WILLIAMSPORT – A Pennsylvania State Police officer has denied allegations from a New Jersey man that he conducted an unreasonable search of the plaintiff’s car through threatening to have the car towed and impounded, despite an alleged lack of probable cause.
Kevin Horton of Hillsborough, N.J. first 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 stated.
“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 continued the defendant then 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 said.
“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.”
UPDATE
Defense counsel for Mills answered the suit on Dec. 26 and categorically denied the plaintiff’s allegations.
“Immediately upon Trooper Mills approaching plaintiff’s driver side door – plaintiff questioned if Trooper Mills thought he was ‘running drugs.’ Trooper Mills interacted with plaintiff for 34 minutes – six of those 34 minutes involved waiting for Trooper Hall to arrive on the scene. During that time, plaintiff stated he was returning from visiting his son at the University of Pittsburgh. Initially, plaintiff stated that he stayed at a hotel on University of Pittsburgh’s campus. Approximately three minutes later, plaintiff stated he stayed with his son during the visit. Due to the inconsistencies, Trooper Mills asked if he could search plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff initially did not consent. Approximately five minutes later, plaintiff stated, ‘I tell you what, I’ll let you check the car, but I want to be right there with you.’ Trooper Mills did not state he was suspicious of plaintiff for being ‘too nice’, rather it was plaintiff who stated he was ‘being nice.”
“Trooper Mills stated he had ‘reasonable suspicion to believe that you (plaintiff) might be up to something because you’re (plaintiff) not being honest with me.’ It is admitted that initially plaintiff did not consent for Trooper Mills to search his vehicle. Upon refusal, Trooper Mills explained he would impound plaintiff’s vehicle and apply for a search warrant. Approximately 22 minutes after the initial stop, plaintiff consented to the car search. Trooper Hall arrived six minutes after the consent was given. Trooper Mills searched plaintiff’s vehicle, [but] he did not search the overnight bag which was in the vehicle.”
The answer further provided four affirmative defenses.
“Plaintiff’s complaint may fail to state any claim upon which relief may be granted. Defendant is immune from liability by virtue of absolute, qualified, official, governmental, state, sovereign and/or any other immunity. At no time did defendant, deprived or sought to deprive plaintiff of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Defendant reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses, as appropriate, that become available during the pendency of this litigation,” per those defenses.
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 is represented by Christine C. Einerson of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office – Litigation Department, in Harrisburg.
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