ILNews

State trooper sues after incident with city officer

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  2. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  3. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

  4. Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone

  5. John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.

ADVERTISEMENT