PITTSBURGH – The City of Pittsburgh denies allegations that it wrongfully arrested a local woman for a stabbing incident that occurred in the city, due to a case of mistaken identity.
Desiree Pinkston of New Kensington first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 23 versus the City of Pittsburgh, Officer Morgan J. Logan and John Doe officers, all of Pittsburgh.
“On Thursday, Sept. 19, 2019 City of Pittsburgh police officers, including defendant Morgan J. Logan caused a criminal complaint to be issued against Pinkston, based on an affidavit of probable cause prepared by Logan as the charging officer, concerning a stabbing incident that occurred in the East Hills section of the City of Pittsburgh,” the suit stated.
“That complaint charged Pinkston with nine serious criminal offenses, most felonies, including one count of criminal conspiracy to commit criminal homicide; three counts of aggravated assault; three counts of criminal conspiracy to commit aggravated assault and one count of riot and one count of disorderly conduct.”
However, Pinkston said she has no involvement in the crimes which occurred.
“On Sunday, Sept. 22, 2019 at 11 a.m. Pinkston was arrested at her home, handcuffed and taken into custody in the presence of her 12-year old daughter. While she was being arrested, Pinkston asked the arresting officer(s) if this had to do ‘with what I saw in the news.’ Officer Morgan J. Logan was the principal arresting officer. The officer(s) responded ‘Yes, it involves your sister, Shaylon Pinkston,” per the suit.
“Plaintiff Pinkston responded, ‘She is not my sister’ and proceeded to show arresting officers a current Pennsylvania State I.D. showing that she was not the person officers thought she was. While being processed, arresting officers asked to see plaintiff Pinkston’s lower left leg looking for a certain tattoo. Pinkston showed her lower left leg, which failed to show the tattoo officers were looking for.”
Pinkston alleged that prior to her arrest, Pittsburgh police officers failed to show photos of her to the victims of the crimes alleged and failed to conduct any other type of identification procedures.
“On Sept. 22, 2019, Pinkston was arraigned before a Magistrate in the Pittsburgh Municipal Court at which time: She was informed of the nine charges filed against her; Bail was set in the amount of $20,000, which she was unable to initially post, and a preliminary hearing was set for Sept. 30, 2019 in the Pittsburgh Municipal Court,” the suit stated.
“Pinkston was incarcerated at the Allegheny County Jail for a period of 24 hours before her release after posting bail through Liberty Bail Bonds and paying a non-refundable fee in the amount of $1,000. While at the jail, she was assaulted on the afternoon of Sept. 22, 2019, and sought medical treatment following her release at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (St. Margaret’s).”
After bond was posted, Pinkston was released from the County Jail on Monday, Sept. 23, 2019 at 11:30 a.m. The arrest and incarceration caused Pinkston to miss work at her union job at Smithfield Foods.
“When plaintiff Pinkston met with the Office of the Public Defender on Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2020 she was notified by that office that the criminal case was withdrawn by the Office of the District Attorney, and all criminal charges were dismissed, due to ‘mistaken identity,” per the litigation.
“It is believed, and, therefore it is averred that the City of Pittsburgh police officers arrested Pinkston based on her last name and nothing more. After Pinkston’s arrest and incarceration, but not before, City of Pittsburgh police officers showed photos of plaintiff Pinkston to the victims of the alleged assault. The victims stated to the officers that Pinkston was not the perpetrator of the assault.”
An amended version of the complaint was filed on Dec. 29.
UPDATE
The City answered the complaint on Feb. 11, largely denying the account and claiming it “lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the truth of [these allegations].” Otherwise, the City referred to certain allegations as “legal conclusions that requires no response.”
In affirmative defenses, the City claims it is not responsible for the events at issue.
“Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and was subject to a use of force and a seizure prior to arrest and/or incarceration. Accordingly, he has no cognizable claim for a violation of any rights provided to him by the Eighth Amendment. The actions of the defendant Logan were objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Defendants assert all defenses available to them under the Civil Rights Act of 1871,” the answer stated.
“At all relevant times, defendant Logan acted reasonably and in good faith, and/or reasonably believed that his conduct in and under the circumstances then and there existing, was authorized or required by law and/or not contrary to any clearly established law, thereby entitling him to qualified immunity in accordance with established federal jurisprudence, and official immunity in accordance with applicable state law.”
Additionally, the City asserted it has “reasonable and appropriate training, supervision and discipline policies applicable to the police department.”
“To the extent that discovery reveals that plaintiff was in any way responsible for the assault allegedly perpetrated against he while she was in custody, defendants assert that she would then either have assumed the risk of, or be contributorily negligent for any injuries she received in such an assault. To the extent that discovery reveals that plaintiff failed to take any steps to reduce or eliminate any alleged damages she asserts, defendants asset a failure to mitigate as an affirmative defense,” per the answer.
For counts of violating the Fourth Amendment through false arrest and malicious prosecution, the plaintiff is seeking a declaratory judgment explaining that defendants violated plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights; damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, against defendants for violating plaintiff’s rights under the U.S. Constitution and for physical and emotional distress injuries resulting therefrom; An order awarding plaintiff the costs incurred in this litigation, including attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988; and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Michael J. Healey of Healey Block, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Michael E. Kennedy, Emily McNally, Julie E. Koren and Yvonne Schlosberg Hilton, of the City of Pittsburgh’s Law Department.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-01435
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com