ALLENTOWN – A Christian pastor arrested during a demonstration just outside Reading Senior High School this past January alleges that the City of Reading and one of its police officers alleges that the ordeal he underwent was due to the authorities having a bias against Evangelical Christians.
Aden Rusfeldt of Pottstown first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 20 versus Officer Cristian Morar, City of Reading Police Officer Badge Number 160, the Reading School District and the City of Reading, all of Reading.
“Rusfeldt is the Pastor of Key of David Christian Center, a nondenominational church that expresses the religious tenets of evangelical, Protestant Christianity. During the afternoon on or about Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2023, Rusfeldt, his wife, and several other persons associated with them peacefully assembled for a demonstration on a public sidewalk in the City of Reading, specifically, at the northwest corner of North 13th Street and Douglass Street. At that location, they stood opposite the Reading Senior High School and at the approximate time that its students were dismissed. During the foregoing demonstration, Rusfeldt’s wife video-recorded the same,” the suit said.
“During the foregoing demonstration, Rusfeldt and his wife and other demonstrators disseminated their religious viewpoints: Rusfeldt held a sign that stated in substance, ‘Stop Sinning,’ ‘Obey Jesus,’ and ‘Hellfire / ChristianInterviews.com,’ with various references from the Bible. One of Rusfeldt’s demonstrators held a sign which read, ‘Repent or Perish.’ Using a megaphone, Rusfeldt called out to students ‘to give your life to Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for your sins and rose from the dead. Jesus Christ has a plan for your life.’ Rusfeldt further called out, using the megaphone, that students need God if any of them were suicidal or depressed.”
The suit added that during the demonstration, a female student of Reading Senior High School crossed North 13th Street and threw water at Rusfeldt from a water bottle.
Some of the students in question, whom the suit said were a few feet away from Rusfeldt, also threw water at him using a water bottle and others shouted, “F— you!,” or flipped their middle finger.
During the demonstration, the plaintiff said security guards employed by the Reading School District “ordered Rusfeldt and his demonstrators to leave or else they would be arrested, intending to harass or humiliate, to violate the constitutional rights of, and to discriminate against the viewpoints of, Rusfeldt and his demonstrators” – and that when Rusfeldt “refused such a request, the same security guards, employed by the Reading School District, contacted the Police Department of the City of Reading and requested a pre-textual basis for the arrest of Rusfeldt and his demonstrators.”
“The same security officers, employed by the Reading School District, held conversations with students but did nothing to protect Rusfeldt or his demonstrators. Morar and Police Officer Badge No. 160 responded to the call from the Reading School District and arrived at the scene of the demonstration. Upon their arrival, several students disbursed or moved back from Rusfeldt and his demonstrators. Rusfeldt informed Morar, Police Officer Badge No. 160, or both or either of them, that Rusfeldt and his demonstrators were exercising their First Amendment rights to speech and to practice religion, and Rusfeldt specifically asked Morar to contact Morar’s supervisor for instruction in this context. Morar refused such requests,” the suit stated.
“Morar asked Rusfeldt to relocate the demonstration to ‘three, four, five blocks’ away from the Reading Senior High School. When Rusfeldt answered that he would in ‘20, 30 minutes,’ Morar stated that he needed to do it now or else Rusfeldt would be arrested for ‘causing a disturbance, disorderly conduct.’ When Rusfeldt refused, Morar proceeded to put plaintiff in handcuffs to the screaming cheers of the onlooking students. Police Officer Badge No. 160 assisted Morar in handcuffing and taking Rusfeldt into physical custody the back of a police car. Rusfeldt’s wife asked Morar why her husband was arrested, and Morar responded, ‘He’s been arrested because you guys almost got jumped.’ After taking Rusfeldt to a police barracks for the Police Department of the City of Reading, Rusfeldt was released without any criminal charges.”
The plaintiff continued that the defendants “used disorderly conduct as a pre-textual arrest for retaliating against protected speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution” and that it is allegedly “the policy of the City of Reading, the Reading School District, or either of them, to instigate, request, or engage in pre-textual, warrantless arrests as a means of discriminating or retaliating against the viewpoints of expressed by adherents of evangelical, Protestant Christianity and the Fourth Amendment rights of such adherents.”
On May 15, Reading School District motioned to dismiss the civil rights violation counts and punitive damages from the case with prejudice, arguing that the plaintiff “attempts to hold a school district liable for civil rights violations because its security guards merely called the police, when there was a volatile exchange between demonstrators and students off of school property.”
“Plaintiff alleges ‘on information and belief’ that it is ‘the policy’ of the City and the District to ‘instigate, request, or engage in pre-textual, warrantless arrests as a means of discriminating or retaliating against’ certain religious viewpoints and the ‘Fourth Amendment rights’ of adherents to such viewpoints. Plaintiff further asserts that the District ‘failed to train’ its security guards or employees. However, in his complaint, plaintiff does not set out any facts in support of any allegations that the District knew any policies or training were insufficient, such as a pattern of prior similar constitutional violations putting the District on notice of the allegedly inadequate policies,” the dismissal motion stated.
“Plaintiff also fails to identify the existing District policies, explain why they were deficient, or identify a policy maker or decision maker who was allegedly aware of such deficiencies. In fact, plaintiff only alleges that the District security guards called police when the incident became volatile. Further, although plaintiff also alleges, without factual foundation, that the police were called to arrest plaintiff and his demonstrators, he concedes no one was arrested.”
The answering defendant also alleged that punitive damages are not recoverable from a municipality, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
The City of Reading and Morar also motioned to dismiss the complaint on July 10.
“Plaintiff, a ‘street preacher’ with a history of instigating conflict by ‘preaching’ in an aggressive and inflammatory manner, brings several meritless claims against moving defendants the City of Reading, Reading Police Officer Cristian Morar and co-defendant the Reading School District, arising from his group’s targeted disruption of the dismissal of a local high school. Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim fails because he has failed to allege any content-based restriction on his speech – instead, he was merely asked to move his demonstration a couple hundred yards down the street – which is a reasonable, content-neutral restriction that clearly passes muster under the First Amendment,” the dismissal motion stated.
“His Fourth Amendment claim likewise fails because plaintiff was not arrested, but merely briefly taken into custody to prevent an escalating conflict and physical assault to plaintiff by angry students and their parents against whom plaintiff directed his verbal attacks and fighting words. The remaining claims likewise fail for lack of any factual support. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against the City of Reading and Officer Morar should be dismissed.”
UPDATE
Plaintiff counsel filed a brief replying to the defense’s motion to dismiss on July 24, saying that the defendants’ conduct was the opposite of what is permitted under the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, the brief termed the defense’s actions as due to “a policy of hostility and discriminatory animus towards Evangelical Christians.
“Moving defendants claim that Officer Morar did not violate Pastor Rusfeldt’s First Amendment rights by verbally ordering him to relocate ‘three, four, five blocks’ away from the Reading Senior High School,’ and then arresting him for failing to comply. That is incorrect. However, it bears mention that moving defendants improperly limited their analysis to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, while Count I embraces all constitutional violations committed by moving defendants whether of the First Amendment or Fourth Amendment, by incorporating the narrative. While moving defendants address the Fourth Amendment in Count IV of the complaint, the complaint put them on notice that Count I is not limited to First Amendment violations. They are also liable under Section 1983 for an unlawful arrest,” the brief stated, in part.
“For Count III, recovery for failure to train under Section 1983, moving defendants want to challenge the sufficiency of the averment whether the City acted with malice or ‘a reckless indifference to the rights of others.’ Not so on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Malice and recklessness ‘may be alleged generally.’ States of mind are not properly challenged by way of demurrer. That the City acted with reckless indifference here is not a legal conclusion but a factual averment admitted for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6). Next, moving defendants’ argue there was no underlying constitutional violation. They fail for the same reasons as stated in Part I. However, it bears mention that moving defendants provide no analysis of plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment violation claim, which is waiver on their part.”
The brief further explained that the defendants’ remaining arguments are legally erroneous and contradictory.
For counts of constitutional rights violations, civil conspiracy, failure to train and false imprisonment, the plaintiff is seeking an unspecified amount in damages, including punitive damages, and such other relief as the court deems necessary, just or appropriate.
The plaintiff is represented by Joel Aaron Ready of Cornerstone Law Firm, in Blandon.
The defendants are represented by Brian Conley and David J. MacMain of MacMain Leinhauser in West Chester, plus Alicia S. Luke and John J. Miravich of Fox Rothschild, in Exton.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:23-cv-01523
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com