PHILADELPHIA – Counsel for the Philadelphia Police Department have rejected allegations that officers violated a pair of homeowners’ civil rights during an arrest warrant-related search for the former occupant of their home, referring to them as insufficient.
Richard Miller and Tonya Crawley first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 1 versus the City of Philadelphia, Detective Bova, Detective John Doe, Detective Jane Doe, Police Officers John Doe 1-10 and SWAT Officers John Doe 1-10. All parties are of Philadelphia.
“On Thursday, Dec. 2, 2021, approximately between 5:30 a.m. and 6 a.m., plaintiffs Miller and Crawley were in bed sleeping when plaintiff Miller was awoken from banging on his front door. Plaintiff Miller proceeded to get out of bed and walk to the bottom of the staircase, which in turn woke plaintiff Crawley. Plaintiff Crawley proceeded to get out of bed and went to the bedroom door to get her robe. As plaintiff Miller made his way to the bottom of the staircase, defendants SWAT Officers John Doe 1-10 and/or defendants Police Officers John Doe 1-10 were already coming up the stairs with their guns pointed at plaintiff Miller,” the suit said.
“Plaintiff Miller proceeded to ask the officers what was going on and was repeatedly told to ‘shut the f—k up’ and to come downstairs. Plaintiff Miller complied and went downstairs where one of the SWAT Team Members told plaintiff Miller to sit down and that the detective would explain everything. As plaintiff Miller was sitting down, he asked for a pillow for his back as he has cancer in his spine. His request was ignored by the defendants. At around the same time, plaintiff Crawley proceeded towards the bedroom door. Defendant SWAT Officers John Doe 1-10 and/or defendants Police Officers John Doe 1-10 pointed a gun at her and one of the officers stated, ‘female coming down.”
The suit added that as plaintiff Tonya Crawley continued to make her way downstairs, she asked the defendants what was going on and was told to “shut the f—k up and keep walking”, and was then also told to “sit down and that the detective would explain everything.”
“A Caucasian male detective, believed to be Detective Bova, then came into the plaintiff’s home without producing a warrant and put a photo in plaintiff’s faces asking whether they knew the person in the photograph. Plaintiff Crawley told the detective that she did not know the person in the photograph and that this person (who was later identified as Tyseem Cave) had moved from the property five years prior to her plaintiff Miller moving in. The plaintiffs’ neighbors also told the detective that the person they were looking for did not live there anymore. At all relevant times, Detective Bova, Detective John Doe, Detective Jane Doe, Police Officers John Doe 1-10, and SWAT Officers John Doe 1-10, did not produce a warrant to the plaintiffs,” the suit stated.
“At all relevant times, plaintiffs were peaceable and cooperated with defendants, Detective Bova, Detective John Doe, Detective Jane Doe, Police Officers John Doe 1-10, and SWAT Officers John Doe 1-10, who interacted with the plaintiffs in a threatening, violent, and aggressive manner causing the plaintiffs to suffer intense fear and anxiety, did not take the plaintiffs into the police station, had the duty to describe with particularity the places to be searched, to reasonably investigate to ensure that the person they sought to arrest resided at that location, and, furthermore, check to see if the person they sought to arrest was in fact inside the home.”
The suit continued that the City and Police Department defendants further “failed to adequately train police officers, detectives and SWAT Team Officers under their direction and control…regarding the requirements of the Fourth Amendment” and “failed to adequately discipline police officers, detectives, and SWAT Team under their direction and control…for violating the Fourth Amendment, and more specifically, for violating the Fourth Amendment in the ways alleged in this complaint.”
“As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and failures to act of defendants, plaintiff Miller suffered the following harms: Anxiety disorder and depression. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and failures to act of defendants, plaintiff Crawley suffered the following harms: Chronic major depression disorder and anxiety,” the suit said.
UPDATE
Defendants City of Philadelphia and Bova filed a motion to dismiss three counts from the case on Dec. 18, arguing that claims of excessive force and bystander/supervisory liability against Bova and a Monell claim against the City were improperly-pled and should be dismissed with prejudice.
“Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges excessive force against all individual defendants. According to the ‘Operative Facts’ section, defendants SWAT Officers John Doe 1-10 and/or defendants Philadelphia Police Officers John Does 1-10 came up the stairs with their guns pointed at plaintiff Miller and later pointed a gun at plaintiff Crawley. There are no facts pled that defendant Bova was personally involved in this allegedly excessive use of force. There are no other allegations that would give rise to the plausible inference that Detective Bova employed excessive force toward the plaintiffs. As a result, Count II must be dismissed against Detective Bova,” the dismissal motion stated, in part.
“Plaintiffs [also] fail to plead any facts that Detective Bova was in fact the supervising officer in the operation. Detectives in the Philadelphia Police Department are not supervisors of Philadelphia Police Officers and there are no facts pled in plaintiffs’ complaint that Detective Bova had any subordinate officers in the incident. Plaintiffs have also not pled any facts that demonstrate that Detective Bova directed the other defendants to take any action. Plaintiffs failed to meet the pleading requirements to sufficiently allege supervisory liability against Detective Bova. As a result, Count III should be dismissed against Detective Bova.”
The defendants added that the plaintiffs “fail to allege with any specificity what policy, practice or custom the City implemented that brought about his alleged constitutional violations” and include “only general, conclusory sentences in the complaint, which aver a litany of failures including inadequate training, adoption and maintenance of unspecified policies or customs condoning unconstitutional conduct, failure to supervise unspecified officers, failure to discipline unspecified officers, and demonstrating deliberate indifference to the rights of citizens.”
“Plaintiffs also fail to state a Monell claim because the allegations fail to identify a municipal policymaker involved in the formation of a custom or policy. The Third Circuit has held on multiple occasions that a complaint which neglects ‘to allege conduct by a municipal decision-maker’ cannot survive a motion to dismiss its Monell claim. Here, plaintiffs make no factual allegations about the conduct of an official policymaker that resulted in the ratification of an unconstitutional policy or custom. Therefore, the Court should dismiss plaintiffs’ claim against the City for this additional reason,” the dismissal motion continued.
“Additionally, plaintiffs fail to state a failure-to-train or discipline claim because the complaint does not identify prior instances of misconduct caused by allegedly inadequate training. Although the failure of a municipality to train its employees may support a Monell claim, such a theory represents the most ‘tenuous’ sort of municipal liability under Section 1983. Here, plaintiffs fail to plead any facts, other than conclusory statements, that suggest a pattern of unconstitutional conduct by untrained employees. Rather, plaintiffs rely wholly on unsubstantiated and conclusory allegations, which are insufficient to state a failure to train claim. Such pleading deficiencies necessitate the dismissal of plaintiffs’ Monell claim against the City.”
For counts of violating 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution through illegal entry, search and seizure, excessive force, bystander/supervisory liability and violating Monell, the plaintiffs are seeking, jointly and severally, compensatory and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to fully and adequately compensate the plaintiffs, punish and deter the defendants and others similarly-situated to the defendants, plus interest, costs, attorney’s fees, and all other appropriate relief.
The plaintiffs are represented by Alan E. Denenberg of Abramson & Denenberg, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Kathryn Faris of the City of Philadelphia Law Department’s Civil Rights Unit.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-04762
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com