ALLENTOWN – After three years of litigation, a New Jersey man jailed by Bethlehem authorities for allegedly soliciting sex with what he believed was a 14-year-old girl has lost his case against law enforcement authorities, which claimed he was falsely taken into custody and imprisoned in the sting operation that resulted in his arrest.
R.A. Saultz of Phillipsburg, N.J. first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 9, 2019 versus the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office, Attorney General Josh Shapiro, Special Agent Eric Barlow of the AG’s Office, the City of Bethlehem, its mayor Robert Donchez, its chief of police Mark DiLuzio and Bethlehem Police Department members Sgt. Michael Leaser, Sgt. John Doe and Officer Dawn Heuser, all of Bethlehem.
(All defendants except for Barlow, Leaser and Heuser were later dismissed from the case.)
On Dec. 10, 2017, Saultz was driving home from work and communicating over email and telephone with an individual purporting to be a 14-year-old girl. However, Saultz claims that he did not believe the person he was speaking with was a minor, and instead “an older individual who was engaged in role playing.”
The individual involved requested Saultz, then 55 years old and now age 57, meet at the Hyatt Place hotel in Bethlehem.
“Out of pure curiosity, plaintiff agreed to meet the individual at the designated location,” the suit stated.
As Saultz approached Hyatt Place, the suit continues that he stopped all communication with the other individual and decided to drive home instead, without stopping, parking or exiting his vehicle at any time.
In fact, the supposed 14-year-old minor was defendant Barlow – participating in a sting operation coordinated with the Attorney General’s Office, and assisted by defendants Leaser, Doe and Heuser, as well as the Bethlehem Police Department.
Leaser, Doe and Heuser were in full uniform on the night in question and positioned in the proximity of Hyatt Place. When Saultz decided to drive home, Barlow made contact with the three officers and directed them to arrest the plaintiff.
Heuser then stopped Saultz’s vehicle at the intersection of New and Broad streets in Bethlehem, and was quickly backed up by Leaser and Doe.
According to Saultz, the officers said they stopped his car due to a report of another one matching its description causing damage to other vehicles in the nearby vicinity.
While not finding any damage to his vehicle, Saultz said the officers claimed to smell alcohol on his breath, ordered him out of the vehicle and arrested him. At that point, Barlow arrived and took possession of the plaintiff’s cell phone, while Saultz was transported to the Bethlehem Police Department headquarters.
At police headquarters, Saultz said Barlow ordered him to unlock his phone and proceeded to examine its entire contents, without probable cause or a search and seizure warrant.
While Saultz was confined for driving under the influence, Barlow filed criminal charges of unlawful contact with a minor, attempted involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and criminal use of a communication facility.
However, Saultz adds the officers never filed charges of driving under the influence against him and when another officer allegedly asked Barlow how they were able to stop Saultz’s vehicle, Barlow allegedly responded, “I gave him the old B.S. ruse to get him out of the car. It worked.”
Bail was set at $200,000 and Saultz was then transported to Northampton County Prison, where he remained for four days. During that time, Saultz’s arrest was publicized in the media and his employer terminated him from his job.
At a subsequent preliminary hearing on the charges held on Jan. 31, 2018, Saultz said Barlow gave false testimony as to the circumstances of the arrest, specifically, that he examined Saultz’s cell phone at the scene and before he was transported to police headquarters.
As a result of Barlow’s allegedly perjured testimony, the charges were held over for trial. New charges of criminal attempt statutory sexual assault and criminal attempt indecent assault were added to Saultz’s rap sheet.
But, after intervention from Assistant Attorney General Michelle A. Laucella and due to her concern over Barlow’s alleged history of providing perjured testimony before the Court, Laucella dismissed all criminal charges against Saultz.
In a pre-trial memorandum dated April 8, 2021, counsel for Saultz pointed to, among other things, the results of a psychological evaluation and sexual risk assessment from clinical and forensic psychologist Frank M. Dattilio, Ph.D.
“There is no indication that Mr. Saultz has skyped or engaged in any other type of webcam sexual activity with underage females or anyone else for that matter. He has no history of illegal sexual activity or illegal behaviors otherwise, and has for the most part, led a fairly decent law-abiding life,” Dattilio said.
“It is therefore my opinion to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty that while Mr. Saultz does have some serious issues with regard to his need for affection and intimacy, he does not possess the internal drive to seek out minors for sexual gratification.”
The memorandum added that Saultz had previously used Craigslist to role-play and correspond with other site users, who were required to be at least 18 years of age to use the service. Therefore, on the night in question, he believed he was doing the same.
“In his communications on Dec. 9, 2017, plaintiff used the terms ‘princess,’ ‘little’ and ‘daddy,’ which was terminology used by individuals who engaged in role playing on Craigslist and referred to as ‘daddy-little’ role playing. Plaintiff’s use of these ‘daddy-little’ terms would have alerted the person with whom he was communicating that plaintiff was involved in role playing,” the memorandum said.
“Defendant Barlow, at the time that he was communicating with plaintiff, should have been aware of plaintiff’s prior communications with representatives of the Attorney General’s Office, including plaintiff’s communications with the ‘wild child’ ad, which required participants to be 18 years of age or older. Plaintiff’s referring to himself as ‘daddy’ while communicating through the Craigslist ‘wild child’ ad, as well as plaintiff’s communications to other Attorney General operatives, should have alerted defendant Barlow that plaintiff was participating in ‘daddy-little’ role playing.”
UPDATE
In a memorandum order published on Dec. 8, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge John M. Younge granted previously-filed motions for summary judgment from defendants Leaser, Heuser and Barlow – finding they were entitled to immunity from Saultz’s claims.
“Even assuming, however, that the defendants lacked probable cause to arrest plaintiff, they are immune from Section 1983 liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate ‘a clearly established right’ as officers can ‘reasonably but mistakenly conclude that probable cause is present.’ Looking at the legal landscape, a reasonable officer could have interpreted the law as permitting plaintiff’s arrest considering his suspicious behavior,” Younge said.
“There is no dispute that plaintiff engaged in sexually charged communications with defendant Barlow’s 14-year-old persona and then acted on those conversations by driving 70 miles to the Hyatt Hotel on Dec. 9, 2017. Although plaintiff states that he mistakenly thought he was messaging an older woman, this is contradicted by the fact that he had been told he was communicating with a 14-year-old and he made no attempt to clarify that he was, in fact, speaking to someone over 18 years old. But even if this Court were to accept this unsupported factual assertion as true, plaintiff does not cite to any controlling case law holding that officers cannot infer a suspect’s guilty state of mind based on his conduct alone, or that officers must accept a suspect’s innocent explanations at face value. Nor does plaintiff bring forth any authority, and we can find none, holding that probable cause to arrest is lacking when an individual drives over an hour to meet a purported minor for sex and is observed at the agreed-upon meeting site, in the correct car model after confirming his arrival.”
In short, Younge said the defendants “had reasonable grounds to believe that probable cause was present” and that it was “reasonable for law enforcement officers to assume that individuals do not drive 70 miles to meet someone purporting to be a minor late at night, after hours of sexually explicit conversations agreeing to meet, unless they intended to act on those conversations.”
“This Court finds that it would not have been clear under well-established law to a reasonable officer that they lacked probable cause or that it was constitutionally impermissible to stop, handcuff, and arrest plaintiff under the circumstances of this case. The defendants are thus entitled to qualified immunity,” Younge stated.
As for Saultz’s state law claims, Younge also found the defendants were immune from those also.
The plaintiff was represented by Fredrick E. Charles of The Charles Law Group, in Allentown.
The defendants were represented by Kathy Le of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office in Philadelphia, plus David J. MacMain and Janelle E. Fulton of The MacMain Law Group, in West Chester.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:19-cv-05778
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com