ALLENTOWN – A Christian pastor arrested during a demonstration just outside Reading Senior High School nearly 18 months ago who alleged that the City of Reading and one of its police officers had a bias against Evangelical Christians and violated his civil rights, has lost his case.
Aden Rusfeldt of Pottstown first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 20, 2023 versus Officer Cristian Morar, City of Reading Police Officer Badge Number 160, the Reading School District and the City of Reading, all of Reading.
“Rusfeldt is the Pastor of Key of David Christian Center, a nondenominational church that expresses the religious tenets of evangelical, Protestant Christianity. During the afternoon on or about Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2023, Rusfeldt, his wife, and several other persons associated with them peacefully assembled for a demonstration on a public sidewalk in the City of Reading, specifically, at the northwest corner of North 13th Street and Douglass Street. At that location, they stood opposite the Reading Senior High School and at the approximate time that its students were dismissed. During the foregoing demonstration, Rusfeldt’s wife video-recorded the same,” the suit said.
“During the foregoing demonstration, Rusfeldt and his wife and other demonstrators disseminated their religious viewpoints: Rusfeldt held a sign that stated in substance, ‘Stop Sinning,’ ‘Obey Jesus,’ and ‘Hellfire / ChristianInterviews.com,’ with various references from the Bible. One of Rusfeldt’s demonstrators held a sign which read, ‘Repent or Perish.’ Using a megaphone, Rusfeldt called out to students ‘to give your life to Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for your sins and rose from the dead. Jesus Christ has a plan for your life.’ Rusfeldt further called out, using the megaphone, that students need God if any of them were suicidal or depressed.”
The suit added that during the demonstration, a female student of Reading Senior High School crossed North 13th Street and threw water at Rusfeldt from a water bottle.
Some of the students in question, whom the suit said were a few feet away from Rusfeldt, also threw water at him using a water bottle and others shouted, “F— you!,” or flipped their middle finger.
During the demonstration, the plaintiff said security guards employed by the Reading School District “ordered Rusfeldt and his demonstrators to leave or else they would be arrested, intending to harass or humiliate, to violate the constitutional rights of, and to discriminate against the viewpoints of, Rusfeldt and his demonstrators” – and that when Rusfeldt “refused such a request, the same security guards, employed by the Reading School District, contacted the Police Department of the City of Reading and requested a pre-textual basis for the arrest of Rusfeldt and his demonstrators.”
“The same security officers, employed by the Reading School District, held conversations with students but did nothing to protect Rusfeldt or his demonstrators. Morar and Police Officer Badge No. 160 responded to the call from the Reading School District and arrived at the scene of the demonstration. Upon their arrival, several students disbursed or moved back from Rusfeldt and his demonstrators. Rusfeldt informed Morar, Police Officer Badge No. 160, or both or either of them, that Rusfeldt and his demonstrators were exercising their First Amendment rights to speech and to practice religion, and Rusfeldt specifically asked Morar to contact Morar’s supervisor for instruction in this context. Morar refused such requests,” the suit stated.
“Morar asked Rusfeldt to relocate the demonstration to ‘three, four, five blocks’ away from the Reading Senior High School. When Rusfeldt answered that he would in ‘20, 30 minutes,’ Morar stated that he needed to do it now or else Rusfeldt would be arrested for ‘causing a disturbance, disorderly conduct.’ When Rusfeldt refused, Morar proceeded to put plaintiff in handcuffs to the screaming cheers of the onlooking students. Police Officer Badge No. 160 assisted Morar in handcuffing and taking Rusfeldt into physical custody the back of a police car. Rusfeldt’s wife asked Morar why her husband was arrested, and Morar responded, ‘He’s been arrested because you guys almost got jumped.’ After taking Rusfeldt to a police barracks for the Police Department of the City of Reading, Rusfeldt was released without any criminal charges.”
The plaintiff continued that the defendants “used disorderly conduct as a pre-textual arrest for retaliating against protected speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution” and that it is allegedly “the policy of the City of Reading, the Reading School District, or either of them, to instigate, request, or engage in pre-textual, warrantless arrests as a means of discriminating or retaliating against the viewpoints of expressed by adherents of evangelical, Protestant Christianity and the Fourth Amendment rights of such adherents.”
On May 15, 2023, Reading School District motioned to dismiss the civil rights violation counts and punitive damages from the case with prejudice, arguing that the plaintiff “attempts to hold a school district liable for civil rights violations because its security guards merely called the police, when there was a volatile exchange between demonstrators and students off of school property.”
“Plaintiff alleges ‘on information and belief’ that it is ‘the policy’ of the City and the District to ‘instigate, request, or engage in pre-textual, warrantless arrests as a means of discriminating or retaliating against’ certain religious viewpoints and the ‘Fourth Amendment rights’ of adherents to such viewpoints. Plaintiff further asserts that the District ‘failed to train’ its security guards or employees. However, in his complaint, plaintiff does not set out any facts in support of any allegations that the District knew any policies or training were insufficient, such as a pattern of prior similar constitutional violations putting the District on notice of the allegedly inadequate policies,” the dismissal motion stated.
“Plaintiff also fails to identify the existing District policies, explain why they were deficient, or identify a policy maker or decision maker who was allegedly aware of such deficiencies. In fact, plaintiff only alleges that the District security guards called police when the incident became volatile. Further, although plaintiff also alleges, without factual foundation, that the police were called to arrest plaintiff and his demonstrators, he concedes no one was arrested.”
The answering defendant also alleged that punitive damages are not recoverable from a municipality, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
The City of Reading and Morar also motioned to dismiss the complaint on July 10, 2023.
“Plaintiff, a ‘street preacher’ with a history of instigating conflict by ‘preaching’ in an aggressive and inflammatory manner, brings several meritless claims against moving defendants the City of Reading, Reading Police Officer Cristian Morar and co-defendant the Reading School District, arising from his group’s targeted disruption of the dismissal of a local high school. Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim fails because he has failed to allege any content-based restriction on his speech – instead, he was merely asked to move his demonstration a couple hundred yards down the street – which is a reasonable, content-neutral restriction that clearly passes muster under the First Amendment,” the dismissal motion stated.
“His Fourth Amendment claim likewise fails because plaintiff was not arrested, but merely briefly taken into custody to prevent an escalating conflict and physical assault to plaintiff by angry students and their parents against whom plaintiff directed his verbal attacks and fighting words. The remaining claims likewise fail for lack of any factual support. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against the City of Reading and Officer Morar should be dismissed.”
UPDATE
After the Reading School District was dismissed from the case on Nov. 13, 2023, the defendants filed for summary judgment on April 30 and the plaintiff provided an opposing response to that motion on May 10.
In a June 11 memorandum opinion, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge John M. Gallagher found Morar was entitled to qualified immunity, granted the defense’s summary judgment motion and dismissed the case.
“Here…much of plaintiff’s speech was constitutionally protected, such as his generic religious and moral declarations. Statements such as ‘most of you have no good idea about life,’ ‘some of you are suicidal, you need God,’ and even ‘some of you are whores’ are protected speech that does not rise to the level of fighting words. This is because the generic nature of the statements and the uncertainty of their application makes them unlikely to cause an immediate breach of the peace. However, when plaintiff began personally targeting minor students his speech ascended beyond First Amendment protection and inflicted injury from the moment the statements were uttered. For example, plaintiff specifically called one minor a ‘whore’ and ‘slut’ and directed another member of his group to film her. Later, plaintiff stated ‘go to hell lesbo dyke,’ as police officers attempted to have students disperse from the increasingly hostile environment. While the majority of plaintiff’s speech was protected, Officer Morar was justified in arresting him for disorderly conduct based on the speech that ascended into fighting words,” Gallagher said.
“Not only were portions of plaintiff’s speech likely to incite an immediate breach of the peace, but they in fact did so. Students threw projectiles, physically approached plaintiff and his group and grabbed at plaintiff’s person. His wife later reported that she believes she was hit with a bullet from a pellet gun during the interaction. The situation became the perfect example of public unruliness, tumult, and disorder. Without police intervention, the public unrest would have surely escalated, as parents of the students were reportedly en route to join the condemnation. Despite broad First Amendment protection, police officers are not forced to stand idly by and watch a physical altercation commence as a result of personally targeted insults.”
Gallagher also elaborated on Morar having probable cause to make the arrest.
“Upon arrival, in an attempt to control the crowd, the police officers of the Reading Police Department directed everyone to disperse. As the students were beginning to do so, plaintiff shouted out ‘go to hell lesbo dykes,’ which caused a minor student to approach plaintiff in attempt to make physical contact. It is at that time that Officer Morar warned plaintiff that if he continues to ‘rile up’ the students, he will be arrested. Officer Morar, facing a chaotic situation involving minor students, made a judgment call regarding how to maintain law and order. His decision was not plainly incompetent, nor was it a knowing violation of the law, and it is therefore protected under the qualified immunity doctrine. Plaintiff also alleges Officer Morar violated his constitutional rights by arresting him without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, Officer Morar had probable cause to arrest plaintiff for disorderly conduct based on his use of fighting words. In addition, he is protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity. The Court therefore finds no dispute of material fact on this issue,” Gallagher said.
“Plaintiff alleges Officer Morar is liable for false imprisonment based on his warrantless arrest of plaintiff. In response to defendant’s argument that the arrest was based on probable cause, plaintiff asserts that since Officer Morar was not present for much of the speech and misheard plaintiff’s ‘go to hell lesbo dyke’ comment, he was not at liberty to arrest plaintiff for a misdemeanor or summary offense. However, the focus of the analysis is whether Officer Morar had probable cause to believe that an offense was being committed in his presence, not whether he heard the specific comment. Probable cause can stem from an officer’s own observations or from information relayed from others. Here, under the totality of the circumstances, Officer Morar had probable cause to believe plaintiff was engaging in disorderly conduct that was likely to incite a breach of the peace, even if he misunderstood plaintiff’s ‘go to hell lesbo dykes’ utterance as ‘go to hell lesbos.’ The situation was ongoing and continued to escalate after Officer Morar’s arrival. He was informed that the hostility commenced with plaintiff uttering personally-directed insults at the minor students, and Officer Morar was present as he continued to do so. Therefore, he had probable cause to believe plaintiff was engaging in disorderly conduct and was justified in arresting plaintiff. For the reasons set forth above, summary judgment must be granted in favor of both defendants.”
The plaintiff was represented by Joel Aaron Ready of Cornerstone Law Firm, in Blandon.
The defendants were represented by Brian Conley, David J. MacMain and Maeve E. Bain of MacMain Leinhauser in West Chester.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:23-cv-01523
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com