 911.

19. When the police entered, Plaintiff CAROLYN BAKER was in the bathtub taking
a bath.

20. CAROLYN BAKER got out of the tub and exited the bathroom. At that time,
EDDIE BAKER was still on the phone with 911, and the police were in the house with their
guns drawn. EDDIE BAKER told CAROLYN BAKER to go back and get dressed.

21. EDDIE BAKER was placed in handcuffs.

22. EDDIE BAKER was not free to leave.

23. Defendant-Officers did not have any reason to believe that Plaintiff EDDIE
BAKER had violated, or was about to violate, any city, state or federal law.

24. EDDIE BAKER had not violated any city, state or federal law.
ANSWER: Based upon the arrest report, the City denies the allegations contained
in this paragraph.
-4-
25. The Defendant-Officers did not have an arrest warrant, probable cause,
reasonable suspicion, consent, or any other lawful basis to stop, detain, or search Plaintiff
EDDIE BAKER.

26. The Defendant-Officers did not have a reasonable suspicion, based upon specific
and articulable facts, that EDDIE BAKER had committed or was about to commit a crime.

27. After illegally entering the Plaintiffs' home and falsely arresting EDDIE BAKER,
the Defendant-Officers then searched the Plaintiffs' entire home several times very thoroughly,
trying to find something, anything, to justify their illegal entry into the house and illegal arrest of
EDDIE BAKER.

28. EDDIE BAKER told the Defendant-Officers that they should not be searching his
house without a search warrant. The Defendant-Officers told Plaintiff that they did not need a
search warrant, and that they can search his house "anytime" they wanted to.

29. The Defendant-Officers did not have a search warrant, or any other legal basis, to
search the Plaintiffs' home.
ANSWER: Based upon the arrest report, the City denies the allegations contained
in this paragraph.
30. While illegally searching the house, the Defendant-Officers forced Plaintiffs
CAROLYN BAKER and TIFFANY ALTMAN to sit and stay on a couch.

31. While sitting on the couch, Plaintiff CAROLYN BAKER repeatedly asked the
Defendant-Officers if she could use the bathroom. Each time, the Defendant-Officers told her
that she could not use the bathroom.
-5-

32. After they had spent a considerable amount of time searching the house and not
finding anything, the Defendant-Officers then subjected Plaintiffs CAROLYN BAKER and
TIFFANY ALTMAN to a humiliating and degrading search of their persons.

33. CAROLYN BAKER was taken into a bathroom by a female officer to be

searched.

34. After a pat-down, the Defendant-Officer forced CAROLYN BAKER to take her
pants down. The officer had Plaintiff open her legs, and then the officer searched CAROLYN
BAKER's entire body including the groin area, and did not find anything.

35. TIFFANY ALTMAN was also taken into the bathroom by a female officer to be
searched.

36. After a pat-down, the Defendant-Officer forced TIFFANY ALTMAN to take her
pants down. The officer had Plaintiff open her legs, and then the officer searched TIFFANY
ALTMAN's entire body including the groin area, and did not find anything.

37. After searching the entire home several times for over one hour and not
finding anything, one of the Defendant-Officers found two old bullets in a suit jacket.
ANSWER: The City admits that based upon the arrest report, the arresting officers
found two live bullets on top of a night-stand on Plaintiff Baker’s bedroom. The City is
without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
contained in this paragraph.
-6-
38. After they found the bullets, the Defendant-Officers searched even more trying to
find a gun.

39. The Defendant-Officers tore apart the entire house during the many searches.

40. During the course of the searches, the Defendant-Officers repeatedly

orally degraded the Plaintiffs, especially EDDIE BAKER, who they would tell to "shut the fuck
up" when he objected to the illegal police entry and search of his home.

41. Some time after they were finally finished with the multiple searches, the
Defendant-Officers demanded that CAROLYN BAKER sign a consent to search form.

42. CAROLYN BAKER signed the form.

43. Eventually EDDIE BAKER was transported to the 7th District Chicago police
station and processed.
44. Defendant ELKINS sought to have Plaintiff charged with felony unlawful use of
a weapon, and misdemeanor possession of ammunition.

45. Upon information and belief, the felony charges were not approved by the state's
attorneys office. But Plaintiff was still charged with misdemeanor ammunition possession.
-7-
46. Defendants ELKINS and STORY prepared false police reports related to the
incident.

47. In the arrest report, Defendants ELKINS and STORY claimed that EDDIE
BAKER fled into the doorway of his building after they first observed him from the street. This
was false.
ANSWER: The City admits that the arrest report states that Eddie Baker fled
into the doorway of 6146 South Ashland Avenue. The City is without information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph.
48. In the arrest report, Defendants ELKINS and STORY claimed that they found the
bullets on top of a night stand. This was false.
ANSWER: The City admits that the arrest report states that bullets were found on
top of a night stand. The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph.
BAKER said to them: "officer, all I have is those two bullets, I don't have a gun." This was
false. Plaintiff EDDIE BAKER did state that he did not own a gun, but he did not make an
admission to possessing or "having" any bullets.
ANSWER: The City admits the arrest report states that when questioned where
the gun was located, Eddie Baker said “officer all I have is those two bullets, I don’t have a
gun.” The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
remaining allegations contained in this paragraph.
BAKER made the above admission after he "had been read his miranda rights. This was false.
EDDIE BAKER was never read his miranda rights.
ANSWER: The City admits the arrest report states “the statement was made post
Miranda which was read per F.O.P.” The City is without information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph.
51. In the arrest report, Defendants ELKINS and STORY claimed that they had
initially attempted to approach EDDIE BAKER for a "field interview" because he allegedly
looked like a person wanted for a "homicide," who they said was: "Wardell, Nugen M/l/40 IR#
-8-
659308." This was false.
ANSWER: The City admits that the arrest report states that the arresting officers
approached to conduct a filed interview “due to the above arrestee looked like offender for
homicide (Wardell, Nugen M/1/40 IR# 659308.)” The City is without information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph.
52. If this was true, once they illegally entered the residence and saw Plaintiff EDDIE
BAKER up close in person, they would have realized that Plaintiff was not Nugen Wardell, and
simply left.

53. If this was true, once they illegally entered the residence, they would have asked
personal identity questions and sought identification from EDDIE BAKER. The Defendant-
Officers did not do that.

54. Upon information and belief, the Defendant-Officers did not have an arrest
warrant for Nugen Wardell.

55. At one point, one of the original officers that Plaintiff saw on the street when he
was entering his home told EDDIE BAKER that he saw Plaintiff stick his head out the window
all the time.

56. This further demonstrates that the entry was illegal and the justification was false,
as the officer then should have known that EDDIE BAKER was not the person they claimed to
be looking for.
ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations contained in this paragraph.
57. EDDIE BAKER was finally released from police custody shortly after midnight,
about 10 hours after initially being arrested.
-9-
58. Later that same day, EDDIE BAKER made an Office of Professional Standards
complaint about the incident described above.
59. And then still later that day, one or more Defendant-Officers went to Plaintiff
EDDIE BAKER's home and asked him to sign some papers. Plaintiff did not know what they
were for, but he believed they contained an agreement to drop the OPS complaint.

60. On November 17, 2005, EDDIE BAKER appeared in court on the misdemeanor
ammunition charge. The case was dropped by the prosecution.

61. Each individual Defendant acted willfully, wantonly, maliciously, oppressively,

and with a conscious disregard and deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' rights.
ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations contained in this paragraph.
62. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of the Defendants described above,
Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer damages including loss of physical liberty,
emotional distress, pain and suffering, mental anguish and humiliation, and other damages.
COUNT I
(42 U.S.C. § 1983 – False Arrest/Imprisonment)
63. Plaintiff EDDIE BAKER realleges paragraphs 1 through 62 as if fully set forth
herein.
ANSWER: The City’s answers to each of the paragraphs in Plaintiffs’ complaint

are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth.
-10-
64. The Defendant-Officers forcibly entered Plaintiffs' home without any legal
justification.

65. EDDIE BAKER was handcuffed.

66. Plaintiff EDDIE BAKER was not free to leave.

67. The Defendant-Officers did not have an arrest warrant for Plaintiff EDDIE
BAKER.

68. The actions of Defendant-Officers in arresting Plaintiff EDDIE BAKER without

any legal justification or probable cause violated their Fourth Amendment right, as guaranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

COUNT II
(42 U.S.C. § 1983 – False Arrest/Imprisonment)
69. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 62 as if fully set forth herein.

70. The Defendant-Officers forcibly entered Plaintiffs' home without any legal
justification.

71. The Defendant-Officers entered Plaintiffs' home with their guns drawn and
-11-

72. Plaintiffs CAROLYN BAKER and TIFFANY ALTMAN were not free to leave.

73. The Defendant-Officers did not have an arrest warrant for Plaintiffs CAROLYN
BAKER or TIFFANY ALTMAN.

74. The actions of Defendant-Officers in arresting said Plaintiffs without any legal
justification or probable cause violated their Fourth Amendment right, as guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

COUNT III
(42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Excessive Force)

76. The Defendant-Officers entered Plaintiffs' home with their guns drawn and

77. The actions of Defendant-Officers violated Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment right, as

guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, to be free from the use of excessive and unreasonable
force.

-12-
COUNT IV
(42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Illegal Search of Person)
78. Plaintiffs TIFFANY ALTMAN and CAROLYN BAKER reallege paragraphs 1

through 62 as if fully set forth herein.

79. Plaintiffs TIFFANY ALTMAN and CAROLYN BAKER were subjected to a

degrading and humiliating search of their persons where they were completely searched,
including their groin region, after they were forced to drop their pants and spread their legs.

80. The actions of Defendant-Officers in searching Plaintiffs without any legal

justification or probable cause violated Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment right, as guaranteed by the

COUNT V
(42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Illegal Search of Home)
81. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs I through 62 as if fully set forth herein.
ANSWER: The City’s answers to each of the paragraphs in Plaintiffs’

complaint are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth.
82. The actions of Defendant-Officers in searching Plaintiffs' home without any legal
justification or probable cause violated their Fourth Amendment right, as guaranteed by the

COUNT VI
(42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Monell Claim against the City of Chicago)
83. Plaintiffs reallege all of the above paragraphs and counts, as if fully set forth
herein.
-13-

84. At all times material to this Complaint, there existed in the City of Chicago the
following practices, policies and customs:
a. stopping, detaining, arresting, and searching civilians without a warrant,

probable cause, reasonable suspicion, consent, or any other legal basis;
b. searching civilians' homes without a warrant, probable cause, reasonable

suspicion, consent, or any other legal basis;
c. arbitrary use of excessive force against arrestees, detainees and other

civilians;
d. mental abuse, oral abuse and assault of arrestees, detainees, and other
civilians;
e. preparing false and incomplete police reports to cover up police

misconduct including unconstitutional searches and seizures;
f. not preparing police reports, and false denial that an incident of

misconduct even took place, in attempt to suppress and conceal police
misconduct including unconstitutional searches and seizures,
g. a code of silence in which police officers fail to report police misconduct

including the type of misconduct alleged by Plaintiffs in this Complaint,
and described in sub-paragraphs a - f above;
h. said code of silence also includes police officers either remaining silent or
giving false and misleading information during official investigations to
cover up misconduct, and protect themselves and other officers;
I. failure to adequately train, supervise and discipline police officers in the

categories and fields of police work addressed in sub-paragraphs a - f
above;
j. failure to adequately train and supervise police officers to rectify the

malfeasance described in sub-paragraphs a - f above;
k. failure to adequately investigate citizen complaints against police officers

for the type of misconduct alleged by Plaintiffs in this Complaint, and
described in sub-paragraphs a - f above;
-14-
1. failure to adequately discipline police officers for the type of misconduct

alleged by Plaintiffs in this Complaint, and described in sub-paragraphs a -
f above;
m. through the Office of Professional Standards (OPS), conducting inherently

deficient investigations of citizen complaints of police misconduct in
which an officer is disciplined in a minuscule percentage of cases, thereby
encouraging even more police misconduct;
n. complete failure to deter police officers from the type of misconduct

alleged in this Complaint, and described in sub-paragraphs a - f above, by
its lack of discipline for police misconduct, and defective OPS
investigations.
ANSWER: The City denies the allegations contained in this paragraph and its
sub-paragraphs.
85. The actions of the Defendant-Officers as alleged in this Complaint were done
pursuant to, and as a result of, one or more of the above de facto practices, policies and customs
of the City of Chicago, the Chicago Police Department, and its police officers.
ANSWER: The City denies the allegations contained in this paragraph.
86. One or more of the following entities, authorities and officials are responsible for
the policies, practices and customs alleged above: the Mayor of Chicago, the City Council, the
aldermen, the Chicago Police Department, the Chicago Police Board (to which the City of
Chicago has delegated de jure final policy-making authority for the Chicago Police Department);
the members of the Chicago Police Board, the Office of Professional Standards, and
Superintendent Phil Cline (to whom the City of Chicago has delegated de facto final policy-
making authority for the Chicago Police Department regarding the matters complained of
herein).
ANSWER: The City admits the following: Chapter 2-84 of the Chicago Municipal
Code establishes and governs the City of Chicago’s Department of Police. It creates a
Police Board which is empowered to adopt rules and regulations for the governance of the
police department. The Police Board is responsible for nominating candidates for the
position of Superintendent of Police, which are transmitted to the mayor for final selection.
The Superintendent is authorized to administer the department in a manner consistent
with the ordinances of the city, the laws of the state, and the rules and regulations of the
police board. The Superintendent accomplishes his administration of the department, at
least in part, through the issuance of general orders.
The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
remaining allegations contained in this paragraph.
-15-
87. The practices, policies and customs described above are widespread, permanent
and well-settled, and were known, or should have been known, to the municipal policy-makers
of the City of Chicago.
88. The municipal policy-makers of the City of Chicago acted with deliberate
indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs in maintaining, overlooking and preserving the
unconstitutional practices, policies and customs delineated above.
89. By their inaction and failure to correct the above-described practices, policies and
customs, municipal policy-makers tacitly approve and thus indirectly authorize the type of
misconduct Plaintiffs complain of herein.
COUNT VII
(State Law Claim for False Arrest)

91. After the Defendant-Officers entered Plaintiffs' home the Plaintiffs were not free
to leave.
COUNT VIII
(State Law Claim for Assault)

93. After the Defendant-Officers entered Plaintiffs’ home, guns were pointed at the
Plaintiffs.
-16-

COUNT IX
(State Law Claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)

95. The Defendant-Officers' conduct was extreme and outrageous and the officers
knew, or should have known, that such conduct would cause severe emotional distress.

96. The Plaintiffs suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the Defendant-
Officers' conduct.

COUNT X
(State Law Respondeat Superior Claim)
97. The acts of the individual Defendant-Officers described in the supplementary

state claims specified above, were willful and wanton, and committed in the scope of their
employment.

98. As principal, the Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO is liable for its agents' actions
under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
ANSWER: The City denies Plaintiffs have correctly and completely stated the
doctrine of respondeat superior and the City’ potential liability. The City is without
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained
in this paragraph.
COUNT XI
(Indemnification Claim pursuant to 745ILCS 10/9-102)
-17-
99. Plaintiffs reallege all of the above paragraphs and counts as if fully set forth
herein.

100. The acts of the individual Defendant-Officers described in the above claims were
willful and wanton, and committed in the scope of their employment.
101. Pursuant to the Illinois Tort Immunity Act, 745 ILCS 10/9-102, Defendant CITY
OF CHICAGO is liable for any judgments in this case arising from the actions of the Defendant-
Officers.
ANSWER: The City denies that Plaintiffs have correctly and completely stated the
law pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act any the City’s potential liability. The City is
without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
contained in this paragraph.
WHEREFORE, the City of Chicago respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter
judgement in its favor and against Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs’ Complaint At Law, along with any
further relief that the Court finds appropriate in the interests of justice.
DEFENSES
1. Under the Illinois Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort

Immunity Act (“the Act”), the City is not required to pay punitive or exemplary
damages in any action brought directly or indirectly against it by the injured party
or a third party. 745 ILCS 10/2-102.
2. Under the Act, the City is not liable to Plaintiff if its employees or agents are not
liable to Plaintiff. 745 ILCS 10/2-109.
3. Under the Act, to the extent any employee or agent of the City was acting within
the scope of his or her employment, that employee or agent is not liable for his or
her acts or omission in the execution or enforcement of the law, unless such act or
omission constitutes willful and wanton conduct. 745 ILCS 10/2-202.
4. Under the Act, a public employee acting withing the scope of his or her
employment is not liable for an injury caused by the act or omission of another
person. 745 ILCS 10/2-204.
-18-
5 To the extent any injuries or damages claimed by Plaintiff were proximately

caused, in whole or in part, by negligent, willful, wanton and/or other wrongful
conduct on the part of Plaintiff, any verdict or judgment obtained by Plaintiff
must be reduced by application of the principle of comparative fault, by an
amount commensurate with the degree of fault attributed to Plaintiff by the jury in
this case.
6. Plaintiff has a duty to mitigate any of his claimed injuries or damages in this case,
and to the extent he has failed to do so, any verdict or judgement he obtains must
be reduced accordingly.
JURY DEMAND
The Defendant, City of Chicago, respectfully requests trial by jury.
Respectfully submitted,
MARA S. GEORGES,
Corporation Counsel
City of Chicago
By: /s/ Kimberly M. Grunewald

Assistant Corporation Counsel
30 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1610

Chicago, Illinois 60602
(312) 744-6951
Attorney No. 06273009
-19-

2 Answer To Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 Answer To Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 1:06-cv-03400 Document #: 13 Filed: 08/17/06 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:33

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DEFENDANT CITY OF CHICAGO’S ANSWER, DEFENSES

2. Jurisdiction for Plaintiffs' federal claims is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and

ANSWER: The City admits venue is proper.

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

6. The Defendant-Officers are sued in their individual capacities.

ANSWER: The City admits the allegations contained in this paragraph.

7. The CITY OF CHICAGO is a municipal corporation, duly incorporated under the

ANSWER: The City admits the allegations contained in this paragraph.

8. On or about October 3,2005, after going to a gas station, Plaintiff EDDIE

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

21. EDDIE BAKER was placed in handcuffs.

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

22. EDDIE BAKER was not free to leave.

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

33. CAROLYN BAKER was taken into a bathroom by a female officer to be

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

40. During the course of the searches, the Defendant-Officers repeatedly

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

42. CAROLYN BAKER signed the form.

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City admits the allegations contained in this paragraph.

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph.

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

659308." This was false.

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

61. Each individual Defendant acted willfully, wantonly, maliciously, oppressively,

ANSWER: The City’s answers to each of the paragraphs in Plaintiffs’ complaint

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

65. EDDIE BAKER was handcuffed.

ANSWER: The City is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the

66. Plaintiff EDDIE BAKER was not free to leave.