PITTSBURGH – Members of the Aliquippa Police Department have denied that they unlawfully arrested a 24-year-old man, assaulted him while he was in custody and filed false affidavits to justify the arrest after the fact.
Theaughn Lewis of Beaver Falls first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 10 versus Aliquippa Police Department of Johnstown, Officer Bruce A. Tooch Jr. of Coraopolis, Officer Paul Woods and John Doe Officer.
“On Jan. 2, 2023, Lewis was lawfully standing in the front of 419 ½ Allegheny Avenue, West Aliquippa, Pennsylvania, along with Justin Carr and Monica McCutchen. Carr had previously reported his car stolen, and on Jan. 2, 2023, contacted the Police Department to report that he had found his vehicle. The individual defendants (Tooch, Woods and Doe) dispatched to Carr’s home on Allegheny Avenue, apparently to confirm that Carr had recovered the vehicle. The individual defendants encountered Carr, McCutchen and Lewis near the residence. Lewis was not a suspect in the theft. A verbal dispute ensued between Lewis and the individual defendants,” the suit said.
“The individual defendants (Tooch, Woods and Doe), without probable cause to make an arrest, announced that Lewis was under arrest. In the course of making the unlawful arrest, Tooch violently assaulted Lewis without provocation by punching him in the back of the head with closed fists while he was already restrained and on the ground. While assaulting Lewis, Tooch screamed at the terrified Lewis: ‘Now, you’re going to get it. The 150-pound Lewis did not physically resist the individual defendants, and at no point posed any threat to the defendants. The force used by defendants to make an unlawful arrest was unreasonable in light of (1) Lewis’s stature; (2) The fact that there was no cause to make an arrest in the first place; and (3) The facts that he posed no threat to defendants and did not resist.”
The suit added Lewis was arrested for aggravated assault, resisting arrest and obstruction of administration of law.
“As of the filing of this complaint, Lewis remains in the Beaver County Jail, despite having committed no crime. In addition to falsely arresting Lewis, Tooch falsified an arrest affidavit. Tooch falsely stated that, when the individual defendants attempted to arrest Lewis, he refused an order to put his hands behind his back and threw a punch at Woods. Lewis neither refused such an order nor threw a punch. Indeed, the individual defendants never gave Lewis an order to place his hands behind his back. Tooch also falsely stated in an affidavit that McCutchen shoved and jumped on Woods’ back. This did not happen either,” the suit stated.
“As a direct result of the above violent and unprovoked attack, Lewis sustained injuries to his head and face, in addition to mental anguish. Lewis’s injuries were the result of the officers’ direct violation of his constitutional rights. The individual defendants’ action constitute a substantive due process violation, false arrest and imprisonment and excessive use of force, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.”
UPDATE
The defendants filed an answer to the complaint along with affirmative defenses on April 18, denying the plaintiff’s allegations and the version of events initially presented. Rather, they explained the plaintiff had given them just cause to arrest him.
“It is denied that defendants deprived plaintiff of his constitutional rights in any way. To the contrary, plaintiff confronted the defendants and was yelling, screaming, swearing, and threatening all officers on scene. To the extent that a further response is required, any allegations in this paragraph which could impute liability upon defendants is denied. It is denied that defendants deprived plaintiff of his constitutional rights in any way. To the contrary, defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. By further answer, plaintiff refused to lower his voice and curb his obscene language. Plaintiff also refused to comply, pushed Officer Woods, and threw punches at Officer Woods. By further answer, defendants had probable cause to charge plaintiff. To the extent that a further response is required, any allegations in this paragraph which could impute liability upon defendants is denied,” the answer stated, in part.
“It is denied that defendants deprived plaintiff of his constitutional rights in any way. To the contrary, defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. By further answer, defendants had probable cause to charge plaintiff, and defendants did not falsify any aspect of any incident report, criminal complaint, or affidavit of probable cause. To the contrary, plaintiff did refuse to put his hands behind his back and threw a punch at Officer Woods. To the extent that a further response is required, any allegations in this paragraph which could impute liability upon defendants is denied. It is denied that defendants deprived plaintiff of his constitutional rights in any way. To the contrary, defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. By further answer defendants had probable cause to charge plaintiff. Upon information and belief, plaintiff did suffer an injury to his lip; however, after reasonable investigation, defendants lack information necessary to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph related to plaintiff’s alleged injuries. To the extent that a further response is required, any allegations in this paragraph which could impute liability upon defendants is denied.”
The answer also provides numerous affirmative defenses against the allegations.
“Plaintiffs’ amended complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. It is denied that any defendant in any way deprived plaintiff of his constitutional rights. There was probable cause to arrest plaintiff. Defendants assert all common law and statutory immunity and qualified immunity to which they may be entitled. Defendants assert all other defenses available to them under the Civil Rights Act. Defendants are immune from liability because their acts or omissions were objectively reasonable,” the defenses stated.
“Defendants acted in a manner which was objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him. Defendants’ actions were reasonable and lawful. The individual defendants assert the defense of qualified immunity as articulated in Harlow v. Fitzgerald and subsequent cases. The individual defendants assert their right to qualified immunity as a right not to go to trial as set forth in Mitchell v. Forsythe. Defendants are immune from the imposition of damages pursuant to Daniels v. Williams and Davidson v. Cannon. Defendants are not liable for the alleged actions of the Doe defendants because ‘the general rule is that a complaint must name all the parties…’ Plaintiff was afforded all rights and privileges to which he was entitled under the United States Constitution, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and all applicable laws.”
For counts of violating Monell, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $75,000, plus costs, interest and attorney’s fees on each count and legal fees as the Court shall allow.
The plaintiff is represented by Anthony J. Giannetti of Swartz Culleton, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Brian Patrick McLaughlin and Jordan P. Shuber of Dillon McCandless King Coulter & Graham, in Butler.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-00035
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com