PITTSBURGH – An Allegheny County man has alleged that a group of local law enforcement officers violated his constitutional rights when they arrested him on gun and drug charges, offenses which were later dismissed in a criminal court.
Darnell L. Kelso filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on April 5 versus Allegheny County, Coraopolis Police Officer John Haring, plus Allegheny County Police Officers Jason Costanzo, Daniel Mayer and William Good. All parties are of Allegheny County.
“On or about April 7, 2022, at or about 6:30 p.m., plaintiff was exiting his vehicle in a residential area and was shot in his groin area by an unknown individual. Shortly thereafter, law enforcement officers, including, but not limited to, defendant Haring, were dispatched to the scene. At that time, plaintiff informed law enforcement officers that he was exiting his vehicle when he was shot and that he did not know who had shot him. No firearms, shell casings, or ballistic evidence were found on the plaintiff’s person, in the plaintiff’s possession, at the scene, in the surrounding area, or in the plaintiff’s vehicle. There was, and is, no evidence that the plaintiff possessed a firearm at the time of the incident,” the suit says.
“No witnesses saw the shooting take place or the shooter. Furthermore, no witness told defendant Haring and/or any other law enforcement officer that the plaintiff shot himself. Plaintiff was transported to the hospital by ambulance in order to receive medical treatment for his serious injuries. Thereafter, defendant Haring unlawfully towed the plaintiff’s vehicle to the Coraopolis Borough Police Station, without a valid warrant, without the plaintiff’s consent and without any probable cause to do so. There were no exigent circumstances to allow a seizure of the plaintiff’s vehicle without the plaintiff’s consent or a valid warrant. Plaintiff’s vehicle was legally parked across the street from his residence at the time that he was shot.”
The suit adds that during the plaintiff’s preliminary hearing, defendant Haring testified that the plaintiff’s car was towed for evidentiary reasons and that the plaintiff’s car insurance had lapsed, but later testified that he learned that it had not.
“Defendant Haring did not have any probable cause to seize, did not possess a valid warrant, and did not have the plaintiff’s consent to seize the plaintiff’s vehicle. As part of the investigation into the above-described shooting, on or about that same day, defendant Costanzo unlawfully seized the plaintiff’s clothing from the hospital, while the plaintiff was undergoing surgery, and examined the plaintiff’s clothing. Plaintiff had not been charged with any criminal offense in connection to the above-described incident at the time that defendant Costanzo unlawfully seized the plaintiff’s clothing from the hospital. Defendant Costanzo did not possess a valid warrant to lawfully seize and/or examine the plaintiff’s clothing without the plaintiff’s permission. Furthermore, defendant Costanzo had no probable cause to seize and/or examine the plaintiff’s clothing. There were no exigent circumstances to allow a seizure of the plaintiff’s clothing without the plaintiff’s consent or a valid warrant. There was, and is, no evidence that the plaintiff possessed a firearm at the time of the incident,” the suit says.
“Moreover, plaintiff did not give his consent for defendant Costanzo and/or any other law enforcement officer to seize his clothing. Based on his unlawful seizure of the plaintiff’s clothing, as described hereinbefore above, defendant Costanzo falsely claimed that the placement of a hole and blood on the plaintiff’s clothing showed that the plaintiff’s gunshot wound was self-inflicted. Defendant Costanzo, Mayer and/or Good did not provide the plaintiff’s clothing to the crime lab in order to receive an expert opinion on this evidence or to confirm that the blood and bullet hole indicated that the wound was self-inflicted. Defendants Good and/or Mayer initiated the process of obtaining and executing a search warrant for the plaintiff’s vehicle as a direct result of defendant Costanzo’s unlawful seizure of the plaintiff’s clothing. Defendants Good and/or Mayer intentionally and recklessly sought and obtained an invalid, unlawful search warrant, and they used that warrant to conduct an illegal search of plaintiff’s vehicle, all without probable cause. Defendants Mayer and/or Good were aware, or should have been aware, through the use of reasonable caution, that defendant Costanzo collected the plaintiff’s clothing without a valid search warrant, without consent, and without any pending criminal charges against the plaintiff. Defendants Mayer’s and Good’s affidavit of probable cause for the search of the plaintiff’s vehicle included statements that the plaintiff’s clothing was taken from hospital personnel by defendant Costanzo, while the plaintiff was in surgery.”
The suit goes on to say defendants Mayer and/or Good were then aware that the plaintiff’s clothing was unlawfully seized and that there was no probable cause to search the plaintiff’s vehicle – but they did so anyway, in the vehicle allegedly and unlawfully seized by defendant Haring, without a valid search warrant, the plaintiff’s consent or probable cause.
“On or about April 14, 2022, defendant Good criminally charged the plaintiff with various crimes in connection with the above-described shooting and the unlawful search of the plaintiff’s vehicle. The charges against the plaintiff included one felony count of Person Not to Possess a Firearm and two counts each of Possession with Intent to Deliver and Possession of Controlled Substance. Defendant Good’s affidavit of probable cause lacked probable cause to charge the plaintiff. Defendant Good’s affidavit of probable cause included the unlawful seizure of the plaintiff’s clothing and the unlawful search of the plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff was arrested and incarcerated at the Allegheny County Jail throughout the pendency of his criminal proceedings, from on or about April 14, 2022, to on or about April 28, 2023. Plaintiff was incarcerated as he attempted to recover from serious injuries, which required post-operative care. As a result of his unlawful incarceration, plaintiff’s recovery was prolonged and made unnecessarily more painful,” the suit states.
“At no time during the above-described incident on April 7, 2024, did the plaintiff have a firearm in his possession. There was, and is, no corroborative evidence to suggest that the plaintiff had a firearm in his possession at the time of the incidents described above. There was, and is, no corroborative evidence to suggest that the plaintiff shot himself. Defendant County has a duty to properly train, control, discipline and/or supervise its agents, including defendants Costanzo, Mayer and Good. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that defendant County failed to train, control, discipline and/or supervise its law enforcement officers. More specifically, defendant County has a duty to properly train defendants Costanzo, Mayer and Good on properly conducting a search and seizure and the proper method with which to secure a lawful search warrant.”
On Oct. 18, 2022, the plaintiff’s criminal attorney filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Nearly six months later, on April 12, 2023, the plaintiff’s charges were dismissed by the Honorable Randal B. Todd.
“At that time, Judge Todd found that the criminal charges against the plaintiff were the ‘Fruit of the Poisonous Tree’ based on the illegal seizure of plaintiff’s property without probable cause. Judge Todd also found that plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated. There was no appeal taken, and Judge Todd’s decision was final. As a direct result of the actions of the defendants, and each of them, plaintiff was affected financially and professionally and suffered substantial economic losses. Furthermore, as a direct result of the actions of the defendants, and each of them, plaintiff suffered severe emotional trauma and distress, as well as severe physical pain and suffering,” the suit says.
For multiple counts of unlawful search and seizure, Monell liability, malicious prosecution, false arrest, false imprisonment and trespass to chattels in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory general damages against the defendants, and each of them, in the amount proven at trial, compensatory special damages including, but not limited to, costs of suit, reasonable attorney’s fees as permitted by law, pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by law, punitive damages against the named defendants, and each of them, and such other relief, including injunctive and/or declaratory relief, as this Court may deem proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Joel S. Sansone, Elizabeth Tuttle and Massimo A. Terzigni of the Law Offices of Joel Sansone, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants have not yet secured legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:24-cv-00518
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com