Washington v Chicago - AUUW subsequent to CCL renewal

[Euler]

Although this case isn't a 2A case (4A and 14A), it's certainly got a 2A basis.

On December 16, 2023, officers ran Lucy Washington's plates and saw that she had an expired CCL. They stopped her on the basis of that expiration, expecting to find a firearm in the car. Upon stopping her, she notified them of the presence of a firearm. Although she tried to explain that she had submitted her renewal (and thus was still licensed to carry), they arrested her for an Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon (AUUW). They also searched her car and seized the weapon (and her car).

On December 13, 2024, she sued the City of Chicago and Officers Carvantez and Klepacki under section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and IL state law. (docket)

Count I: False arrest (1983)
Count II: Illegal search and seizure (1983)
Count III: Failure to intervene (1983)
Count IV: Unlawful pretrial detention (1983)
Count V: Conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights (1983)
Count VI: Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IL)
Count VII: Malicious prosecution (IL)
Count VIII: False arrest (IL)
Count IX: Indemnification (IL)
Count X: Monell liability

Counts I-V are against the officers. Counts VI-VIII are against the officers and Chicago. Counts IX and X are against Chicago. Monell liability refers to a pattern or practice of a tortious activity, in this case unjustified traffic stops of black drivers. Monell is a US Supreme Court case from 1978 that found New York City liable for forcing female city employees to take unpaid maternity leave.

She's asking for compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees, and "any other relief."

On May 1, 2025, the court dismissed plaintiff's Monell claim without prejudice, noting that she might be able to substantiate the claim with further discovery.

On September 23, plaintiff asked to extend discovery.

On September 25, the court extended the schedule for discovery.

On October 1, in a status hearing the court extended fact discovery again to November 28.

On October 29, in a status hearing, the court scheduled the next status hearing for December 16.

A person who is eligible to renew an expired CCL, but has not, is probably only guilty of a misdemeanor if found to be carrying a firearm [430 ILCS 66/70(e)], not a felony. The complaint also makes a big deal that the arresting officers did not note the exculpatory information (i.e., the expired CCL) in their reports. Cops don't have an obligation to provide exculpatory information, although prosecutors might, so I don't think there's much mileage to be gotten there.

The circumstances of this case are one set of those reported in Illinois Right to Keep and Carry > Black gun owners in Chicago charged with felonies despite valid FOIDs, CCLs.

Edited October 31, 2025 at 02:43 AM by Euler

[TomKoz]

Hypothetical legal question.  When, not if, Constitutional Carry becomes the rightful law of the land throughout the US, can those who had to pay for such a “Right” sue the State for recovering of the $$ spent for their licensing scheme?  Can we get a refund?

Edited October 31, 2025 at 04:33 AM by TomKoz
Typo

[Jeffrey]

I hope she swims in a pool filled with $100 bills.

[Upholder]

On 10/30/2025 at 11:33 PM, TomKoz said:

Can we get a refund?

 

Can't get blood from a stone.   The state isn't giving you any money back.

[Euler]

On December 1, plaintiff asked to extend discovery, which was supposed to complete by November 28.

On December 3, the court extended discovery through January 28, 2026, and scheduled a status hearing for February 3.

[Euler]

On January 15, the status hearing scheduled for February 3 was rescheduled to February 12.

[Euler]

On January 27, Washington asked to extend the deadline to end discovery.

On January 30, the court granted the motion. The schedule is now:

04/30: end of fact discovery
05/07: status hearing

[Euler]

On March 26, Washington filed an amended complaint (probably based on discovery).

[Euler]

On April 2 at a status hearing, the judge set the following schedule:

4/30: defendants' response due
5/14: plaintiff's response to response (seriously, that's how it's stated) due
6/30: fact discovery closed & status hearing

[Euler]

On April 29, Chicago asked for an extension to the time to respond.

[Euler]

On April 30, the judge granted the extension. The schedule is now:

5/28: defendants' response due
6/11: plaintiff's response to response (seriously, that's how it's stated) due
6/18: reply due
7/30: status hearing