PHILADELPHIA – Counsel for the City of Philadelphia and an unidentified local police officer have motioned to dismiss litigation from the mother of a man who died by suicide during a mental health episode two years ago, litigation which alleged the officer photographed her son’s lifeless body and distributed it online.
Karen Brookins of New Jersey first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 31 versus the City of Philadelphia and John Doe No. 1.
“On March 18, 2022, Marcus Boone was suffering from a severe mental health episode. On that day, he went to the Knights Road overpass off I-95 near Academy Road, and expressed his serious mental health concerns. Philadelphia Police responded, created a perimeter and interacted with Mr. Boone for approximately three hours. Despite the interactions, Mr. Boone tragically jumped from the bridge, taking his own life. After Mr. Boone’s death, John Doe No. 1 took pictures on his personal phone of Mr. Boone’s body lying on the street below. These photos were not taken for the purposes of any investigation, but rather were taken as a spectacle to be shared with gore-seeking individuals. John Doe No. 1 then proceeded to share the photographs via text message, Facebook and the Citizen app,” the suit said.
“John Doe No. 1’s actions were not taken for any legitimate purpose, but were instead the result of a callous, reckless, and malicious effort to share salacious death photographs. The photographs taken and shared by John Doe No. 1 were widely viewed and shared across text messages and social media, collecting thousands of views. The circulation was so broad that plaintiff was shown the picture by a Sunoco gas station attendant named ‘Frank’ who did not know the deceased was plaintiff’s son. As a result of John Doe No. 1’s conscience-shocking behavior, plaintiff Karen Brookins has suffered severe emotional distress, including sleeplessness, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. John Doe No. 1’s actions caused pain and debilitating worry to plaintiff that other family members may see the photographs as well. Plaintiff has sought the treatment of both a therapist and a grief counselor to deal with her mental anguish. That treatment continues to present day.”
UPDATE
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Feb. 28 for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted, seeking to have the Monell liability and intentional infliction of emotional distress counts thrown out with prejudice.
“Plaintiff suffered a tragic loss and experienced further suffering by the actions of unknown individuals, who posted and callously shared the photo described in the complaint. Although the actions of the individual who took the photo and the individuals who shared the photo are rightfully subject to criticism, those actions do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. A photograph of a crime scene depicting the image of an individual’s deceased son is not the type of confidential information that is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The individual privacy interest here is too far attenuated to be considered an ‘intimate fact of one’s life.’ The image described in plaintiff’s complaint is not of her own body or personal information, it is of the image of another person’s deceased body,” per the dismissal motion.
“This is simply not the type of information that is contemplated as private by the constitutional jurisprudence discussed above. Moreover, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for this type of image, which was taken in a public place. There is no doubt that plaintiff has suffered indignity from the facts alleged in her complaint, but the injury she suffered is not attributable to a constitutional protection and therefore not recoverable against the City. As a result, the complaint fails to allege a cognizable constitutional injury, which is required to properly plead a municipal liability claim against the City.”
The motion continued that the plaintiff’s complaint includes “no allegations that imply the City was the moving force behind a constitutional violation”, thus removing it from liability under Monell, and that the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act immunizes it from the plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, under state law.
For counts of violation of privacy interest under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Monell liability and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff is seeking damages, jointly and severally, pursuant to state law including interest, delay damages, costs of suit, compensatory and punitive damages, and any other remedies legally appropriate.
The plaintiff is represented by Mark V. Maguire and John Joseph Coyle III of McEldrew Purtell, 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 2:24-cv-00470
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com