USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00532-JVB-CAN document 1 filed 09/19/12 page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

BRIAN YOUNG, SANDY YOUNG, )

TIMOTHY CORBETT, DAVID WELLS, )
and STEVE RICHMOND, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND Acting )
through its Police Department, DARRYL )
BOYKINS, Individually and in his Official )
Capacity as Chief of Police, KAREN )
DEPAEPE, and SCOTT DUERRING, )
)

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, by counsel, respectfully make their Complaint for Damages.

Nature of Case

1. This lawsuit seeks to redress the violations of Plaintiffs' rights under the Fourth

Amendment and federal statutes against City officials who surreptitiously

intercepted their telephone calls. Plaintiff also seeks redress under Indiana law.

Jurisdiction

2. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress Defendants'

violations of their rights under the Fourth Amendment and 18 U.S.c. § 2510 et

seq. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction of the federal questions

presented pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333 and § 1343.

3. Venue is proper in the South Bend Division because most parties reside in this

division and the events complained of occurred in this division.

USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00532-JVB-CAN document 1 filed 09/19/12 page 2 of 7

4. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the pendant state-law claims

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because these claims arise out of the same events as

the federal claims.

5. A Tort Claim Notice was timely served on the City of South Bend on June 11,

2012.

Parties

6. Brian Young is an adult U.S. Citizen who resides in St. Joseph County, Indiana.

He is married to Sandy Young.

7. Sandy Young is an adult U.S. Citizen who resides in St. Joseph County, Indiana.

She is married to Brian Young.

8. Timothy Corbett is an adult U.S. Citizen who resides in St. Joseph County,

Indiana.

9. David Wells is an adult U.S. Citizen who resides in St. Joseph County, Indiana.

10. Steve Richmond is an adult U.S. Citizen who resides in the state of Michigan.

11. The City of South Bend is a government unit located in St. Joseph County,

Indiana. It operates the South Bend Police Department

12. Darryl Boykins is an adult U.S. Citizen who resides in St. Joseph County, Indiana.

He is sued both individually and in his official capacity as Chief of the South

Bend Police Department, which post he held at the time of the events complained

of.

13. Karen DePaepe is an adult U.S. Citizen who resides in St. Joseph County,

Indiana.

14. Scott Duerring is an adult U.S. Citizen who resides in St. Joseph County, Indiana.

2
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00532-JVB-CAN document 1 filed 09/19/12 page 3 of 7

Factual Allegations

15. Plaintiffs are current or fonner high-ranking officers of the South Bend Police

Department ("SBPD"), except for Sandy Young who is married to an officer of

the SBPD.

16. The City of South Bend maintains a telephone system for the use of its police

department.

17. The SBPD's telephone system was managed by Karen DePaepe, SBPD's Director

of Communications.

18. As Director of Communications, DePaepe had the ability to intercept and record

telephone conversations on SBPD's telephone lines.

19. It was well-known within SBPD that certain telephone lines are recorded, such as

the front desk and calls and radio channels on the 911 system.

20. But Plaintiffs believed that all officers' individual office lines, including their

own, were private.

21. On February 12,2010, Steve Richmond assumed the office of Division Chief. On

that date or shortly thereafter, Darryl Boykins directed DePaepe to intercept and

record the private telephone line of Division Chief Steve Richmond.

22. In accordance with Boykins' instructions, DePaepe attempted to "tap" the

telephone line of Steve Richmond.

23. But DePaepe inadvertently tapped the telephone line of Capt. Brian Young, who

used an office fonnerly occupied by Richmond.

24. After his telephone was tapped, Young placed calls to, and received calls from,

Plaintiffs Wells, Corbett, and Richmond. In the course of these conversations

3
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00532-JVB-CAN document 1 filed 09/19/12 page 4 of 7

Plaintiffs discussed police operations, personnel changes at SBPD, and also

purely personal matters.

25. Young also placed calls to, and received calls from, his wife Sandy Young and

other friends and family members, during which conversations they discussed

purely personal matters.

26. Upon infonnation and belief, sometime after February 2011 DePaepe discovered

that she had tapped the "wrong" telephone line and successfully intercepted and

recorded Richmond's correct telephone line at SBPD.

27. After his private line was tapped Richmond placed calls to, and received calls

from, Plaintiffs Wells, Young, and Corbett, in which conversations they discussed

police operations, personnel changes at SBPD, and also purely personal matters.

28. The interception and recording of these telephone lines was not authorized by a

court order.

29. The interception and recording of Plaintiffs' calls was not part of any law

enforcement investigation and was not conducted in the ordinary course of

SBPD's business.

30. Rather, Boykins used the recordings to detennine whether his division chiefs were

personally loyal to him and to punish anyone who might seek the job of Chief of

Police.

31. On January 1,2012 a new mayor, Peter Buttigieg, took office. During the

transition he announced that he would interview candidates to appoint a Chief of

Police.

4
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00532-JVB-CAN document 1 filed 09/19/12 page 5 of 7

32. Mayor Buttigieg interviewed several high-ranking officers of SBPD for the

position of Chief, including Plaintiffs Richmond and Corbett.

33. Ultimately, Buttigieg re-appointed Boykins.

34. On January 6, 2012 Boykins summoned Richmond to his office and berated him

for having been disloyal to him by seeking his job and for being a "back stabber"

by deriding him in his interview with Mayor Buttigieg.

35. At that same January 6, 2012 meeting Boykins told Richmond of the telephone

intercepts and stated that he would have recordings of several senior officers

delivered to him and that he would fire anyone he determined to be disloyal to

him based on the contents of those recordings.

36. Richmond asked DePaepe on January 17,2012 if it is true that his telephone line

was recorded and DePaepe stated that Boykins requested that his line be recorded

"the day he promoted you to Division Chief."

37. Plaintiffs complained to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of

Indiana on January 19,2012 that they were victims of illegal wiretaps.

38. The U.S. Attorney's Office subsequently conducted an investigation and informed

Mayor Buttigieg that unless Darryl Boykins resigned as Chief of Police he would

be criminally prosecuted.

39. While he was being investigated Boykins, who is African-American, told several

officers of the SBPD that the recorded conversations of Plaintiffs captured them

making racial slurs about him. These conversations subsequently were reported

in the media.

40. On March 31, 2012 Boykins resigned as Chief of Police.

5
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00532-JVB-CAN document 1 filed 09/19/12 page 6 of 7

41. DePaepe was fired from the SBPD for her role in the illegal wiretapping of

Plaintiffs' telephone calls.

42. After her termination, DePaepe and her attorney, Scott Duerruing, gave several

interviews in the media in which they stated that the recordings of Plaintiffs'

telephone conversations capture Plaintiffs making racial slurs about Boykins.

43. After his resignation Boykins admitted to Richmond that Boykins had never heard

Richmond make any racial slurs in the recorded telephone conversations but

merely said so because his feelings were hurt.

44. At all times Boykins, and DePaepe prior to her termination, acted within the

scope of their employment by the City of South Bend and under color of Indiana

law.

45. Plaintiffs have been damaged by the loss of their privacy and damage to their

professional reputation through false accusations of racism and professional

disloyalty.

Legal Claims

46. Boykins' and DePaepe's, actions in intercepting, recording, and disclosing

Plaintiff's private telephone conversations constitute illegal search in violation of

the Fourth Amendment and violate 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq.

47. Duerring's actions in disclosing the contents of Plaintiffs' recorded conversations

violate 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq.

48. The City of South Bend maintains an unconstitutional and illegal policy of

intercepting, recording, and disclosing the telephone conversations of police

executives.

6
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00532-JVB-CAN document 1 filed 09/19/12 page 7 of 7

49. The actions of Boykins and DePaepe in intercepting and disclosing Plaintiffs

telephone conversations constitute violations ofInd. Code § 35-33.5-2 et seq.

50. The City of South Bend was negligent in training and supervising Boykins and

DePaepe such that they were permitted to intercept and disclose private telephone

conversations.

51. The acts and omissions of Boykins, DePaepe, and Duerring constitute negligence,

defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress

under Indiana law.

52. The City of South Bend is liable under the principle of respondeat superior for

the acts and omissions of Boykins and DePaepe.

53. Plaintiff seeks all relief allowable by law, including compensatory and punitive

damages, costs, and attorneys fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court will enter judgment against

Defendants and in favor of Plaintiffs, and grant Plaintiffs all just and proper relief.

Respectfully submitted,

(\ "

I \
I. .:}/7
f/{);
I" '/:"'.
c/) I, '. if e ' / j
"" /
'- \ (J )(r f
,I .-'
.r''-'' J I

Je~~y ~. McQuary, 16791\49 /

B~OWN TOMPKINS LORY '-/'
608-£. Market Street
Indianapolis, IN 46202
Telephone: 317/631-6866

7
 <;:,JS 44 (Rev, 12/07) CIVIL COVER SHEET
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00532-JVB-CAN document 1-1 filed 09/19/12 page 1 of 1
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the infonnation contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided
by local rules of court. This fonn, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating
the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM,)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

Brian Young, Sandy Young, Timothy Corbett, David Wells and The City of South Bend, Darryl Boykins, Karen DePaepe andScott
Steve Richmond Duerring
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff . ; S;. ;t';"'; . Jo""s;;,;e""p;..;;.h=--_____ County of Residence of First Listed Defendant . .:;S;.;t.;. .;;..Jo::;.:s;;.:e""p;.:.h=--______
(EXCEPT IN U,S, PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S, PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE
LAND INVOLVED, .

(c) Attorney's (Finn Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Jeffrey S, McQuary, BROWN TOMPKINS LORY & MASTRlAN, 608 E.
Market Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202 (317) 631-6866

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (place an "X" in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an "X" in One Box for Plaintiff

~3
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
01 U,S. Government Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S, Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 0 I 0 I Incorporated or Principal Place 0 4 0 4
of Business In This State

o 2 U,S, Government
Defendant
IV NATU RE OF SUIT (Piace an "X" in One Box OnIv)
COJl.'TRACl' ,'" :;'i':::':: ; .• ,
" ":'TORTS,,<:"
o 110 Insurance
o 120 Marine
o 130 Miller Act
o 140 Negotiable Instrument
o 150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
o 151 Medicare Act
o 152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Exc!. Veterans)
o 153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran's Benefits
o 160 Stockholders' Suits
o 190 Other Contract
o 195 Contract Product Liability
o 196 Franchise
I REALPROPERT¥'.
o 210 Land Condemnation
o 220 Foreclosure
o 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
o 240 Torts to Land
o 245 Tort Product Liability
o 290 All Other Real Property
o 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State o 2 0 2 Incorporated Gnd Principal Place o
of Business In Another State
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
Citizen or Subject of a o o 3 Foreign Nation o 6 0 6
Foreign CountrY
;:~;;. , .,'; . :J!'ORFElTUREfPE.l~:';\I.TY' 'BA.l'IIIm.UPTm':' " ,', 'OTHERSTATUTES
PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY o 610 Agriculture o 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 0 400 State Reapportionment
0 310 Airplane 0 362 Personal Injury - o 620 Other Food & Drug o 423 Withdrawal 0 410 Antitrust
0 315 Airplane Product Med, Malpractice o 625 Drug Related Seizure 28 USC 157 0 430 Banks and Banking
Liability 0 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 0 450 Commerce
0 320 Assault, Libel & Product Liability o 630 Liquor Laws PROPERTY RIGHTS; '0:: 0 460 Deportation
Slander 0 368 Asbestos Personal o 640 R.R. & Truck o 820 Copyrights 0 470 Racketeer Influenced and
0 330 Federal Employers' Injury Product o 650 Airline Regs. o 830 Patent Corrupt Organizations
Liability Liability o 660 Occupational o 840 Trademark 0 480 Consumer Credit
0 340 Marine PERSONAL PROPERTY SafetylHealth 0 490 Cable/Sat TV
0 345 Marine Product 0 370 Other Fraud o 690 Other 0 8 I 0 Selective Senice
Liability 0 371 Truth in Lending : '·"::2c:,,,,:LABOR '·'SOCI..;.\I;\SECIjRITY';;·':, 0 850 Securities!Commodities!
0 350 Motor Vehicle 0 380 Other Personal o 71 0 Fair Labor Standards o 861 HIA (1395ff) Exchange
0 355 Motor Vehicle Property Damage Act o 862 Black Lung (923) 0 875 Customer Challenge
Product Liability 0 385 Property Damage o no LaborlMgmt. Relations o 863 DIWC!DIWW (405(g)) 12 USC 3410
0 360 Other Personal Product Liability o 730 Laborll'v!gmt.Reporting o 864 SSID Title XVI 0 890 Other Statutory Actions
Injury & Disclosure Act o 865 RSI (405(g)) 0 89 I Agricultural Acts
c c,CR'lLRlGHTS, PRISONERI>ETITIONS, o 'FEDERa1;l'AX SUITS '
740 Railway Labor Act 0 892 Economic Stabilization Act
0 441 Voting 0 510 Motions to Vacate o o 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
790 Other Labor Litigation 0 893 En\ironmental Matters
0 442 Employment Sentence o 791 EmpJ. Ret. Inc.
or Defendant) 0 894 Energy Allocation Act
0 443 Housing! Habeas Corpus: o 871 IRS-ThirdParty
Security Act 0 895 Freedom of lnfonnation
Accommodations 0 530 General 26 USC 7609 Act
0 444 Welfare 0 535 Death Penalty I:: . :IMMJGRATIOl"l·· .- 0 900Appeal of Fee Detennination
0 445 Amer. w!Disabilities- 0 540 Mandamus & Other o 462 Naturalization Application Under Equal Access
Employment 0 550 Civil Rigbts o 463 Habeas Corpus - to Justice
0 446 Amer. w!Disabilities - 0 555 Prison Condition Alien Detainee 0 950 Constitutionality of

'"~ Other
440 Other Ci\il Rights
o 465 Other lnunigration
Actions
State Statutes

,V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" in One Box Only) Appeal to District

lsi1 Original o 2 Removed from 0 3 Remanded from o 4 Reinstated or 0
"
oJ
Transferred from
another district o6 Multidistrict o 7 Judge from
Magistrate
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened s ecifv) Litigation
Judgment
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
i'60SC.--!-<)}:)
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION 1-=-:-::--:---Il..::--:-'=~--!;:::;;-=---=----------'7"/- - - - - - - - - - - : - ,- - - - - -
B, !e~~~~t~on ~ Cetf ~ ~ /Ie '1[~.J Ie eel ~-') Ieric" p(U Ill". ~C I. (_, ~ c o~ C; ~ )"c (j( ~'.., f;'~
VII. REQUESTED IN o CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND S 'I CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 JURY DEMAND: \m Yes LJ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE SIGNAT~E O~ ATT~RNEY OF RECORD

I'c, ./""'. ",j ~'J. ! /-.../1 j II ()r.,/'0 ~~.
l

Q A-"-} , rr
1 '- 'j.-{. \! / )
v
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
( /

RECEIPT!' AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG,JUDGE

--------