IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT – LAW DIVISION

8/10/2019 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT LAW DIVISION

1/15

IN

THE

CIRCUIT

COURT

OF

COOK

COUNTY,

ILLINOIS

COUNTYDEPARTMENTLAWDIVISION

ISMAELHARO,

Plaintiff,

v. CaseNo.

CITYOFBLUEISLAND,MICHAEL

CORNELL,andKEVINSISK,

Defendants. PlaintiffDemandsTrialByJury

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff IsmaelHaro, through his undersigned counsel, seeks redress against

DefendantsCityofBlueIsland,MichaelCornell,andKevinSisk,andinsupport,states

asfollows:

Jurisdiction

1. Thecourthasjurisdictionoverthismatterpursuantto735ILCS5/2209

in thatPlaintiffand the individualDefendantsarecitizensof theStateof Illinois,and

DefendantCityofBlueIslandisamunicipalityincorporatedunderthelawsoftheState

ofIllinoisandislocatedwithintheStateofIllinois.

2.

Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2101 in that

Plaintiff isaresidentofCookCounty,DefendantCityofBlueIsland is locatedwithin

CookCounty,andallorasubstantialpartoftheeventsgivingrisetothecauseofaction

occurredwithinCookCounty.


2/15

2

Parties

3. PlaintiffIsmaelHaroisaresidentofCookCounty,Illinois.

4. PlaintiffhasbeenemployedasapoliceofficerwiththeCityofBlueIsland

since1998,andcurrentlyholdstherankofsergeant.

5.

DefendantCity ofBlue Island is amunicipality incorporatedunder the

lawsoftheStateofIllinoisandislocatedwithinCookCounty.

6. DefendantMichaelCornell is employedby theCityofBlue Island as a

policeofficer

with

the

rank

of

deputy

chief

of

police

and

is

currently

the

acting

Chief

of

Police.

7.

At all relevant times, Defendant Cornell actedwithin the scope of his

employmentandasagentofDefendantCityofBlueIsland.

8.

DefendantKevinSisk isemployedby theCityofBlue Islandasapolice

officerwiththerankofcommander.

9. At all relevant times, Defendant Sisk acted within the scope of his

employmentandasagentofDefendantCityofBlueIsland.

FactsRegardingtheRobbieSilvaInvestigation

10.

OnDecember1,2005,ayoungboynamedRobertThomasSilva(Robbie

Silva)was killed in a hitandrun in Blue Island, and the case received significant

mediaattention.


3/15

3

11. Defendants Cornell and Sisk, who then held the ranks of detective

sergeantandcorporal,weretwooftheofficersassignedtoinvestigatethecase.

12. During the investigation, a person of interest was identified, and the

personofinterestsgirlfriendwasidentifiedasapotentialwitnesstothecrime.

13.

The girlfriendwas also the sister of an individualwho held significant

politicalconnections in theCity. This individualalsoowneda towingcompany that

heldthecontractforpolicetowsandwasonpersonaltermswithDefendantCornell.

14.

Apolygraph

interview

of

the

girlfriend

was

conducted,

during

which

the

girlfriendprovidedanalibiforthepersonofinterest. DefendantCornellauthoredand

signed a subsequent report regarding the interview,which stated that the girlfriend

passedthepolygraphandthatsheistellingthetruth.

15.

Due to Defendant Cornells report that the girlfriend had passed the

polygraph,theleadwasnotpursued.

16. Thecasewentcoldandwasneversolved.

17. InMarch2009,BethAnnThomas, themotherofRobbieSilva,contacted

Plaintiff,whowas thenadetective,andaskedhim to takea fresh lookat thecase in

ordertobringhersonsmurderertojustice.

18. BethAnnThomas informedPlaintiff thatshebelieved thecasehadbeen

mishandledbyDefendantCornell.


4/15

4

19. WhenPlaintifflookedforthecaseinthehomicidefiles,however,hewas

unabletolocateit.

20. Plaintiff searched the archives forpolice reports related to the case and

wasalsounabletofindthem.

21.

Plaintiff approached thenPolice ChiefDouglasHoglund and informed

himofthemissingfiles.ChiefHoglundsuggestedthatPlaintiffaskDefendantCornell

aboutthemissingfiles.

22.

WhenPlaintiff

approached

Defendant

Cornell

about

the

matter,

DefendantCornell admitted that he had the file in hispossession anddemanded to

knowwhyPlaintiffwasinterestedinthefile.

23. PlaintifftoldDefendantCornellthatBethAnnThomashadaskedPlaintiff

toreviewthecase,towhichDefendantCornellrespondedtotheeffectof,Thatwoman

needs togetover it. Her son isdeadand theoffender in the casehas likely fled to

Mexico.

24. PlaintiffaskedDefendantCornellforthefilenonetheless,andDefendant

CornellsaidthathewouldgetthefiletoPlaintiff.

25.

Defendant Cornell did not provide the file to Plaintiff, but another

detectiveeventuallyobtainedthefilefromDefendantCornell.


5/15

5

26. Uponreviewingthefile,Plaintiffdiscoveredthattheinvestigativefilehad

notbeenmaintained in accordancewith applicable investigative standards. Among

otherthings,Plaintiffdiscoveredthat:

a. Multipleoriginalreportsweremissingfromthefile;

b.

Reports generated during the investigation had not been

approvedorsubmittedtotherecordsdepartmentforarchival;

c. Reportsweredeficientandinadequate;

d.

Leadshad

not

been

exhausted

or

followed

up

on;

e. Noleadsheethadbeencreatedforthecase,andtherewas

nomanagementsystemforthecase;

f. Thefiledidnotcontaininformationrelatedtothepersonof

interest.

27. Plaintiff notified Chief Hoglund of the files deficiencies, and Chief

HoglundauthorizedPlaintifftoinformallyresumeinvestigationofthecaseastimeand

resourcespermitted.

28. While reinvestigating the case, Plaintiff recovered multiple original

reports that had been missing from the case file, one of which was the original

polygraphreportgeneratedby theofficerwhoconducted thepolygraph interviewon

thepersonofinterestsgirlfriend.


6/15

6

29. The newly discovered original report stated that the polygraph was

inconclusive.

30. Theseparatereportthathadalwaysbeenmaintainedinthecasefileand

which hadbeen authoredbyDefendantCornell, however, stated that the girlfriend

passedthepolygraphandthatsheistellingthetruth.

31. Given the falsified police report, the incomplete state of the file, the

missing reports, the failure to follow up on leads, and the girlfriends political

connections,Plaintiff

reasonably

believed

that

Defendant

Cornell

had

deliberately

failedtoproperlyinvestigatethecaseandhadillegallyfalsifiedthepolygraphreport.

32.

In or around February 2012, Plaintiff reported his findings to Chief

Hoglund, inparticular his reasonablebelief thatDefendantCornell had falsified the

reportregardingthegirlfriendspolygraphinterview.

33. Chief Hoglund authorized Plaintiff to continue to investigate the case

quietlyandtonotifyhimwhenthecasewasreadytobeformallyreopened.

34. Hoglund also authorized Plaintiff to enlist the assistance of the South

SuburbanMajorCrimesTaskForce(SSMCTF).

35.

Plaintiffcontacted IllinoisStatePoliceMasterSergeantTomWeatherald,

commander of the SSMCTF, and informed him of Plaintiffs findings relative to the

RobbieSilvacaseandPlaintiffsreasonablebeliefthatDefendantCornellhadfalsifieda

criticalpolicereport.


7/15

7

36. FormalreopeningofthecasewassetforthefirstweekofApril2012.On

themorningtheSilvacasewastobereopened,atabout2:00a.m.,atruckfromthetow

company,whoseownerwasthebrotherofthepersonofinterestsgirlfriend,wasseen

outsideofDefendantCornellsresidence.

37.

After the investigationwas reopened,Plaintiff traveled toTennessee to

interviewwitnesses.Subsequently, theownerof the towcompanycomplained to the

policedepartmentabouttheinvestigationandtheinterviews.

38.

Plaintiffalso

learned

that

Defendant

Cornell

had

spoken

with

the

owner

of the tow company about the reactivation of the case and had then spoken with

witnessesaftertheyhadbeeninterviewedbytheSSMCTF.

39. Thereopeningoftheinvestigationresultedintheidentificationofaclear

suspect,whowasthesamepersonofinterestwhohadpreviouslybeenidentified.Due

to thepassageof time,however, thesuspectcouldnotbe locatedand thesuspecthas

neverbeencharged.

FactsRegardingRetaliationAgainstPlaintiff

40. InMay 2012,ChiefHoglund resigned under political pressure after he

triedtoremoveDefendantCornellfromhispositionasdeputychief.

41. PhilContreraswasappointedthenewchiefofpolice.

42. DefendantCornellremainedasthedeputychiefandimmediatelyordered

thatthedetectivedivisionwouldhenceforthreporttohim.


8/15

8

43. Shortly after Contreras appointment, Plaintiff met with Contreras to

updatehimoncurrentinvestigations,includingthereactivatedRobbieSilvamatterand

PlaintiffsbeliefsaboutthehandlingofthecasebyDefendantCornell,inparticularthe

falsepolicereportDefendantCornellauthoredinthecase.

44.

WhilePlaintiff stated thathewouldworkon the caseonlyas timeand

resources allowed and that hewould stay on top of any incoming cases,Contreras

directedPlaintifftoletsleepingdogslieandorderedhimtoconcentrateonnewcases

instead.

45. Inthesummerof2012,PlaintifflearnedthatBethAnnThomashadfileda

complaint with the Cook County States Attorney regarding Defendant Cornells

handlingoftheRobbieSilvacase.

46.

Plaintiff met with the chief prosecutor of the Cook County States

Attorneys Public IntegrityUnit and reported his findings in the case, including his

findingsregardingthefalsepolicereportfiledinthecasebyDefendantCornell.

47. Soonafterward,DefendantCornellbeganquestioningPlaintiffshandling

ofcasesassignedtohimandaccusinghimofminordisciplinaryinfractions.

48.

InSeptember2012,DefendantCornellsignificantlyreducedtheresources

availabletothedetectivedivisioninanefforttodiscouragethereinvestigationofcold

cases, including the Robbie Silva case, and detectiveswithin the division requested

reassignmentduetotheonerousworkingconditions.


9/15

9

49. OnoraboutSeptember28,2012,Plaintiff transferred from thedetective

divisiontothemidnightpatrolshift.Plaintiffassumedcommandofthemidnightpatrol

shiftonSeptember29,2012.

50. DefendantCornellbegan targeting Plaintiff for unwarranted discipline,

includingbutnotlimitedto:

a. AccusingPlaintiffofworkingunauthorizedovertimeontheSilvacase;

b. Accusing Plaintiff of failing to notify the chain of command about

incidentsinvolving

other

officers;

c. Accusing Plaintiff ofmaking disparaging statements in relation to the

staffingchangesinthedetectivedivision;and

d. AccusingPlaintiffofimproperlyinvestigatingcases.

51.

InMay2013,PhilContrerasretiredaschiefofpolice,andtheCitybegana

90day evaluation period to find a new chief. The 90day evaluation period expired

withouttheCityappointinganewchiefofpolice.

52. InAugust2013,DefendantCornellbecameactingchiefofpolice.

53. WhileDefendantCornellhadbeenconsideredasapossiblechiefofpolice,

members of the City Council refused to appoint him as chief of policebecause of

concernsabouthishandlingoftheSilvamatter.

54. Defendant Cornell was aware that this was the reason he was not

appointedchiefofpolice.


10/15

10

55. Defendant Cornell was aware that Plaintiff had reported his findings

regardingDefendantCornellsillegalfalsificationof thepolygraphinterviewreportto

formerChiefHoglund,theSSMCTF,andtheCookCountyStatesAttorneysoffice.

56. Prior tobecomingactingchiefofpolice,DefendantCornelldidnothave

theauthoritytoissuedisciplinetoofficers.

57. Afterbecomingactingchiefofpoliceandgainingauthority todiscipline

officers,DefendantCornellinitiatedacampaignofunlawfulandunjustifieddiscipline

againstPlaintiff,

including:

a. Falsely accusing Plaintiff of mishandling an internal investigation

involving another officer that Defendant Cornell required Plaintiff to

conduct;

b.

Falsely accusing Plaintiff of submitting improper overtime, comp time,

anddayoffrequests;

c. Falsely accusing Plaintiff of failing to properly notify the detective

divisionregardingadeathinvestigation;

d. Falsely accusing Plaintiff of failure to properly inspect the police

departmentkennels;

e. Falsely accusing Plaintiff of failing to properly notify the chain of

commandaboutauseofforceincident.


11/15

11

58. InNovember2013,DefendantCornellcreatedthepositionofcommander,

whichwastobeanadministrative/managementpositionbetween theranksofdeputy

chiefandpatrolsergeant.

59. DefendantSiskwasappointedcommanderandassumed theposition in

December2013.

60. Defendant Sisk, at the direction of Defendant Cornell, initiated three

separate formal investigationsofPlaintiff in relation toDefendantCornells falseand

unjustifiedaccusations

against

Plaintiff

and

subsequently

interrogated

Plaintiff

on

three

separateoccasionsregardingDefendantCornellsaccusations.

61.

Immediatelyuponconclusionofthesecondinterrogation,DefendantSisk

notifiedPlaintiffofyetanotherformalinvestigationandalsoinformedPlaintiffthathe

wasbeingissueda90daysuspensionwithoutpaybyDefendantCornellinrelationto

thefirstformalinvestigation.

62. Noofficer in thehistoryof theBlue IslandPoliceDepartmenthadever

beensuspendedformorethan30days.

63. TheonlypriordisciplinePlaintiffhadever receivedhadoccurredmore

thantenyearsearlier.

64. Defendant Cornell justified the suspension by relying on numerous

allegedpriordisciplinary infractions that had neverbeendocumented andwere not

containedinPlaintiffspersonnelfile.


12/15

12

65. Asaresultoftheinterrogation,theexcessiveandunjustifiedsuspension,

andthenotificationofyetanotherbaselessformalinquiry,Plaintiffbecameillandhad

totakeamedicalleaveofabsence.

66. Among other things, Plaintiff experienced heart palpitations and

shortnessofbreaththatrequiredmedicalcare,andPlaintiffsufferedpanicattackswhen

hereceivedphonecallsoriginatingfromthepolicestation.

67. OnJuly9,2014,Plaintiffreturnedtoworkfrommedicalleave.

68.

DefendantSisk

ordered

Plaintiff

to

report

to

his

office

immediately

upon

arrivalatwork. Whenhe arrived,DefendantSisk servedPlaintiffwithan amended

notice of 90day suspensionwithoutpay, effective immediately, and demanded that

Plaintiffturnoverhisbadge,uniform,andidentification.

69.

Defendant Sisk also served Plaintiff with an amended notice of

interrogationregardingthethirdformalinquiry.

70. OnJuly28,2014,DefendantSiskinterrogatedPlaintiffforthethirdtime.

71. OnOctober 7, 2014, Plaintiff completed his 90day suspensionwithout

pay.

72.

When Plaintiff reported for duty on October 7, 2014, Defendant Sisk

orderedPlaintifftoreporttohisofficeimmediately.


13/15

13

73. DefendantSiskservedPlaintiffwithnoticeofanother90daysuspension

withoutpaybyDefendantCornell in relation to the second formal inquiry, effective

immediately.

74. Thesecond90daysuspensionwasnotjustifiedbyeitherfactorlaw.

75.

DefendantSiskorderedPlaintifftodepartthepremisesimmediately.

COUNTI

ViolationoftheIllinoisWhistleblowerAct

76.

WhenPlaintiff

reported

to

Chief

Hoglund,

the

SSMCTF,

and

the

Cook

CountyStatesAttorneysOfficethatDefendantCornellhad illegallyfalsifiedapolice

reportintheRobbieSilvamatter,Plaintiffwasreportingwhathereasonablybelievedto

beaviolationofastateorfederallaw,rule,orregulation.

77.

Defendantswrongfullydisciplinedand suspendedPlaintiffwithoutpay

in retaliation for reportingwhathe reasonablybelieved tobeaviolationofastateor

federallaw,rule,orregulation.

78. Defendants Cornell and Sisk each made, took part in, assisted in, or

participated in the decision to investigate Plaintiff and to discipline and suspend

Plaintiffwithoutpay.

79. Defendants Cornell and Sisk knew that they were investigating,

discipliningandsuspendingPlaintiffwithoutpayforunlawfulretaliatoryreasonsand

notbecauseofhisworkperformance.


14/15

14

80. Defendants disciplined and suspended Plaintiff in violation of rights

guaranteedtohimbytheIllinoisWhistleblowerAct,740ILCS174/15.

81. As a result of Defendants unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered

substantial losses, including,butnot limited to, lostwages andbenefits,mental and

emotionalanguish,andembarrassmentandhumiliation.

WHEREFORE,PlaintiffpraysforjudgmentagainstDefendantsinanamountin

excess of $50,000 and such other relief as the Court may deem just or equitable,

includingbut

not

limited

to

compensatory

damages,

back

pay,

front

pay,

reinstatement

tohispriorposition,apermanentinjunction,prejudgmentinterest,lostfuturewages,

future pecuniary damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys fees, costs, and

litigationexpensesasallowedbylaw.

COUNTII

IntentionalInflictionofEmotionalDistress

82. DefendantsCornell and Sisks actions enumerated abovewere extreme

andoutrageous.

83. DefendantCornellandSiskknew that therewasahighprobability that

their conductwould inflict severe emotional distress on Plaintiff and theywillfully,

wantonly,andrecklesslydisregardedthatprobability.

84. Atallrelevanttimes,DefendantsCornellandSiskwereactingwithinthe

scopeoftheiremploymentandasagentsofDefendantCityofBlueIsland.


15/15

15

85. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff has

sufferedsevereemotionaldistress.

WHEREFORE,PlaintiffpraysforjudgmentagainstDefendantsinanamountin

excess of $50,000 and such other relief as the Court may deem just or equitable,

including but not limited to compensatory damages, a permanent injunction, pre

judgment interest, lost futurewages, future pecuniary damages, punitive damages,

reasonableattorneysfees,costs,andlitigationexpensesasallowedbylaw.

RespectfullySubmitted,

ISMAELHARO

s/JamesG.Vanzant

Attorney

for

Plaintiff

DanaL.Kurtz,Esq.

JamesG.Vanzant,Esq.

KURTZLAWOFFICES,LTD.

32BlaineStreet

Hinsdale,Illinois60521

Phone: 630.323.9444

Facsimile: 630.604.9444

Email:[email protected]

Email:[email protected]

FirmNo.

43132

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT – LAW DIVISION

Documents

Transcript of IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT – LAW DIVISION