A civil lawsuit filed in federal court alleges that law enforcement officers violated the constitutional rights of two parents by conducting warrantless arrests and seizures at their home following the sudden unexplained death of their young child. The case was brought by Vayda Herrera and Scott Conrad in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on March 2, 2026, naming eight Franklin Police Department officers as defendants.
According to the complaint, Herrera and Conrad are seeking monetary damages under Title 42 U.S.C. §1983 for what they describe as violations of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The lawsuit identifies Christopher Dziadowic, David Crissey, Amy Hempe, Mark Iczkowski, Sgt. Jason Ireland, Sgt. Jeremy Fadness, Detective Shawn Harrison, and Lead Detective Melissa Tromp as defendants in their individual capacities.
The incident began on March 4, 2023, when the plaintiffs’ son Danil died unexpectedly in his sleep. An autopsy later determined there was no discernable cause of death; it was classified as Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood (SUDC). The complaint states that after discovering Danil unresponsive around 6:30 a.m., the parents called 911 and attempted CPR until emergency responders arrived. Police observed that the home was well maintained and found nothing unusual during their initial visit.
While at the scene, Franklin police discovered THC wax and related paraphernalia in a small office but did not issue citations or make arrests at that time. Two days later, an autopsy conducted with Detective Tromp present confirmed no signs of injury or illness that would explain Danil’s death. On March 7, police performed a field test on the seized THC which produced a preliminary positive result for fentanyl—a result later shown to be false by laboratory testing.
The complaint asserts that despite knowing from training that such field tests were unreliable for fentanyl detection without lab confirmation—and understanding that warrants for minor drug possession would likely not be approved—Franklin officers proceeded to plan warrantless arrests at the plaintiffs’ home on March 7. That afternoon, eight named officers entered the residence without consent or a warrant to arrest Herrera and Conrad for drug possession.
The document details how detectives gained entry under what plaintiffs allege were false pretenses—claiming concern for an elderly family member—before signaling other officers to enter for arrests and seizure of cell phones. The plaintiffs state they were detained at the police station for several hours before being released without charges or citations; however, their cell phones remained in police custody over their objections.
Nearly two months later, Detective Tromp reportedly sought confirmation from the Medical Examiner regarding possible fentanyl exposure but was told there was no evidence of illicit substances in Danil’s system; only caffeine and theobromine consistent with chocolate consumption were detected. Laboratory results available by fall 2023 confirmed no fentanyl was present in any items seized from the home.
Despite these findings, more than a year after Danil’s death—and after laboratory results cleared them—the plaintiffs allege they were subjected to a second round of arrests on May 15, 2024. According to court documents, Detective Tromp contacted Herrera under pretense she could retrieve her deceased child’s belongings but instead arrested her again upon arrival at the station; Conrad turned himself in after being notified by police about Herrera’s detention.
Ultimately, prosecutors declined to pursue charges against either parent after reviewing all evidence. A letter issued by the district attorney’s office in March 2025 confirmed no prosecution would occur for child neglect or THC possession.
The complaint argues these actions constituted unreasonable searches and seizures under federal law: “The Defendants conducted warrantless in-home arrests of Plaintiffs, in violation of their constitutional rights to be free of unreasonable seizures guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.” Plaintiffs further claim excessive detention without judicial review or probable cause determination occurred during both incidents.
Herrera and Conrad seek compensatory damages for loss of liberty, emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation, reputational harm, financial losses, as well as punitive damages intended “to deter them [the defendants] and other law enforcement officers from repeating such behavior in the future.” They also request costs associated with litigation including attorneys’ fees.
Attorneys Jeff Scott Olson (State Bar No. 1016284) and Andrea J. Farrell (State Bar No. 1064773) of The Jeff Scott Olson Law Firm represent Herrera and Conrad in this matter. The case is identified as Case No. 2:26-cv-00348.
Source: 226cv00348_Herrera_v_Officer_Christopher_Dziadowic_Complaint_Eastern_District_Wisconsin.pdf
