PITTSBURGH – The Pittsburgh Police department cites the immunity provided by the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act in its defense that it is not responsible for harassment and threats received by a Pittsburgh property owner who recorded footage of a violent protest after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
Ashley Zoe Fox of Pittsburgh initially filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Oct. 26 versus the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police, also of Pittsburgh.
“The plaintiff was filming the protest that occurred on May 30, 2020. During that protest, the plaintiff captured video footage that was submitted to the defendant for use in the prosecution of individuals shown damaging the defendant’s property. Plaintiff was assured by Det. Frank Rosato and Det. John Baker, who both work for the defendant, that the submitted evidence would remain completely anonymous,” the suit said.
“On July 15, the defendant released a supplemental report that listed the evidence that was obtained from the plaintiff and the detective in charge of the case did not redact the plaintiff’s name. The plaintiff then received messages referring to them as an informant from colleagues of the person that the plaintiff’s footage was being used to prosecute.”
According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff also received a visit at her home from two individuals, who proceeded to make a terroristic threat against her.
“Failure to redact the plaintiff’s name caused endangerment to the plaintiff, her fiancé and her two roommates. Additional terroristic threats were by an individual in public after [the report] was shared on the social media platform Twitter,” per the suit.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, to cover the dissolution of the plaintiff’s company, the scrapping of a documentary the plaintiff was helping to produce, moving expenses and psychological distress/post-traumatic stress disorder for threats on the plaintiff’s life caused by Det. Rosato’s error, which is alleged to have been admitted as “a mistake that should never have been made.”
UPDATE
Attorneys for the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police filed preliminary objections on Nov. 16, arguing that it is immune from liability, such as the state-law negligence claims alleged here, due to the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act.
Additionally, the department and its counsel argued that it is not a proper legal entity for these proceedings, nor there is a common law tort for “failure to redact” in this action.
“There is no recognized common law claim in Pennsylvania for a municipal employee failing to redact the name of a witness from a document, then ‘releasing’ the document. The actions of a police officer, in ‘releasing’ a report without redacting the name of a witness, is simply not actionable in the Commonwealth. Further, there is no statutory prohibition requiring such a redaction,” the objections read.
For a count of negligence and welfare endangerment, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of $65,000 plus costs and such other or relief as this Court deems equitable and just.
The plaintiff is representing herself in this matter.
The defendant is represented by Michael E. Kennedy of the City of Pittsburgh Solicitor’s Office.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-011086
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com