PITTSBURGH – Trafford Borough police authorities have attempted to counter claims from a couple who lodged various counts against them, describing the officers allegedly abusing their authority in order to retaliate against them.
Jennifer B. and Timothy Sanchez first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on April 14 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,” U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Mark R. Hornak said in an opinion on Aug. 18.
“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, 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.”
UPDATE
Counsel for Trafford Borough and Holmes filed an answer on Sept. 21, denying the majority of the plaintiffs’ claims and asserting eight affirmative defenses.
“Plaintiff Sanchez has withdrawn all his claims and is therefore entitled to no relief. Defendants never violated clearly established law and at all times concerned with this matter acted in a manner which is proper, reasonable and lawful and under the exercise of good faith and as such is entitled to not only qualified immunity but a right not to go to trial as articulated in Mitchell v. Forsythe,” the answer read, in part.
“Defendants thereby assert all official immunity, statutory immunity, common law immunity to all claims asserted under either federal or state law. Defendants acted with probable cause at all times material to plaintiffs’ complaint. Defendant Holmes reasonably relied upon the advice of Westmoreland County Children’s Bureau and is thereby entitled to immunity from all claims asserted by plaintiffs.”
Per the answering defendants, at no time did they violate plaintiff Jennifer B.’s familial interest in the care and custody of the plaintiffs H.J. or S.P. They added that “the facts and circumstances averred in plaintiffs’ complaint fall far short of conduct that could establish a claim for punitive damages that could possibly be recognized under the Pennsylvania or United States Constitution.”
“Defendants assert herein all defenses available to them under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, including, but not limited to, qualified immunity. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs may have failed to mitigate their damages,” per the answer.
The plaintiffs are represented by Joel S. Sansone, Elizabeth Tuttle and Massimo A. Terzigni of the Law Offices of Joel S. Sansone, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Patricia A. Monahan of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, also in Pittsburgh.
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