PHILADELPHIA – A third-grade teacher has launched legal action against members of the Philadelphia Police Department, contending that she was falsely arrested and charged with multiple criminal offenses by those officers - charges which were later dismissed completely.
Alisha Shepherd-Smith filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 19 versus Sgt. Geoffrey Strubinger, Det. Thomas D’Alesio, Officer Norma Peluyera-Alamo and Officer John and Jane Does 1-3. All parties are of Philadelphia.
“Plaintiff Alisha Shepherd-Smith and her husband Rickey Smith reside in Philadelphia with their two teenage daughters. Plaintiff is a third-grade teacher, and her husband works for Conrail. For several years, plaintiff and her family have experienced significant conflict with their next door neighbors, J.T. and D.C. Plaintiff’s family and the neighbors share a wall as well as a common walkway. Tensions between plaintiff’s family and the neighbors reached an all-time high in 2021, culminating in a dispute over a bush in plaintiff’s yard near the mutual walkway,” the suit says.
“On Dec. 12, 2021, plaintiff and her husband took a trip to Walmart in order to purchase some household items. Plaintiff’s daughters called their parents frightened, alerting them that the neighbors and several of their family members were trespassing on plaintiff’s yard and mutilating their hedges. Plaintiff and her husband rushed home, pulling up outside of their residence to see the neighbors and their family members, A.T. and G.B., standing outside the residence. Plaintiff’s husband approached J.T. and G.B., asking why they felt they could mar the hedges on his property. In response, J.T. attacked plaintiff’s husband. G.B. smiled at plaintiff’s husband, who observed what appeared to be a firearm in G.B.’s waistband, and G.B. made a threatening comment.”
The suit adds while this altercation took place, the plaintiff went to assist her husband, but found herself tackled into the bushes by D.C., A.T. and three others joined in on the attack against the plaintiff.
“Plaintiff ultimately was able to escape her attackers and began banging on her front door for her daughters to let her inside. She ran upstairs and retrieved her legally owned firearm in order to protect herself and her husband from this attack. Plaintiff opened her front door and stepped onto her front step, never leaving her property, with the gun pointed toward the ground. Plaintiff did not point her firearm at anyone, nor did she make any threats while holding the firearm, but simply wanted to have the ability to protect her family if necessary. D.C. went to approach plaintiff again; however, after she noticed the firearm in her hand, she quickly retreated and alerted the others that plaintiff had a firearm. Shortly thereafter, A.T. approached plaintiff and attempted to wrestle the firearm from her possession. Plaintiff ultimately was able to escape A.T. and shut her front door behind her. She immediately returned the firearm upstairs and removed the clip as an added measure,” the suit states.
“Luckily, several other neighbors from surrounding properties had arrived by this time to break up the altercation between plaintiff’s husband and his attackers, and he similarly retreated to safety. Unbeknownst to plaintiff and her family, another neighbor who witnessed the fighting called the police to report an ongoing altercation between the neighbors. She stated that she believed a male involved possessed a firearm and described the men across the street. Law enforcement subsequently made an internal radio call describing the situation, stating that a Black male wearing a grey hoodie was armed with a firearm. G.B. was a Black male wearing a grey sweatshirt during the altercation. When law enforcement arrived, A.T. immediately approached officers and falsely claimed that plaintiff pulled out a gun and pointed it at her. Plaintiff did not match any portion of the description provided to police, as a petite female wearing a black yoga jacket. However, law enforcement acted upon the word of A.T. alone and Officer Alamo demanded that plaintiff come outside to be searched. Officer Alamo located a clip in the pocket of plaintiff’s yoga jacket and told her to get into the back of her patrol vehicle.”
Officer Alamo and her partner, Officer Doe 1, then arrested the plaintiff in front of her husband, daughters and neighbors, after locating a firearm while “clearing” the residence.
According to the suit, Officers John and Jane Doe(s) 2-3 also participated in the response and subsequent investigation with regard to this incident, all of those officers “failed to search or question G.B., who fit the description of the individual identified as being in possession of a firearm” and “similarly failed to afford plaintiff, a schoolteacher with no criminal record, the ability to explain her side of the story before subjecting her to a public arrest.”
“When plaintiff and her family requested a supervisor, Sgt. Strubinger arrived and proceeded to merely stand on the sidelines and smoke a cigarette. He took no action to oversee the investigation or ensure the validity of the arrest. Law enforcement had been called to these residences previously due to the various disputes between the neighbors, although these calls primarily pertained to noise violations and never before involved a physical altercation. Upon information and belief, local law enforcement felt annoyed by these frequent non-emergent calls and rushed to judgment in effectuating an arrest due to their frustration with the situation. Det. D’Alesio conducted further ‘investigation’ into this matter, merely taking the statement of A.T. [Then,] A.T. admitted to Det. D’Alesio that she and her family were outside that day trespassing on plaintiff’s property, taking matters into their own hands and ‘trimming’ plaintiff’s hedges without consent,” the suit says.
“A.T. further told Det. D’Alesio that an altercation arose between the parties, causing plaintiff to retrieve her gun. She stated that the gun was pointed in her direction, but she did not believe it was intentional. Importantly, A.T. never indicated that plaintiff left her property while holding the firearm or that she made any threatening movements or statements while in possession of the firearm during this subsequent statement. Despite this, plaintiff was charged with the following: Firearms not to be carried without a license, carrying firearms in public, simple assault and recklessly endangering another person. The subsequent criminal proceedings terminated in plaintiff’s favor, and she was not convicted of any of the offenses charged. These proceedings terminated on April 19, 2022.”
For counts of violating 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution through malicious prosecution and supervisory liability, the plaintiff is seeking that this Court find that defendants committed acts and omissions violating those statutes, compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $300,000 total, together with costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, pre-judgment interest and for such other relief as this Court may deem appropriate.
The plaintiff is represented by Kaitlin McCaffrey and Bruce L. Castor Jr. of van der Veen Hartshorn Levin & Lindheim, in Philadelphia.
The defendants have not yet retained legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:24-cv-01655
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com