Quantcast

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Monday, May 20, 2024

Philadelphia pays $15K to settle claims of unreasonable search of 11-year-old

Federal Court
Philadelphiapolicedepartment

Philadelphia Police Department | File Logo

PHILADELPHIA – The parent of a child who claimed he was subjected to an unreasonable search by two Philadelphia Police Department officers two years ago has accepted a $15,000 offer to settle the case.

X.J. (a minor, by his parent and natural guardian, Yesinia Negron) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 5 versus Philadelphia Police Department Officers Keen and Rycek. All parties are of Philadelphia.

“On April 12, 2020, at approximately 4:57 p.m., plaintiff X.J., who was 11 years old at the time, was bringing his bicycle up the steps at the home of his aunt. At the above time and place, he was approached by Defendant Officers Keen and Rycek. Officer Rycek and/or Officer Keen yelled out to plaintiff, ‘Hey buddy.’ Plaintiff stopped and turned to face the officers. Plaintiff was carrying a backpack,” the suit says.

“Without asking for consent and without probable cause that plaintiff was carrying any contraband, Officer Keen and/or Officer Rycek took plaintiff’s backpack from him and searched it. After conducting the illegal search of plaintiff’s bag, Defendant Officer Keen and/or Rycek then, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, conducted an illegal pat-down and frisk of plaintiff’s body.”

The suit reiterated that there was no reason for the officers to have done this.

“At no time relevant hereto did either Officers Keen or Rycek have any reason to believe that plaintiff had committed or was in the process of committing any crime or engaging in any illegal activity. Plaintiff was detained by the officers without reasonable suspicion, much less probable cause for approximately 10 minutes. At no time relevant hereto did either of the officers have reasonable suspicion or probable cause that plaintiff had engaged or was engaging in any criminal or illegal activity,” the suit states.

In a May 2 answer to the complaint, the defendants unanimously denied the plaintiff’s claims.

UPDATE

On Aug. 15, the plaintiff filed a motion to approve settlement of a minor, after having received a settlement offer of $15,000 from the defense.

“The defendant police officers do not admit liability, but rather contend they acted reasonably at all times. It is the professional opinion of the undersigned counsel that the offer of settlement is reasonable and in the best interest of the minor plaintiff. If the Court approves this settlement, distribution of the settlement funds would be as follows:

• Total Settlement = $15,000

• To Minor Plaintiff = $10,000

• To Patrick G. Geckle, Plaintiff Counsel = $5,000

• To Clerk, Filing of Complaint = $402

“Counsel was retained on a one-third contingent fee basis. The above-referenced costs will be absorbed by counsel and the minor plaintiff will not be charged for these costs. Pursuant to Rule 41.2 of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the full amount of the minor’s settlement proceeds, $10,000, will be placed in a federally-insured account marked with the restriction ‘not to be withdrawn until the minor attains his majority or upon further order of a Court of competent jurisdiction.”

Subsequently, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Richard Barclay Surrick authorized the parties’ stipulation to dismiss defendant Rycek.

“Upon consideration of the parties’ stipulation that all claims against defendant Police Officer Rycek be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is ordered that the stipulation is granted. Defendant Police Officer Christopher Rycek is dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs,” Surrick said.

Prior to settlement and for counts of violating rights against unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and state law counts of battery and false imprisonment, the plaintiff was seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs and such other and further relief as appears reasonable and just.

The plaintiff was represented by Patrick G. Geckle of the Law Offices of Patrick G. Geckle, in Philadelphia.

The defendants were represented by Michelle V. Barone of the City of Philadelphia Law Department’s Civil Rights Unit.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-01304

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News