State trooper sues after incident with city officer

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana State Police detective involved in a physical confrontation with an Indianapolis Metropolitan Police deputy chief in August 2010 in the deputy chief’s office has filed a lawsuit claiming false arrest and assault and battery.

Master Trooper Detective Wayne Billings went to IMPD Deputy Chief William Benjamin’s office in downtown Indianapolis while Billings was in the City-County Building for an appointment. He told the City-County Building employee that he was law enforcement, which allowed him to have access to Benjamin’s office.

Billings had received threatening phone calls and voicemails regarding his relationship with a woman and he believed Benjamin was the person making those calls. He hid a recorder on himself.

According to the suit, Benjamin first did not know who Billings was, but later became upset when Billings mentioned the woman. Billings claimed he told the officer he must have the wrong person and tried to leave, but was prevented by Benjamin. Billings claimed Benjamin forcibly grabbed Billings as he tried to leave and later shoved him against a wall. Benjamin called for other officers to help him.

Billings claims he constantly identified himself as a state trooper. The other IMPD officers took his gun and his official ISP identification and Billings was held handcuffed in an interview room. He was later released but police took the recorder. According to the suit, Benjamin became enraged when discovering the recorder on Billings and accused Billings of “setting him up.”

Billings was placed on administrative duty by ISP after the incident. He was suspended for two days for using his police authority in a personal matter.

Now, Billings is suing, claiming his constitutional rights were violated, he was falsely arrested and imprisoned, and he was assaulted. He is also suing for recovery under Indiana Code 34-24-3-1 due to criminal confinement and abuse of process. The suit, Wayne E. Billings v. Deputy Chief William Benjamin, in his official and individual capacities, No. 1:11-CV-748, was filed June 3 and includes IMPD Chief of Police Paul R. Ciesielski and Major Christopher Boomershine, as well as other IMPD officers and personnel, as defendants. The case is before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt in the Indianapolis Division of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit