View
242
Download
2
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Lower Merion Stalking Lawsuit against Michael John, Michael J. McGrath for being a Peeping Tom with Sexual Assault. Plaintiff harassed and stalked in her own hone by phone, email and peeping by Lower Merion Police Officer Michael John while on duty in his own police car for hours at a time. Lower Merion Police and Superintendent Michael J. McGrath did not bother to check the GPS of where Lower Merion Police Officer Michael John was in order to cover up illegal behavior. Also violation of Fourth Amendment rights and the U.S. Constitution via the Fourteenth Amendment and section 1983 of U.S. code.
Citation preview
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GABRIELLE DREXLER :14 Rose Lane :Rosemont, PA 19010 : CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff, : NO. v. :
TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION : 71 East Lancaster Avenue :Ardmore, PA 19003, :
and :TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE :DEPARTMENT, c/o TOWNSHIP OF LOWER : MERION :71 East Lancaster Avenue :Ardmore, PA 19003, :
and :Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, c/o TOWNSHIP :OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT, :71 East Lancaster Avenue :Ardmore, PA 19003, :
and :Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH, :c/o TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE : DEPARTMENT, :71 East Lancaster Avenue :Ardmore, PA 19003, :
Defendants. :and :
Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA, c/o :TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE :DEPARTMENT, :71 East Lancaster Avenue :Ardmore, PA 19003, :
Defendants. :
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 1 of 36
2
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, GABRIELLE DREXLER, (hereinafter referenced as “Plaintiff” as context
dictates), by and through her undersigned counsel, Jeffrey R. Lessin & Associates, & P.C.,
files this Complaint and sues Defendants, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP
OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT, Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN and
Police Superintendant MICHAEL J. McGRATH. The individual Defendants are sued
individually, and in their capacities as TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE
DEPARTMENT Police personnel. Plaintiff hereby alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION and SUMMARY of ACTION
1. This is an action at law for damages sustained by a citizen of the United
States against individuals, police officers of the TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE
DEPARTMENT and the TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION itself, respectively.
2. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN repeatedly
stalked her while he was on duty as a police officer with TOWNSHIP OF LOWER
MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT, and also that he physically assaulted her.
3. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION,
TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT, under the leadership of
Defendant Police Superintendant MICHAEL J. McGRATH, has a custom, pattern,
practice and/or policy of failing to monitor the actions of its police officers while they are on
duty, and also a custom, pattern, practice and/or policy of allowing police officers with
untreated mental illnesses and/or mental problems, which negatively affect their functioning
as police officers and how they deal with the public whom they are supposed to serve, to
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 2 of 36
3
be and/or remain as police officers on active duty.
4. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION,
TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT, including Defendant Police
Superintendant MICHAEL J. McGRATH, fail to appropriately train, supervise, and/or
discipline officers who engage in illegal behavior, including stalking a citizen while on duty
and/or assault and battery. As a result of this custom, pattern, practice and/or policy
and/or failure to train, supervise, and/or discipline such officers, some officers, including
Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN believe they are above the law, above
reproach, and free to conduct themselves as they will while supposedly functioning as
police officers, and believe they are free to engage in illegal activity, such as stalking,
assault and/or battery, without fear of repercussion.
5. By this complaint, Plaintiff seeks judicial redress for violation of her civil
rights.
6. Plaintiff brings this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 seeking monetary
relief for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States. Plaintiff also seeks damages under Pennsylvania tort law.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1343 and
1367, this being an action authorized by law to redress the deprivation under color of
Pennsylvania law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom and usage of a right, privilege and
immunity secured to Plaintiff by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States.
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 3 of 36
4
8. The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum
or value of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00).
9. Venue is properly placed in the Unites States District Court of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania as it is where all parties reside or have business addresses and
where the events complained of occurred.
PARTIES
10. Plaintiff is an adult individual, citizen of the United States and resides in
Rosemont, Lower Merion Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
11. Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION and TOWNSHIP OF LOWER
MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT are municipal entities, municipal corporations and/or
political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and were the employers of
Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN and Police Superintendant MICHAEL J. McGRATH.
All actions and/or omissions were performed by the individual police officers listed were in
the name of Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION and TOWNSHIP OF LOWER
MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT.
12. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN is an adult individual, duly
appointed and presently acting as a police officer in the TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION
and TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT. Defendant Police
Officer MICHAEL JOHN is being sued in his individual capacity for money damages.
13. Defendant Police Superintendant MICHAEL J. McGRATH is an adult
individual, duly appointed and presently acting as a police officer and superintendent of
police in the TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION and TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 4 of 36
5
POLICE DEPARTMENT. He is being sued in his individual capacity for money damages.
14. Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA is an adult individual, duly
appointed and presently acting as a police officer in the TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION
and TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT. Defendant Police
Officer STEPHEN SALERA is being sued in his individual capacity for money damages.
15. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants, each of them acting separately and
in concert, through conduct sanctioned under color of state law, statute, township
ordinances, regulations, policies, practices, customs and/or usages engaged in conduct
resulting in injury to Plaintiff, depriving her of the rights, privileges and immunities secured
by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and the
laws of the United States and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. TOWNSHIP OF LOWER
MERION, by and through the individual members of the TOWNSHIP OF LOWER
MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT, who are its agents and employees, together with the
identified individual defendants and persons whose identities are presently unknown to
Plaintiff, acting under color of law, statute, township ordinance, regulations, policies,
practices, customs and/or usages have subjected Plaintiff and other persons to a pattern
of conduct consisting of intimidation, stalking, assault and battery resulting in the denial of
the rights privileges and immunities guaranteed Plaintiff and other citizens by the
Constitution of the United States and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
16. This systematic pattern of conduct consisted of a large number of individual
acts of violence, physical contact, intimidation, stalking and/or humiliation visited upon
Plaintiff and other citizens by members of the TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 5 of 36
6
DEPARTMENT, acting in concert with persons unknown to Plaintiff under color of law.
These acts of violence, physical contact, intimidation, stalking and/or humiliation which
occurred under color of law, have no justification or excuse in law and are illegal, improper
and unrelated to any activity in which police officer may appropriately and legally engage
in the course of protecting persons or property or ensuring civil order.
17. Despite the fact that TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION and TOWNSHIP OF
LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT officials knew or should have known of the fact
that this pattern of conduct was being carried out by their agents and/or employees, said
Defendants, through their officials, particularly the superintendent of police, have taken no
adequate effort to order a halt to this course of conduct, to make redress to Plaintiff or
other citizens injured thereby, or to take any disciplinary action whatever against any of its
employees and/or agents, thus having the effect of encouraging their employees and/or
agents to continue in this pattern of conduct
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
18. On Wednesday May 5, 2010, Plaintiff and her father had a domestic dispute
at their home at 14 Rose Lane, Rosemont, PA 19010.
19. Police officers were summoned to the home of Plaintiff and her father,
including Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN.
20. The police officers dispatched to the home of Plaintiff and her father on said
date questioned Plaintiff and her father separately, with Defendant Police Officer
MICHAEL JOHN being the officer who questioned Plaintiff, although Plaintiff did not
know or note his name at that point.
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 6 of 36
7
21. The domestic dispute was resolved without any citations being issued, and
the police left the home.
22. Plaintiff had no further contact with any police personnel until approximately
two (2) weeks later, when Plaintiff was sitting on the steps of St. Thomas of Villanova
Roman Catholic Church (located at 1229 East Lancaster Avenue, Rosemont, PA 19010)
which property abuts the backyard of Plaintiff’s home, one evening.
23. At that time, as Plaintiff was sitting on the church steps, speaking on the cell
phone, she was facing Lancaster Avenue and the Sunoco A-Plus station located across
the street from the church (at 1240 Lancaster Avenue, Rosemont, PA 19010), in whose
lot a police cruiser was parked.
24. After approximately fifteen (15) minutes, the police cruiser engine, headlights
and brake lights turned on, the police cruiser turned around and proceeded across
Lancaster Avenue in the parking lot of St. Thomas of Villanova Roman Catholic Church.
25. The said police cruiser then slowly approached Plaintiff, and stopped very
close to the steps upon which Plaintiff was seated.
26. Once the police cruiser stopped , the police officer operating it, later identified
as Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, greeted Plaintiff, calling her “Gabriella,”
asked Plaintiff if she remembered his face as familiar, indicated that he remembered her,
and said he hoped that she got her own place to live since he was at her home. He then
asked her to hang up her cell phone so she could chat with him.
27. Plaintiff then ended the phone call with her friend, indicated to Defendant
Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN her belief that he was mistaken, and inquired as to how
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 7 of 36
8
he knew her name.
28. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN then told Plaintiff that he was
the officer who spoke to her on May 5, 2010 and said that he could never forget her face.
29. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN then received a message via
radio dispatch that there was a police call in Gladwyne, Pennsylvania regarding allegations
of some sort of underage drinking or drug use.
30. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN told Plaintiff that this was a
routine police call, and that he would like to finish speaking with her when he was finished
with the police call.
31. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN then arranged to meet Plaintiff
after his police call, approximately an hour later in the abandoned Smith & Hawken parking
lot located on Montrose Ave, near its intersection with Rose Lane in Rosemont,
Pennsylvania.
32. Approximately an hour later, Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN and
Plaintiff did meet in the said abandoned Smith & Hawken parking lot, where they spoke
for at least an hour.
33. During that conversation, Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN asked
for Plaintiff’s cell phone number and email address, and gave Plaintiff his email address,
but not his phone number.
34. Almost immediately upon parting, Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN
emailed Plaintiff and initiated an extensive exchange of emails over the next few months.
35. The majority of emails sent by Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 8 of 36
9
were sent while he was on duty, and a number were sent directly from his police cruiser,
sent to alert Plaintiff that he was in her neighborhood to see her while he was on duty.
During this time period, Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN and Plaintiff often met
in person, but there was no sexual or intimate contact between them.
36. Over the span of several weeks of this contact, Plaintiff began to develop
romantic feelings for Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, who heretofore had
hidden from Plaintiff the fact that he was married and had seven children.
37. One day approximately in July of 2010, Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL
JOHN asked to see Plaintiff in person and admitted that he was married and had seven
children. This upset Plaintiff greatly, but Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN
represented to Plaintiff that he was in the process of divorcing his wife.
38. Plaintiff initially believed Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN when
he said he was in the process of divorcing his wife, and so continued to meet, email, and
talk with Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN in July 2010, although no sexual or
intimate contact took place then between Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN.
39. Later in July, 2010, Plaintiff came to the realization and belief that Defendant
Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN was not telling the truth and was not in the process of
divorcing his wife.
40. Thereafter, Plaintiff informed Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN that
it was inappropriate for them to continue to have contact.
41. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN thereafter contacted Plaintiff and
asked to meet with Plaintiff on whatever date was a Wednesday of that week (which
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 9 of 36
10
Plaintiff believes was likely July 21, 2010), to bring closure to the relationship between
Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN and Plaintiff.
42. Plaintiff agreed to meet Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN on said
Wednesday, and Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN told Plaintiff he would meet
her in his private motor vehicle at the end of her street at approximately 10:30am
43. After Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN picked Plaintiff up in his
motor vehicle, they went for coffee to discuss what Plaintiff perceived as Defendant Police
Officer MICHAEL JOHN dishonesty in pursuing a relationship with her. Plaintiff stated
during the conversation that she felt it was inappropriate for them to have a relationship in
light of the fact that Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN was married with seven
children, and was not, in fact, in the process of getting a divorce.
44. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN suggested they continue the
conversation after they were done their coffee.
45. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN suggested they go to a public
park to finish their discussion, and Plaintiff acquiesced.
46. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN then drove to a public park
located in Gladwyne, Lower Merion Township.
47. Once at said park, Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN and Plaintiff
walked for approximately a mile, when Plaintiff noticed there was no one else nearby.
48. At that point, Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN attempted to hug
Plaintiff, and Plaintiff told Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN that she did not feel
comfortable with him hugging her.
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 10 of 36
11
49. After Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN attempted to hug Plaintiff,
she backed away from him and started moving in the direction of the parking area where
he had parked the vehicle.
50. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN then demanded that Plaintiff look
at him, and give him a hug to show that there were no hard feelings.
51. Then, instead of a hug, Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN sexually
assaulted Plaintiff, forcefully grabbing her left breast under her shirt.
52. Plaintiff then pulled away from Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN’s
grip and demanded to be taken back to her home.
53. At this time, in what Plaintiff understood to be an attempt to threaten,
intimidate and/or frighten Plaintiff, Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN told
Plaintiff that he knew, given his status as a Lower Merion Township police officer, and the
fact that there is a system at the Lower Merion Township police department where officers
will coverup misconduct of fellow police officers, he could get away with criminal conduct
if he so chose, and could get away with “murder” if he so chose. Defendant Police Officer
MICHAEL JOHN told Plaintiff that he could perform legal favors for Plaintiff if Plaintiff
maintained a relationship with him.
54. He also told Plaintiff at this time, and at other times, that he suffered mental
illness, but did not accept any treatment for the mental illness.
55. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN did take Plaintiff home without
further assaultive incident, but then commenced a campaign of harassment, stalking, and
intimidation of Plaintiff, while on duty as a Lower Merion Township police officer.
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 11 of 36
12
56. During the later portion of July and August 2010, after Plaintiff had clearly
communicated to Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN that it was inappropriate for
them to have further contact with each other, Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN
followed, harassed, stalked and intimidated Plaintiff.
57. The harassment, stalking, and intimidation of Plaintiff, while he was on duty
as a Lower Merion Township police officer, consisted of repeatedly driving past her
residence, repeated parking in her neighborhood for extended periods of time while he was
supposed to be conducting police business, repeatedly parking his police cruiser behind
bushes on private property abutting the rear of Plaintiff’s residence for extended periods
of time while on duty to peer and peep into Plaintiff’s residence, repeatedly calling and
emailing Plaintiff while on duty to tell he was looking into her home, looking into her
bedroom, and attempting to make contact with her against her wishes, putting her in great
fear and apprehension.
58. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN continued to follow, harass, stalk
and intimidate Plaintiff after Plaintiff communicated to Defendant Police Officer
MICHAEL JOHN that she wanted no further contact with him.
59. In mid August 2010, Plaintiff told a neighbor about the misconduct of
Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, but not report same to the authorities for fear
of retribution.
60. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff believes that her neighbor reported said
misconduct to personnel at Lower Merion Township.
61. After Plaintiff was informed that her neighbor reported said misconduct to
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 12 of 36
13
personnel at Lower Merion Township, another Lower Merion Township contacted Plaintiff.
She spoke to that officer twice over the phone, but did not go to the police station to file
formal charges against Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN.
62. On October 13, 2010, Plaintiff was stopped in a parked motor vehicle by
another Lower Merion Township police officer, later identified as Defendant Police Officer
STEPHEN SALERA in Plaintiff’s neighborhood in an unconstitutional vehicle stop which
Plaintiff believes and avers was either in retaliation for the report of Defendant Police
Officer MICHAEL JOHN’s misconduct, or further harassment by Defendant Police Officer
STEPHEN SALERA, a fellow member of the Lower Merion police department, at the
request of, and/or on behalf of Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING DAMAGES
63. As a direct and proximate result of the above mentioned acts of the
Defendants, Plaintiff has been caused to suffer great mental harm, anguish pain, suffering
and injury, including physical symptoms and exacerbation of preexisting conditions, from
the time of the incident until now, and will continue to suffer same well into the future, and
may in the future lose sums of money due to medical expenses past, present and future;
may in the future have lost wages, earnings and earning capacity, due to the misconduct
alleged in this complaint and by reason of having been greatly humiliated and held up to
public scorn and ridicule as a result of the foregoing acts.
64. Plaintiff has been forced to incur obligations for investigation, attorney fees,
court reporter fees and other expenses in the prosecution and protection of her civil rights,
which is a serious burden to her.
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 13 of 36
14
65. Due to the intentional, egregious, outrageous and at least recklessly
indifferent nature of the misconduct of Defendants as outlined in this complaint, Plaintiff
demands not only compensatory damages, but punitive damages, as against Defendant
Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN only.
66. Plaintiff was so distraught by this series of events, that she physically had
symptoms and sought attention from a psychiatrist about this series of events.
COUNT IPLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONSFOURTH AMENDMENT- UNREASONABLE SEARCH
67. Plaintiff incorporates all her previous allegations herein as though set forth
fully and at length.
68. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy inside her home and on her
family’s property, which Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN violated repeatedly by
frequently monitoring Plaintiff’s neighborhood and home, and by parking his police cruiser
behind bushes on private property abutting the rear of Plaintiff’s residence for extended
periods of time while on duty to peer and peep into Plaintiff’s residence, repeatedly calling
and emailing Plaintiff while on duty, to tell her he was looking into her home, looking into
her bedroom, and attempting to make contact with her against her wishes, putting her in
great fear and apprehension.
69. This violation of Plaintiff’s reasonable expectation of privacy constituted a
warrantless, baseless and unconstitutional search and/or was otherwise a violation of
Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights.
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 14 of 36
15
70. Such an invasion of Plaintiff’s reasonable expectation of privacy is per se
unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
71. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN’s intent and purpose in violating
Plaintiff’s reasonable expectation of privacy was to follow, harass, stalk and intimidate
Plaintiff, and was done deliberately, intentionally, and at least with reckless disregard of
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
72. The above-referenced misconduct is a violation of the Fourth Amendment
to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution, as well as 42 U.S.C. §1983.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff GABRIELLE DREXLER demands compensatory damages
against the Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, individually, jointly and severally,
in an amount in excess of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000.00) and further demands
punitive damages against the Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, in an amount
in excess of ($100,000.00). A demand is also made for costs, expenses, reasonable
attorney fees and such other relief as the Court deems just, proper and equitable. Plaintiff
demands a trial by jury.
COUNT IIPLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONSFOURTH AMENDMENT- PERSONAL SECURITY AND LIBERTY
73. Plaintiff incorporates all her previous allegations herein as though set forth
fully and at length.
74. The rights guaranteed citizen under the Fourth Amendment to the United
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 15 of 36
16
States Constitution, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution, include the right to personal security and personal liberty. See Boyd
v. United States, 6 S.Ct. 524, 116 U.S. 616, 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886).
75. Plaintiff had the right to personal security and personal liberty in her home,
which was violated by Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN when he repeatedly
monitored Plaintiff’s neighborhood and home with no legitimate purpose, and parked his
police cruiser behind bushes on private property abutting the rear of Plaintiff’s residence
for extended periods of time while on duty to peer and peep into Plaintiff’s residence,
repeatedly calling and emailing Plaintiff while on duty to tell her he was looking into her
home, looking into her bedroom, and attempting to make contact with her against her
wishes, putting her in great fear and apprehension.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff GABRIELLE DREXLER demands compensatory damages
against the Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, individually, jointly and severally,
in an amount in excess of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000.00) and further demands
punitive damages against the Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, in an amount
in excess of ($100,000.00). A demand is also made for costs, expenses, reasonable
attorney fees and such other relief as the Court deems just, proper and equitable. Plaintiff
demands a trial by jury.
COUNT III
PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
FOURTH AMENDMENT- UNREASONABLE SEARCH/SEIZURE
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 16 of 36
17
76. Plaintiff incorporates all her previous allegations herein as though set forth
fully and at length.
77. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy inside her friend’s motor
vehicle parked near her family’s property, which Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN
SALERA violated by pulling his police cruiser behind the parked vehicle she occupied near
her family’s property on private property, utilizing both lights and his siren, waking
neighbors, and demanding that Plaintiff get out of the vehicle and show him identification,
shouting and berating her, putting her in great fear and apprehension.
78. This violation of Plaintiff’s reasonable expectation of privacy constituted a
warrantless, baseless and unconstitutional search and/or was otherwise a violation of
Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights.
79. Such an invasion of Plaintiff’s reasonable expectation of privacy is per se
unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
80. Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA’s intent and purpose in
violating Plaintiff’s reasonable expectation of privacy was to follow, harass, frighten and
intimidate Plaintiff, and was done deliberately, intentionally, and at least with reckless
disregard of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
81. The above-referenced misconduct is a violation of the Fourth Amendment
to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution, as well as 42 U.S.C. §1983.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff GABRIELLE DREXLER demands compensatory damages
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 17 of 36
18
against the Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA, individually, jointly and
severally, in an amount in excess of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000.00) and further
demands punitive damages against the Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA,
in an amount in excess of ($100,000.00). A demand is also made for costs, expenses,
reasonable attorney fees and such other relief as the Court deems just, proper and
equitable. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.
COUNT IV
PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANTS TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OFLOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent MICHAEL J.
McGRATH
FEDERAL “MONELL” CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
82. Plaintiff incorporates all her previous allegations herein as though set forth
fully and at length.
83. This cause of action is brought by Plaintiff against Defendants TOWNSHIP
OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT and
Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH for deprivation by it of her constitutional
rights within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §1983.
84. The state and federal courts have, for decades, held that police officers are
bound to respect the rights of citizens against unreasonable searches, the rights of citizens’
liberty and security, and the rights of citizens not to be followed, harassed, stalked and
intimidated in their own homes by a police officer on duty, in addition to the right to be free
of unreasonable searches and seizures.
85. Despite knowledge of state and federal law governing the conduct of its/their
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 18 of 36
19
police officers, Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER
MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH
maintain a custom, pattern, practice and/or policy of failing to train TOWNSHIP OF
LOWER MERION police officers, including, but not limited to Defendants Police Officer
MICHAEL JOHN and Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA, about the proper use of the
police power, about the illegality of a police officer following, harassing, stalking and
intimidating citizens in their own homes, about the illegality of a police officer repeatedly
monitoring a particular citizen’s neighborhood and home with no legitimate purpose, and/or
parking his police cruiser behind bushes on private property abutting the a citizen’s
residence for extended periods of time while on duty to peer and peep into the citizen’s
residence, and/or repeatedly calling and emailing the citizen while on duty to tell her he
was looking into her home, looking into her bedroom, attempting to make contact with her
against her wishes, and, with regard to Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA,
about the proper and allowable ways in which a warrantless vehicle stop may be made in
comport with the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
86. Further despite such knowledge, Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER
MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police
Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH maintain a custom, pattern, practice and/or
policy of failing to discipline or correct officers, including Defendant Police Officer
MICHAEL JOHN who engage in such misconduct.
87. The unlawful custom, pattern, practice and/or policy of Defendants
TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 19 of 36
20
DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH is illustrated in this
case by the fact that the Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN’s police cruiser was
equipped with GPS or other location monitoring equipment, such that Defendants
TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE
DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH actually knew and
could track the movements and location of Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN’s
police cruiser, and so knew that Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN had repeatedly
parked his police cruiser in the vicinity of Plaintiff’s home and on private property for
extended periods of time when he was supposed to be patrolling.
88. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that discovery will show that
Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION
POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH’s unlawful
custom, pattern, practice and/or policy will be further illustrated at trial by the fact that, for
an extended period of time prior to the incidents involving Plaintiff, Defendants TOWNSHIP
OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT and
Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH were aware of similar misconduct and/or
other misconduct committed by Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, Defendant
Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA and other TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE
DEPARTMENT police officers, and failed to take proper disciplinary action.
89. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that discovery will show that
Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION
POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH’s unlawful
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 20 of 36
21
custom, pattern, practice and/or policy is to instruct, train and teach its police officers in
such a manner as to believe and understand, as Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL
JOHN told Plaintiff he believed and understood, that TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION
POLICE DEPARTMENT police officers could commit acts of misconduct, including the
misconduct engaged in by Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN and Defendant
Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA, without fear of repercussion or prosecution.
Illustrative of this custom, pattern, practice and/or policy, inter alia, is the fact that
Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN told Plaintiff that he knew, given his status as
a TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT police officer, and the fact
that there is a system at the Lower Merion Township police department where officers will
coverup misconduct of fellow police officers, he could get away with criminal conduct if he
so chose, and could get away with “murder” if he so chose. Regarding Defendant Police
Officer STEPHEN SALERA, illustrative of this custom, pattern, practice and/or policy, inter
alia, is the fact that other Lower Merion Township police department had previously made
illegal vehicle stops in the past without repurcussion or discipline.
90. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff avers that Police Superintendent
MICHAEL J. McGRATH, the commanding officers and/or other policy makers at
Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION and TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION
POLICE DEPARTMENT are responsible for the development and implementation of
training for Defendant TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT’s police
officers, including Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN and Defendant Police
Officer STEPHEN SALERA.
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 21 of 36
22
91. Also upon information and belief, Police Superintendent MICHAEL J.
McGRATH, the commanding officers and/or other policy makers at Defendants
TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION and TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE
DEPARTMENT have failed to implement training for Defendant TOWNSHIP OF LOWER
MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT’s police officers about the proper use of the police
power, about making vehicle stops in comport with the Fourth Amendment, about the
illegality of a police officer following, harassing, stalking and intimidating citizens in their
own homes, about the illegality of a police officer repeatedly monitoring a particular
citizen’s neighborhood and home with no legitimate purpose, and/or parking his police
cruiser behind bushes on private property abutting the a citizen’s residence for extended
periods of time while on duty to peer and peep into the citizen’s residence, and/or
repeatedly calling and emailing the citizen while on duty to tell her he was looking into her
home, looking into her bedroom, and/or attempting to make contact with her against her
wishes.
92. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff avers that Police Superintendent
MICHAEL J. McGRATH, the commanding officers and/or other policy makers at
Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION and TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION
POLICE DEPARTMENT are responsible for the supervision and discipline of Defendants
TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION and TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE
DEPARTMENT’s police officers, including Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN and
Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA.
93. Also upon information and belief, Police Superintendent MICHAEL J.
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 22 of 36
23
McGRATH, the commanding officers and/or other policy makers at Defendants
TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION and TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE
DEPARTMENT have failed to appropriately train, supervise and/or discipline said police
officers regarding the aforementioned issues, despite being aware of the illegality of such
conduct, and despite the fact that similar misconduct and disciplinary issues arise with both
frequency and regularity.
94. As a result of this custom, pattern, practice and/or policy, Defendant Police
Officer MICHAEL JOHN and Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA felt perfectly
safe, secured and protected in committing the misconduct described herein, including the
assault/battery alleged against Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN in Count V,
which was performed while he was not on duty.
95. Upon information and belief, Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH,
the commanding officers and/or other policy makers at Defendants TOWNSHIP OF
LOWER MERION and TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT , acted
with deliberate indifference by failing to train Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN
and Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA in their constitutional obligations to
respect individuals’ rights to remain free from illegal searches, harassment, stalking, and
intimidation, and his constitutional obligations to respect individuals’ rights to personal
liberty and security; further that failure was a direct cause of the misconduct detailed
herein.
96. Further, upon information and belief, Police Superintendent MICHAEL J.
McGRATH, the commanding officers and/or other policy makers at Defendants
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 23 of 36
24
TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION and TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE
DEPARTMENT, acted with deliberate indifference by actually instructing, encouraging
and/or ratifying the misconduct by police officers.
97. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, and Defendant Police Officer
STEPHEN SALERA ,Individually, and in their capacity as a Police Officers, acting under
color of law as authorized police officers for Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION
and TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police
Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH, while in the acts aforesaid, resulted in a
constitutional deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights in violation of the Fourth
Amendment of the United States Constitution, as applied to the states under the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
98. In addition to the facts alleged above, Plaintiff believes and avers that, at
trial, Plaintiff will prove the following specific facts supporting her “Monell” claim of
municipal liability against Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION and TOWNSHIP
OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent MICHAEL J.
McGRATH, relative to the violation of her constitutional rights:
a. Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION and TOWNSHIP OF LOWER
MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT, through Police Superintendent MICHAEL J.
McGRATH, other officers and other policy makers, established a course of conduct,
custom, pattern, practice and/or policy whereby they failed to train TOWNSHIP OF
LOWER MERION police officers, including, but not limited to Defendant Police Officer
MICHAEL JOHN and Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA , about the proper
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 24 of 36
25
use of the police power, about making vehicle stops in comport with the Fourth
Amendment, about the illegality of a police officer following, harassing, stalking and
intimidating citizens in their own homes, about the illegality of a police officer repeatedly
monitoring a particular citizen’s neighborhood and home with no legitimate purpose, and/or
parking his police cruiser behind bushes on private property abutting the a citizen’s
residence for extended periods of time while on duty to peer and peep into the citizen’s
residence, and/or repeatedly calling and emailing the citizen while on duty to tell her he
was looking into her home, looking into her bedroom, and/or attempting to make contact
with her against her wishes;
b. Despite such knowledge, Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION,
TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent
MICHAEL J. McGRATH maintain a custom, pattern, practice and/or policy of failing to
discipline or correct officers, including Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN and
Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA ,who engage in such misconduct;
c. Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER
MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH
actually knew and could track the movements and location of Defendant Police Officer
MICHAEL JOHN’s police cruiser, and so knew that Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL
JOHN had repeatedly parked his police cruiser in the vicinity of Plaintiff’s home and on
private property for extended periods of time when he was supposed to be patrolling;
d. Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER
MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 25 of 36
26
were aware of similar misconduct and/or other misconduct committed by Defendant Police
Officer MICHAEL JOHN, Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA and other
TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT police officers for an extended
period of time prior to the incidents involving Plaintiff, and failed to take proper disciplinary
action;
e. Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER
MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH’s
unlawful custom, pattern, practice and/or policy is to instruct, train and teach its police
officers in such a manner as to believe and understand, as Defendant Police Officer
MICHAEL JOHN told Plaintiff he believed and understood, that TOWNSHIP OF LOWER
MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT police officers could commit acts of misconduct,
including the misconduct engaged in by Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, and
Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA without fear of repercussion, discipline or
prosecution. Illustrative of this custom, pattern, practice and/or policy, inter alia, is the fact
that Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN told Plaintiff that he knew, given his status
as a TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT police officer, and the
fact that there is a system at the Lower Merion Township police department where officers
will coverup misconduct of fellow police officers, he could get away with criminal conduct
if he so chose, and could get away with “murder” if he so chose;
f. Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH, the commanding officers
and/or other policy makers at Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION and
TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT have failed to implement
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 26 of 36
27
training for Defendant TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT’s police
officers about the proper use of the police power, about the necessity of conducting vehicel
stops in comport with the Fourth Amendment, about the illegality of a police officer
following, harassing, stalking and intimidating citizens in their own homes, about the
illegality of a police officer repeatedly monitoring a particular citizen’s neighborhood and
home with no legitimate purpose, and/or parking his police cruiser behind bushes on
private property abutting the a citizen’s residence for extended periods of time while on
duty to peer and peep into the citizen’s residence, and/or repeatedly calling and emailing
the citizen while on duty to tell her he was looking into her home, looking into her bedroom,
and/or attempting to make contact with her against her wishes;
g. Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH, the commanding officers
and/or other policy makers at Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION and
TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT have failed to appropriately
train, supervise and/or discipline said police officers regarding the aforementioned issues,
despite being aware of the illegality of such conduct, and despite the fact that similar
misconduct and disciplinary issues arise with both frequency and regularity;
h. As a result of this custom, pattern, practice and/or policy, Defendant Police
Officer MICHAEL JOHN and Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA felt perfectly
safe, secured and protected in committing the misconduct described herein, including the
assault/battery alleged against Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN in Count V,
which was performed while he was not on duty;
i. Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH, the commanding officers
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 27 of 36
28
and/or other policy makers at Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION and
TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT, acted with deliberate
indifference by failing to train Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN and Defendant
Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA in their constitutional obligations to respect individuals’
rights to remain free from illegal searches, harassment, stalking, and intimidation, and his
constitutional obligations to respect individuals’ rights to personal liberty and security;
further that failure was a direct cause of the misconduct detailed herein;
j. Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH, the commanding officers
and/or other policy makers at Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION and
TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT, acted with deliberate
indifference by actually instructing, encouraging and/or ratifying the misconduct by police
officers.
k. Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER
MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH,
established a course of conduct, custom, pattern, practice and/or policy whereby its
commanding officers and/or other policy makers ratified, approved and encouraged
misconduct by police officers by lack of discipline when police misconduct was reported;
99. Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER
MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT have a history of threatening, assaulting, intimidating,
harassing, stalking and/or following innocent citizens while on duty and/or in uniform, of
refusing to honestly report, investigate, charge or recommend charges against agents,
servants, workmen and/or employees of Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION,
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 28 of 36
29
TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT who do so against citizens
similarly situated as Plaintiff and depriving them of their constitutional rights within the
meaning of 42 U.S.C. §1983.
100. The constitutional deprivations were caused by the lack of training,
supervision, review and discipline by Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION,
TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent
MICHAEL J. McGRATH with regard to their officers, and police officers in general and
Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN and Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN
SALERA , in particular, by failing to train, supervise, review and discipline said Defendants
in how to appropriately interact with citizens without causing the deprivation of
constitutional rights, and by failing to train, supervise, review and discipline said officers,
departing from the prevailing standards.
101. Prior to the date of the incident involving Plaintiff, Defendants TOWNSHIP
OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT
permitted, tolerated and overlooked and/or approved the constitutional violations of citizens
by officers of its police department, including, but not limited to Defendant Police Officer
MICHAEL JOHN, Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA and other officers
similarly situated, who were not properly trained and supervised to appropriately interact
with citizens without causing the deprivation of constitutional rights.
102. Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER
MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT is responsible for the promulgation, adoption, and
implementation of official policies for its officers and police officers in general and
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 29 of 36
30
Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN and Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN
SALERA, in particular, to appropriately interact with citizens without causing the
deprivation of constitutional rights.
103. As a direct and proximate result of the above-mentioned unconstitutional acts
of Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION
POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH, Plaintiff
has sustained mental distress and injuries, financial damages and deprivation of civil rights
as indicated herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff GABRIELLE DREXLER demands compensatory damages
against Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION
POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH, solely,
jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000.00).
A demand is also made for costs, expenses, reasonable attorney fees and such other relief
as the Court deems just, proper and equitable. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.
COUNT V
PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN
STATE LAW VIOLATIONS
ASSAULT and BATTERY
104. Plaintiff incorporates all her previous allegations herein as though set forth
fully and at length.
105. Plaintiff suffered offensive physical contact, at the hands of Defendant
Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, in the form of a sexual assault, in particular, as described
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 30 of 36
31
in ¶¶48 through 53 above.
106. The said actions of Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, constituted
both assault and battery.
9107. Under Pennsylvania law, a cause of action for battery depends not upon the
severity of the contact or injury, but upon the intent and offensiveness of the contact. In
Cohen v. Lit Brothers, 166 Pa. Super. 206, 70 A.2d 419 (1950), the court held that "a
battery is committed whenever the violence menaced in an assault is actually done, though
in ever so small a degree, upon the person."
108. In this case, great and menacing unwanted physical contact was done to
Plaintiff, when Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN grabbed her and forcefully
grabbed her left breast.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff GABRIELLE DREXLER demands compensatory damages
against the Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, individually, jointly and severally,
in an amount in excess of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000.00) and further demands
punitive damages against the Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, in an amount
in excess of ($100,000.00). A demand is also made for costs, expenses, reasonable
attorney fees and such other relief as the Court deems just, proper and equitable. Plaintiff
demands a trial by jury.
COUNT VI
PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN
STATE LAW VIOLATIONS
IINTENTIONAL INFLICTION of EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 31 of 36
32
109. Plaintiff incorporates all her previous allegations herein as though set forth
fully and at length.
110. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN,
acting individually and in concert and conspiracy, did knowingly, intentionally, maliciously,
negligently and/or recklessly inflict emotional distress upon Plaintiff, in the absence of any
valid or reasonable basis.
111. As a result of all Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN’s conduct,
Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress, mental anguish, loss of
reputation and/or related losses. The actions of said Defendant exceeded the normal
standards of decent conduct and were wilful, malicious, oppressive, outrageous and
unjustifiable and, therefore, punitive damages are necessary and appropriate.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff GABRIELLE DREXLER demands compensatory damages
against the Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, individually, jointly and severally,
in an amount in excess of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000.00) and further demands
punitive damages against the Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, in an amount
in excess of ($100,000.00). A demand is also made for costs, expenses, reasonable
attorney fees and such other relief as the Court deems just, proper and equitable. Plaintiff
demands a trial by jury.
COUNT VII
PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANTS
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS UNDER THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 32 of 36
33
112. Plaintiff incorporates all her previous allegations herein as though set forth
fully and at length.
113. At all time relevant hereto, Defendants, acting in concert and conspiracy,
committed the above-referenced acts against Plaintiff. As a direct result of these actions,
Plaintiff was denied rights under the laws and Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
114. The conduct of Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN was undertaken
knowingly, intelligently, intentionally, negligently, recklessly and/or with malice and the
reckless disregard for truth and the rights of Plaintiff.
115. As a result of all Defendants’ conduct, acting in concert and conspiracy,
Plaintiff’s rights under, but not limited to, Article 1, sections 1, 8, 9, 13 and 26 of the
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the laws of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania were violated, as Plaintiff was subjected to the violations described herein.
As a result, Plaintiff suffere emotional distress, mental anguish, loss of reputation, scorn
of the community, financial and/or related losses.
116. The actions of all Defendants exceeded the normal standards of decent
conduct and were wilful, malicious, oppressive, outrageous and unjustifiable and, therefore,
punitive damages are necessary and appropriate.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff GABRIELLE DREXLER demands compensatory damages
against the Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, individually, jointly and severally,
in an amount in excess of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000.00) and further demands
punitive damages against the Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, in an amount
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 33 of 36
34
in excess of ($100,000.00). A demand is also made for costs, expenses, reasonable
attorney fees and such other relief as the Court deems just, proper and equitable. Plaintiff
demands a trial by jury.
COUNT VIII
PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANTS
CIVIL CONSPIRACY
117. Plaintiff incorporates all her previous allegations herein as though set forth
fully and at length.
118. At all times relevant hereto, all Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN,
and Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA, acting in concert and conspiracy with
other police officers, together committed acts against Plaintiff, including an unwarranted
detention and unlawful search and seizure, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress on October 13, 2010, as described herein. At that time, Plaintiff was
stopped in a parked motor vehicle by Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA in
her neighborhood in an event which Plaintiff believes and avers was either in retaliation
for the report of Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN’s misconduct, or further
harassment by a fellow member of the Lower Merion police department at the request of,
and/or on behalf of Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN.
119. At that time, Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA, a fellow
TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT police officer of Defendant
Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, with lights and siren in operation, pulled behind the
parked vehicle occupied by Plaintiff yards from her home, and demanded Plaintiff exit the
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 34 of 36
35
vehicle and produce identification for no valid or legitimate reason.
120. Plaintiff believes and avers this police stop was either in retaliation for the
report of Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN’s misconduct, and/or further
harassment by a fellow member of the Lower Merion police department at the request of,
and/or on behalf of, Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, done in an effort to
intimidate or frighten Plaintiff into keeping quiet about Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL
JOHN’s misconduct.
121. The conduct of the Defendant officers, acting in concert and conspiracy, was
undertaken knowingly, intelligently, intentionally, negligently, recklessly and/or with malice
and the reckless disregard for truth and the rights of Plaintiff.
122. As a result of saidconduct, acting in concert and conspiracy, Plaintiff’s rights
under, but not limited to, Article 1, sections 1, 8, 9, 13 and 26 of the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania were
violated, as Plaintiff was subjected to intimidation, harassment, and the misuse of police
power; that she was improperly detained and seized, unlawfully interrogated and denied
due process and equal protection of the law by Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN
SALERA . As a result, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress,
mental anguish, loss of reputation, scorn of the community, and/or related losses.
123. The said actions exceeded the normal standards of decent conduct and were
wilful, malicious, oppressive, outrageous and unjustifiable and, therefore, punitive damages
are necessary and appropriate.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff GABRIELLE DREXLER demands compensatory damages
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 35 of 36
36
against the Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, and Defendant Police Officer
STEPHEN SALERA, individually, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of One
Hundred Thousand ($100,000.00) and further demands punitive damages against the said
Defendants, in an amount in excess of ($100,000.00). A demand is also made for costs,
expenses, reasonable attorney fees and such other relief as the Court deems just, proper
and equitable. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.
Respectfully Submitted,
JEFFREY R. LESSIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
BY: JRL5292
JEFFREY R. LESSIN, ESQUIRE
MARK T. RICHTER, ESQUIRE
I.D. Nos. 43801 and 45195
Attorneys for Plaintiff Gabrielle Drexler
1500 J.F.K. Boulevard, Suite 600
Philadelphia, PA 19102
215-599-1400
Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 Page 36 of 36
Recommended