Patty’s federal court lawsuit

[What follows is the text of a lawsuit filed by Patty on Nov. 17, 1999, in federal court against three Madison police detectives.

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

Case No._________________

JURY DEMANDED

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

COMPLAINT UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, TITLE 42 U.S.C. §1983

1. PLACE OF PRESENT CONFINEMENT: Not applicable to the plaintiff.

II. PARTIES:

A. Plaintiffs name: PATTY [WITHHELD]

B. Plaintiffs address: [WITHHELD], Madison, WI.

C. Defendant's name: TOM WOODMANSEE.

Is employed as: a Madison City Police Detective.

I. This action is brought pursuant to The Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. §1983), the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 and the aforementioned constitutional and statutory provisions. Venue is placed in this district because it is where all the parties reside and where the events complained of occurred.

2. The Plaintiff, a forty year old, legally blind, self-employed business women, was raped at knifepoint in the bedroom of her apartment located in Madison, Wisconsin, on Wednesday, September 4, 1997, at approximately 3:40 a.m. The assault lasted approximately 35 minutes. The assailant also committed burglary and armed robbery of the Plaintiff.

3. During the sexual assault. Plaintiff suffered multiple knife cuts, bruises, abrasions, and an internal laceration.

4. Immediately after the assault, the Plaintiff telephoned the emergency telephone number for the Madison Police Department by dialing 911.

5. Police officers responded within minutes and an investigation ensued.

6. Police personnel collected physical evidence including semen stained sheets and a telephone from the crime scene that morning.

7. The crime scene area was photographed.

8. The police officers photographed areas with a substantial amount of the victim's blood from cuts to her face, neck and left index finger which required two stitches.

9. Police interviewed the Plaintiff and took her to Meriter Hospital in Madison for treatment of her injuries, photographs, an examination and collection of evidence.

10. On September 5th, the Plaintiff contacted the Madison Police Department to ascertain whether a suspect had been arrested in the case.

11. Defendant TOM WOODMANSEE, a Madison Police Department Detective, was assigned to investigate the case.

12. On September 8th, four days after the assault. Defendant WOODMANSEE made his first contact with the Plaintiff.

13. Defendant WOODMANSEE requested a meeting with the Plaintiff in her home on September 9th, five days after the assault.

14. On September 9th, Defendant WOODMANSEE met with the Plaintiff at the rape scene.

15. During that initial meeting. Defendant WOODMANSEE became frustrated with Plaintiff's inability to remember specific details of the assault.

16. At one point during their first meeting. Defendant WOODMANSEE pointed to the bedroom where the rape occurred and stated words to the effect that if it were necessary to go into the bedroom and role-play the assault in order to refresh her memory, he would insist on doing so.

17. At some point, as yet unknown to the Plaintiff, Defendant WOODMANSEE began an investigation of the Plaintiff for the crime of obstructing an officer by filing a false criminal complaint.

18. At the point Defendant WOODMANSEE formed his suspicions that Plaintiff had fabricated the sexual assault, he had yet to send the semen stained sheets to the Wisconsin State Crime Lab.

19. In fact. Defendant WOODMANSEE never sent the semen stained sheets from the crime scene to be analyzed by the Wisconsin State Crime Lab.

20. Defendant WOODMANSEE never received fingerprint analysis from a telephone in the bedroom of which the assailant had cut the wires.

21. Defendant WOODMANSEE called the Plaintiff on September 30th, 1997, and asked her to come to the police station.

22. Defendant WOODMANSEE requested that the Plaintiff come to the station alone in order for her to provide hair samples to aid in the investigation of the rape.

23. Defendant WOODMANSEE had already concluded that Plaintiff was lying and he was investigating her for the crime of obstructing an officer.

24. Defendant WOODMANSEE did not advise the Plaintiff prior to arriving at the police station that she was suspected of committing the crime of obstruction.

25. Defendant WOODMANSEE did not advise her to bring an attorney or to seek an attorney's advice before coming to the police station.

26. When the Plaintiff arrived at the police station on October 2nd, she was taken to a small interrogation room.

27. Inside this interrogation room. Defendants WOODMANSEE and DRAEGER began an interrogation of the Plaintiff.

28. The interrogation lasted a period of between two and four hours.

29. During that interrogation. Defendants WOODMANSEE and DRAEGER repeatedly lied to the Plaintiff.

30. Without consulting her doctors or therapists. Defendants WOODMANSEE and DRAEGER confronted the Plaintiff with their theory that she was neither blind nor a rape victim.

31. Defendant WOODMANSEE confronted the Plaintiff by telling her that her vision was not noticeably bad.

32. At no point prior to this confrontation did Defendant WOODMANSEE ask Plaintiff if she would consent to his consultation with her opthamologist, Tom Stevens, M.D., who describes Plaintiff as "considerably worse than legally blind in both eyes."

33. Defendants WOODMANSEE and DRAEGER informed the Plaintiff that they knew that the Plaintiff had a history of childhood sexual abuse.

34. Defendant WOODMANSEE mentioned that he knew that her brother and nephew had committed suicide.

35. During the course of the interrogation. Defendant DRAEGER told the Plaintiff that she knew the Plaintiff took a drug called Prozac for emotional depression.

36. Defendants WOODMANSEE and DRAEGER refused to terminate the interrogation to allow the Plaintiff to consult with an attorney or her therapist, even after she expressly requested that they do so.

37. The Plaintiff requested that the interrogation cease and that she be allowed to return the following day with a therapist or an attorney.

38. Defendant WOODMANSEE refused to allow the Plaintiff to leave the interrogation room and return with a lawyer or a psychologist because, he said, "...you'll just change your story."

39. Defendants WOODMANSEE and DRAEGER refused to allow the Plaintiff to leave the interrogation room to smoke a cigarette.

40. During the interrogation, the Plaintiff offered to leave her purse and a birthday present she had recently purchased as collateral to assure the Defendants WOODMANSEE and DRAEGER she would return after smoking a cigarette.

41. The Plaintiff did not feel she had the right to voluntarily terminate the encounter with Defendants WOODMANSEE and DRAEGER.

42. During the interrogation. Plaintiff requested that another detective be assigned to the case.

43. During the interrogation. Plaintiff offered to take a polygraph exam.

44. Defendant WOODMANSEE told Plaintiff that no one believed her story.

45. Defendant WOODMANSEE told Plaintiff that the Sexual Assault Nurse at Meriter Hospital did not believe that the assault had occurred.

46. Defendant WOODMANSEE knew that the opinion attributed to the Sexual Assault Nurse was not true.

47. Defendant WOODMANSEE told Plaintiff that her own daughter did not believe the assault had occurred even though WOODMANSEE knew the statement was inaccurate.

48. Defendant WOODMANSEE told Plaintiff that her boyfriend did not believe her even though WOODMANSEE knew this statement to be false.

49. Defendant WOODMANSEE told Plaintiff that he knew that the Plaintiff had lied when she told police that the rapist wore a condom during the vaginal assault.

50. Defendant WOODMANSEE told Plaintiff that scientific testing revealed that there was no rubber residue from the condom.

51. Defendants WOODMANSEE and DRAEGER knew that any statements that described a test for rubber residue were false because no such test had been performed.

52. At one point in the interrogation. Defendant DRAEGER demanded that Plaintiff apologize to Defendant WOODMANSEE for lying to him and wasting his valuable time.

53. At the time of this interrogation. Defendant WOODMANSEE and DRAEGER knew or should have known; that the sheets from the crime scene had not been tested, that the results of the testing had not been determined or, worst of all, that the sheets had contained the semen of an unknown perpetrator.

54. Without the crucial evidence from the crime scene sheets. Defendants WOODMANSEE and DRAEGER persisted in their interrogation of Plaintiff without probable cause to believe Plaintiff had committed a crime.

55. Defendants WOODMANSEE and DRAEGER did not have an arrest warrant.

56. During the interrogation by the Defendants, WOODMANSEE told Plaintiff that if she did not admit her lies, he would tell her daughter she made the whole thing up.

57. Defendant WOODMANSEE threatened to tell the man who Plaintiff suspected of perpetrating the rape that Plaintiff had bed about the allegation of rape.

58. Defendant WOODMANSEE told Plaintiff that she would be criminally prosecuted for obstructing an officer if she did not admit to lying and fabricating the rape claim.

59. According to Defendant WOODMANSEE'S own report, that when faced with this impossibly coercive situation. Plaintiff stated to the police, "What do I have to do to get out of here... I'll say whatever you want to hear."

60. Defendant WOODMANSEE told Plaintiff that she could leave if she admitted she had made the whole thing up.

61. Plaintiff then stated, "Okay, I made the whole thing up."

62. After this coerced, so-called confession and forced self-incrimination, Defendants WOODMANSEE and DRAEGER continued to hold Plaintiff in custody.

63. After Plaintiff again attempted to convince Defendants WOODMANSEE and DRAEGER that the rape had occurred. Defendant WOODMANSEE stated, "...if you thought I was good working for you, wait until you see me working against you."

64. In the face of all of these threats and lies by Defendants WOODMANSEE and DRAEGER, Plaintiff told the officers of her recantation, "I'm only telling you tills so I can leave."

65. Defendants WOODMANSEE and DRAEGER attempted to use Plaintiff s psychiatric condition as pretext for holding her against her will.

66. Defendant WOODMANSEE accused Plaintiff of having the immediate intention of killing herself, which she denied. He then transported her to a psychiatric facility with the intention of having her held there.

67. At the mental health facility, the appropriate medical personnel examined Plaintiff and determined that Defendant WOODMANSEE'S suspicions were wrong and advised WOODMANSEE that Plaintiff was not suicidal.

68. The mental health officials determined that Plaintiff was not a danger to herself and that she could not be legally held against her will on that basis.

69. After the mental health officials determined that Plaintiff was not a danger to herself or others. Defendant WOODMANSEE finally released her.

70. Prior to releasing Plaintiff from his custody. Defendant WOODMANSEE ordered Plaintiff to agree to call him the following day.

71. Plaintiff agreed to do so as the final condition to her release.

72. Upon arriving home. Plaintiff immediately called the Rape Crisis Center in Madison and informed them of what had happened that evening.

73. Plaintiff did not call Defendant WOODMANSEE the following day, October 3rd.

74. Defendant WOODMANSEE contacted Plaintiff later that day by telephone. Plaintiff informed Defendant WOODMANSEE that she was in fact raped and only made the statements that Defendants consider a confession to free herself from the custody of Defendants WOODMANSEE and DRAEGER.

75. Defendant WOODMANSEE became agitated and told Plaintiff that she would be prosecuted for the crime of Obstructing an Officer by filing a false police report.

76. Defendant WOODMANSEE called Plaintiffs daughter and told her that her mother was lying about the entire event.

77. Defendant WOODMANSEE then contacted the primary suspect in the case and told the man that Plaintiff was lying when she reported that she had been raped and when she said that he was a suspect in the rape.

78. Defendant WOODMANSEE then assisted in a press release that was published prominently in the local media stating the Plaintiff lied about the rape claim and had confessed to obstruction.

79. In late October of 1997, after seeing the article about her recanting her rape charge, the Plaintiff sent a letter to the Wisconsin State Journal explaining her side of the story that she was raped.

80. The Plaintiff sent a letter of explanation to Defendant WOODMANSEE's supervising officer, Lt. Dennis Riley, staling that she was truly raped and coerced into recanting.

81. Lt. Riley met with Defendant WOODMANSEE and told him to place the letter from the Plaintiff in the case file in order for it to be forwarded to the District Attorney's office.

82. Defendant WOODMANSEE did not place the letter in the case file that was forwarded to the District Attorney. 83. On or about January 15th, 1998, at the request of Defendant WOODMANSEE, Deputy District Attorney Jill Karofsky filed a criminal complaint against Plaintiff charging her with the crime of Obstructing an Officer.

84. The prosecutor filed the complaint against Plaintiff without knowledge of many of the facts alleged above due to the concealment of the exculpatory evidence by the Defendants listed above.

85. In February of 1998, the Madison weekly newspaper Isthmus began publishing a series of investigative reports by News Editor Bill Lueders about the case. Isthmus referred to the Plaintiff as "Patty" and published a series of articles detailing Lueders' exhaustive investigation into the matter.

86. As a result of Lueders' reports. Lieutenant CHERI MAPLES sent a letter to isthmus.

87. In the letter, MAPLES claims to be an expert in the area of sex assaults and their investigations and admits mistakes were made in the case but also accuses the Plaintiff of lying.

88. MAPLES asserts in the letter that the decision to criminally prosecute Patty was in part because she recanted her recantation and because she went to the press.

89. On page 14 of the letter, MAPLES clearly establishes that the letter was written in her official capacity by affixing her signature and below typing "Lieutenant Cheri Maples, City of Madison Police Dept- North District."

90. During the spring and summer of 1998, Defendant SCHWARTZ began a criminal investigation of the Plaintiff for the Obstruction charge.

91. As part of Defendant SCHWARTZ'S investigation, she interviewed numerous people that were in contact with Plaintiff.

92. Defendant SCHWARTZ contacted Plaintiffs sister and asked for the address and phone number of a person the molested the Plaintiff when the Plaintiff was a child thirty years previous.

93. Defendant SCHWARTZ knew or should have known that these inquiries would be repeated to the Plaintiff, causing her great emotional distress.

94. The charges against Plaintiff were dropped eleven days before trial after the prosecutor discovered that DNA evidence on the sheets taken from the crime scene did not match anyone familiar with the Plaintiff.

95. By this reference. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the entire contents of this pleading heretofore as though fully set forth here. Plaintiff sues each defendant in his/her individual and official capacity.

96. In an action 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State.... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress... "

97. The action taken by Defendants in oppression of Plaintiffs rights was performed under color of state law by the Defendants.

98. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants and others, Plaintiff has been banned and suffered damages.

99. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the entire contents of this pleading heretofore as though fully set forth here.

100. The detention of Plaintiff on October 2nd 1997 was a deprivation of the Plaintiff's liberty interests in violation of the 4th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution.

101. The conduct of Defendants WOODMANSEE and DRAEGER mentioned above was intentional.

102. No reasonable person or police officer would have acted as they did under the same or similar circumstances.

103. An ordinary person or officer would have exercised a greater degree of care, caution, and prudence in handling a rape complaint from a victim with legally recognized "special sensitivities" (visual impairment, history of sexual abuse, recent rape victim, and history of serious depression).

104. Defendants' conduct as described was also intentional and reckless, extreme and outrageous, and shocking to the sensibilities of reasonable persons.

105. Defendants' conduct, as well as the conduct of the other Defendants, foreseeably and actually caused the Plaintiff her claimed damages herein including severe emotional distress, lost wages, doctor bills, legal bills, and other damages according to proof.

106. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the entire contents of this pleading heretofore as though fully set forth here.

107. Defendants WOODMANSEE and DRAEGER denied Plaintiff her right to have counsel present during the interrogation on October 2, 1997. This denial was in direct violation of Plaintiff's 6th Amendment right to counsel.

108. The constitutional deprivation caused Plaintiff to be prejudiced in the ensuing criminal proceedings.

109. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants and others. Plaintiff has been banned and suffered damages.

110. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the entire contents of this pleading heretofore as though fully set forth here.

111. The conduct of Defendants WOODMANSEE and DRAEGER acting individually and in concert, resulted in the Plaintiff giving an involuntary "confession" to the charge of Obstruction, a crime which Plaintiff did not commit. Said "confession" was the product of duress and the wanton and deliberate psychological torture which the Defendants inflicted on Plaintiff.

112. The actions of Defendants deprived Plaintiff of here right to equal protection of the laws, to due process of law, and to the due course of justice in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983.

113. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants and others. Plaintiff has been banned and suffered damages.

114. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the entire contents of this pleading heretofore as though fully set forth here.

115. Specifically, Defendants DRAEGER and WOODMANSEE agreed and acted to intentionally mislead Plaintiff as to their belief in her claim of being criminally assaulted and that there was credible and verifiable evidence to support her allegations of rape.

116. Said Defendants agreed and acted to intentionally fabricate and contrive the misrepresentations made to Plaintiff as previously described.

117. Said Defendants agreed and acted to intentionally submit false police reports and statements to support and corroborate their misrepresentations to Plaintiff.

118. Said Defendants and others conspired to withhold sending the sheets from the crime scene to the crime lab until seven months after the rape and three months after criminal charges were filed against the Plaintiff.

119. Said Defendants agreed and acted with others to punish Plaintiff for having exercised constitutionally protected rights to report the criminal assault committed upon her and to have the perpetrator of the crime prosecuted for his actions.

120. Defendant WOODMANSEE and others conspired to have Plaintiff prosecuted for exercising her 1st Amendment right to speak freely and to contact the press.

121. Additional acts of civil conspiracy were the efforts of Defendants WOODMANSEE, SCHWARTZ and others to find the Plaintiffs childhood assailant and use him to attempt to humiliate and discredit Plaintiff.

122. As a direct and proximate result of the conspiracies between Defendants and others, as a previously described. Plaintiff was deprived other constitutional right to equal protection of the law, to due process rights to be free from arbitrary and unreasonable action, which are secured under the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution and protected by 14 U.S.C. §1983.

123. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants and others, Plaintiff has been banned and suffered damages the amount to be proven at trial.

124. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the entire contents of this pleading heretofore as though fully set forth here.

125. Defendant WOODMANSEE' S actions were the result of personal animus toward Plaintiff and as a direct result of Plaintiffs actions to get her name cleared and the criminal investigation resumed. Plaintiff was subjected to a retaliatory criminal prosecution.

126. Defendant requested that charges be filed against Plaintiff because of her criticism of the investigation and because she contacted the press.

127. Defendant WOODMANSEE'S actions were an unlawful and malicious attempt to harass, intimidate and punish Plaintiff for exercising her constitutional rights. Defendant actions violated the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983.

128. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants and others. Plaintiff has been banned and suffered damages.

129. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the entire contents of this pleading heretofore as though fully set forth here.

130. Plaintiff was subjected to an intentional and malicious criminal prosecution in violation of the 4th Amendment of the United Stated Constitution. The Plaintiff was prosecuted because she refused to withdraw her rape complaint and because she recanted her coerced, supposed confession.

131. Defendant WOODMANSEE intentionally and maliciously authored and forwarded a report that contained misrepresentations and omissions to the District Attorney's Office in order for charges to be filed against the Plaintiff.

132. The criminal proceeding against the Plaintiff was instituted without probable cause.

133. The criminal proceedings ended in favor of the Plaintiff when the Obstruction charge was dismissed with prejudice.

134. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants and others. Plaintiff has been banned and suffered damages.

135. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the entire contents of this pleading heretofore as though fully set forth here.

136. Defendant WOODMANSEE'S intentional act of contacting Plaintiffs daughter and telling her that Plaintiff had fabricated the rape incident caused irreparable injury to Plaintiffs relationship with her only daughter.

137. As a result of Defendant WOODMANSEE'S unlawful, deliberately indifferent, and malicious contact with Plaintiff's daughter. Plaintiff was deprived of her right to familial association which is secured by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and the 1st Amendment's guarantee of free association.

138. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants and others. Plaintiff has been harmed and suffered damages.

Plaintiff requests that this Court award compensatory general and special damages (in amounts to be proven at trial) to Plaintiff against all Defendants, on all counts, jointly and severally; and:

a. Award the costs of this suit to the Plaintiff;

b. Award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to Plaintiff;

c. Award Plaintiff punitive damages according to law and proof;

d. Award Plaintiff pre-judgment interest according to law and proof;

e. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

The Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial

V. PREVIOUS LAWSUITS

A. Have you begun other lawsuits in state or federal court relating to the same occurrence involved in this action.

[ ] Yes

[XX] No

Complaint signed this 16th day of November, 1999.

[signed]

Patty [Withheld]

[signed]

Michael J. Short
Attorney for Plaintiff
WI Bar No. 1032101
9 Hawkweed Lane #5
Madison WI 53719
Phone (608) 827-8884

[End of document.]