WILLIAMSPORT – A New Jersey man claims that a Pennsylvania State Police officer unreasonably searched his car by threatening to have the car towed and impounded, despite an alleged lack of probable cause.
Kevin Horton of Hillsborough, N.J. filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 25 versus Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Matthew G. Mills Jr., of Lamar.
“In the late afternoon of Jan. 26, 2022, plaintiff was driving a rented 2020 Chrysler Pacifica on Interstate 80 Eastbound at a pace equal to surrounding traffic. Plaintiff was returning from Pittsburgh, where he had visited his son who was attending the University of Pittsburgh. In the vicinity of Greene Township, Clinton County, Pennsylvania defendant pulled plaintiff over. After plaintiff pulled his car over to the side of the road, defendant came to plaintiff’s driver side window and stated that plaintiff was speeding at 74 miles per hour in a 65 mile-per-hour zone and ‘maybe’ had swerved. Plaintiff, who is Black, responded with words to the effect of: ‘You know why you really pulled me over, but you know what, I’ll be nice to you,” the suit states.
“The defendant took possession of plaintiff’s driver’s license and registration information for the rental car and then engaged plaintiff in a lengthy inquiry about his travel to Pittsburgh, his son, where he stayed and many other questions completely unrelated to any possible vehicle code violation. This questioning went so long that plaintiff even showed defendant a picture of his son who played for the University of Pittsburgh basketball team in order to placate the defendant. At no point after initially advising the plaintiff that he had been pulled over for speeding at 74 miles per hour in a 65 mile-per-hour zone and maybe had swerved, did the defendant ask plaintiff any question about the alleged violation for which plaintiff had been pulled over. After his extensive questioning of plaintiff, defendant advised plaintiff that he was suspicious of plaintiff because he was ‘too nice.”
The suit continues the defendant than asserted to plaintiff that there are probably drugs in the car, to which plaintiff responded there were not and that he does not do drugs or even drink alcohol. At that point, the defendant then requested to search the plaintiff’s car, to which the plaintiff responded words to the effect of: “No, we’re done.”
“The defendant responded to the plaintiff’s refusal to voluntarily consent to a search by telling him that if he did not consent, defendant would have plaintiff’s car towed, impounded and then searched. Defendant’s assertion that plaintiff’s vehicle would be towed, impounded and searched if he did not consent to a search was made by defendant with knowledge that he had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to justify a search, and that plaintiff was not free to leave the stop because defendant had plaintiff’s license and registration. At this point, plaintiff was at least three hours from home, knew no one in the general geographic area, and would have been stranded if his car had been towed and impounded, but he still did not consent to a search,” the suit says.
“Defendant called for assistance at some point and another State Police vehicle arrived at the traffic stop approximately one-half hour after the initial stop, and the Trooper exited his car and approached the traffic stop. At this point, plaintiff believed defendant would undoubtedly make good on his threat to tow and impound his car and he permitted the search of his car. By virtue of his assertion to tow and impound plaintiff’s vehicle, continued possession of plaintiff’s license and registration and calling of another state police unit for backup, the defendant deprived plaintiff of the ability to leave or to make a free and voluntary consent to a search of his car. The defendant searched plaintiff’s car and the plaintiff’s overnight bag, which was in the car. The search revealed nothing illegal, plaintiff was not issued a traffic ticket of any kind, his license and registration were returned after the search was completed and plaintiff was permitted to resume his trip home, after being stopped and held for approximately 40 to 45 minutes.”
For counts of unreasonable search, retaliation under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, violation of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, state law false arrest and false imprisonment, the plaintiff is seeking costs, attorney fees, punitive damages and any such other relief as the court deems just and appropriate.
The plaintiff is represented by Michael Zicolello of the Schemery & Zicolello, in Williamsport.
The defendant has not yet retained legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 4:23-cv-01768
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com