PITTSBURGH – A federal judge in Western Pennsylvania has denied police authorities in Trafford Borough their attempt to dismiss counts from a couple who lodged various counts describing the officer abusing their authority in order to retaliate against them.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Mark R. Hornak issued the ruling on Aug. 18, in Jennifer B. and Timothy Sanchez’s case against Trafford Borough, its Police Officers Cory Holmes and Adam Hlad, plus Police Chief Carmen Disso.
“The plaintiffs allege that the defendants caused the unjustified removal of two minor children from the home of the plaintiff mother (Jennifer B.) under false pretenses – namely that the police were instructed to remove the children by Children and Youth Services,” Hornak said.
“They also allege that the defendants sought to force Jennifer B.’s father to evict her from the residence she leased from him, and to cause him to be fined if he did not do so, in retaliation for the plaintiff/mother’s threat of legal action against the police officers for the removal of her children.”
Hornak addressed the other named plaintiff in the action also.
“Plaintiff Timothy Sanchez – in a romantic relationship with plaintiff Jennifer B. – also claims he is a victim of unconstitutional retaliation for his association with plaintiff Jennifer B, alleging that, without evidence or probable cause, the defendant police officers cited him for operating a motor vehicle without a license because of that romantic relationship.”
The plaintiffs sued the defendants for counts of familial integrity, fabrication of evidence, retaliation and municipal liability on April 14, and the defendants sought to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims on July 1.
“The question is whether, on the date of the alleged violation as to Sanchez, that right – that is the right to not be sanctioned by force of law for the fact of a romantic or intimate relationship with another consenting adult – had been clearly established such that every reasonable police officer would have understood that what he was doing (as alleged by Sanchez here) violated that right. The Court concludes that it was,” Hornak said.
“Here, the complaint expressly pleads that defendant Holmes charged Sanchez with a motor vehicle code violation, without probable cause, in order to retaliate against Sanchez for Sanchez’s ‘romantic’ association with Jennifer B., an association facially protected by the 1st and 14th Amendments.”
Hornak concluded that established Supreme Court and Circuit court decisions “plainly and unequivocally identify the protected rights and the allegedly unconstitutional conduct in the context of the violations pleaded here with sufficient precision to defeat a claim of qualified immunity.”
Hornak said every police officer, perhaps even the “plainly incompetent”, would have known that they could not bring an adverse criminal or otherwise punitive charge against an adult based on the fact of that adult having an otherwise lawful consensual romantic or intimate relationship with another adult.
“Given the clarity and applicability of the Supreme Court precedent noted above, and the direct nature of the Constitutional violation alleged by Sanchez in this case, this is a claim that matches the precedents. Here…the claim asserted is that the plaintiff Sanchez was directly sanctioned because of the very existence of the protected relationship. Therefore, the clearly established law is in fact ‘particularized to the facts of the case,” Hornak said.
“The Court concludes that such is a right that was sufficiently beyond dispute at the relevant time such that every police officer was on notice that he could not seek to impose a sanction on one adult because of that adult’s otherwise lawful and consensual romantic or intimate relationship with another. The Court will therefore deny the application of qualified immunity without prejudice. The partial motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice. The plaintiff Sanchez’s stand-alone claim for fabrication of evidence (Count II) is deemed withdrawn.”
The defendants were ordered to file their answers within 21 days.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-00542
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com