SCRANTON – Along with the Pike County District Attorney’s Office, the Pennsylvania State Police is seeking to dismiss civil rights violations claims from the parents of a man who committed a murderous attack against a Pennsylvania State Police barracks in 2014, for what they feel was an unlawful seizure of their cache of firearms.
Eugene Michael Frein and Deborah Frein of Canadensis filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on June 10 versus the Pennsylvania State Police of Harrisburg, plus the Pike County District Attorney’s Office, Pike County District Attorney Ray Tonkin and John/Jane Does I-V, all of Milford.
The plaintiffs are the parents of Eric Frein, who shot and killed Pennsylvania State Trooper Byron K. Dickson II and wounded Pennsylvania State Trooper Alex Douglass on Sept. 12, 2014, at a State Police barracks in Blooming Groove.
After 48-day manhunt, Frein was captured at an abandoned airport in the Poconos on Oct. 30, 2014.
On April 19, 2017, Frein was found guilty on the slew of charges he faced, which included first-degree murder and attempted murder, and then on April 27, Frein was formally sentenced to death by lethal injection. Frein now awaits execution on death row at SCI-Greene, a maximum security state prison.
The plaintiffs’ lawsuit hearkens back to Sept. 16, 2014, when the Pennsylvania State Police executed a search warrant at their Monroe County home, in Canadensis.
During the execution of the warrant, authorities seized a long list of weapons and technology belonging to the plaintiffs – including 19 pistols, 25 rifles, two shotguns, ammunition and reloading supplies, camera memory cards, compact discs, two IBM laptops, one VHS camcorder and videotape.
“The aforementioned property had no evidentiary value in the criminal case against Eric Frein and was not used in his criminal trial. Even if such evidence were utilized, Eric Frein has lost his direct appeal. The United State Supreme Court has denied review. This property belongs to plaintiffs, not Eric Frein,” the suit stated.
“This property was not contraband and was legally obtained, owned and used by plaintiffs. As of the filing of this complaint, defendants continue to hold the aforementioned property, despite requests for its return. Defendants have provided no compensation to plaintiffs as a result of taking their property. Defendants all continue to object to the return of plaintiffs’ property for no lawful or valid reason.”
The Pike County District Attorney’s Office and Tonkin filed a motion to dismiss the Freins’ lawsuit on Aug. 3, contending that the possessions were seized in the course of serving a lawful search warrant, and thus no violation of the law occurred.
“First, plaintiffs’ Unlawful Taking Claim (Count I) pursuant to the 4th Amendment, fails as the property at issue was seized pursuant to a warrant, and is presently maintained pending the appellate process of Eric Frein’s criminal case. Plaintiffs’ additional contention in Count I that the property was taken in violation of the 5th Amendment also fails, as it was seized pursuant to a lawful search warrant, and thus is not a ‘taking’ justifying compensation pursuant to the 5th Amendment,” the motion read in part.
“Plaintiffs’ final assertion of Unlawful Taking Claim in Count I pursuant to the 14th Amendment also fails given that the basis for the seizure was a warrant, and the fact that the D.A.’s Office has not attempted to execute a forfeiture against the property. Finally, plaintiffs’ Count II – Right to Bear Arms – pursuant to the Second Amendment fails as a matter of law, as the maintenance in evidence of the firearms at issue by the D.A.’s Office while Eric Frein’s appeals process remains ongoing, does not preclude plaintiffs from the purchase and ownership of additional firearms.”
UPDATE
The Pennsylvania State Police filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted on Aug. 18.
According to the state police, the Freins have not shown that their Constitutional rights were violated and such claims should fail as a matter of law – and thus, the case in its entirety should be dismissed.
For counts of civil rights violations for unlawful taking under the Fourth, Fifth and 14th amendments and the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs, injunctive relief directing return of the property and/or any other relief the Court deems just.
The plaintiffs are represented by Cornelius J. Rotteveel and Curt M. Parkins of Comerford Law, in Scranton.
The Pike County District Attorney’s Office and Tonkin are represented by David J. MacMain of MacMain Law Group, in Malvern.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 3:20-cv-00939
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com