51¶ÌÊÓƵ

But the Illinois man, himself a law enforcement officer, watched as the Saline County Sheriff's deputy searched his rental car along Interstate 80 anyway. 

Nettles, an officer at the Lewis University Police Department 30 miles southwest of Chicago, watched from Deputy Tyson Osborn's cruiser behind his and his wife's rental car as Osborn led the police dog around the vehicle on a short leash, contrary to training. 

He said the dog didn't sit and stare as he is trained to do when he detects the odor of controlled substances.

"Nonetheless, Osborn falsely told Nettles the dog had hit on the trunk," his attorney, Adam Sipple, said in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court alleging not only that Osborn had searched without cause but also that he had fabricated the reason for the stop. 

Nettles and his wife, Karla Gutierrez, believe the real reason they were stopped was because Nettles is Black and Gutierrez is Hispanic. 

In a response filed to the lawsuit, Osborn and Saline County Sheriff Alan Moore deny it. 

Early on the afternoon of July 27, 2024, they were headed east on I-80, with Gutierrez driving, when Osborn pulled on his flashing lights, according to the lawsuit. 

The deputy said Gutierrez was following another car too closely. 

Nettles and Gutierrez deny it. 

Without video, it's hard to prove one way or another. 

"Though his cruiser is equipped with recording equipment that could have been used to capture video of Ms. Gutierrez’s alleged traffic violation, no such recording was made," Sipple said.

He said it quickly turned into a criminal investigation without any reasonable suspicion or lawful basis. 

"Nothing Osborn observed or perceived after approaching the vehicle and making contact with Nettles and Gutierrez could have created suspicion of illegal activity. Nothing about them was materially different than the average American interstate traveler," Sipple said. 

He said the couple were dressed normally, acted normally and explained that they were traveling home to Illinois. Nothing in their car indicated illegal activity. 

Yet, Osborn extended the traffic stop to take a police dog around their vehicle.

Nettles, who previously had jobs training officers at the Aurora Police Department, as an investigator at the Matteson Police Department and working for the city of Chicago’s Office of Inspector General, believes the police dog was poorly trained and unreliable and Osborn knew it.

The deputy searched but found no contraband or evidence of illegal behavior.

"Not a whit," Sipple said. 

He field-tested a bag of tea leaves they bought on their trip to see if it was a controlled substance. It wasn't. 

"The traffic stop lasted 49 minutes and yielded no evidence of wrongdoing. No citations were issued. No arrests were made. Gutierrez and Nettles were eventually allowed to continue their travels," Sipple said.

He said as a sworn law-enforcement officer aware of his rights and of proper police procedure, Nettles knew he had been violated and believed he had been racially profiled.

When he got home two days later, he contacted the sheriff's office asking for copies of any reports about the stop to make a formal complaint.

The captain who responded July 31, told Nettles because the case was closed with no wrongdoing, no reports would be provided.

But that's not where it stopped. 

Sipple alleges that Sheriff Moore, or his deputies, provided Nettles' name to law enforcement or other entities who collect and provide data used by law enforcement to determine whether a motorist is a potential drug smuggler.

Moore also admittedly contacted one of Nettles’ former employers "as part of a follow-up investigation."

Sipple alleges he named Nettles as a potential drug smuggler in correspondence sent to the DEA.

In the lawsuit, he said neither Nettles nor Gutierrez have criminal records; both are completely innocent.

"Mr. Nettles is a sworn law enforcement officer. At all times, he and Ms. Gutierrez were fully aware their rights under the Fourth Amendment were being violated," Sipple alleged. 

In the lawsuit seeking punitive damages, he alleges Osborn's and Moore's conduct would dissuade or chill a person from reporting racial discrimination or harassment and that they were motivated by "evil motive or intent, or alternatively, were recklessly indifferent" to Nettles' and Gutierrez's rights.

In an answer filed in the case, Osborn and Moore's attorney, Jeff Kirkpatrick, argued the case should be dismissed.

He said they are immune from such lawsuits and that the suit's "allegations of negligence, careless, or reckless actions are insufficient to state a claim for deprivation of plaintiffs' federally protected rights."

Kirkpatrick also argued against punitive damages, which are meant to punish the conduct.

"As defendants at all relevant times acted in good faith, did not clearly violate any laws or anyone’s rights, and did not demonstrate a callous indifference to the constitutional rights of plaintiffs," he said. 

Kirkpatrick alleged the lawsuit was "frivolously asserted with intent to harass the defendants named herein."

And he asked for attorney’s fees and costs.