Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    1/43

    S 44 (Rev. 12/12)   CIVIL COVER SHEETThe JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except

    rovided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for theurpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

    . (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

    (b)  County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

    (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

     NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OFTHE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

     (c)  Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)  Attorneys (If Known)

    I. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant

    ’ 1 U.S. Government   ’ 3 Federal Question   PTF DEF PTF D

    Plaintiff  (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State   ’ 1   ’  1 Incorporated or  Principal Place   ’ 4  

      of Business In This State

    ’ 2 U.S. Government   ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State   ’ 2   ’  2 Incorporated and  Principal Place   ’ 5  

    Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

    Citizen or Subject of a   ’ 3   ’  3 Foreign Nation   ’ 6  

      Foreign Country

    V. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

    ’ 110 Insurance   PERSONAL INJURY   PERSONAL INJURY   ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure   ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158   ’ 375 False Claims Act

    ’ 120 Marine   ’ 310 Airplane   ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881   ’ 423 Withdrawal   ’ 400 State Reapportionm

    ’ 130 Miller Act   ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability   ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157   ’ 410 Antitrust

    ’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability   ’ 367 Health Care/   ’ 430 Banks and Banking

    ’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment   ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS   ’ 450 Commerce

     & Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury   ’ 820 Copyrights   ’ 460 Deportation

    ’ 151 Medicare Act   ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liabi lity   ’ 830 Patent   ’ 470 Racketeer Influence

    ’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability   ’ 368 Asbestos Personal   ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizatio

     Student Loans   ’ 340 Marine Injury Product   ’ 480 Consumer Credit

     (Excludes Veterans)   ’ 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY   ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV

    ’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability   PERSONAL PROPERTY   ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards   ’ 861 HIA (1395ff)   ’ 850 Securities/Commod

     of Veteran’s Benefits   ’ 350 Motor Vehicle   ’ 370 Other Fraud Act   ’ 862 Black Lung (923) Exchange

    ’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits   ’ 355 Motor Vehicle   ’ 371 Truth in Lending   ’ 720 Labor/Management   ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))   ’ 890 Other Statutory Acti

    ’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability   ’ 380 Other Personal Relations   ’ 864 SSID Title XVI   ’ 891 Agricultural Acts

    ’ 195 Contract Product Liability   ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage   ’ 740 Railway Labor Act   ’ 865 RSI (405(g))   ’ 893 Environmental Matt

    ’ 196 Franchise Injury   ’ 385 Property Damage   ’ 751 Family and Medical   ’ 895 Freedom of Informa

    ’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act Act Medical Malpractice   ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation   ’ 896 Arbitration

     REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS   ’ 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS   ’ 899 Administrative Proc

    ’ 210 Land Condemnation   ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus:  Income Security Act   ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act/Review or Appe

    ’ 220 Foreclosure   ’ 441 Voting   ’ 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) Agency Decision

    ’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment   ’ 442 Employment   ’ 510 Motions to Vacate   ’ 871 IRS—Third Party   ’ 950 Constitutionality of 

    ’ 240 Torts to Land   ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 State Statutes

    ’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations   ’ 530 General

    ’ 290 All Other Real Property   ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities -   ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION

     Employment Other:   ’ 462 Naturalization Application’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities -   ’ 540 Mandamus & Other    ’ 465 Other Immigration

     Other    ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions

    ’ 448 Education   ’ 555 Prison Condition

    ’ 560 Civil Detainee -

     Conditions of

    Confinement

    V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

    ’ 1 OriginalProceeding

    ’ 2 Removed fromState Court

    ’  3 Remanded fromAppellate Court

    ’ 4 Reinstated or Reopened

    ’  5 Transferred fromAnother District(specify)

    ’  6 MultidistrictLitigation

    VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

    Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity ):

     

    Brief description of cause:

    VII. REQUESTED IN

    COMPLAINT:

    ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

    UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.

    DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint

    JURY DEMAND:   ’ Yes   ’  No

    VIII. RELATED CASE(S)

    IF ANY(See instructions):

    JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER  

    DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

    FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

    RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

    Tanya Brown-Dickerson, Administratrix of the Estate of Brandon Tate-Brown, deceased obo the Estate and all others similarly situated

    Philadelphia

    Brian R. Mildenberg, Esq. 215-545-4870Mildenberg Law Firm, PC735 Market Street, Ste. 3750, Phila., PA 19103

    City of PhiladelphiaNicholas CarrelliHeng Dang

    Philadelphia

    Craig Straw, Esq. / John Coyle, Esq.City of Philadelphia Law Department, 1515 Arch St, 14th Fl.Philadelphia, PA 19102

    42 USC sec. 1983

    Action for wrongful death/excessive force/municipal liability and reforms

    Hon. Stewart Dalzell 10-5952

    9/2/15

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    2/43

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA — DESIGNATION FORM to be used by counsel to indicate the category of the case for the purpose

    assignment to appropriate calendar.

    Address of Plaintiff:

    Address of Defendant:

    Place of Accident, Incident or Transaction:

    (Use Reverse Side For Additional Space)

     

    Does this civil action involve a nongovernmental corporate party with any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock?

      (Attach two copies of the Disclosure Statement Form in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1(a)) Yes9

      No9

     

    Does this case involve multidistrict litigation possibilities? Yes9  No9

     RELATED CASE, IF ANY :

    Case Number: Judge Date Terminated:

    Civil cases are deemed related when yes is answered to any of the following questions:

    1. Is this case related to property included in an earlier numbered suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court?

      Yes9   No92. Does this case involve the same issue of fact or grow out of the same transaction as a prior suit pending or within one year previously terminated

      action in this court?

      Yes9   No93. Does this case involve the validity or infringement of a patent already in suit or any earlier numbered case pending or within one year previously

      terminated action in this court? Yes9   No9

    4. Is this case a second or successive habeas corpus, social security appeal, or pro se civil rights case filed by the same individual?

      Yes9  No9 

    CIVIL: (Place U in ONE CATEGORY ONLY)

    A. Federal Question Cases: B.  Diversity Jurisdict ion Cases:

     1. 9  Indemnity Contract, M arine C ontract, and All O ther C ontracts 1. 9  Insurance Contract and Other Contracts

     2. 9  FELA 2. 9  Airplane Personal Injury

     3. 9  Jones Act-Personal Injury 3. 9  Assault, Defamation

     4. 9 Antitrust 4. 9  Marine Personal Injury

     5. 9  Patent 5. 9  Motor Vehicle Personal Injury

     6. 9  Labor-Management Relations 6. 9  Other Personal Injury (Please specify)

     7. 9  Civil Rights 7. 9  Products Liability

     8. 9  Habeas Corpus 8. 9  Products Liability — Asbestos

     9. 9  Securities Act(s) Cases 9. 9  All other Diversity Cases

    10. 9  Social Security Review Cases (Please specify) 

    11. 9  All other Federal Question Cases

      (Please specify) 

    ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION(Check Appropriate Category)

    I, , counsel of record do hereby certify:  9  Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2, Section 3(c)(2), that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the damages recoverable in this civil action case exceed the sum of

    $150,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs;

      9  Relief other than monetary damages is sought.

    DATE:

    Attorney-at-Law Attorney I.D.#

    NOTE: A trial de novo will be a trial by jury only if there has been compliance with F.R.C.P. 38.

     

    I certify that, to my knowledge, the within case is not related to any case now pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court

    except as noted above.

    DATE:

    Attorney-at-Law Attorney I.D.#

    CIV. 609 (5/2012)

    see attached listing

    see attached listing

    Philadelphia, PA

    10-5952 Hon. S. Dalzell active

    x

     Brian R Mildenbergx

    x

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    3/43

    LIST OF NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF PARTIES:

    TANYA BROWN-DICKERSON,

    Administratrix of the Estate of

    BRANDON-TATE BROWN, deceased,

    on behalf of the Estate as Administratrixand a class of all others similarly situated,

    ADDRESS:

    5238 Horrocks Street

    Philadelphia, PA 19124,

    Plaintiff,

    v.

    CITY OF PHILADELPHIA1500 Arch Street, 14th

     Floor

    Philadelphia, PA 19103,

    NICHOLAS CARRELLI,

    1500 Arch Street, 14th

     Floor

    Philadelphia, PA 19103,

    HENG DANG,

    1500 Arch Street, 14th

     Floor

    Philadelphia, PA 19103,

    Defendants.

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    4/43

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

    CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM

    TANYA BROWN-DICKERSON et al.

    Plaintiff,

    v.

    CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al.,

    Defendants.

    In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court,

    counsel for plaintiff shall complete a Case Management Track Designation Form in all

    civil cases at the time of filing the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (See §

    1:03 of the plan set forth on the reverse side of this form.) In the event that a defendantdoes not agree with the plaintiff regarding said designation, that defendant shall, with its

    first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on the plaintiff and all other

    parties, a Case Management Track Designation Form specifying the track to which thatdefendant believes the case should be assigned.

    SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS:

    (a) Habeas Corpus – Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 through § 2255.

    (b) Social Security – Cases requesting review of a decision of the Secretary of Health

    and Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits.

    (c) Arbitration – Cases required to be designated for arbitration under Local Civil

    Rule 53.2.

    (d) Asbestos – Cases involving claims for personal injury or property damage from

    exposure to asbestos.

     XXXXXX (e) Special Management – Cases that do not fall into tracks (a) through

    (d) that are commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense

    management by the court. (See reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation

    of special management cases.)

    (f) Standard Management – Cases that do not fall into any one of the other tracks.

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, P.C.

     /s/ Brian R. Mildenberg

    By: BRIAN R. MILDENBERG, ESQUIRE

    Identification No.: 84861

    1735 Market Street, Suite 3750

    Philadelphia, PA 19103

    [email protected]

    (215) 545-4870 Counsel for Plaintiff  

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    5/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, P.C.

    By: BRIAN R. MILDENBERG, ESQUIRE

    Identification No.: 848611735 Market Street, Suite 3750

    Philadelphia, PA 19103

    [email protected]

    (215) 545-4870 Counsel for Plaintiff  

     ____________________________________

    :

    TANYA BROWN-DICKERSON, :

    Administratrix of the Estate of :

    BRANDON-TATE BROWN, deceased, :

    on behalf of the Estate as Administratrix :

    and a class of all others similarly situated, :5238 Horrocks Street :

    Philadelphia, PA 19124, :

    : CLASS ACTION FOR

    Plaintiff, : CIVIL RIGHTS

    : VIOLATIONS; and,

    v. : COMPLAINT FOR

    : WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL

    CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, :

    1500 Arch Street, 14th

     Floor :

    Philadelphia, PA 19103, :

    :

    NICHOLAS CARRELLI, : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

    1500 Arch Street, 14th

     Floor :

    Philadelphia, PA 19103, :

    :

    HENG DANG, :

    1500 Arch Street, 14th

     Floor :

    Philadelphia, PA 19103, :

    :

    Defendants, :

     ____________________________________:

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    6/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    COMPLAINT

    COMES NOW Plaintiff, requesting this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her

    favor, and against Defendants, and for her Complaint, alleges, upon information and belief, as

    follows:

    PARTIES

    1.  Plaintiff is Tanya Brown-Dickerson, an adult individual and citizen of

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, residing therein at the address listed on the caption of this

    Complaint.

    2.  Plaintiff is the natural mother of Brandon Tate-Brown, deceased. Brandon

    Tate-Brown died on December 15, 2014, when he was shot one time in the back of his head

     by Philadelphia Police Officer, Defendant Nicholas Carrelli, while his person was unarmed,

    during a traffic stop.

    3.  Plaintiff has qualified and been duly appointed Administratrix of the Estate of

    Brandon Tate-Brown, and was granted Letters of Administration by the Register of Wills of

    Philadelphia County on January 8, 2015, File # A0090-2015.

    4.  Plaintiff brings this action as Administratrix of the Estate of Brandon Tate-

    Brown. With respect to state law claims for wrongful death and survival, persons listed

     pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 2204 are decedent’s intestate heirs, Plaintiff and decedent’s natural

    father, Terrell T. Skinner (last known residence address: 293 South Jones Street, Lock Haven,

    PA 17745). This action is brought on their behalf, and they are being served with Notice

     pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 2205.

    5.  Plaintiff also brings this action on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,

    and seeks class certification of the injunctive relief claims against the Philadelphia Police

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    7/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    Department for violations of Plaintiff’s federal civil rights and rights under the Pennsylvania

    Constitution.

    6.  Defendant, the City of Philadelphia, is a municipality and City of the First

    Class, duly existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

    7.  Defendant, Nicholas Carrelli, is, upon information and belief, an adult

    individual and citizen of Philadelphia, who is employed by Defendant the City of Philadelphia

    as a Police Officer. Upon information and belief, Defendant Carrelli is the Police Officer who

    discharged his weapon and shot Brandon Tate-Brown one time in the back of the head on

    December 15, 2015, killing Brandon Tate-Brown. Upon information and belief, the City of

    Philadelphia Police Department refused to publically identify the name of Carrelli until June,

    2015. Further, upon information and belief, until June, 2015, the City of Philadelphia falsely

    claimed that Brandon Tate-Brown was reaching for a gun into his front side passenger door

    when shot, requiring Carrelli to kill him. The City has now admitted that story to be false.

    8.  Defendant, Heng Dang, is, upon information and belief, an adult individual and

    citizen of Philadelphia, who is employed by Defendant the City of Philadelphia as a Police

    Officer. Upon information and belief, Officer Dang was Officer Carrelli’s partner on

    December 15, 2015, and, upon information and belief, Dang was the driver of the police car

    that puled over Brandon Tate-Brown for the aforesaid traffic stop, while Carrelli sat in the

     passenger seat of said police vehicle. Upon information and belief, the City of Philadelphia

    Police Department refused to publically identify the name of Dang until June, 2015.

    CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

    9.  The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

    10.  This action is properly maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) &

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    8/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

    11.  With respect to the claims herein for equitable relief from the City of

    Philadelphia’s long term pattern and practice of conduct that violates Plaintiff’s federal civil

    rights and rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution as regards training for, procedures

    concerning, performance of, and investigation of officer involved physical altercations, use of

    force, and discharge of firearms, the Class is defined as: (a) all persons in the City of

    Philadelphia who have been or may in the future be injured or injured or killed, or who come

    into contact with Philadelphia Police Officers during arrest where physicality, use of force, or

    discharge of firearms is involved; and (b) all minorities who have or may in the future come

    into contact with Philadelphia Police Officers where the aforesaid factors are involved and/or

    where a police conduct during the interaction results from or is affected by failure to train or a

    racially discriminatory application of policy (including but not limited to disparate impact and

    intentional discrimination).

    12.  The claims for equitable relief sought against the Philadelphia Police

    Department may proceed as a class action because:

    a.  The class is so numerous that joinder of all members in impracticable;

     b.  There are questions of law or fact common to the class, including but not

    limited to whether the involved customs, polices and procedures of the

    Philadelphia Police Department violate federal civil rights laws and the

    Pennsylvania Constitution.

    c.  Plaintiff’s claims are common to and typical of the class members with respect

    to the injunctive relief requested.

    d.  The harms suffered by Plaintiff are typical of the harms suffered by the class

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    9/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    and a final judgment ordering the relief requested is appropriate relief in this

    action.

    e.  Plaintiff and undersigned counsel will fairly and adequately represent the rights

    of the class.

    f.  Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the

    Plaintiff Class, making declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the

    Plaintiff Class as a whole appropriate and necessary.

    JURISDICTION AND VENUE

    13. 

    The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

    14.  This Honorable Court has jurisdiction and venue is appropriate in the Eastern

    District of Pennsylvania because the actions complained of herein all occurred in this District.

    FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

    A. THE KILLING OF BRANDON TATE-BROWN

    15.  The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

    16. 

    On or about December 15, 2014, in the early morning, pre-dawn hours,

    decedent, Brandon Tate-Brown, a 26-year-old black male, was lawfully driving a 2014 White

    Dodge Charger with Florida license plates.

    17.  On or about such date, Defendants Officer Carrelli and Officer Dang were

    working in the 15th

      Police District, in full uniform, in a marked police cruiser, allegedly

     patrolling the district.

    18.  On such date, at or near the 6000 block of Frankford Avenue, according to

     police reports, said Defendants claim they observed Brandon Tate-Brown, an African

    American male, driving the said late model Dodge Charger, a luxury vehicle, in the middle of

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    10/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    the night.

    19.  At or about said time, according to said Defendants, upon observing Brandon

    Tate-Brown driving the said vehicle, and believing that Brandon’s daytime running lights

    were on (as opposed to full headlights) the said Defendant police officers engaged their police

    lights and pursued Brandon Tate-Brown, signaling for him to pull over.

    20.  In compliance with the police officers, Brandon Tate-Brown engaged his turn

    signal and pulled over on the 6700 block of Frankford Avenue, in front of several shops and

    directly adjacent to a gun dealership.

    21.  According to surveillance video viewed by Plaintiff, Brandon Tate-Brown

    complied with the officers when pulling him over. According to the video, Plaintiff believes

    that Brandon Tate-Brown’s headlights were on while he was driving and at the time he was

     pulled over.

    22. 

    The video shows a long interaction between the two Defendant officers and

    Brandon Tate-Brown prior to Brandon Tate-Brown being asked to step out of his vehicle.

    23.  Plaintiff believes the video shows that for a period of time prior to Brandon

    Tate-Brown being asked to step out of his vehicle, Carrelli, the discharging officer, appeared

    to have his gun pointed at Brandon Tate-Brown for the duration of Brandon’s time inside of

    his vehicle.

    24.  According to official police reports, the police officer Defendants claim to

    have pulled Brandon Tate-Brown over for driving without headlights.

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    11/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    25.  The police documents also claim that they were just pulling him over to check

    on him, make sure he was ok, have him turn on the lights, and then go on his way.

    26. 

    The fact that on video, the officers appeared to act aggressively and/or have

    their guns drawn during the interaction with Brandon Tate-Brown while he was still in his

    vehicle is not in accordance with standard police procedure, or in accordance with the

    statement that they were just checking on the safety of a motorist.

    27.  The police officers and the police department have made several inconsistent

    and seemingly dishonest claims and statements concerning the decision to pull over Brandon

    Tate-Brown. Upon information and belief, one eyewitness who is also a Philadelphia Parking

    Authority Officer, and who was assisting Philadelphia Police Officers at the scene, during the

    event, observed police state that they thought Brandon was matched the description of a

    suspect from an earlier robbery. There was no mention of headlights as an issue.

    28.  The police department advised the Medical Examiner on the date in question

    that Brandon Tate-Brown was pulled over for a routine traffic stop, and made no mention of

    headlights.

    29.  After pulling Brandon Tate-Brown over, Plaintiff believes and therefore avers

    that at least one of the officers became aggressive with Brandon Tate-Brown for no reason,

     pulling a gun on Brandon Tate-Brown and pointing the gun at him while still in his vehicle,

    while he was cooperating with police.

    30.  During this time period, Plaintiff believes and avers that, instead of just

    checking on the safety of a motorist driving without full headlights (their stated reason for

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    12/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

     pulling him over) the police officers began an aggressive interaction with Brandon with the

    intent of harassing Brandon Tate-Brown, instigating a struggle, assaulting him, arresting him,

    and charging him with a crime. When Brandon Tate-Brown resisted, and tried to run from the

    aggressive and assaultive officers, Carrelli shot Brandon Tate-Brown once in the back of the

    head from close range.

    31.  During the initial approach, and, Plaintiff believes, while pointing a gun at

    Brandon, the officers aggressively questioned Brandon about his vehicle.

    32.  Brandon explained, truthfully, that he worked at a car rental agency, and that

    he was using the car by permission of his manager, and identified the agency as Hertz,

     producing appropriate paperwork at the request of the officers, and providing the phone

    number and contact information for his manager.

    33.  Pursuant to the police side of the story, the officers were just checking on

    Brandon’s safety, since his headlights were out, and then intending to let him go. Instead of

    doing that, however, they needlessly became aggressive, pulled a gun, inquired into

    ownership of the vehicle, called in the plates, and learned that the vehicle was allegedly

    registered to Dollar Rental Car (a 100% owned subsidiary of Hertz), and not “Hertz.” Upon

    learning this, the officers again approached Brandon’s vehicle and this time ordered him to

    step out of the vehicle.

    34.  This order constituted an unlawful arrest of Brandon Tate-Brown.

    35.  Hertz owns Dollar Rental Car, which is a fully owned subsidiary of Hertz and

    has been since 2012.

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    13/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    36.  A reasonable police officers knows or should know that not every rental car is

    registered in the name of the rental dealer, because of the overlapping ownership in the

    industry or because many times the dealers are franchises, subsidiaries or agents of a related

    company. When dealing with rental cars, officers know or should know that these facts do

    not create reasonable suspicion of crime or probable cause to arrest a driver.

    37.  The rental car being registered to Dollar, Hertz’s subsidiary, was not a basis to

    request Brandon to step out of the vehicle.

    38.  This, combined with a lack of full headlights, was no basis to arrest the driver

    of the vehicle or to continue the traffic investigation.

    39.  Police reports state that it is due to this alleged “inconsistency” that the

    decision was made to ask Brandon Tate-Brown to leave the vehicle and to place him under

    arrest.

    40. 

    There was no inconsistency and even if there was, there was no evidence that

    any crime was being committed, nor any probable cause or reasonable suspicion as to same.

    Rather, a simple question about the rental car would have answered any valid concern, and if

    the intention of the police were, as officially stated, to just check on safety, have Brandon turn

    on the lights, and then send him on his way, this rental car issue would not have caused the

    officers to decide to arrest Brandon by directing him out of his vehicle.

    41.  Once Brandon was asked to exit the vehicle, Carrelli claims he then spotted a

    gun in Brandon’s vehicle lodged between the center console and the passenger seat, and

    claims to have called out “Gun,” to his partner.

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    14/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    42.  Brandon complied with the request to exit the vehicle.

    43.  Once he exited the vehicle, he continued to comply with Hang’s instructions.

    During this time, according to an eyewitness statement, Hang pointed a gun at Brandon’s

     back, demanding to know where the “gun” was.

    44.  Upon information and belief, Brandon denied having a gun.

    45.  After the overly aggressive pullover, and after Carrelli was pointing a gun at

    Brandon while he was still in the car and pulled over (and before any allegation that Brandon

    had a gun in the car), Brandon Tate-Brown now had Hang pointing a gun at his back.

    46.  From Brandon Tate-Brown’s perspective, his life was in danger due to these

    two overly aggressive and inappropriate police officers pointing guns at him from the start of

    their interaction.

    47.  Upon information and belief, along with the aggressiveness in pulling their

    guns, the defendant rookie police officers also acted aggressively and in a threatening manner

    towards Brandon Tate-Brown, such that Brandon Tate Brown reasonably feared they were

    going to shoot him or harm him physically.

    48.  Although Carrelli claims to have seen a gun, he did not obtain the alleged gun

    from the car, secure the gun, or take any action to document the existence of the alleged gun.

    Rather, at or about the time that Hang was pointing a gun directly at Brandon’s back,

    according to the eyewitness, a struggle broke out between Hang and Brandon Tate-Brown.

    49.  Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the struggle began because Hang was

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    15/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

     pointing a gun to Brandon’s back, a threat to shoot him, and, along with his overly aggressive

     partner, Carrelli, who had his gun pointed at Brandon during the earlier phase of the stop,

     before Brandon was asked to step out of the vehicle, he was acting aggressively towards

    Brandon. Brandon Tate-Brown reasonably feared for his life and safety at this moment.

    50.  In the alternative, Brandon Tate-Brown resisted Hang because Hang began to

     physically beat, hit or harm Brandon Tate-Brown.

    51.  As Brandon resisted Hang, who was pointing a gun at Brandon’s back,

    Carrelli, upon information and belief, decided to become physically violent with Brandon, and

    engaged in a struggle with Brandon wherein Brandon was beaten and subjected to unlawful

    and excessive force.

    52.  Instead of securing the alleged gun that was allegedly in the car, Carrelli claims

    that he went around the vehicle to help Hang fight Brandon Tate-Brown.

    53. 

    Brandon Tate-Brown was now being beaten by two overly aggressive police

    officers who were rookies, and neither of which had been on the police force for more than a

    year. He struggled with them to protect himself, and several times, broke free from their

    grips, and ran away from them. The struggle took place in the middle of Frankford Avenue.

    54.  Brandon Tate-Brown was unarmed for the entire duration of the struggle.

    55.  In subsequent police interviews, the officers confirm hat Brandon Tate-Brown

    never threw a punch at them or hit them in any way during the struggle when he was trying to

    escape their violence.

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    16/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    56.  At no time during the struggle, even according to police accounts, was

    Brandon Tate-Brown armed or holding a weapon.

    57. 

    Brandon Tate-Brown was carrying a cellphone for the duration of the struggle,

    which was ringing during and after the struggle, according to EMT records.

    58.  During the struggle, near the end of the struggle, Brandon again broke free

    from the officers. According to the video, he ran across Frankford Avenue, in the direction of

    his vehicle, across the rear of his vehicle. Carrelli chased Brandon, and as Brandon, in a

    running motion, reached the rear right brake light of his vehicle, running across the back from

    left to right, Carrelli discharged his firearm one time, shooting Brandon in the back of his

    head, killing him. At the time Brandon was shot, he was near the rear of his vehicle, not near

    or reaching into the passenger side front door where the gun was alleged to have been located.

    59.  Hours after the shooting, a police evidence team finally recovered an alleged

    gun in Brandon’s vehicle. Months later, the police claimed that that the weapon allegedly

    found was reported stolen in 2012, and that a “mixture” of DNA on the weapon likely

    contained Brandon’s DNA.

    60.  The official police department position from the date of the incident in

    December, 2014, as released to the public, was that Carrelli was justified in shooting Brandon

    Tate-Brown because, at the time of the shooting, Brandon Tate-Brown was reaching for the

    alleged gun into the front passenger seat of the vehicle.

    61.  However, the surveillance video shows, as stated, that Brandon Tate-Brown

    was shot near the rear of his vehicle, by the right rear brake light, not near the passenger door

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    17/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    or reaching into the passenger door.

    62.  The claim that Brandon Tate-Brown was reaching into the vehicle for a gun at

    the time he was shot is a complete fabrication on the part of the Defendant officers and the

     police department.

    63.  Moreover, Plaintiff never believed the police story that Brandon Tate-Brown

    had a gun in his vehicle. Rather, due to the inconsistencies and false statements uncovered,

    including the false claim by the police officers that Brandon Tate-Brown was shot because he

    was reaching into the passenger side door for his gun, Plaintiff believes that these police

    officers have no credibility.

    64.  In June, 2015, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Ramsey admitted that there

    was never any evidence that Brandon Tate-Brown was reaching for a gun when he was shot,

    and, in a complete turnaround from the original story, blamed the original false police

    narrative public’s and the news media’s thirst for details.

    65.  Plaintiff, however, believes and avers that the false released narrative fed to the

     public for six months, that Brandon Tate-Brown had to be shot because he was reaching into

    the passenger door for a gun, was always an intentional lie.

    66.  The alleged gun was not recovered from the vehicle for several hours after the

    shooting.

    67.  During this time, it would have been possible for Defendant police officers to

     plant a “drop gun” in the vehicle. A “drop gun” is a gun planted by a police officer to falsely

    implicate a suspect in the possession of a gun. Brandon’s blood, bodily fluids and DNA were

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    18/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    all over the street and sidewalk after the shooting. It would have been possible for police

    officers to wipe some of Brandon’s DNA onto a drop gun.

    68. 

    Almost immediately after the shooting, business owners, including the owners

    of the aforesaid gun dealership, were called by police to the scene prior to opening of business

    in order to obtain any video surveillance evidence from their places of business.

    69.  For this purpose, upon information and belief, police entered the aforesaid

     places of business, including the aforesaid gun dealership, to review and seize video

    surveillance equipment.

    70.  Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, based upon the false claim by police that

    Brandon Tate-Brown was reaching for a gun when he was shot, that in fact, this claim is a lie,

    and that to bolster this lie, and protect themselves from discipline or prosecution, a drop gun

    was obtained and used, and placed in the vehicle, where it remained for several hours before

    the evidence team removed it.

    71.  In addition, on video captured by news cameras, the evidence team is seen

     placing the alleged gun against the car hood, where Brandon’s DNA could have been located

    as a result of the shooting near the rear of the vehicle, contaminating the evidence.

    Importantly, of several swabs of DNA taken from the alleged gun, Brandon’s DNA appears

    nowhere except for the swab from the butt of the gun. This is the area where the evidence

    team is seen to have contaminated the gun by placing the butt of the gun on the vehicle next to

    which Brandon had just been shot in the head and around and upon which was his blood and

    DNA.

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    19/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    72.  This improper handling of the crime scene invalidates any claim that

    Brandon’s DNA was on the alleged gun.

    73. 

    Brandon’s fingerprints were not on the gun.

    74.  In order to believe that Brandon had a gun in the vehicle, a fact finder must

    find the police officers’ testimony to be credible. However, as stated, the police made several

    contradictory and dishonest statements and claims concerning the events in question. Upon

    information and belief, a fact finder could decide that the officers, due to these inconsistent

    statements, are not credible, and refuse to believe that any gun was seen during the traffic

    stop.

    75.  In addition, an unauthorized photograph taken at the scene, from behind police

    lines, and then posted online, by an unknown person, shows that Brandon’s body, or the car,

    was moved after Brandon was killed to position Brandon near the passenger side of the door.

    Supporting this assertion, the Medical Examiner noted in his report that the scene was

    disturbed. Moving Brandon’s body closer to the passenger side, or moving the car so that the

     body would be near the passenger door, was, upon information and belief, an action taken to

    support the false assertion that Brandon was reaching into the passenger side door before he

    was shot. Responding officers also confirmed that the body was rolled over. Upon

    information and belief, this moving of the body constituted tampering with the scene, another

    dishonest practice.

    76.  Upon information and belief, the force used against Brandon Tate-Brown was

    excessive from the start. From the decision to pull him over for no reason, or because he,

     being a black male, allegedly matched a prior robbery, to the decision to ask him to step out of

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    20/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    the vehicle and arrest him because his car rental paperwork said “Hertz” but the car was

    registered to “Dollar,” a subsidiary of Hertz, to pointing a gun at him while he was still in the

    vehicle (before any alleged claim that Brandon had a gun in the vehicle), to pointing a gun at

    Brandon’s back after he complied and stepped out of the vehicle, to becoming physical and

    starting a struggle with Brandon, to chasing him and beating him, and then, finally, to

    shooting him while he was unarmed, in the back of the head, near the rear of his vehicle, the

    actions of the Defendant police officers constituted excessive and unlawful force, unlawful

    seizure and arrest.

    77. 

    In addition, for at least part of the time, the Police Officers mistook Brandon’s

    cell phone for a gun or other weapon. Plaintiff believes that if Carrelli saw anything, it was a

    cell phone, and not a gun, and does not believe as not credible, any of the officers’ claims

    regarding the alleged gun that was allegedly recovered from the vehicle.

    78.  The lack of fingerprints, a DNA “mixture” appearing only on the contaminated

     butt of the gun (but not on any other swabs from the gun), Brandon’s DNA all over the street

    and sidewalk, and a gun that was stolen in 2012 from an unknown party do not lead to a

    conclusion that Brandon Tate-Brown ever possessed this gun. A fact finder could decline to

     believe that the police story regarding the gun is credible, and instead, could believe that the

    gun was a “drop gun.” The police department has regularly contented with known cases of

     police officers planting evidence on suspects.

    79.  Additional lies told by the police immediately after the shooting included

    telling the first EMT on the scene that Brandon was shot because he was shooting his gun at

     police and telling persons on the scene that Brandon was shot because he was reaching into

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    21/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    his vehicle for a gun.

    80.  Later that morning, at Internal Affairs, Carrelli repeated that false story to his

    Sgt. and dishonestly stated that Brandon was shot while reaching for the gun.

    81.  As stated, Commissioner Ramsey has now admitted that there was never any

    evidence Brandon was reaching for a gun, and that same was a false story.

    82.  Despite the false story, Carrelli has not been disciplined, and continues to hold

    his badge and gun as a police officer.

    83.  Major deficiencies in PPD training contributed to and were a substantial factor

    in the unlawful pullover, arrest, seizure, beating, and killing of Brandon Tate-Brown. As

    explained below, these deficiencies have also been identified by the United States Department

    of Justice (“DOJ”) as requiring substantial reform and correction.

    84.  The actions of the foregoing Defendant police officers were negligent,

    reckless, and/or, in the alternative, malicious and intentional, and tinged with racial bias.

    85.  The PPD was negligent and recklessly indifferent in the hiring and training of

    the aforesaid Defendant Police Officers.

    86.  The aforesaid Defendant Police Officers, rookies in their first year of

    employment, were provided with the very same deficient training and procedures noted as

    lacking and deficient by the DOJ.

    87.  The police investigation into the shooting was deficient, less than forthcoming,

    non-transparent, and lacks even any scintilla of credibility.

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    22/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    88.  The police department, as a result of the investigation and false statements by

    the officers involved, for a period of six months, falsely maintained that Brandon was

    reaching into the car for his gun, in the passenger door. The entire time, the Department had a

    video that showed the truth: Brandon was killed at the rear of his vehicle. This incredible and

    arrogant deception is more than mere error; Plaintiff believes that the police have intentionally

    lied and continue to do so concerning the facts of Brandon’s death. The powers that be did

    not want “another Ferguson” in Philadelphia, and came out strong, from the morning of the

    shooting and for a period of six months after, in an effort to taint Brandon’s name, and paint

    him as the aggressor reaching for a gun, when none of that was ever true. These officers

    should have their badges and guns taken from them, at the very least. But the Department has

    not disciplined them in any way for their conduct. And that Department has not been

    disciplined. No heads have rolled, no resignations have been demanded; business continues

    as usual. This Honorable Court has the hold the Department accountable for the illegal and

    dishonest actions of the Philadelphia Police Department concerning killing of Brandon Tate-

    Brown.

    89.  The investigation lacks all hallmarks of accuracy and integrity. Police officer

    and witness statements were not were not videotaped. Police officers were questioned only

    after the witnesses signed statements that were composed by police investigators. This is

    contrary to the practices of proper investigation in officer use of force, and adds to the lack of

    credulity of the police department’s findings in the investigation. The police changed their

    story several time during events. The statements and findings of investigation appear to have

     been intentionally embellished to lead to a conclusion that the shooting was justified.

    90.  The police refused, for six months, to release evidence, or the video

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    23/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    surveillance of the shooting, to the public. At all times, during this refusal, the police

    maintained Brandon was shot because he was reaching for a gun into the front passenger seat.

    At all times, the video, which they continued to hide, showed otherwise.

    91.  The police department has acted with a lack of transparency, further leading to

    questions as to what they are hiding.

    92.  The police department first released minor, selected portions of statements and

    evidence, but failed to release any evidence that could be used to support Plaintiff’s claims.

    93. 

    The police department has engaged in a failed attempt to pull the wool over the

    eyes of the public, by refusing to release the video and claiming that Brandon Tate-Brown

    was reaching into the passenger side door when he was shot, a fabrication.

    94.  After six months of public pressure and legal actions, in June, 2015, the police

    department finally released the video to the public and admitted that their claim that Brandon

    Tate-Brown was reaching for a gun was false. Still, the investigation has not been reopened

    and the officers remain on the street.

    95.  Based upon the police department fabrications involved, Plaintiff believes and

    avers that the police evidence cannot be trusted in this case, and seeks a formal finding that

    the police department has lied during the investigation, and that the jury be instructed as to

    such lies, and that the jury be instructed that if it believes the police lied or tampered with

    evidence, that they may find in favor of the Plaintiff.

    96.  Further, upon a showing that police lied or tampered with any evidence, or

    made any false statements or official reports, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court enter

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    24/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

     judgment in her favor, as a sanction for spoliation of evidence.

    97.  As a direct and proximate result of the deficiencies in training, policies,

    operations, and investigations, Brandon Tate-Brown sustained injuries and damages including

    death.

    B. THE PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT’S

    USE OF FORCE TRAINING, POLICIES, PRACTICES, AND INVESTIGATIONS

    ARE DEFICIENT AND VIOLATE PLAINTIFF’S FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS THE

    PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION

    1. The 2015 DOJ Report

    98. 

    At all times relevant hereto, the Philadelphia Police Department has knowingly

    continued and maintained practices and policies that violate Plaintiff’s federal civil rights and

    the Pennsylvania Constitution.

    99.  In or around “2013, amidst a drop in violent crimes and assaults against the

     police, the number of Philadelphia Police Department (“PPD”) officer involved shootings

    (“OIS”) was on the rise, as was the number of fatal OISs, which was uncovered and reported”

     by” the Philadelphia Inquirer.  An Assessment of Deadly Force in the Philadelphia Police

     Department, US Department of Justice, March 23, 2015 (hereafter “DOJ Report”) at 1.

    100.  In recognition of the problems in the PPD relating to use of force, the United

    States Justice Department began an investigation related to officer use of force, deadly use of

    force, and officer involved shootings.  Id. 

    101. 

    The investigation by the Department of Justice was “conducted by an

    interdisciplinary team of researchers, analysts, and subject matter experts over a 12-month

     period.”  Id. 

    102.  As a result of the investigation, the Department of Justice issued the DOJ

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    25/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    Report on or about March 23, 2015.

    103.  In the Report, the DOJ made the following findings and/or recommendations,

    inter alia: 

    a.  Finding: PPD officers do not receive regular, consistent training on the

    department’s deadly force policy. Recommendation: The PPD should develop

    a standard training module on [use of deadly force] and require all sworn

     personnel to complete the training on an annual basis.

     b.  Finding: The PPD requires officers to complete crisis intervention training

    (“CIT”) in order to obtain an electronic control weapon (“ECW”) [taser]. This

    requirement conflates the two tactical approaches and limits the distribution of

    less-lethal tools throughout the department. Recommendation: ECWs should

     be standard-issue weapons for all PPD officers assigned to uniformed

    enforcement units; All PPD officers in uniformed enforcement units should be

    required to carry ECW’s on their duty belts at all times.

    c. 

    Finding: PPD recruit training is not conducted in a systemic and modular

    fashion. As a result, some recruit classes receive firearms training close to the

    end of the academy, whereas others receive it early on. Recommendation: The

    PPD should revise the sequencing of its academy curriculum so that recruits

    are continually building on previously learned skills; Skills that require

    continual training and refinement, such as firearms, defensive tactics,

    communications, and driving, should be staggered throughout the length of the

    academy.

    d.  Finding: For some PPD recruits, de-escalation training has been little more

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    26/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    than lecture and observations. Focus group participants generally agreed that

    more de-escalation training was needed at the academy; Recommendation: The

    PPD should revamp its academy de-escalation training, ensuring that recruits

    receive more hours of scenario training, which allows each recruit to exercise

    and be evaluated on verbal de-escalation skills; PPD de-escalation training

    should be expanded to include a discussion of tactical de-escalation.

    e.  Finding: Incidents involving discourtesy, use of force, and allegations of bias

     by PPD officers leave segments of the community feeling disenfranchised and

    distrustful of the police department.  Recommendation: PPD’s academy should

    significantly increase the scope and duration of its training on core and

    advanced community oriented policing.

    f.  Finding: The PPD lacks a field-training program to help transition academy

    graduates into full-time work as officers. Recommendation: The PPD should

    develop a field-training program.

    g. 

    Finding: The PPD’s annual in-service training requirements tend to be limited

    to municipal police officer education and training commission standards. As a

    result, officers do not regularly receive in-service training on threat perception,

    decision making, and de-escalation. Recommendation: The PPD should add at

    least one additional day of reality-based training to its annual requirements.

    Recommendation: The PPD should include training in procedural justice

    during the next offering of mandatory in-service program courses.

    Recommendation: The PPD should include training in fair and impartial

     policing during the next offering of man- datory in-service program courses.

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    27/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    h.  Finding: The PPD requires that officers qualify with their firearms just once

     per calendar year. Recommendation: The PPD should require that officers

    qualify with their weapons at least twice per year.

    i.  Finding: PPD officers do not receive in-service defensive tactics training.

    Recommendation: The PPD should provide periodic defensive tactics training.

     j.  Finding: OIS investigations generally lack consistency. Recommendation: The

    PPD should establish a single investigative unit devoted to criminal

    investigations of all deadly force incidents. Recommendation: PPD deadly

    force investigation team (“DFIT”) members should have the experience and

    training necessary to conduct thorough and objective OIS investigations.

    Recommendation: The PPD should develop a manual for conducting OIS

    investigations from a criminal standpoint.

    k.  Finding: The PPD’s current practice for recording interviews of witnesses and

    discharging officers is through typed notes. Recommendation: The PPD should

    establish a policy that interviews of all critical witnesses and suspects in the

    course of an OIS investigation will be video and audio recorded.

    l.  Finding: The IAD shooting team waits for the district attorney’s office

    (“DAO”) to decline charges against an officer before it interviews discharging

    officers and closes its investigation. As a result, most officers involved in

    shootings are not interviewed until three or more months after the incident

    occurred. Recommendation: The PPD should revise its policy and practice so

    that the criminal investigative unit assigned to each OIS is the primary point of

    contact with the DAO. The IAD should be extricated from this role.

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    28/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    Recommendation: The shooting team should conduct interviews with all

    discharging officer(s) as soon as practical, but not later than 72 hours after the

    incident. Recommendation: The IAD should set a goal to close administrative

    investigations within 30 days of the DAO’s declination. Recommendation: All

    interviews of discharging officers should be video recorded.

    m.  Finding: The scope of shooting team investigations focuses solely on policy,

    while largely neglecting officer tactics and decision making. Recommendation:

    The shooting team should significantly enhance their investigative scope to

    include officer tactics and decision making. Recommendation: Shooting team

    investigative reports should highlight findings and any inconsistencies in

     policy, procedure, and training for the use of force review board to evaluate in

    their decision. Recommendation: The shooting team should develop an

    operations manual, delineating all of their investigative activities, reporting,

    and role in the review process.

    n. 

    Finding: The UFRB and PBI are duplicative processes that at times have

    conflicting outcomes. This sends a mixed message to members of the

    department and causes unnecessary internal strife. Recommendation: The PPD

    should dismantle the two-board system for OISs and combine the functions of

    the UFRB and PBI into one integrated board. Recommendation: The newly

    established board should conduct a comprehensive review of each incident.

    Recommendation: Voting board members should include command staff, a

    sworn officer one rank higher than the involved officer, a peer officer, and at

    least one citizen representative. Recommendation: Shooting team investigators

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    29/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    should make a formal presentation of the facts to the board, highlighting any

     potential conflicts and key points for deliberation amongst the board.

    Recommendation: Board members should have the opportunity to call

    witnesses and ask questions related to the incident. Recommendation: After

     board proceedings are complete, voting members should deliberate the case

    and issue a finding by majority vote.

    o.  Finding: The PPD has begun posting a significant amount of data and case

    information on its website. Still, more transparency is needed for properly

    keeping the community informed. Recommendation: The PPD should, at a

    minimum, publish directive 10, directive 22, and the yet-to-be-written directive

    of the UFRB on the OIS webpage. Recommendation: The PPD should update

    its website as case files are closed and available for public dissemination.

    Recommendation: The PPD website should be updated to include more

    detailed accounts of the OIS and DAO review of the incident.

    Recommendation: The PPD should publish a detailed report on use of force,

    including deadly force, on an annual basis. The report should be released to the

     public.

     p.  Finding: The PPD does not fully accommodate the [Police Advisory

    Commission (“PAC”)] in its role to provide independent civilian oversight of

     police operations in Philadelphia. Recommendation: The PPD should work

    with the PAC and accommodate requests for important documentation,

    investigative files, and data related to all uses of force, including OISs.

    q.  Finding: Distrust in the ability of the PPD to investigate itself pervades

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    30/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    segments of the community. Scandals of the past and present, high profile OIS

    incidents, and a lack of transparency in investigative outcomes help cement

    this distrust. Recommendation: The PPD should establish a policy stating that

    the police commissioner or designee will hold a press conference on an OIS

    incident within 72 hours of the incident. Recommendation: The PPD should

    enter into an agreement with the police advisory commission allowing a PAC

    observer access to all pertinent documentation related to an OIS investigation.

    Recommendation: The police commissioner should enter into a memorandum

    of understanding with an external, independent investigative agency, through

    which the investigation of all OISs involving an unarmed person will be

    submitted for review.

    r.  Finding: The PPD lacks a field training program to help transition academy

    graduates into full-time work as officers. Recommendation: The PPD should

    develop a field training program.

    s. 

    Finding: PPD officers do not receive in-service defensive tactics training.

    Recommendation: The PPD should provide periodic defensive tactics training.

    t.  Finding: The PPD’s current practice for recording interviews of witnesses and

    discharging officers is thought typed notes. Recommendation: The PPD

    should establish a policy that interviews of all critical witnesses and suspects in

    the course of an OIS investigation will be video and audio recorded.

    u.  Finding: The PPD lacks official training requirements for IAD shooting team

    members. Recommendation: Current and future members of the shooting

    team should be required to receive specialized training in OIS investigations.

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    31/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    104.  All of the finding and recommendations in the DOJ Report are incorporated

    herein by reference.

    105. 

    As to racial bias in use of deadly force matters, the DOJ Report found as

    follows:

    a.  The racial composition of suspects in OISs was 80% Black, 10% Hispanic, 9%

    White, and 1% Asian.

     b.  White suspects were unarmed in 8 of 32 OISs (25%). Black suspects were

    unarmed in 45 of 285 OISs (15.8%). Hispanic suspects were unarmed 4 of 340

    OISs (14.7%). Asian suspects were unarmed in 1 of 5 OISs (20%).

    c.  Black suspects in OISs were the most likely to be the subject of a threat

     perception failure by police (i.e., believing the suspect was armed when he was

    not).

    106.  In summary, the DOJ Report stated as follows: “The department has much

    work to do in the months and years ahead. Our assessment uncovered policy, training, and

    operational deficiencies in addition to an undercurrent of significant strife between the

    community and department. It yielded 48 findings and 91 recommendations for the

    department to reform its deadly force practices.”  Id. at 9.

    107.  The foregoing “policy, training, and operational deficiencies” create a risk of

    imminent harm to persons interacting with police in arrest, use of force or possible use of

    force situations. As a result of these deficiencies, lack of training, and lack of appropriate and

    modern police investigation techniques, persons being arrested or pulled over by police, or

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    32/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    coming into contact with police in use of force situations are in imminent danger of harm.

    108.  The foregoing deficiencies have contributed to wrongful deaths and injuries to

    suspects and other members of the public dealing with police in use of force or potential use

    of force situations, have contributed to a pattern of conduct in police shootings that fail to

    meet the minimum standards required under federal law and the Pennsylvania Constitution,

    and have denied those interacting with police in these situations of their basic rights to life,

    liberty, equal protection, substantive and procedural due process of law, and non-

    discrimination, all in violation of the federal Civil Rights Act and the Pennsylvania

    Constitution.

    2. Prior Reports, Litigation, Policy, Practice, and Custom

    109.  The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

    110.  As noted in the Complaint in the related class action  Bailey et al. v. City of

     Philadelphia, E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 10-5952, “the PPD has a history of conducting stops, frisks,

    detentions and searches without probable cause or reasonable suspicious and of intentionally

    subjecting persons to these measures, at times accompanied by the unreasonable use of force,

     based on their race or ethnicity.”  Id. at paragraph 80.

    111.  Paragraphs 80 through 98 in the aforesaid Bailey action are incorporated by

    reference herein, and are re-alleged as though restated herein in full.

    112.  The foregoing action was resolved by way of Consent Decree, which upon

    information and belief, is still in effect.

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    33/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    113.  By and through their actions as aforesaid, the Defendants have continued to

    violate the rights of Plaintiff and the class members to be free from unreasonable searches and

    seizures, made without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

    114.  By and through their actions aforesaid, the Defendants have denied Plaintiff

    and the class members equal protection of the laws when searches, seizures, stops, and frisks

    are conducted on the basis of race or ethnic origin, either intentionally, or by disparate impact

    or treatment.

    115.  In addition to the relief provided by the Court in the aforesaid Consent Decree,

    Plaintiff seeks court supervision of implementation of all recommendations of the DOJ in the

    DOJ Report.

    CAUSES OF ACTION

    COUNT I

    WRONGFUL DEATH

    PLANTIFF v. DEFENDANTS

    116.  The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

    117.  The foregoing actions of Defendants were the direct and proximate cause of

    the wrongful death of Brandon Tate-Brown.

    118. 

    The forgoing actions of Defendants constitute wrongful acts, neglect, unlawful

    violence, negligence, and/or recklessness and/or malicious and intentional misconduct.

    119.  By virtue of the Pennsylvania Wrongful Death Act, Plaintiff is entitled on

     behalf of the beneficiaries of the Estate to recover compensatory and punitive damages, and

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    34/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    damages for any hospital, nursing, medical, funeral, and estate administration expenses

    necessitated by reason of injuries causing death.

    COUNT II

    FALSE ARREST

    PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANTS

    120.  The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

    121. 

    This claim is brought pursuant to Pennsylvania’s survival statute.

    122.  The Defendants pulled Brandon Tate-Brown over for no valid reason

    123.  The Defendants arrested Brandon Tate-Brown when they directed him to step

    out of his vehicle and restricted his movements and freedom; he was not free to leave.

    124.  The Defendants arrested Brandon Tate-Brown without probable cause, and

    stopped him without reasonable suspicion.

    125.  The Defendants were not authorized to arrest Brandon Tate-Brown.

    126.  As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid, Brandon Tate-Brown was

    harmed, for which harm compensatory and punitive damages may be recovered.

    COUNT III

    ASSAULT

    PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANTS

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    35/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    127.  The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

    128.  By virtue of their wrongful conduct, as aforesaid, prior to his death, Defendants

    engaged in acts that were meant to cause a reasonable apprehension of imminent and harmful

    contact.

    129.  As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid, Brandon Tate-Brown was

    harmed, for which harm compensatory and punitive damages may be recovered.

    130.  The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

    COUNT IV

    BATTERY

    PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANTS

    131.  By virtue of their wrongful conduct, as aforesaid, Defendants, prior to the

    death of Brandon Tate-Brown, made harmful and offensive contact with him, and caused him

    to suffer serious injuries including but not limited to blunt force trauma wounds, and pain and

    suffering.

    132.  As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid, Brandon Tate-Brown was

    harmed, for which harm compensatory and punitive damages may be recovered.

    COUNT V

    PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION

    42 Pa.C.S. 8309 ET SEQ.

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    36/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANTS

    133.  The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

    134. 

    By virtue of their wrongful conduct as aforesaid, Defendants subjected

    Brandon Tate-Brown to injury to his person.

    135.  Upon information and belief, Brandon Tate-Brown’s race (African American),

    was a substantial factor in the decision to pull Brandon Tate-Brown over, and to assault and

    mistreat him, in that he allegedly matched the description of an African American male

    involved in a prior robbery on the date in question. In addition, the discriminatory policies

    and practices of the police department raise an inference of racial motivation.

    136.  Thereafter, the Defendants acted aggressively towards Brandon Tate-Brown,

    and subjected him to actions constituting the crimes of simple and aggravated assault, and

    recklessly endangering another person.

    137. 

    At all times relevant hereto, Defendants acted with malicious intention towards

    the race or color of Brandon Tate-Brown.

    138.  As a result, Defendants are liable for general and special damages, including

    damages for emotional distress, punitive damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs, and

    injunctive and other equitable relief.

    COUNT VI

    VIOLATION OF PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION

    Request for Declaratory and Equitable Relief

     Plaintiff, on behalf of the Estate and a class of all others similarly situated

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    37/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    v. all Defendants

    139.  The Pennsylvania constitution provides, inter alia, as follows:

    Section 1.

    All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and

    indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty,of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their

    own happiness.…

    Section 8.

    The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from

    unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without

     probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation subscribed by the affiant. 

    Section 9.

    [T]he accused… cannot … be deprived of his life, liberty or property unless by the

     judgment of his peers of the law of the land.

    Section 26.

     Neither the Commonwealth nor any political subdivision thereof shall deny to any

     person the enjoyment of any civil right, nor discriminate against any person in theexercise of any civil right.

    140.  The forgoing deficiencies identified by the DOJ and prior reports and litigation

    findings constitute a policy, practice or custom of the Philadelphia Police Department that

    violates the Pennsylvania Constitution provisions previously cited.

    141.  As a result of the foregoing deficiencies, Plaintiff suffered harm, injury, and

    death.

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    38/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    142.  As a result of the foregoing deficiencies, and as long as they still exist, other

    citizens of Philadelphia are at imminent risk of harm, injury and police misconduct in the use

    of force, should they come into contact with, be arrested by, or be subjected to use of force by

     police.

    143.  So long as these violations of the Pennsylvania Constitution persist, the Police

    Department is operating in a manner that violates the rights of persons of the Pennsylvania

    Constitution, as aforesaid.

    144.  Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks on behalf of the Estate and a class of similarly

    situated individuals, the following declaratory and injunctive relief:

    a.  A declaratory judgment that Defendant the City of Philadelphia, through the

    PPD, violated the rights of Brandon Tate-Brown under the Pennsylvania Constitution;

     b.  A declaratory judgment that the class is in imminent harm based upon the

    aforesaid violations;

    c.  A permanent injunction ordering the City of Philadelphia to complete all of the

    91 recommendations of the DOJ Report, in order to come into compliance with

    standards required under the Pennsylvania Constitution, on pain of contempt of court

    for failure to comply;

    d.  An order appointing a Master, Trustee, Receiver, or Monitor over the reform

    efforts of the Philadelphia Police Department in implementing the said reforms, who

    will report to the court as to progress or lack thereof, and who will be empowered to

    take actions needed to ensure such reforms are completed;

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    39/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    e.  An order that this court’s jurisdiction over the Police Department’s reform

    efforts shall continue until complete; and,

    f. 

    An award of counsel fees and costs of suit, and any other form of relief that is

    appropriate in the interests of justice.

    COUNT VII

    FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION

    42 USC SEC. 1983

    VIOLATIONS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

    TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

     Plaintiff, on behalf of the Estate and a class of all others similarly situated

    v. all Defendants

    145.  The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

    146.  The foregoing actions of Defendants constitute a policy, practice, or custom in

    violation of the rights of Plaintiff and the Class under the Fourth Amendment to the United

    States constitution in the use of force and deadly force.

    147.  As a direct and proximate cause of said policies and customs, and lack of

    training and supervision, Plaintiff was injured and killed.

    148.  The force used against decedent was excessive, unreasonable and unlawful.

    149.  The arrest of decedent was unreasonable and unlawful.

    150.  The violations of the rights of Plaintiff and the class were undertaken

    knowingly, or with deliberate indifference to the rights of Plaintiff and the class.

    151.  The Fourth Amendment is applicable to Defendants through the Fourteenth

    Amendment and may be enforced herein through 42 USC 1983.

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    40/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    COUNT VII

    FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION

    42 USC SEC. 1983

    VIOLATIONS OF EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

     Plaintiff, on behalf of the Estate and a class of all others similarly situated

    v. all Defendants

    152.  The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

    153.  The foregoing actions of Defendants constitute a policy, practice, or custom

    racial discrimination in violation of the rights of Plaintiff and the Class under the equal

     protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    154.  As a direct and proximate cause of said policies and customs, and lack of

    training and supervision, Plaintiff was injured and killed.

    155.  The violations of the rights of Plaintiff and the class were undertaken

    knowingly, or with deliberate indifference to the rights of Plaintiff and the class. Defendants

    have actively targeted African Americans and minorities for unlawful treatment.

    156.  The Fourteenth Amendment may be enforced herein through 42 USC 1983.

    COUNT VII

    FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION

    42 USC SEC. 2000(d) et seq.

    DISCRIMINATION IN FEDERALLY FUNDED PROGRAM

     Plaintiff, on behalf of the Estate and a class of all others similarly situated

    v. all Defendants

    157.  The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    41/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    158.  The foregoing actions of Defendants constitute a policy, practice, or custom

    racial discrimination in violation of the rights of Plaintiff and the Class under the equal

     protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    159.  The enforcement activities of the police department subject to the instant

    Complaint are funded, in part, with federal funds.

    160.  As a direct and proximate cause of said policies and customs, and lack of

    training and supervision, Plaintiff was injured and killed.

    161.  The violations of the rights of Plaintiff and the class were undertaken

    knowingly, or with deliberate indifference to the rights of Plaintiff and the class. Defendants

    have actively targeted African Americans and minorities for unlawful treatment.

    162.  The actions of Defendants violate 42 USC Sec. 2000(d), et seq., which

     proscribes discrimination based upon race or ethnicity in federally funded programs.

    PRAYER FOR RELIEF

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment

    in favor of Plaintiff and the class, and against Defendants, and to order the following relief:

    a.  A declaratory judgment that Defendant the City of Philadelphia, through

    the PPD, violated the federal civil rights of Brandon Tate-Brown and his

    rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution;

     b.  A declaratory judgment that the class is in imminent harm based upon the

    aforesaid violations;

    c.  A permanent injunction ordering the City of Philadelphia to complete all of

    the 91 recommendations of the DOJ Report, in order to come into

    compliance with standards required under the US Constitution, the

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    42/43

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 

    1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750

    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

    (215) 545-4870  |  WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 

    Pennsylvania Constitution, and federal civil rights statutes, on pain of

    contempt of court for failure to comply;

    d. 

    An order appointing a Master, Trustee, Receiver, or Monitor over the

    reform efforts of the Philadelphia Police Department in implementing the

    said reforms, who will report to the court as to progress or lack thereof, and

    who will be empowered to take actions needed to ensure such reforms are

    completed;

    e.  An order that this court’s jurisdiction over the Police Department’s reform

    efforts shall continue until complete; and,

    f.  An award of counsel fees and costs of suit, and any other form of relief that

    is appropriate in the interests of justice.

    g.  With respect to Plaintiff’s individual claims, an award of compensatory,

     punitive, special, wrongful death, and general damages, in an amount to be

    determined at trial;

    h.  With respect to Plaintiff’s individual claims, an award of counsel fees and

    costs of suit; and

    i.  Such additional relief as may be appropriate or required in the interests of

     justice.

  • 8/20/2019 Brandon Tate-Brown's Federal Lawsuit

    43/43

    Respectfully submitted,

    MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, P.C.

     /s/ Brian R. Mildenberg

    By: BRIAN R. MILDENBERG, ESQUIREIdentification No.: 84861

    1735 Market Street, Suite 3750

    Philadelphia, PA 19103

    [email protected]

    (215) 545-4870

    Counsel for Plaintiff

    Dated: 9/1/2015