ALLENTOWN – A Lehigh County woman maintains allegations that in response to a wellness check call initiated by a friend, several officers from the Upper Saucon Township Police Department responded with an improper seizure, assault and false arrest.
Nicole Ciaccio of Coopersburg first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 27 versus Upper Saucon Township, its Police Chief Thomas Nicolette, its Police Lieutenant “FNU” Fritz, its Police Officer Alonzo Doe and its Police Officer Hank Roe, all of Upper Saucon Township.
“This is an action for an award of damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney’s fees and other relief on behalf of Nicole Ciaccio, who was seized when Upper Saucon Police Officers ‘Alonzo Doe’ and ‘Hank Roe’ barricaded her in her home by blocking the front door; and later under the aegis of defendant Chief Thomas Nicoletti, having other officers surround the home to prevent her from leaving by other means. Defendant officers later physically seized her by violently dragging her out of her front door and holding her in restraints on her front stoop, wearing only a T-Shirt and thin leggings in cold February weather,” the suit said.
“Once Ms. Ciaccio was under restraint, defendant officers refused to release her until she agreed that they could enter the foyer of her home, and then searched the entire home and seized lawfully-owned property. Defendant officers and defendant Lieutenant Fritz thereafter transported her for a psychological evaluation without any cause or justification, resulting in her being seized for another 11 hours, during which no examination or evaluation was conducted, and after which she was released without any restriction.”
The suit added that the police allegedly justified their actions through a policy on the books allowing them to conduct “wellness checks.”
“At the time that the defendants first seized her, they had no reasonable belief, and in fact had contrary information, that Ms. Ciaccio had committed any crime, nor was in need of any assistance. Rather, defendants have claimed that their actions were justified by a policy in place within the Upper Saucon Township Police that provided for ‘wellness checks.’ As set forth herein, however, the officers, and by their radio transmissions, Upper Saucon Township Police Department officials, including but not limited to, Chief Nicoletti and Lieutenant Fritz, knew prior to each escalating seizure of her person and property set forth herein that Ms. Ciaccio was not in need of assistance, and that the information claimed to justify the ‘wellness check’ was incorrect,” the suit stated.
According to the suit, the situation began with Ciaccio incorrectly texting a friend that she had shot herself, causing the friend to call 911 and police to respond to Ciaccio’s home, leading to the confrontation described.
Despite quickly ascertaining the situation that Ciaccio was not in fact shot, the plaintiff alleges that the subsequent police response constituted an improper seizure of her person. Ciaccio further argued that at some point during the situation, her Ring video camera doorbell was obscured and prevented from recording the subject events, by the defendant officers.
The defendants motioned to dismiss the case on Oct. 2, pointing to what it felt were the unsupported and improperly-pled allegations from the plaintiff.
“The complaint fails to set forth a viable Monell claim against Upper Saucon Township for a violation of plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights as there are no specific facts alleged of any practice, custom and/or policy which violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The complaint fails to allege the requisite personal involvement of Chief Nicoletti in the alleged violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The complaint fails to allege the requisite personal involvement of Lieutenant Fritz in the alleged violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights,” according to the motion to dismiss.
“The complaint fails to set forth a viable claim for a violation of plaintiff’s Second Amendment rights pursuant to Section 1983 as a matter of law. In the alternative, individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiff’s second amendment claim. Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages against defendants must be dismissed based upon the allegations in the complaint.”
The defendants seek that all claims against defendants Upper Saucon Township, Chief Nicoletti and Lieutenant Fritz be dismissed, that the plaintiff’s Second Amendment claim be dismissed and the plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages be dismissed.
UPDATE
In an Oct. 13 response brief, the plaintiff refuted the dismissal motion.
“At the time that the defendants first seized her, they had no reasonable belief, and in fact had contrary information, that Ms. Ciaccio had committed any crime, nor was in need of any assistance. Rather, defendants have claimed that their actions were justified by a policy in place within the Upper Saucon Township police that provided for ‘wellness checks,’ and in their affirmative brief, by ‘safety’ concerns. As the encounter proceeded, the police gained further information that Ms. Ciaccio was not injured, did not need their assistance, and that no exigent circumstances warranted further restraint on her liberty,” the brief stated.
“Defendants have filed this motion to dismiss alleging that plaintiff has inadequately alleged that Chief Nicoletti and Lieutenant Fritz were actually involved in the police encounter at Ms. Ciaccio’s home or, alternatively, that their involvement did not matter; that Upper Saucon Township had a policy that authorized the actions taken by the police; and that Ms. Ciaccio cannot state a claim under the Second Amendment, and alternatively that the police officer defendants should have qualified immunity from Second Amendment liability. They also seek to have the claim for punitive damages stricken. Defendants and their counsel should be congratulated for not filing some omnibus and scattershot motion to dismiss, as is so commonly done, instead focusing on discrete claims. That said, defendants have consistently and inexcusably misstated the law and have ignored or misstated the allegations of the complaint. The motion must be denied in its entirety.”
For counts of violating the Second and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Monell liability, assault, false arrest and imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages for pain and suffering, physical and emotional distress, economic loss, time loss, severe emotional trauma, and such punitive damages as may be available under law, declaratory and injunctive relief declaring the above-described practices to be unlawful, and enjoining their past and continued effects, pre and post-judgment interest, costs of suit and attorney and expert witness fees as allowed by law, punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and Pennsylvania Common Law, as allowed by law and such other relief as is deemed just and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by David Deratzian of Hahalis & Kounoupis, in Bethlehem.
The defendants are represented by John P. Gonzales and Gary H. Dadamo of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, in Philadelphia and King of Prussia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:23-cv-02863
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com