PHILADELPHIA – The Borough of Colwyn has denied the core components of litigation brought by a Delaware County man, who alleged that a member of the Colwyn Police Department – after unsuccessfully attempting to sanction him with a trio of motor vehicle tickets – later arrested him on fabricated charges of marijuana possession and disorderly conduct.
Joseph Logan first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 28, 2023 versus the Borough of Colwyn, its Mayor Maurice J. Clark Sr., its former Chief of Police Ishmial Johnston and Police Officer Jabril Muhammad.
“Colwyn Borough, located in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, has become well-known for its corruption. Multiple news sources have reported about Colwyn’s corruption, specifically corruption within the police department. On Nov. 8, 2021, Colwyn Resident Kimberly Brown filed a lawsuit against the Colwyn Borough Mayor, Maurice Clark, and Colwyn Police Officers Donald Quick, Michael Hale and Ishmial Johnston, who served as an officer at all relevant points described in Ms. Brown’s complaint. The Colwyn Borough Council and Mayor Clark promoted Ishmial Johnston to Chief of Police on or around May 20, 2022,” the suit stated.
“The Council and Mayor Clark knew at the time of his promotion that Chief Johnston previously pled guilty to harassment following a 2018 incident with an ex-girlfriend. On Oct. 2, 2023, Chief Johnston abruptly resigned without further explanation. The Council did not name a replacement. Shortly thereafter, on Oct. 27, 2023, Chief Johnston was arrested for assault and harassment against a former romantic partner. Law enforcement subsequently filed various additional charges against Chief Johnston related to this incident, including stalking, invasion of privacy, intercepting communications, and victim intimidation. Chief Johnston allegedly told the victim that the police would not take any action against him because of his status as law enforcement. During their investigation, law enforcement also discovered that Chief Johnston set up a hidden surveillance camera within the victim’s home.”
The suit continued that a motor vehicle stop led to the events described in the complaint.
“On June 25, 2022 at approximately 11:55 p.m., Officer Jabril Muhammad pulled over Mr. Logan while he was driving an automobile in the Borough of Colwyn. Mr. Logan informed Officer Muhammad that he was unable to produce certain documentation, such as proof of insurance and registration, due to the fact that he was homeless and living out of his car. Officer Muhammad proceeded to issue Mr. Logan three separate tickets,” the suit said.
“The first ticket was for operating a vehicle without valid insurance, in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. Section 1786(f), and carried a fine of $387. The second ticket was for operating a vehicle without a valid registration, in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. Section 1301(a), and carried a fine of $204.50. The third and final ticket was for operating a vehicle with a suspended registration, in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. Section 1371(a), and carried a fine of $587. On Sept. 8, 2022, Mr. Logan appeared before the Honorable Tammi L. Forbes in Magisterial District Court 32-2-37 regarding the tickets. Officer Muhammad was also present and attempted to convince Mr. Logan not to fight the tickets. Judge Forbes dismissed all three tickets pending against Mr. Logan against the will of Officer Muhammad.”
According to the suit, Officer Muhammad “proceeded to follow and harass Mr. Logan after the dismissal of the tickets, likely taking Judge Forbes’ ruling in favor of Mr. Logan as an affront to his pride.”
“On Sept. 10, 2022, Mr. Logan and a few friends gathered at a friend’s home in Colwyn Borough. Officer Muhammad knew that Mr. Logan regularly spent time at this residence and Mr. Logan, in fact, noticed Officer Muhammad drive by the residence several times during the course of the night. At approximately 2:28 a.m., Mr. Logan and a few friends walked outside the residence to smoke cigars. Mr. Logan carried with him a cup of ginger ale on this outdoor smoke. Officer Muhammad noticed the group come outside while surveilling the residence and quickly exited his vehicle. Officer Muhammad aggressively approached Mr. Logan and immediately placed him in handcuffs, stating that he was under arrest. Mr. Logan repeatedly asked why he was being placed under arrest and received no response,” the suit stated.
“After handcuffing Mr. Logan’s hands behind his back, Officer Muhammad forced Mr. Logan into the back seat of his patrol vehicle. While Mr. Logan continued to request an explanation for his arrest, Officer Muhammad turned and slammed the door in Mr. Logan’s face causing him significant pain and injury. Mr. Logan’s then-girlfriend, Imani Stinnett, filmed this interaction while repeatedly questioning Officer Muhammad as to why he was arresting Mr. Logan. After placing Mr. Logan in the back of his patrol vehicle, Officer Muhammad similarly placed Ms. Stinnett under arrest without providing any reasonable justification. Officer Muhammad then transported Mr. Logan and Ms. Stinnett to the Colwyn Police Department, where he left them handcuffed to a bench for several hours.”
The suit added that Officer Muhammad then informed Mr. Logan that he “was under arrest for having an open container of alcohol, which even if true, would not violate any laws of the Commonwealth, but only a local ordinance for which alone a physical arrest is not authorized in Pennsylvania” – and that even when Mr. Logan “adamantly swore that the container he was carrying only contained ginger ale, Officer Muhammad then changed his story and said that the pair had been smoking marijuana, and notably, Officer Muhammad did not collect any evidence of these supposed offenses from the scene.”
“Officer Muhammad ultimately released Mr. Logan and Ms. Stinnett on or around when the next shift arrived and informed them that charges would be pressed. Mr. Logan returned to the police station later that same day in order to file a complaint against Officer Muhammad. Mr. Logan was immediately treated with hostility and officers made degrading comments regarding his background and that of those persons he associates with. While the Colwyn Police Department agreed to allow Mr. Logan to file a complaint against Officer Muhammad, Mr. Logan believed any complaint filed would immediately be placed in the trash after his departure and therefore elected to retain counsel. On Nov. 21, 2022, the undersigned sent a letter to the Chief of Police for the Colwyn Borough Police Department, requesting an explanation for what occurred on Sept. 11, 2022. Counsel for Mr. Logan received no response. Nearly three months after the incident, on Dec. 7, 2022, Officer Muhammad filed a criminal complaint against Mr. Logan arising from the events of Sept. 11, 2022,” the suit said.
“The criminal complaint charged Mr. Logan with Possession of Marijuana, in violation of 35 P.S. Section 780-113 and Disorderly Conduct – Obscene Language/Gesture, in violation of 18 P.S. Section 5503(A)(3). In the affidavit of probable cause, Officer Muhammad averred that while inside his patrol vehicle, he observed Mr. Logan with an open container and smoking a marijuana rolled cigar. Officer Muhammad provided absolutely no explanation as to how he concluded the cup Mr. Logan carried contained alcohol, nor how he determined the cigar Mr. Logan smoked contained marijuana. No evidence was collected from the scene of arrest. As such, no lab testing occurred which could corroborate (or refute) Officer Muhammad’s allegations that the container was filled with alcohol and/or that the cigar contained marijuana. Officer Muhammad’s complaint also failed to provide any explanation for the nearly three-month delay in bringing charges. On Jan. 18, 2023, Mr. Logan appeared with counsel for his preliminary hearing on these charges. When Mr. Logan’s counsel expressed that they were prepared to move forward with the preliminary hearing, the Commonwealth requested the Court postpone the hearing to allow additional time for investigation. The Commonwealth subsequently withdrew all charges pending against Mr. Logan.”
UPDATE
Defendants Borough of Colwyn and Clark answered the complaint on April 23, denying its key allegations and providing 19 separate affirmative defenses on their own behalf.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to set forth a claim, in whole or in part, on which relief can be granted. No act or failure to act on the part of the answering defendants, or any of their employees, violated any of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. At all times material hereto, plaintiff was afforded all the rights, privileges and immunities granted pursuant to the Constitution of the laws of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. At no time material hereto did the answering defendants, or any of their employees, act in bad faith or in any willful, wanton, outrageous, reckless and/or malicious manner. Plaintiff suffered no injury or damages as a result of any improper acts or omissions by answering defendants. Any injury or damages sustained by plaintiff are a direct and proximate result of plaintiff and/or a third party’s conduct. Plaintiff assumed the risk of harm by his own conduct. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, or otherwise subject to reduction, by reason of plaintiff’s contributory negligence. At all times material hereto, the actions of the answering defendants, and their employees, were appropriate under the circumstances and based upon a reasonable, good-faith belief that they were justified under the law. To the extent that plaintiff seeks punitive damages, such a claim is limited and/or barred by the applicable state constitution, by the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and by the laws of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,” the defenses stated.
“Merely negligent or careless conduct on the part of a state actor is insufficient to maintain a cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. At no time material hereto were the answering defendants, or their employees, deliberately indifferent to the safety or constitutional rights of plaintiff. The answering defendants, and their employees, are immune from all or part of the claims set forth in plaintiff’s complaint. At no time material hereto did the answering defendants, or their employees, act in bad faith, or wantonly, recklessly, or maliciously, or with a disregard for plaintiff’s health, safety and welfare. At no time material hereto did the answering defendants or any of their agents or employees, adopt, permit, or follow, either formally or informally, a policy, custom or practice of violating a person’s constitutional rights or which in any other way tolerated or permitted the violation of the civil rights of any individual, including plaintiff. At all times material hereto, the policies and procedures of the answering defendants have been reasonable and appropriate and have ensured the protection of all rights, privileges, and immunities of all individuals, including plaintiff. At all times material hereto, the police officers employed by the Borough were sufficiently trained in the use of force and investigation and enforcement procedures. At all times material hereto, answering defendants were not aware of any problems or deficiencies in their policies including those relating to the use of force and investigation and enforcement procedures. Plaintiff’s claims are barred or otherwise limited by the terms, provisions, immunities and defenses set forth in the Political Subdivision Tort Claims. All defenses therein are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth at length herein.”
For counts of false arrest, excessive force and malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, supervisory liability, failure to supervise, failure to screen and unconstitutional policy, procedure or custom under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, plus assault and battery, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $150,000, together with costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 and pre-judgment interest, plus such other relief as this Court may deem appropriate.
The plaintiff is represented by Bruce L. Castor Jr., Kaitlin C. McCaffery and Michael T. van der Veen of van der Veen O’Neill Hartshorn & Levin, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Colwyn Borough Solicitor Kenneth R. Schuster of Kenneth R. Schuster & Associates in Media, plus David J. MacMain and Brian M. Marchese of MacMain Leinhauser, in West Chester.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-05160
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com