Hanover Park man claims former Schaumburg cops stole gun, money
A Hanover Park man is suing three former Schaumburg police officers under indictment on drug conspiracy charges, claiming they broke into his home last year to steal money and a gun before falsely arresting him.
The suit, filed this month in U.S. District Court, also alleges former undercover officers John Cichy, Matthew Hudak and Terrance O'Brien brought about the malicious prosecution of plaintiff Robert Thomas by "creating or coercing false criminal complaints; providing false evidence; telling false stories to prosecutors; and creating false reports that were relied upon by prosecutors."
The village of Schaumburg also is listed as a defendant in the lawsuit, which seeks undisclosed compensatory and punitive damages.
Thomas' suit is at least the fifth filed in the wake of the officers' January arrests on accusations they ran a scheme to shake down drug dealers and sell drugs seized from police busts. The officers, who resigned shortly after the arrests, have denied the charges.
Thomas was among 19 former defendants who had criminal charges against them dismissed earlier this year because of the officers' arrests. The charges alleged that on Oct. 2 and 30, 2012, a Cichy and Hudak informant purchased a total of 2.4 grams of cocaine from Thomas at Thomas' home on the 1300 block of Kingsbury Drive.
Police reported that on Nov. 1, officers executed a search warrant and recovered 29 grams of cocaine and 4.4 grams of heroin from the residence. Thomas was charged with unlawful possession of heroin and cocaine with intent to deliver.
Thomas' lawsuit alleges the officers broke into his home without a warrant, then took a gun and unspecified amount of cash before arresting him without cause. Neither the gun or money were ever returned to Thomas, according to the suit.
"(The officers' actions) were willful, wanton, and malicious and done with reckless indifference to and callous disregard for plaintiff's rights," the suit states.
The lawsuit states the village is named as a defendant because as the officers' employer it is liable for their actions.