Three Indiana police officers must answer a civil rights claim that they targeted an Illinois police officer and her teenage son based on a personal grudge, a federal appeals court ruled. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals revived the case of Jacqueline Agee and her son John, holding that they may pursue their claim that the officers singled them out for mistreatment. Jeff and his law firm filed the case.
The Agees sued the officers in federal court in Indiana, however, the trial court dismissed the case and called the claim futile. The Seventh Circuit reversed, ruling that the Agees stated a claim under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Read the ruling here.
The Officers Decided to Arrest Based on a Personal Grudge
It started with a phone call.
On the evening of November 22, 2022, someone called the police reporting that a male in the garage of the Agee home had pointed a gun at a group of children walking home from school.
Three officers from the St. John Police Department responded. They interviewed only one of the children who allegedly saw the occurence. They never spoke to the others, and the families who did talk to the police said they did not want anyone arrested.
According to the lawsuit, the officers knew that Jacqueline was an Illinois police officer and a lawyer, and they had already decided what they were going to do. Bodycam footage revealed that, on their way to the house, the officers discussed arresting Jacqueline and John before they had spoken to either of them. They talked about Jacqueline being an Illinois cop who, in their words, made “good money” in Illinois. One of the officers summed up his view of Illinois police this way: “That’s the same mentality of every Illinois cop I deal with. It’s like ‘Hey, I’m the law. I get away with it. Doesn’t apply to me.’”
When the officers arrived, they blocked the Agees’ driveway with their squad cars and detained the family outside in front of their home. They questioned John, who was sixteen, without his mother’s permission. The lawsuit alleges that interrogating a minor this way violated Indiana law.
What the officers learned should have ended the encounter.
Jacqueline told the officers that her older son could not have been the person the children described because he was at work, and one of the officers confirmed the alibi. John explained that he had been playing with a toy gun that fires lightweight plastic pellets, and that he never aimed it at anyone. Jacqueline explained to the officers that a toy gun is not a deadly weapon under Indiana law, and a police supervisor agreed with her.
The officers pursued charges anyway.
According to the lawsuit, they put false statements in their police report to justify the charges, including a claim that the one witness they interviewed could not describe the weapon, even though that witness had called it a “BB gun.” Jacqueline was cited for allowing John to fire a pellet gun within town limits, something no witness ever reported. John was referred to the juvenile prosecutor for charges.
Once the Agees hired lawyers, the charges quickly fell apart. The juvenile prosecutor refused to charge John, and the charges against Jacqueline were dismissed with prejudice.
The Officers Punished The Agees Because Jacqueline is an Illinois Cop
The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution protects people from being singled out for mistreatment by the government. In what the law calls a “class of one” equal protection claim, a person shows that the government mistreated them out of spite or some other improper motive.
The Agees’ strongest evidence was the officers’ own words. According to the lawsuit, the officers went after the family because Jacqueline is an Illinois police officer, and they said as much to one another.
The Seventh Circuit agreed that the officers’ statements, taken as true, were enough. The court held that the officers’ words support a reasonable inference that they mistreated the Agees based on personal animosity.
The Court Rejected the Officers’ Defenses
The officers responded to the allegations by claiming they had probable cause to charge the Agees. Probable cause is the standard police must meet before they can charge someone. It requires enough facts that a reasonable, careful person would believe a crime actually happened, not just a hunch that something might be wrong. If they had a legitimate reason to believe the law was broken, the Agees’ claims would fail.
The trial court ruled the officers had probable cause and dismissed the Agees’ claims.
The Seventh Circuit reversed.
Taking the complaint as true, the court held that the officers did not have probable cause against either John or Jacqueline. No witness ever reported that anyone fired a gun, so the citation against Jacqueline rested on guesswork about both what happened and what she knew. And because no one showed that John had a deadly weapon, the charges against John did not hold together either.
The court drew a sharp line between suspicion and probable cause. A hunch, the court explained, is not a lawful basis to arrest and charge citizens. The court went further and noted that probable cause may not always be a defense to the claim.
The court also undermined the officers” qualified immunity defense. The officers claimed they were entitled to immunity, the legal shield that protects police officers from lawsuits over how they do their jobs, and they asked the court to end the case on that basis. The court stated that, based on the record so far, nothing establishes the immunity defense as a matter of law.
Now, the officers must answer the claim and face accountability for their conduct.
“The police do not get to single out a family, pursue charges with no basis, and then hide behind the words probable cause when there was none,” said Jeffrey R. Kulwin, the Agees’ lawyer. “These officers said out loud exactly why they pursued the Agees, and the court held they have to answer for it.”
What Happens Next
The case now returns to the trial court for discovery. In time, a jury may decide whether these officers unlawfully targeted this family.
The case is Jacqueline J. Agee and John J. Agee v. Paige N. Hickenbottom, et al., Nos. 25-1737 and 25-2180, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Were you targeted by the government? Contact Jeff.
NOTICE: The information in this post comes from allegations made in a legal complaint filed in the public record with the court. Please note that this is a contested matter. As a result, it is expected that the allegations will be opposed or denied by other parties and the court has not ruled on the merits as of the date of this statement.
