PITTSBURGH – Counsel for a member of the Pittsburgh Police Department has cited the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act in response to allegations made by a local man who claimed he was assaulted by local police officers in 2013 when he was returning home from a trip to a convenience store alongside his brother.
Beyshaud El first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Pleas on Aug. 2 versus City of Pittsburgh Police Officers Frank Welling and Ryan Warnock. All parties are of Pittsburgh.
“On or about July 2, 2013, at approximately 1:30 p.m. Beyshaud El was at the One Stop Convenience store with his brother, Will El, located on the corner of Frankstown Road and North Homewood Avenue in the Homewood area of the City of Pittsburgh. After purchasing legal items at the ‘One Stop’ convenience store, Beyshaud El and his brother Will exited the store and began walking down North Homewood Avenue toward their home,” the suit said.
“At the time the brothers left the store, Beyshaud El was carrying a pack of menthol cigarettes in his left hand. At that time, Lieutenant Reyne Kacsuta from the Pittsburgh Police Zone 5 station was monitoring activity in the general area of the One Stop Store. Lieutenant Kacsuta alleges that she observed a greenish foil item in Beyshaud El’s left hand and that he looked in the general direction of police officers more than once. Lieutenant Kacsuta did not make any noted observations of Mr. Will El.”
Based on the above observations and uncorroborated allegations during the last year that synthetic marijuana was sold from the “One Stop”, Lieutenant Kacsuta stated in her supplemental report that she had “reasonable suspicion” to stop and detain the brothers, including plaintiff Beyshaud El.
“Lieutenant Kacsuta then pulled her vehicle up to the brothers, who were walking at a normal pace, and ordered both young men to stop. The Lieutenant also initiated a Code Three police alert and called for immediate backup. Beyshaud El and his brother heeded the Lieutenant's demand to stop and emptied the contents of their pockets immediately as back-up officers were within one block. Furthermore, Will El lifted his shirt to show Kacsuta that he had concealed nothing in or around his waist area. At that time, Lieutenant Kacsuta ordered the plaintiff and his brother to the ground they immediately sat down as ordered,” the suit stated.
“At that time, Lieutenant Kacsuta noticed that the ‘green foil’ item that allegedly gave her reasonable suspicion to investigate/ stop the plaintiff was merely a pack of cigarettes. However, Lieutenant Kacsuta did not allow the plaintiff or his brother to leave, claiming that she had to confirm whether Beyshaud El was committing the crime of possessing tobacco as a minor. Despite what appears on a patrol vehicle video to be a review of Beyshaud El’s identification by Lieutenant Kacsuta, both brothers continued to have their freedom of movement restricted as the officers ordered them to remain on the ground.”
During his detainment, Beyshaud El repeatedly stated that he did nothing wrong and that he wanted to go home. Despite the foregoing, the officers ordered him to remain on the ground as he was not free to leave.
After completing what appears to be her review of Beyshaud El’s identification, Lieutenant Kacsuta drops his identification on the ground. As he attempted to retrieve his identification, Lieutenant Kacsuta intentionally stepped on it to increase the tension between the parties and again orders the plaintiff to stay on the ground.
At that time, Beyshaud El again stated that he did nothing wrong, that he and his brother were being harassed, and that he wanted to go home. At that exact time Will El stood up in hopes that he could finally go home.
Despite a complete lack of support from two different patrol vehicle videos, the officers alleged that Will El made a fist with his right hand and made a “punching motion” toward Officer Frank Welling. The suit said video evidence will show that Will El was smoking a cigarette with his right hand, and could not make a fist without first dropping the cigarette.
At that time, Officer Frank Welling attacked Will El knocking him back against a door. As a result of Welling’s’ actions, Will El suffered multiple contusions, lacerations, and abrasions.
After the attack upon his brother, plaintiff Beyshaud El then stood up and Welling placed his hands upon Beyshaud El’s chest. Beyshaud pushed his hands away and he was then tasered by Officer Warnock.
Will El and his brother Plaintiff Beyshaud El were subsequently arrested and charged with aggravated assault on police officers, even though all of the officers at the scene knew that there was no attempt or intent on the plaintiff El’s part to assault any of them. In fact, the charges were meant to cover-up the assault the defendants had initiated upon the plaintiff Beyshaud El.
“On Feb. 11, 2014, District Attorney Stephen Zappala reviewed the videotaped transcript relevant to the police encounter and issued a letter to the parties’ counsel, Celeste Whiteford, ordering that the charges against Will El be withdrawn and the aggravated assault charges against Beyshaud El be amended to a summary disorderly conduct. Instead, for reasons unknown at this time, both plaintiffs were charged with disorderly conduct as opposed to the charges being withdrawn as the letter initially ordered,” per the suit.
“Defendants jointly and severally violated Will El’s and plaintiff Beyshaud El’s Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights by using excessive and unnecessary force in their apprehension, and post-arrest conduct. Defendants jointly and severally caused Will El and plaintiff Beyshaud El to suffer severe and permanent physical and emotional injuries requiring medical treatment together with medical expenses. Further, defendants’ conduct caused plaintiff El’s loss of health, vitality, pain, suffering and humiliation.”
On Aug. 11, Welling was dismissed from the case without prejudice.
UPDATE
Counsel for Warnock filed preliminary objections on Sept. 27, referencing the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act and explaining that the plaintiff’s claims did not overcome it.
“Plaintiffs have failed as a matter of law to assert a cause of action upon which relief may be granted in light of the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 8541, et seq. Officer Warnock is generally immune from suit pursuant to the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. The Tort Claims Act provides that no local agency or its employees shall be held liable for any damages on account of any injury to a person or property caused by any act of a local agency or an employee thereof, or any other persons,” according to the objections.
“Liability arises only if the conduct of a municipality or its employee is an act of negligence which fits into one of a few narrow exceptions enumerated in the Tort Claims Act. Those exceptions are: (a) vehicle liability; (b) care, custody or control of personal property; (c) real property; (d) trees, traffic controls and street lighting; (e) utility service facilities; (f) streets; (g) sidewalks; (h) care, custody or control of animals.”
Warnock’s counsel stated that an employee of a local agency is entitled to the same immunity as his employing local agency and while the plaintiff’s complaint contains allegations of fact in multiple paragraphs, the plaintiff only makes averments relevant to his claims against Officer Warnock in paragraphs 2 and 10.
“The factual allegations, in summary, claim that because Officer Warnock tased plaintiff while he was engaged in a crime that Officer Warnock committed the intentional torts of assault and battery. Plaintiffs’ specific claims are of assault and battery. Plaintiffs do not assert that their claims fall within any of the Tort Claims Act’s enumerated exceptions,” the objections stated.
“A specific review of each of the counts reveals that none of the enumerated exceptions to immunity apply. Assuming arguendo, that the allegations raise a constitutional claim, they are still insufficient to allow for a recovery. Plaintiff failed to properly file this action according to Pennsylvania’s Transfer Statute, 42 Pa.C.S. Section 5103, et seq.”
For a count of assault and battery, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, plus costs of this action, attorney’s fees and such other relief as the Court deems fair and appropriate under the circumstances.
The plaintiff is represented by Todd J. Hollis of Todd J. Hollis Law, in Turtle Creek.
The defendant is represented by Assistant City Solicitor Julie E. Koren and City Solicitor Yvonne S. Hilton, of the City of Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-21-008965
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com