PHILADELPHIA – A local man alleges that officers from the Philadelphia Police Department falsified grounds on which to arrest him for narcotics violations, material which was later proven false and led to him being exonerated in a court of law.
Robert Wasiuta filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 5 versus the City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia Police Officer Christopher Hulmes and Philadelphia John Doe Officers 1-10. All parties are of Philadelphia.
According to the suit, for more than 20 years, Philadelphia police officers assigned to various narcotics units “engaged in a pattern and practice of securing search warrants based on fraud and misrepresentation, the misuse of informants, the improper execution of search warrants, the falsification of evidence, the destruction and theft of personal property, improper use of force, coercion and related misconduct” – and that the City “failed to take appropriate remedial measures to prevent misconduct of this nature.”
“On Nov. 6, 2013, Wasiuta was waiting to see his son near the 300 block of East Somerset Street in Philadelphia, PA when multiple police officers, including the police officer defendants, raided the block and unlawfully detained multiple persons, including Wasiuta. Wasiuta was asked to put his hands against a wall and he complied. Wasiuta was searched multiple times and no narcotics were found on his person. Defendant Holmes and other police officer defendants approached Wasiuta, planted narcotics on his person, and falsely claimed that that the narcotics belonged to Wasiuta,” the suit says.
“Wasiuta was arrested and charged with narcotic-related offenses based on defendant Hulmes’ false assertions that Wasiuta possessed illegal narcotics. The police officer defendants participated in the false arrest, imprisonment and prosecution of Wasiuta, knowing that the allegations against him were fabricated. The police officer defendants gave false statements concerning the incident described in the complaint. Subsequent to the unlawful detention and arrest of Wasiuta, the police officer defendants prepared and caused to be prepared police paperwork intentionally misrepresenting the events that led to the arrest of Wasiuta. These misrepresentations were intentional, malicious, in bad faith, deliberately indifferent and recklessly indifferent to Wasiuta’s rights.”
The suit adds that exculpatory information known to police that was not provided to Wasiuta included “the real facts and circumstances of the incident” and that misrepresentations contained in the affidavit were the only probable cause for the events in question – and that without them, there was no reason to arrest or prosecute Wasiuta.
Furthermore, the suit alleges that the police officer defendants provided prosecutors from the District Attorney’s Office with “false, misleading and incomplete information regarding their investigation in this case, in an effort to obtain the District Attorney’s approval for Wasiuta’s prosecution.”
“A preliminary hearing was held on Nov. 21, 2013, at which time the charges against Wasiuta were held for court. On Jan. 9, 2014, Wasiuta was forced to plead guilty to narcotic related offenses due to the fabrication of evidence and testimony by the defendant police officer. On Feb. 10, 2014, Wasiuta was sentenced to a 12 month-term of imprisonment, six months of house arrest and probation for a period of three years,” the suit states.
“Upon information and belief, on April 23, 2015, after the conviction of Wasiuta, defendant Hulmes was arrested and charged with perjury, false swearing, false reports, tampering with public records and unsworn falsification to authorities. Defendant Hulmes’ arrest emanated from a December 2011 hearing in which defendant Hulmes admitted to lying under oath in a drug and gun case against the defendant in the case of Commonwealth v. Rowland. Despite this revelation, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office concealed this fact, and failed to turn over this evidence of police misconduct to defense attorneys until the matter was exposed in the media. The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office continued to use defendant Hulmes in the prosecution of criminal cases until defendant Hulmes’ arrest in April 2015. Upon information and belief, on June 17, 2016, defendant Hulmes negotiated a plea bargain with the prosecution and received accelerated rehabilitative disposition (ARD).”
On April 23, 2021, Wasiuta was granted a new trial as a result of his criminal defense attorney’s filing of a motion for new trial based upon after-discovered evidence/post-conviction relief act petition/writ of habeas corpus, asserting that Wasiuta was entitled to a new trial based on defendant Hulmes’ and his fellow police officer defendants’ corrupt and dishonest conduct in connection with their duties as police officers.
“On April 23, 2021, the District Attorney’s motion to nolle prosse all the charges was granted…because of the police officer defendants' history of corruption and dishonest conduct, including fabricating and planting evidence, as well as repeated preparation of bogus paperwork and similar activities,” the suit states.
For counts of federal civil rights violations against both the City of Philadelphia and the individual police officers, supplemental state law claims of false arrest/false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, negligent infliction of emotional distress, outrageous conduct causing emotional distress, defamation, abuse of process, invasion of privacy and bystander liability against the individual officers, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, other declaratory and further relief as appears reasonable and just, and a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by James A. Wells of Gay & Chacker, in Philadelphia.
The defendants have not yet secured legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-00051
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com