WILLIAMSPORT – A Bradford County father who witnessed his 15-year-old son being shot and killed by three Pennsylvania State Police troopers last year has sued them for what he argues was his son’s wrongful death.
Rodney E. Foust (individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Hunter W.P. Foust) of Wyalusing filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 26 versus Pennsylvania State Police Officer John Does 1-3.
“In the morning hours of May 4, 2023, Hunter was sent home from school, Northeast Bradford High School, due to allegedly typing words on a school computer found to be offensive. Upon information and belief, Bradford High School officials contacted the Pennsylvania State Police regarding Hunter’s actions. Following his arrival at home, which occurred at or around 11 a.m. on May 4, 2023, he encountered his mother, Angel Bailey, who perceived that he was in emotional distress. On or about 11:30 a.m., Pennsylvania State Police Officer John Doe 1, Pennsylvania State Police Officer John Doe 2 and Pennsylvania State Police Officer John Doe 3 arrived at the home, knocked on the door and requested that they be permitted to talk with Hunter, who had retreated to his bedroom,” the suit states.
“The PSP Officers left the home the home after advising Ms. Bailey that criminal charges were to be filed against Hunter, due to his alleged typing of offensive computer entries and that he would be required to come to the police station. Soon after the PSP Officers’ departure, Hunter exited the home and proceeded into the adjacent wooded area. Ms. Bailey had realized that Hunter had left and believed that he had taken with him one of his father’s handguns, which prompted her to contact his father, Mr. Foust, in order to advise of her concerns. The PSP Officers, for reasons unknown and with deliberate indifference to Hunter’s known constitutional rights, proceeded to pursue Hunter on foot with weapons drawn.”
The suit continues that at the same time that defendants were pursuing Hunter on foot, the plaintiff arrived at the home and was made aware of this occurrence. The plaintiff, believing that he had an idea of where his son was going, then took a series of back roads toward a wooded area behind his home.
“Mr. Foust parked his truck on an overlooking ridge the area and then personally then witnessed defendants closing in on his son on foot with weapons drawn. In the next moments, Mr. Foust observed one, each or all three of the PSP Officers fire on Hunter, causing him to suffer a fatal injury. At the time he was shot, Hunter was believed to be holding a handgun down towards the ground which was not pointed towards defendants. In the moments before deadly force was used, defendants had specific knowledge that Hunter was emotionally distraught, not thinking rationally and was likely impaired. No exigent circumstances existed requiring the rush to use of deadly force as Hunter did not present a threat to anyone other than himself,” the suit says.
“At no time during the exchange or interaction did Hunter point a weapon at any of defendants, or threaten harm to them or anyone else. Before pursuing Hunter and then killing him, defendants never attempted to obtain assistance from local mental health professionals nor employ any measures to de-escalate the situation. The bullets fired by the PSP Officers caused Hunter to suffer serious and fatal injuries. The above actions of the defendants were all taken with reckless disregard and in deliberate indifference to the decedent, Hunter W.P. Foust. An autopsy was performed on Hunter, which determined that the cause of death was a penetrating gunshot wound to the torso and classified as a homicide.”
Three weeks after the shooting, the Bradford County District Attorney ruled it was justifiable as the defendant officers were in “imminent danger” when Hunter pointed his father’s gun at them – however, the plaintiff insists his son only pointed the gun at the ground, and never at the officers.
For counts of violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution through failure to intervene, survival and wrongful death, the plaintiff is seeking economic, actual and compensatory damages, including attorney's fees and costs, lost earnings, lost earning potential, severe physical and mental trauma and injuries, pain and suffering, emotional distress and psychological harm.
The plaintiff is represented by John R. Vivian Jr. of the Law Offices of John R. Vivian Jr., in Easton.
The defendants have not yet obtained legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 4:24-cv-00155
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com