PHILADELPHIA – The City of Philadelphia argues that a civil rights lawsuit alleging that multiple Philadelphia Police Department officers and assistant district attorneys violated a Philadelphia man and his family’s constitutional rights through illegally-performed narcotics arrests and prosecutions, is unfounded.
Al-Amin Abdul-Jabbar, Shatisha Abdul-Jabbar, Latysa Bell and Sharon Bell first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 5 versus the City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia Police Department Officers Matthew Sibona, Nathan London, Levaun Rudisill, Dietra Cuffie, Officer [FNU] Simmons, Officer [FNU] Floyd, Officer [FNU] Francis, Officers John and Jane Does 1-10 (in their individual and official capacities), the Office of the District Attorney of Philadelphia County, Assistant District Attorneys John and Jane Does 1-10 (in their individual and official capacities). All parties are of Philadelphia.
“On or about the evening of July 19, 2017, Jabbar was performing construction work at the property located at 1237 West Hilton Street, Philadelphia, PA 19133. Jabbar then entered a vehicle belonging to the individual Jabbar was performing said construction work for, in order to purchase additional supplies,” the suit stated.
“Several Philadelphia police officers for no legitimate purpose and without probable cause – stopped the vehicle and ordered the Jabbar out of the vehicle, at approximately Carlisle Street and Allegheny Avenue. Thereafter, several police vehicles arrived on the scene. Jabbar was handcuffed, over $800 was taken from his person, along with his wallet, and Jabbar was placed in a police vehicle.”
After questioning Jabbar, the officers searched the West Hilton Street property. The officers falsely claimed that they found: 1) Crack cocaine in the West Hilton Street property, 2) Marijuana in the vehicle Jabbar had been travelling in when he was initially stopped by police, and 3) A gun in the trunk of said vehicle.
The suit stated that the officers were aware that said evidence had been planted, but proceeded to acquiesce to and participate in the arrest of Jabbar. After alleged false testimony from officers, at court proceedings leading up to trial, Jabbar was taken to trial in June 2019 and acquitted – however, Jabbar remained incarcerated from the time of his arrest until his acquittal.
The situation led to a civil suit being filed by Jabbar in July 2019, which was settled in June 2020 – however, Jabbar faced a second arrest in October 2019.
“On or about Oct. 23, 2019, the defendant officers pulled Jabbar over while he was driving his vehicle to work at or around 2616 North 12th Street, Philadelphia, PA without probable cause. Jabbar voluntarily pulled his vehicle to the side of the street and was immediately surrounded by at least six police vehicles operated by the defendant officers,” per the suit.
“With their firearms drawn, the defendant officers demanded that Jabbar exit his vehicle, but did not explain the reason for their demand or why they pulled his vehicle over. Jabbar demanded that defendant officers produce an arrest warrant, which they refused to do. Jabbar agreed to exit the vehicle and was immediately placed in handcuffs and seated in the back of a police vehicle; however, Jabbar was not read his Miranda rights, shown an arrest warrant, or provided any reasons for his arrest.”
The suit said while Jabbar was detained in the back of a police vehicle, the defendant officers performed an unlawful search and seizure of his automobile, at which time defendant officer Floyd allegedly produced a “safe” from the vehicle which contained narcotics.
However, the suit added the safe that defendant officer Floyd allegedly produced from Jabbar’s vehicle was not present when Jabbar voluntarily exited his vehicle, but rather, that it was allegedly planted by the defendant officers.
The suit continued that the defendant officers went back to his mother and sister’s residence, where Jabbar was staying, knocked down the door, terrorized his mother and sister and attempted to plant the safe that defendant officer Floyd allegedly produced from Jabbar’s vehicle in the property.
“However, the defendant officers’ attempt to plant narcotics in the property was foiled after Latysa Bell witnessed them and exclaimed, ‘That box did not come from this house!” No narcotics, or any illegal items for that matter, were discovered at the property after the defendant officers’ unlawful search and seizure,” the suit said.
“The front door that the defendant officers unlawfully battered down still remains in disrepair and neither Latysa Bell nor Mr. Walker have received any compensation from the City of Philadelphia to repair their door. Further, during the defendant officers’ unlawful search of the property, they caused physical damage to the property and to the personal possessions of Latysa Bell and Sharon Bell which the City of Philadelphia has not compensated them for.”
After three hours of interrogation, Jabbar was transported to Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility on charges of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, criminal use of a communication facility, and possession of a prescription medication without a prescription.
Jabbar remained at CFM until or around Dec. 13, 2020 when the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office dismissed its initial charges against him, but the defendant ADAs represented to the Court that new charges would be filed.
As a result of the representations of the defendant ADAs, the Court placed Jabbar on house arrest for six months while the District Attorney’s Office mulled Jabbar’s new charges.
“During this time, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, through one or more defendant ADAs, re-filed charges against Jabbar on three separate occasions, all of which related to his Oct. 23, 2019 arrest,” the suit stated.
“However, the Court eventually dismissed the charges against Jabbar with prejudice in June 2020, upon a finding that the District Attorney’s Office lacked evidence to support its claims against Jabbar. The defendant ADAs’ filing and re-filing of the charges against Jabbar was done with malice and without probable cause.”
The suit added there has been “a long-standing history of Philadelphia police officers engaging in rampant illegal conduct, particularly involving narcotics arrests.”
UPDATE
In a July 14 motion to dismiss, the City of Philadelphia countered that the plaintiffs had failed to adequately plead a Monell violation.
“Here, plaintiffs fail to adequately plead a municipal liability claim under Section 1983 for multiple reasons. First, plaintiffs’ complaint simply parrots the standard for liability, with no supporting factual allegations of a municipal policy or custom and only the most general of allegations. Second, plaintiffs fail to make any factual allegations regarding the conduct of a municipal policymaker in his complaint. Third, plaintiffs fail to allege prior instances of factually similar police misconduct in temporal proximity to support their failure-to-train based Monell claim,” the dismissal motion said.
A July 22 response to the dismissal motion saw the plaintiffs reiterate their claims.
“Plaintiffs…allege that it was the policy and/or custom of the City to inadequately supervise and train the Philadelphia Police Department officers, including the defendant officers, against a code of silence a.k.a. ‘Blue Code’ of officers refusing to intervene against or provide truthful information against constitutional violations and other unlawful misconduct committed by their fellow officers. Such policies and customs were ratified by leadership and policymakers in the PPD, specifically the PPD Commissioner, Deputy Commissioners, Chief Inspectors and Inspectors,” the response stated.
“These policies and customs, or the lack thereof, caused the PPD officers, including the defendant officers, to believe that their actions would not be properly monitored by their supervisory officers and that their misconduct would not be investigated or sanctioned, but that it would be tolerated. Plaintiffs further allege that the City’s policies and/or customs caused their injuries.”
The plaintiffs also alleged that the City “was aware that its officers have a history of mishandling these situations by, among other acts, planting evidence which almost always leads to the deprivation of constitutional rights.”
For counts of malicious prosecution, malicious use and abuse of process, false arrest, false imprisonment, First Amendment violations, conspiracy to violate civil rights, intentional infliction of emotional distress, common law trespass and loss of consortium, the plaintiffs are seeking a declaratory judgment that defendants’ acts complained of herein have violated and continue to violate their rights, compensatory damages, reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, any other relief this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances and a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
The plaintiffs are represented by Dylan T. Hastings and Mark B. Frost of Frost & Associates, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Shannon G. Zabel of the City of Philadelphia’s Law Department.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-02077
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com