Lawyers for detectives
respond to lawsuit

[What follows is the response from attorneys representing the insurer for the city of Madison to Patty’s federal court lawsuit.]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

Case No. 99 C 725 S

PATTY DOE,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOM WOODMANSEE, LINDA DRAEGER,
LAURI SCHWARTZ, JANE and/or JOHN
DOES I Through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.

_____________________________________________________

ANSWER

NOW COME the Defendants Tom Woodmansee, Linda Draeger, and Lauri Schwartz, by their attorneys, Axley Brynelson, llp, by Bradley D. Armstrong, Michael J. Modi and Andrew J. Clarkowski, and for their Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, admit, deny and affirmatively allege as follows.

1. In answering paragraph I of Plaintiff's Complaint, admit that Plaintiff's action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but allege that Defendants, in no way, violated the Plaintiff's constitutional rights; admit that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the present claims and that venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

2. In answering paragraph 2 of Plaintiff's Complaint, allege that Defendants lack knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters set forth therein and therefore, deny same.

3. In answering paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's Complaint, allege that Defendants lack knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters set forth therein and, therefore, deny same.

4. In answering paragraph 4 of Plaintiff's Complaint, allege that Defendants lack knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters set forth therein and, therefore, deny same.

5. In answering paragraph 5 of Plaintiff's Complaint, admit that City of Madison police officers promptly responded and investigated the September 4, 1997 incident involving the Plaintiff.

6. In answering paragraph 6 of Plaintiff's Complaint, admit only that police officers collected physical evidence from the alleged crime scene.

7. In answering paragraph 7 of Plaintiff's Complaint, allege Defendants lack knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters asserted therein and, therefore, deny same.

8. In answering paragraph 8 of Plaintiff's Complaint, allege that Defendants lack knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters set forth therein and, therefore, deny same.

9. In answering paragraph 9 of Plaintiff's Complaint, allege that Defendants lack knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters set forth therein and, therefore, deny same.

10. In answering paragraph 10 of Plaintiff's Complaint, allege that Defendants lack knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters set forth therein and, therefore, deny same.

11. In answering paragraph II of Plaintiff's Complaint, admit the allegations set forth therein and allege that Woodmansee was assigned to investigate the alleged sexual assault on September 8, 1997.

12. In answering paragraph 12 of Plaintiff's Complaint, admit that Defendant Woodmansee first contacted Plaintiff on September 8, 1997, the day Woodmansee was assigned to the Doe investigation; allege that other City of Madison police officers had contact with Plaintiff prior to September 8, 1997, regarding the September 4, 1997 incident.

13. In answering paragraph 13 of Plaintiff's Complaint, admit the allegations set forth therein.

14. In answering paragraph 14 of Plaintiff's Complaint, admit the allegations set forth therein.

15. In answering paragraph 15 of Plaintiff's Complaint, deny the allegations set forth therein.

16. In answering paragraph 16 of Plaintiff's Complaint, deny the allegations set forth therein.

17. In answering paragraph 17 of Plaintiff's Complaint, deny the allegations set forth therein.

18. In answering paragraph 18 of Plaintiff's Complaint, admit that Woodmansee, at the conclusion of his investigation, suspected that Plaintiff had fabricated the account of the sexual assault that Plaintiff had told Woodmansee; further admit that at the time Woodmansee suspected Plaintiff had fabricated her account of the

sexual assault, he had not yet sent the sheets from the Plaintiff's bed to the State Crime Lab; deny the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 18 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

19. In answering paragraph 19 of Plaintiff's Complaint, admit that Woodmansee did not send the sheets to the State Crime Lab; allege that other law enforcement officials sent the sheets to the State Crime Lab.

20. In answering paragraph 20 of Plaintiff's Complaint, allege that Defendants lack knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters asserted therein and, therefore, deny same.

21. In answering paragraph 21 of Plaintiff's Complaint, admit that on some time on or prior to October 2, 1997, Woodmansee telephoned Plaintiff and requested that Plaintiff come to the police station.

22. in answering paragraph 22 of Plaintiff's Complaint, allege that Defendants lack knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters asserted therein and, therefore, deny same; allege that Woodmansee informed Plaintiff that he may need to collect some samples for further analysis.

23. In answering paragraph 22 of Plaintiff's Complaint, allege that Woodmansee had reason to believe that plaintiff had made a false report regarding her allegation of sexual assault; deny that Woodmansee was investigating Plaintiff for the crime of obstructing an officer.

24. In answering paragraph 24 of Plaintiff's Complaint, admit the allegations set forth therein but allege that Woodmansee had not investigated the crime of obstructing an officer.

25. Admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 25 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

26. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 26 of Plaintiff's Complaint; allege that Plaintiff was interviewed in an interview room, the dimensions of which were approximately 12'x8'.

27. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 27 of Plaintiff's Complaint; allege that Woodmansee and Draeger interviewed Plaintiff.

28. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 28 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

29. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 29 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

30. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 30 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

31. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 31 of Plaintiff's Complaint; allege that Woodmansee said words to the effect that he did not notice the effects of any serious visual impairment.

32. In answering paragraph 32 of Plaintiff's Complaint, allege that Defendants lack knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters asserted therein and, therefore, deny same.

33. Admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 22 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

34. In answering paragraph 34 of Plaintiff's Complaint, allege that Woodmansee mentioned that some relative (s) of Plaintiff had committed suicide but Defendants are uncertain at this time which relatives may have committed suicide.

35. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 35 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

36. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 36 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

37. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 37 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

38. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 38 of Plaintiff's complaint.

39. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 39 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

40. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 40 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

41. In answering paragraph 41 of Plaintiff's Complaint, allege that Defendants lack knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters set forth therein; further allege that Plaintiff never verbalized any interest in terminating the interview with Woodmansee and Draeger.

42. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 42 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

43. Admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 43 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

44. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 44 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

45. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 45 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

46. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 46 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

47. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 47 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

48. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 48 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

49. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 49 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

50. Admit that the allegations set forth in paragraph 50 of Plaintiff's Complaint are generally an accurate characterization of Detective Woodmansee's remarks.

51. Admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 51 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

52. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 52 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

53. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 53 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

54. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 54 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

55. In answering paragraph 55 of Plaintiff's Complaint, admit that on October 2, 1997, when Draeger and Woodmansee interviewed Plaintiff, they did not have an arrest warrant; allege that no arrest warrant was necessary.

56. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 56 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

57. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 57 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

58. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 58 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

59. In answering paragraph 59 of Plaintiff's Complaint, deny Plaintiff's characterization of Woodmansee's report and allege that the contents of the report speak for themselves.

60. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 60 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

61. Admit only that Plaintiff admitted "I made the whole thing up" and deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 61 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

62. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 62 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

63. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 63 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

64. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 64 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

65. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 65 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

66. Allege that Woodmansee transported Plaintiff to the Dane County Mental Health Center; deny the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 66 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

67. In answering paragraph 67 of Plaintiff's Complaint, allege that Defendants lack knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters asserted therein.

68. In answering paragraph 68 of Plaintiff's Complaint, allege that Defendants lack knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters asserted therein.

69. In answering paragraph 69 of Plaintiff's Complaint, allege that Plaintiff was never held in custody so she could not have been "released."

70. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 70 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

71. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 71 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

72. In answering paragraph 72 of Plaintiff's Complaint, allege that Defendants lack knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters asserted therein.

73. Admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 73 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

74. Admit that Woodmansee contacted Plaintiff by telephone on or about October 3, 1997; deny the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 74 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

75. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 75 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

76. Deny Plaintiff's characterization of Woodmansee's comments to Plaintiff's daughter as set forth in paragraph 76 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

77. Deny Plaintiff's characterization of Woodmansee's comments to the primary suspect as set forth in paragraph 77 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

78. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 78 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

79. In answering paragraph 79 of Plaintiff's Complaint, allege that Defendants lack knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters asserted therein.

80. Allege that the contents of the letter referenced in paragraph 80 of Plaintiff's Complaint speaks for itself; deny Plaintiff's characterization of the letter.

81. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 81 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

82. Allege that Woodmansee placed the subject letter referenced in paragraph 82 of Plaintiff's Complaint in Woodmansee's case file and that Woodmansee forwarded the letter to the District Attorney when requested to do so.

83. In answering paragraph 83 of Plaintiff's Complaint, admit that on or about January 15, 1998, Deputy District Attorney Jill Karofsky filed a criminal complaint against Plaintiff charging her with the crime of obstructing an officer; deny the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 83 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

84. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 84 of

Plaintiff s Complaint.

85. In answering paragraph 85 of Plaintiff's Complaint, admit only that the Isthmus newspaper published a number of stories and/or comments regarding the September 4, 1997 incident; deny the remaining allegations and characterizations set forth in paragraph 85 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

86. Admit only that the Isthmus newspaper published at least a portion of a letter from Lieutenant Maples to the Isthmus regarding the September 4, 1997 incident.

87. In answering paragraph 87 of Plaintiff's Complaint, deny the Plaintiff's characterization of the Maples' letter.

88. In answering paragraph 88 of Plaintiff's Complaint, deny the Plaintiff's characterization of the Maples' letter.

89. In answering paragraph 89 of Plaintiff's Complaint, deny the Plaintiff's characterization of the Maples' letter.

90. In answering paragraph 90 of. Plaintiff's Complaint, admit only that Detective Schwartz was assigned to investigate the charge of obstructing and that Schwartz conducted her investigation in 1998; deny the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 90 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

91. Admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 91 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

92. In answering paragraph 92 of Plaintiff's Complaint, allege that, at this time. Defendants lack knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters asserted therein and, therefore, deny same.

93. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 93 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

94. In answering paragraph 94 of Plaintiff's Complaint, alleges that Defendants lack knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters asserted therein.

95. Defendants reallege and reincorporate paragraph I through 94 as if fully set forth herein; in further answering paragraph 95 of Plaintiff's Complaint, allege that the capacity in which the Plaintiff sues each Defendant is a conclusion of law to which no response is required.

96. In answering paragraph 96 of Plaintiff's Complaint, allege that Plaintiff quotes, in part, the language of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

97. Deny that the Defendants violated or "oppressed" any of the Plaintiff's rights.

98. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 98 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

99. Defendants reallege and reincorporation paragraphs I through 98 of their Answer as if fully set forth herein.

100. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 100 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

101. To the extent Plaintiff is alleging wrongful conduct of Defendants Woodmansee and Draeger, deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 101 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

102. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 102 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

103. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 103 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

104. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 104 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

105. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 105 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

(Denial of Right to Counsel)

106. Defendants reallege and reincorporate paragraphs 1 through 105 of their Answer as if fully set forth herein.

107. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 107 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

108. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 108 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

109. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 109 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

(Coercion)

110. Defendants reallege and reincorporate paragraphs 1 through 109 of their Answer as if fully set forth herein.

111. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 111 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

112. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 112 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

113. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 113 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

114. Defendants reallege and reincorporate paragraphs I through 113 of their Answer as if fully set forth herein.

115. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 115 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

116. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 116 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

117. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 117 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

118. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 118 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

119. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 119 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

120. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 120 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

121. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 121 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

122. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 122 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

123. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 123 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

124. Defendants reallege and reincorporate paragraphs 1 through 123 of their Answer as if fully set forth herein.

125. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 125 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

126. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 126 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

127. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 127 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

128. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 128 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

129. Defendants reallege and reincorporate paragraphs 1 through 128 of their Answer as if fully set forth herein.

130. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 130 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

131. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 131 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

132. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 132 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

133. In answering paragraph 133 of Plaintiff's Complaint, allege that Defendants lack knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters asserted therein and, therefore, deny same.

134. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 134 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

135. Defendants reallege and reincorporate paragraphs I through 134 of their Answer as if fully set forth herein.

136. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 136 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

137. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 137 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

138. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 138 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

1. In further answering and by way of affirmative defense, Defendants affirmatively allege that some or all of the claims alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and, therefore, should be dismissed.

2. In further answering and by way of affirmative defense, Defendants affirmatively allege that the individual Defendants who have been sued in their individual capacity performed all actions in the discharge of their official duties and that such conduct was not in violation of clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. Accordingly, the individual Defendants are entitled to immunity from suit and liability pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity.

3. In further answering and by way of affirmative defense, Defendants affirmatively allege that to the extent the individual Defendants were sued in their official capacity, they are not policy makers and, therefore. Plaintiff was not deprived of any constitutional right as a result of any city policy or custom.

4. In further answering and by way of affirmative defense, Defendants affirmatively allege that some or all of the individual Defendants did not personally participate in any of the alleged acts of wrongdoing.

5. In further answering and by way of affirmative defense, Defendants affirmatively allege that some or all of Plaintiff's claims are barred by waiver, estoppel or preclusion principles.

6. In further answering and by way of affirmative defense, Defendants affirmatively allege that Plaintiff was required to raise certain of her constitutional claims during her criminal proceeding.

7. In further answering and by way of affirmative defense, Defendants affirmatively allege that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's civil conspiracy theory where the alleged conduct is by a single entity which cannot, as a matter of law, conspire with itself.

8. In further answering and by way of affirmative defense, Defendants affirmatively allege that Plaintiff may not recover punitive damages, as a matter of law, against the individual Defendants in their official capacity on the Plaintiff's civil rights claim.

9. In further answering and by way of affirmative defense, Defendants affirmatively allege that Plaintiff has failed to act to mitigate her alleged damages.

10. In further answering and by way of affirmative defense, Defendants affirmatively allege that, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to allege any state law violations. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the applicable notice of claim statute.

11. In further answering and by way of affirmative defense, Defendants affirmatively allege that, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to allege any state law violations. Plaintiff's claims are subject to the damages limitation set forth in § 893.80(3), Stats.

12. In further answering and by way of affirmative defense, Defendants affirmatively allege that, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to allege any state law violations. Plaintiff is not entitled to recover punitive damages as a matter of law.

13. In further answering and by way of affirmative defense, Defendants affirmatively allege that, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to allege any state law violations. Plaintiff's claims are barred by statutory immunity.

WHEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment against the Plaintiff, dismissing the Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety with prejudice, costs and attorney's fees as provided by law, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated this [3] day of January, 2000.

AXLEY BRYNELSON, LLP

[signed]

Bradley D. Armstrong
Michael J. Modi
Andrew J. Clarkowski
Attorneys for Defendants
[…]

[End of document.]