West's Jury Verdicts - Wisconsin Reports

Benefits to State Bar of Wisconsin Members	Case Highlights & Features	Publicize Your Case Results
As a service to its members, the State Bar of Wisconsin has entered into an alliance agreement with West, a Thomson Reuters business, to provide award information on Wisconsin civil jury trials, bench trials, settlements, and arbitrations. State Bar members can: Request a full case summary, free of charge Submit their own case results for online publication in Westlaw's® West's Jury Verdicts Wisconsin Reports, free of charge Order a paid online subscription to Westlaw's® West's Jury Verdicts - Wisconsin Reports Contact West: west.juryverdicts@thomsonreuters.com or 800-689-9378 For State Bar members submitting their own results for publication, West will: Send each submitter a pdf of his/her published case as it appears online in Westlaw's® West's Jury Verdicts - Wisconsin Reports, free of charge Consider highlighting and/or featuring the case in our semi-monthly "West's Jury Verdicts" article in InsideTrack, and on this web site.	*State Bar of Wisconsin's InsideTrack* Web Site Highlights - Our attorney editors select 6 cases to highlight in the State Bar of Wisconsin's semi-monthly "InsideTrack" web site in concise one-paragaph format from the many Wisconsin cases we publish each month in full summary format. This Web Site Case of the Month - Our attorney editors also select one case to feature in its entirety in its full summary format. dec Case of the Month December 2024** See below	Would you like West to consider featuring or highlighting your case? » Online Submission Form
		Westlaw Litigator
		Your key resource for every phase of litigation » Learn More
		Recommend Another State Bar
		Would you like West to provide similar content for another State Bar? » Contact Us

Case of the Month December 2024

Federal Jury Declines to Award Plantiff Damages in Suit for Unreasonable Search, Seizure Following Burglary of Plaintiff's Residence

Burks v. Tate

Case Type:
Civil Rights and Constitutional Law - Search & Seizure; Section 1983

Specific Liability:
Home resident asserted that police officers conducted an unreasonable search of his property and illegally seized a firearm discovered during the search in violation of his constitutional and civil rights

General Injury:
Civil rights violation

Jurisdiction:
State: Wisconsin
United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin.

Related Court Documents:
Plaintiff's complaint: 2020 WL 14009432
Defendants' brief in support of motion for summary judgment: 2021 WL 12222439
Special verdict form: 2024 WL 3816131
Judgment 2024 WL 3816129

Case Name:
Burks v. Tate et al.

Docket/File Number:
2:20CV00782

Result Amount:
Defense

Result Date:
May 08, 2024

Judge:
Pamela Pepper

Attorneys:
Plaintiff: James Odell, Strang Bradley LLC, Madison, WI; John H. Bradley, Strang Bradley LLC, Madison, WI; Randal R. Resch II, Strang Bradley LLC, Madison, WI
Defendants: Tearman Spencer, City Attorney - Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI; Heather H. Hough, Assistant City Attorney - Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI; Jennifer L. Williams, Milwaukee City Attorney's Office, Milwaukee, WI; Kyle Bailey, Milwaukee City Attorney's Office, Milwaukee, WI; S. Todd Farris, Milwaukee City Attorney's Office, Milwaukee, WI; Yolanda Y. McGowan, Milwaukee City Attorney's Office, Milwaukee, WI; Katryna C. Rhodes, Milwaukee City Attorney's Office, Milwaukee, WI; Meghan C. McCabe, Milwaukee City Attorney's Office, Milwaukee, WI; Robin Pederson, Milwaukee City Attorney's Office, Milwaukee, WI; Susan E. Lappen, Milwaukee City Attorney's Office, Milwaukee, WI

Result Type:
Jury Trial

Experts:
Plaintiff: Not Reported
Defendant: Not Reported

Breakdown of Award:
$0

Summary of Facts:
Plaintiff John Burks, an African American male, said that his residence, located on North 45th Street in Milwaukee, Wis., was burglarized while he was not at home. After a neighbor reportedly called 911, indicating that two men were burglarizing the plaintiff's home, defendants Officer Jason Tate, Officer Matthew Wierzchowski and Officer Ross Lautenbach, all police officers with the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD), arrived at the plaintiff's residence.

The plaintiff contended that the burglars had left the home by the time the defendants arrived, but the defendants conducted a protective sweep to ensure that no one was in the residence. According to the plaintiff, the defendants then conducted a full blown, illegal search of his home, and discovered a gun in a glass cabinet. Wierzchowski allegedly contacted the district operator to run the gun's serial number, and learned that the gun's serial number matched the serial number of a reported stolen firearm. However, the stolen firearm had a different description than the gun discovered in the plaintiff's residence, and the gun that Wiezchowski described to dispatch was not stolen.

The plaintiff said that the defendants then illegally removed his firearm from his residence. The plaintiff argued that the defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights and/or civil rights when they searched his residence, and illegally seized a firearm during the search.

The plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983 action against the defendants, asserting multiple claims, which included claims against the defendants for conducting an unreasonable search of his property and for unreasonably seizing his firearm during the search.

The defendants denied liability and denied conducting an illegal search of the plaintiff's property. Rather, the defendants asserted that they were called to the plaintiff's residence due to a burglary in progress, and had reasonable suspicion, probable cause and/or or other legal authority to search the plaintiff's home.

The defendants also denied illegally seizing the plaintiff's firearm, as they were allowed to remove firearms from unsecured residences to prevent theft and/or misuse of the firearm. The defendants contended that they were unaware of the plaintiff's identity and/or who occupied the residence, and because the home was unsecured due to broken windows from the burglary, they took the plaintiff's firearm for safekeeping.

The defendants further argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity and they disputed the nature and extent of the plaintiff's claimed damages.

Following a jury trial, jurors reached a verdict in the defendants' favors.

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin.

Westlaw Citation:
2024 WL 3965855