Vodak v. City of Chicago
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30052 (Apr. 17, 2006)

- Written by Catherine Cotovsky, JD
Facts
Plaintiffs sued the City of Chicago, the Chicago Police Department, and various officers in the Chicago Police Department (CPD) (defendants) for violation of their federal and state constitutional rights when they were detained by CPD during a protest of the United States war in Iraq in downtown Chicago on March 20, 2003. The group of plaintiffs included protestors who deliberately gathered for the purpose of marching as well as observers and bystanders who happened to be in the area at the time of the protest. Acting upon orders, CPD surrounded the plaintiffs on a single city block and refused to let them leave the bounded area. After some time, CPD allowed some of the plaintiffs to leave, but over 500 people were arrested and confined for up to 40 hours. Of those arrested, some were released without charge, and others were charged with a misdemeanor that was later dismissed. The plaintiffs moved to certify themselves as a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The class was divided into three sub-classes: (1) those detained but released, (2) those detained and arrested without charges, and (3) those detained, arrested, and charged but whose charges were dismissed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.