Doornbos v. City of Chicago

Dist. Ct. erred in giving erroneous instruction to jury regarding investigatory Terry stops in plaintiff’s section 1983 action alleging that defendants used excessive force and engaged in malicious prosecution as to plaintiff’s arrest on charge of resisting arrest during incident where plaintiff was stopped on belief that he carried open beer can while plaintiff was leaving train station, when one defendant (plainclothes police officer) grabbed plaintiff and forced him to ground. Instruction informed jury only on law regarding investigatory Terry stops, but not on frisks associated with said stops, and plaintiff was entitled to have jury know that one defendant’s attempted frisk of him, which defendants conceded produced instant use of force, was unjustified. Also, Dist. Ct. misinformed jury, in response to its question, that plainclothes police officer was not required to identify himself before conducting Terry stop, because record showed that said officer did not have reasonable suspicion that plaintiff was armed and dangerous. As such, plaintiff was entitled to new trial. However, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting evidence that plaintiff possessed marijuana at time of incident, since said evidence, although unknown to defendant at time he used force against plaintiff, tended to corroborate said defendant’s account of plaintiff’s behavior.