IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION STEPHEN P. PETERSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs.

) ) THOMAS SHEAHAN, individually and as ) Former Police Chief of the Oak Brook ) Police Department, ) FREDRICK CAPPETTA, individually and ) as the Chairman of the Village of ) Oak Brook Board of Fire and Police ) Commissioners, and ) The VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, ) ILLINOIS, a Body Politic, ) Defendants. )

Case Number 12cv5391 Hon. Judge Presiding. Hon. Magistrate Judge.

JURY DEMANDED

COMPLAINT AT LAW NOW COMES the Plaintiff, STEPHEN P. PETERSON, by and through his attorneys, John P. De Rose and Associates, and complains of the Defendants, THOMAS SHEAHAN, individually and as Former Police Chief of the Oak Brook Police Department, FREDRICK CAPPETTA, individually and as a member of the Village of Oak Brook Board of Fire and Police Commissioners and the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS, a Body Politic, as follows: JURISDICTION 1. The jurisdiction of this Honorable Court is invoked pursuant 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Constitution of the United States of America, and the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343 and 2201. Supplemental jurisdiction of this Honorable Court also is requested over the pendant state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.

PARTIES 2. STEPHEN P. PETERSON (sometimes hereinafter referred to as "Peterson" or "Officer Peterson" or "Police Officer Peterson"), at all relevant times hereinafter mentioned was a citizen of the United States and a resident of Bolingbrook, Illinois. 3. THOMAS SHEAHAN, (sometimes hereinafter referred to as "Chief Sheahan"), at all relevant times hereinafter mentioned was the Police Chief of the Oak Brook, Illinois Police Department. 4. FREDRICK CAPPETTA, (sometimes hereinafter referred to as "Chairman Cappetta"), at all relevant times hereinafter mentioned was the Chairman of the Village of Oak Brook Board of Fire and Police Commissioners. 5. The VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS, at all relevant times hereinafter mentioned, is and was a Body Politic in the United States of America. 6. The individually named Defendants at all times hereinafter mentioned were acting under the color of state law. FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT 7. Stephen P. Peterson became a police officer with the Village of Oak Brook, Illinois Police Department in September 2004. 8. Officer Peterson was always held in high regard and esteem by his supervisors and brother police officers. 9. The Annual Performance Reviews prepared by his supervisors of the work of Police Officer Peterson indicated that he met or exceeded the expectations of his employer, the Village of Oak Brook, Illinois Police Department.

10. In 2007 the investigation of Drew Peterson, the father of Officer Peterson because his fourth wife was missing gained much notoriety. 11. James Glasgow, the State's Attorney of Will County and his Assistants began to meet with and interview Police Officer Peterson as part of their investigation. 12. Officer Peterson was subpoenaed to give testimony before the Will County Grand Jury concerning that investigation on a day when he was on duty for the Village of Oak Brook, Illinois Police Department. 13. Because he was on active duty for the Village of Oak Brook, Illinois Police Department on that date, Officer Peterson advised his supervisor, Sergeant Casey Cavello and received permission to take his Oak Brook Police Department squad car and appear before the Will County Grand Jury in police uniform. 14. There was wide television coverage as the Grand Jury Proceedings were progressing, and Officer Peterson was shown going in and out of the Will County Court Building in police uniform. 15. Chief Sheahan was livid about the fact that Officer Peterson was shown on television to be in his Oak Brook police uniform and driving an Oak Brook squad car. 16. Chief Sheahan directed Deputy Chief Larson and Lieutenant Cates to meet with and advise Officer Peterson that any time in the future when he would appear on his father's case he should do it in plain clothes and without the Village of Oak Brook Police Department squad car. 17. Lieutenant Cates and Deputy Chief Larson so advise Officer Peterson, and he never again appeared in uniform or used an Oak Brook Police Department squad car when he was called upon to appear on his father's case.

18. Officer Peterson thought the matter was resolved, only to find that Chief Sheahan had brought administrative charges against him for wearing his police uniform and using the squad car to appear before the Will County Grand Jury. 19. Chief Sheahan preferred charges against Officer Peterson for using a squad car and his police uniform for personal business. 20. The Chief tried to give Officer Peterson a suspension of fifteen (15) days. 21. When Officer Peterson would not accept that suspension, the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners of the Village of Oak Brook suspended him for eight (8) days. 22. Officer Peterson appealed that suspension, and a Judge of the Circuit Court of DuPage County reduced the suspension to four (4) days. 23. Chief Sheahan was livid about the reduction in that discipline and made it very clear to other members of the Oak Brook Police Department command. 24. Chief Sheehan, fully knowing it was not true, started to spread false rumors throughout the Police Department of the Village of Oak Brook that Drew Peterson, Officer Peterson, and Oak Brook Police Department Sergeant Randy Mucha had been in a local bar discussing, planning, and rehearsing an alibi for their whereabouts on the night that Drew Peterson's wife went missing. 25. Geraldo Rivera reported about the rehearsed alibi account on his nationally syndicated television show Geraldo at Large. 26. States Attorney Glasgow had conducted an investigation and no one would confirm hearing this conversation about rehearsing an alibi. 27. Chief Sheahan appeared to be embarrassed and said nothing further about the rehearsed alibi.

28. A few weeks later Drew Peterson, the father of Officer Peterson was brought up on gun charges in Will County. 29. Officer Peterson was subpoenaed and testified for the State during the prosecution of those charges in the Circuit Court of Will County, Illinois. 30. Officer Peterson testified under oath that his father had given him three guns to hold for safekeeping at his home because "he did not want anything to happen to them". 31. When the description of Officer Peterson's testimony was widely reported in the press, Chief Sheahan expressed his anger about that testimony to members of the Oak Brook Police Department. 32. Chief Sheahan contacted State's Attorney Glasgow and sought the arrest of Officer Peterson for official misconduct on the basis of his testimony. 33. When State's Attorney Glasgow refused to arrest Officer Peterson because "he didn't do anything wrong", Chief Sheahan could barely control his anger. 34. Although Chief Sheahan knew that Officer Peterson had freely acknowledged the turnover of the weapons by his father to him and that, upon request, Officer Peterson surrendered those weapons to the Illinois State Police, Chief Sheahan said that he was "going to get" Officer Peterson and was going to prefer charges against him for impeding an official police investigation. 35. Chief Sheahan proclaimed, "He may get his job back in the next few years, but in the interim he will lose his house, his wife will leave him, and his dog will be dead."

36. In a fit of anger, Chief Sheahan added, "I will bankrupt him. I will chop off his balls." 37. Chief Sheahan brought administrative charges against Officer Peterson for impeding an official police investigation being conducted by the Illinois State Police into the disappearance of Stacy Peterson. 38. Chief Sheahan was seeking the termination of Stephen Peterson from employment with the Oak Brook Police Department 39. While those charges were pending, Chief Sheahan directed members of his command to conduct interviews of the Illinois State Police Investigators who had investigated the case. 40. Upon being interviewed by command officers of the Oak Brook Police Department, the Illinois State Police Investigators reported that Officer Peterson had been cooperative with them throughout their investigation. 41. When members of the command of the Oak Brook Police Department advised Chief Sheahan that the Illinois State Police Investigators indicated that Officer Peterson had been completely cooperative with them throughout their investigation, Chief Sheahan told the members of his command to "forget about it and do not put anything in a report". 42. Shortly thereafter, Chief Sheahan issued an order to the members of his command, "Don't write reports on that interview of the Illinois State Police Investigators" and "Don't send any e-mails or reports to anyone about it". 43. Neither of the Illinois State Police Investigators who interviewed Officer Peterson were called as witnesses at his Administrative Hearing.

44. Even before the notoriety of the Drew Peterson case, Chief Sheahan had made it very clear to other members of the Oak Brook Police Department command of his dislike for Officer Peterson and his intent to have him removed from the department in any way he could. 45. Chief Sheahan ordered members of his command to interview and harass Officer Peterson's former wife and his current girlfriend "in order to make his life a living hell" and "to get him to just resign". 46. Members of his command refused that order claiming, "Those ladies have nothing to do with this." 47. Thereafter knowing full well that they were not true, Chief Sheahan prepared administrative charges against Officer Peterson as follows: Charge One: Failing to Disclose Facts to Law Enforcement Officials in Connection with the Disappearance of His Stepmother, Stacy Peterson; Charge Two: Possession of an Unlawful Weapon; and Charge Three: Failing to Keep an Internal Investigation Confidential. 48. On information and belief, it was well known to Board Chairman Cappetta and the Village of Oak Brook, Illinois that Chief Sheahan was "running the show" and picking who he wanted to discipline and/or terminate from the Village of Oak Brook Police Department. 49. Even before the administrative hearing commenced, Chief Sheahan was meeting regularly and conspiring with Board Chairman Cappetta in order that the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners of the Village of Oak Brook would discharge Officer Peterson from his employment as a police officer.

50. On information and belief, Chief Sheahan shared with Board Chairman Cappetta the information that members of his command had learned that Officer Peterson had been completely cooperative with the Illinois State Police Investigators and had not impeded their investigation in any way. 51. On information and belief, Chief Sheahan and Board Chairman Cappetta conspired and agreed together that the Illinois State Police Investigators who had reported that Officer Peterson had not impeded their investigation in any way should not be called as witnesses at the administrative hearing. 52. On information and belief, Chief Sheahan and Board Chairman Cappetta met often while the administrative hearing was progressing, and conspired together so that the employment of Officer Peterson as a police officer for the Village of Oak Brook Police Department would be terminated. 53. After the administrative hearing had already commenced and evidence was in the process of being received by the Village of Oak Brook Board of Fire and Police Commissioners, Chief Sheahan was contacting and intimidating other individuals about the proceedings. 54. Knowing that Officer Peterson was dating a police officer from a neighboring Police Department, Chief Sheahan contacted the Police Chief from the neighboring department, used profanity in describing the female police officer, and threatened that he would arrest Officer Peterson's girlfriend if she made a scene at the administrative hearing. 55. The police chief from the neighboring department told Chief Sheahan, "Leave my police officer alone" and hung up on Chief Sheahan.

56. In an envelope containing his business card, Chief Sheahan sent to Officer Peterson's girlfriend a book entitled How to Live like a Lady: Lessons in Life, Manners, and Style. 57. On February 19, 2011 the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners of the Village of Oak Brook, Illinois found Officer Peterson guilty on the charges specified in Charge One of the Statement of Charges and ordered him "to be discharged from his employment as a police officer of the Village of Oak Brook effective immediately". 58. The Board of Fire and Police Commissioners of the Village of Oak Brook Illinois found Officer Peterson not guilty of the remaining charges. 59. Knowing full well the falsity of the statements, Board Chairman Cappetta and The Village of Oak Brook, Illinois issued a Press Release indicating the following: In considering the appropriate discipline for the above referenced violations, the Board has considered the Respondent's prior discipline, including prior suspensions. The Board has considered the seriousness of the present charges and violations. In determining the appropriate discipline, the Board has considered the reasonable level of judgment expected of someone granted the extraordinary legal authority of police power. Moreover, Officer Peterson's continuing claim that the weapons and money were irrelevant to the investigation by the Illinois State Police were selfserving, disingenuous, not credible and demonstrate that Officer Peterson lacks the fundamental ability to make sound judgments. 60. Officer Peterson was discharged from his employment as a police officer of the Village of Oak Brook, Illinois and remains unemployed at this time.

Count I Violation of Due Process under the 14th Amendment 61. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 60 of this Complaint as paragraphs 1 through 60 of this Count I as though fully set forth herein. 62. In violation of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution , the false and defamatory statements made, uttered, and promulgated by Chief Sheahan and Board Chairman Cappetta, acting in conspiracy together called into question the good name, reputation, honor, and integrity of Police Officer Peterson and caused him he "stigma plus" damage. 63. The false and defamatory statements made and uttered by Chief Sheahan and Board Chairman Cappetta, acting in conspiracy together were made public. 64. The false and defamatory statements made and uttered by Chief Sheahan and Board Chairman Cappetta, acting in conspiracy together were close and temporal proximity to the termination of Officer Peterson's employment with the Village of Oak Brook, Illinois. 65. Officer Peterson was only provided a sham administrative hearing because of the false and defamatory statements made and uttered by Chief Sheahan and Board Chairman Cappetta, acting in conspiracy together. 66. Because Officer Peterson was only provided a sham administrative hearing, he was not given an adequate opportunity to clear his name. 67. As a result of the false and defamatory statements made, uttered, and promulgated by Defendants and the sham hearing that they afforded him, Officer Peterson suffered "stigma plus" damage and grave financial losses due to the loss of his employment. 10

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff STEPHEN P. PETERSON respectfully prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: a. Judgment for compensatory damages in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant in an amount in excess of $1,000,000.00; Punitive damages from Defendant in an amount in excess of $1,000,000.00; Reasonable attorneys fees; Costs of this suit; and Such other relief as may be proper and just. Count II Tortious Interference with Advantageous Business Relations 68. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 67 of this Complaint as paragraphs 1 through 67 of this Count II as though fully set forth herein. 69. As a result of the false and defamatory statements made, uttered, and promulgated by Defendants and the sham hearing that they afforded him, Officer Peterson suffered degradation of his competence as a professional law enforcement officer and impugnment of his professional reputation in such a fashion as to effectively put a significant roadblock against Officer Peterson's continued ability to practice his profession as a law enforcement officer. 70. Because of the denigration of Officer Peterson's professional competence by Defendants, he has been foreclosed from future opportunities in the law enforcement field. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff STEPHEN P. PETERSON respectfully prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:

b.

c. d. e.

11

a.

Judgment for compensatory damages in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant in an amount in excess of $1,000,000.00; Punitive damages from Defendant in an amount in excess of $1,000,000.00; Reasonable attorneys fees; Costs of this suit; and Such other relief as may be proper and just.

b.

c. d. e.

Count III Breach of Contract 71. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 70 of this Complaint as paragraphs 1 through 70 of this Count III as though fully set forth herein. 72. Officer Peterson had a valid contractual relationship with the Village of Oak Brook, Illinois to serve as one of its police officers from 2004 until 2011. 73. Officer Peterson complied with all the obligations and responsibilities reasonably expected of him as a police officer for the Village of Oak Brook, Illinois. 74. Officer Peterson completed all tasks and assignments given to him and was highly regarded by his Superior officers and fellow officers. 75. By the false and defamatory statements made, uttered, and promulgated by Defendants and the sham hearing that they afforded him, Defendants intentionally breached Officer Peterson's contract to be a law enforcement officer for the Village of Oak Brook, Illinois. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff STEPHEN P. PETERSON respectfully prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: a. Judgment for compensatory damages in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant in an amount in excess of $1,000,000.00;

12

b.

Punitive damages from Defendant in an amount in excess of $1,000,000.00; Reasonable attorneys fees; Costs of this suit; and Such other relief as may be proper and just.

c. d. e.

Count IV Defamation and Slander 76. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 75 of this Complaint as paragraphs 1 through 75 of this Count IV as though fully set forth herein. 77. Chief Sheahan falsely and improperly ordered other members of the Oak Brook Police Department to withhold information and not write official police reports stating that the Illinois State Police Investigators had reported that Officer Peterson had not impeded their investigation in any way. 78. Chief Sheahan ordered members of his command not to divulge the fact that the Illinois State Police Investigators had reported that Officer Peterson had not impeded their investigation in any way. 79. Chief Sheahan, knowing full well that the allegations were not true, falsely accused Officer Peterson of impeding the official police investigation being conducted by the Illinois State Police into the disappearance of Stacy Peterson. 80. Defendants, acting in conspiracy together, falsely and improperly manipulated information and evidence at the sham administrative hearing of Officer Peterson. 81. Acting in consort and conspiracy together, Defendants defamed Officer Peterson by falsely claiming that he had impeded the official police investigation being conducted by the Illinois State Police into the disappearance of Stacy Peterson. 13

82. Acting in consort and conspiracy together, Defendants defamed Officer Peterson by issuing the Press Release, knowing full well the falsity of its contents. 83. The statements contained in the Press Release impugned the integrity, honesty, and fitness of Officer Peterson for his chosen profession as a law enforcement officer. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff STEPHEN P. PETERSON respectfully prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:

a.

Judgment for compensatory damages in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant in an amount in excess of $1,000,000.00; Punitive damages from Defendant in an amount in excess of $1,000,000.00; Reasonable attorneys fees; Costs of this suit; and Such other relief as may be proper and just. Count V Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

b.

c. d. e.

84. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 83 of this Complaint as paragraphs 1 through 83 of this Count V as though fully set forth herein. 85. The actions of the Defendants were extreme and outrageous. 86. The Defendants actions were done in consort and conspiracy to intentionally and maliciously cause severe emotional distress to Plaintiff. 87. Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that their actions had a high probability of causing severe emotional distress to the Plaintiff.

14

88. Defendants actions were intentional and malicious and demonstrated a willful and wanton disregard for the rights of Plaintiff and had a high probability of causing severe emotional distress to him. 89. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer from severe emotional distress. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff STEPHEN P. PETERSON respectfully prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:

a.

Judgment for compensatory damages in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant in an amount in excess of $1,000,000.00; Punitive damages from Defendant in an amount in excess of $1,000,000.00; Reasonable attorneys fees; Costs of this suit; and Such other relief as may be proper and just. Respectfully submitted, S/ John P. DeRose John P. DeRose

b.

c. d. e.

John P. DeRose & Associates 15 Spinning Wheel Road Suite 428 Hinsdale, Illinois 60521 (630) 920-1111 Office (630) 920-1170 Fax jdrlaw@sbcglobal.net

15