against the City of Chicago, Chicago police officer James Bruce, EAR, and Pantalena. However, the City of Chicago and officer Bruce already filed a motion for summary judgment that this court denied. Defendants EAR and Pantalena now move for summary judgment on counts I, II, IV, V, and VI — the only counts against them. Because the court has already denied the City’s and officer Bruce's motion for summary judgment, this Opinion will only discuss Doe's claims as they pertain to defendants EAR and Pantalena. 2 . In the court's order denying the City's and officer Brace's motion for summary judgment, the court found a genuine issue of material fact over whether there was probable cause to arrest Doe. See, e.g., Moore v. Marketplace Restaurant, Inc., 754 F.2d 1336, 1345 (7th Cir.1985)
holding that an illegal arrest occurred when the defendant was transported without probable cause from his home to the police station for fingerprinting and that the line is crossed when the police without probable cause or a warrant forcibly remove a person from his home or other place in which he is entitled to be and transport him to the police station where he is detained although briefly for investigative purposes holding a fact question exists regarding probable cause where a citizen provided inaccurate information to the police and the police made an arrest without conducting a reasonable investigation holding that a determination of probable cause does not bar a state law malicious prosecution claim where the claim is based on the police officers supplying false information to establish probable cause holding that a police officer who secures an arrest warrant without probable cause cannot assert an absolute immunity defense holding that police were justified in arresting person on basis of information provided directly to police by named citizen informer reliance on the information was justified in part because the informant by giving her name presumably knew that the police could arrest her for making a false report