PITTSBURGH – Millcreek Township has argued that an Erie man stopped by its police officers after yelling about former President Donald Trump while listening to his car radio was not improperly arrested for disorderly conduct and public drunkenness.
Thomas Sebastian of Erie first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 5 versus Millcreek Township, Patrolman Jose Delgado Jr. and Patrolman Officer No. 2, all of Millcreek Township.
“On Sept. 22, 2022 at approximately 3:30 p.m., the plaintiff, Thomas Sebastian, was traveling in his vehicle heading west along West 12th Street in Millcreek Township. While driving, with his window clown, plaintiff was listening to a radio commentator. Plaintiff stopped for a light at the intersection of West 12th Street and Peninsula Drive, still in Millcreek Township. His car was in the left hand through lane. While sitting at the red light, the plaintiff heard the radio commentator talking about former President Donald Trump. In response to the commentator, the plaintiff shouted three times, ‘F— Donald Trump,” the suit said.
“The radio commentator continued with a reference to former President Trump's family. In response, the plaintiff reacted by shouting, ‘F— Donald Trump and his kids, too.’ This entire episode occurred while the plaintiff was sitting at a steady red light in the left through lane. At no time did the plaintiff approach a curb or display any type of ‘erratic’ driving. At approximately 3:48 p.m., allegedly a ‘report’ was made to the Millcreek Police Department, claiming that a motorist at the light at West 12th Street and Peninsula Drive had been ‘yelling at other vehicles about Donald Trump and almost hit a curb.’ Apparently, the caller provided the Millcreek Police Department with the plaintiff’s license number, as the defendant Jose Delgado, Jr. and Officer No. 2 were dispatched to the plaintiff’s residence at 3082 West 12th Street.”
The suit added the defendant officers proceeded to the plaintiff’s residence and knocked on the door. When the plaintiff opened the door, he says he was surprised to see the defendant officers, who identified themselves and told the plaintiff that they were investigating an incident where a motorist had been screaming expletives about former President Trump.
In response, the plaintiff readily admitted he had done so and that he had every right to verbally express his opinion regarding President Trump while in his own motor vehicle. A five minute-long discussion ensued, and the plaintiff asked the officers to leave.
“Approximately 10 minutes later, the plaintiff realized he had left his phone in his car and went to his car to retrieve it. Plaintiff’s car was parked in his reserved space located on the property of the apartment complex. While retrieving the phone and in his car, plaintiff was suddenly and unexpectedly accosted by the defendant officers. The plaintiff was grabbed from his car, thrown to the ground, had his arms pushed behind his back, and had his face pushed in the dirt. He was then cuffed. Without further explanation, the plaintiff was transported to the Millcreek Township Police Department and held for several hours during which time he was initially refused use of the bathroom. Plaintiff was later charged with disorderly conduct and public drunkenness,” the suit stated.
“The charges were based on the officers’ allegations regarding the incident at plaintiff’s residence which occurred entirely on the plaintiff’s leasehold premises. A hearing was held on Oct. 11, 2022 before the Honorable District Judge Laurie M. Mikielski, after which the plaintiff was found not guilty of both charges. The arrest and other violations of plaintiff’s constitutional and other rights was ratified and further endorsed by the Chief of the MPD, Scott Heidt, who approved of the charges and prosecution, particularly after he viewed body camera video. Chief Heidt publicly stated that the arrest was justified to make sure the plaintiff wasn’t ‘going to get in his car and drive anywhere again.’ Chief Heidt further stated that when the defendant officers went to the plaintiff’s residence ‘he got belligerent with them,’ apparently as additional justification for the arrest. Chief Heidt acknowledged that in approving the filing of charges and prosecution of the plaintiff, Chief Heidt had watched the body camera video of the arrest by the defendant officers.”
Two amended versions of the complaint were later filed, on Feb. 22 and April 13, the first of which substituted Jason Shrader for Patrolman Officer No. 2.
UPDATE
Millcreek Township motioned to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on April 26.
“The plaintiff’s Monell claim against Millcreek Township is legally deficient in that it fails to identify any specific policy, practice or custom of Millcreek Township that is unconstitutional or that was followed by the defendant officers that resulted in a violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Instead, the Monell claim in essence attempts to hold the Township liable for the actions of its police officers by way of a respondeat superior theory of liability which is prohibited in federal civil rights litigation,” according to the township’s dismissal motion.
“In Paragraph 46 including subparagraphs a. through f., plaintiff sets forth the actions of the Millcreek Township Police Department’s former police chief, all occurring after the arrest of Mr. Sebastian, which form the basis of the Monell claim against the Township. Further, in Paragraphs 38 through 40 of the second amended complaint, plaintiff details the actions of the former police chief which support his Monell claim. Each of these alleged actions occurred after the arrest of Mr. Sebastian.”
According to the defendant, the theory against Millcreek Township is that “the Township, through its former police chief, ratified the actions of the defendant police officers after the arrest of Mr. Sebastian by way of the former chief’s alleged public statements justifying Sebastian’s arrest.”
“The factual and legal basis set forth in the second amended complaint is legally inadequate to establish a viable Monell claim against Millcreek Township and therefore, Count II of the plaintiff’s second amended complaint must be dismissed. Given the fact that the plaintiff has already amended his complaint twice, the defendant avers that any further amendment of the complaint in order to attempt to plead a viable Monell claim against Millcreek Township should be denied as futile,” the dismissal motion continued.
For counts of violating the plaintiff’s rights to be exempt from restriction of freedom of speech, unlawful arrest, unlawful use of force and malicious prosecution under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and state law claims of assault, battery, false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, the plaintiff is seeking damages compensatory damages as to all defendants, punitive damages as to defendants Jose Delgado Jr. and Patrolman No. 2, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as to all defendants and such other and further relief as may appear just and appropriate.
The plaintiff is represented by Richard E. Filippi of Filippi Law, in Erie.
The defendants are represented by Patrick M. Carey and G. Michael Garcia II of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, also in Erie.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 1:23-cv-00002
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com