## Facts

- Anthony and Sharon Murray financed a 2004 Pontiac Grand Prix through JPMorgan Chase.
- In the early morning of December 16, 2008, a repossession crew began towing the vehicle from the Murrays’ driveway in Chatham, Illinois.
- Sharon Murray confronted the crew, asserted the car was being wrongfully taken, and claimed she was current on payments.
- Officer Mark Poani arrived after being contacted about a “paperwork dispute” related to the repossession.
- The Murrays asserted that Poani refused to review their payment receipts, repeatedly directed Sharon to calm down, sided with the repossession agents, and effectively required the Murrays to allow the vehicle to be taken.
- Poani asserted by affidavit that he acted only to keep the peace, did not take sides, and did not order the Murrays to surrender the car.
- The Murrays filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Poani and the Village of Chatham alleging deprivation of property without due process based on police participation in an allegedly unlawful repossession.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for Poani and the Village, finding no state action and, alternatively, qualified immunity.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was proper where the evidence conflicted on whether the officer exceeded peacekeeping and affirmatively aided a private repossession, creating state action for § 1983 purposes.
2. Whether qualified immunity could be decided on summary judgment despite disputed facts about what the officer did at the scene.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for Officer Poani and the Village and remanded.
- Material fact disputes existed as to whether Poani’s conduct went beyond maintaining order and significantly assisted the repossession.
- Because the immunity analysis depended on the disputed facts and plaintiffs’ version could show a violation of a clearly established right, qualified immunity could not be resolved as a matter of law at the summary-judgment stage.

## Legal Principles

- A § 1983 claim requires deprivation of a protected property interest caused by action under color of state law.
- In a private repossession, an officer’s presence to prevent violence is not, by itself, state action.
- State action may exist if an officer affirmatively intervenes to facilitate the repossession (e.g., using authority to coerce surrender of property or otherwise aiding the taking).
- Summary judgment is improper when genuine disputes of material fact exist; the record is construed in the nonmovant’s favor.
- Qualified immunity generally cannot be resolved on summary judgment when the legality of conduct depends on genuinely disputed facts; if the plaintiff’s version would show a violation of clearly established law, immunity cannot be granted as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that conflicting accounts of the officer’s conduct created triable questions on whether police involvement transformed a private repossession into state action and whether qualified immunity applied, requiring reversal of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.


Murray v. Poani, 980 N.E.2d 1275 (Ill. App. Ct. 4th Dist. 2012)