Frederick George v. City of Philadelphia

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FREDERICK GEORGE :

5419 Willows Ave. :

Philadelphia, PA 19143 :

:

Plaintiff, :

: CIVIL ACTION No.

V. :

: ___________________

:

CITY AND COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA :

C/o City of Philadelphia Law Dept. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

One Parkway, 15th

Floor :

1515 Arch Street :


:

DISTRICT ATTORNEY :

Rufus Seth Williams :

Three South Penn Square :


:

POLICE COMISSIONER :

Charles H. Ramsey :

C/o City of Philadelphia Law Dept. :

1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor :


:

POLICE OFFICER :

Thomas Liciardello (Badge # 4383) :

Individually and in his official capacity :




:

POLICE OFFICER :

Michael Spicer (Badge # 5180) :





:

POLICE OFFICER :

Perry Betts (Badge # 4383) :

Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 1 of 29

2





:

POLICE OFFICER :

Sgt. Joseph McClosky (Badge # 331) :





:

POLICE OFFICER :

John Speiser (Badge #7169) :





:

POLICE OFFICER :

Brian Reynolds (Badge # 4268) :





:

POLICE OFFICER :

Lt. Robert Otto (Badge No. unknown) :


:

POLICE OFFICERS :

John Does 1-X (Badge Nos. Unknown) :




:

Defendants :


3

CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT

AND NOW, here comes the Plaintiff, Frederick George, by and through his Attorney, in

this Civil Rights action seeking damages arising out of violations of his Constitutional Rights

and to his person under Pennsylvania Tort Law, and in support thereof, sets forth the following

allegations and claims:

I. JURISDICTION

1 This is a civil action seeking damages against the Defendants for acts constituting the

deprivation of the Plaintiff’s rights secured under Federal Law and the United States

Constitution pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, 1988 and under Pennsylvania Tort Laws.

2 Federal Jurisdiction is established under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1341, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983,

1985, 1988 and supplemental jurisdiction over State law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

3 Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because all claims herein arose within the

jurisdiction of the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and

all parties reside or maintain their principle place of business is within the same

jurisdictional boundaries.

II. PARTIES

5. Plaintiff, Frederick George, is an adult individual whose domicile and residence is within

the city and municipality of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

6. Defendant, City and County of Philadelphia (hereinafter “Philadelphia”) is a municipality

organized by and through the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that directs, manages and

controls the Philadelphia Police Department ("PPD") and its customs, policies and

practices, which employs all of named individual Defendants. At all relevant times the

City of Philadelphia was the acting under the Color of State Law.


4

7. Defendant, District Attorney Rufus Seth Williams (hereinafter “Williams”), is the Chief

District Attorney and policy-maker for the District Attorney’s Office (hereinafter

“DAO”) responsible for charging, investigation and prosecution of criminal matters

within the City and County of Philadelphia. Defendant Williams is employed by the

Defendant Philadelphia, under the command and authority of the Defendant Philadelphia,

and at all times relevant hereto, was acting under the Color of State law pursuant the

custom, policy or practice of the DAO and/or the Defendant Philadelphia. Defendant

Williams is being sued in his individual, supervisory, and all other official capacities as

the District Attorney.

8. Defendant, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey (hereinafter

“Ramsey”), is a policy-maker and Chief Supervisor of the PPD, employed by the City of

Philadelphia, under the command and authority of the Defendant Philadelphia, and at all

times relevant hereto, was acting under the Color of State law individually and pursuant

the custom, policy or practice of the PPD, and/or the Defendant Philadelphia. Defendant

Ramsey is being sued in his individual, supervisory, and all other official capacities as a

Philadelphia Police Commissioner.

9. Defendant, Philadelphia Police Officer Thomas Liciardello (Badge no. 4383) (hereinafter

“Liciardello”), is a Philadelphia Police Officer employed by the Defendant Philadelphia,

under the command and authority of the Defendants Philadelphia and Ramsey, and at all

times relevant hereto, was acting under the Color of State Law. Defendant Liciardello is

being sued in his individual, supervisory, and all other official capacities as a

Philadelphia Police Officer.


5

10. Defendant, Philadelphia Police Officer Michael Spicer (Badge no. 5180)(hereinafter

“Spicer”) is a Philadelphia Police Officer employed by the Defendant Philadelphia, and


times relevant hereto, acted under the Color of State law pursuant the custom, policy or

practice of the PPD, and/or the Defendant Philadelphia. Defendant Spicer is being sued

in his individual, supervisory, and all other official capacities as a Philadelphia Police

Officer.

11. Defendant, Philadelphia Police Officer Perry Betts (Badge no. 4383)(hereinafter “Betts”)

is a Philadelphia Police Officer employed by the Defendant Philadelphia, and under the

command and authority of the Defendants Philadelphia and Ramsey, and at all times

relevant hereto, acted under the Color of State law pursuant the custom, policy or practice

of the PPD, and/or the Defendant Philadelphia. Defendant Betts is being sued in his

individual, supervisory, and all other official capacities as a Philadelphia Police Officer.

12. Defendant, Philadelphia Police Officer Sgt. Joseph McClosky (Badge no. 331)

(hereinafter “McClosky”) is a Philadelphia Police Officer employed by the Defendant

Philadelphia, and under the command and authority of the Defendants Philadelphia and

Ramsey, and at all times relevant hereto, acted under the Color of State law pursuant the

custom, policy or practice of the PPD, and/or the Defendant Philadelphia. Defendant

McClosky is being sued in his individual, supervisory, and all other official capacities as

a Philadelphia Police Officer.

13. Defendant, Philadelphia Police Officer John Speiser (Badge no. 7169)(hereinafter

“Speiser”) is a Philadelphia Police Officer employed by the Defendant Philadelphia, and



6

times relevant hereto, acted under the Color of State law pursuant the custom, policy

and/or practice of the PPD, and/or the Defendant Philadelphia. Defendant Speiser is



14. Defendant, Philadelphia Police Officer Brian Reynolds (Badge no. 4268) (hereinafter

“Reynolds”) is a Philadelphia Police Officer employed by the Defendant Philadelphia,

and under the command and authority of the Defendants Philadelphia and Ramsey, and at

all times relevant hereto, acted under the Color of State law pursuant the custom, policy

and/or or practice of the PPD, and/or the Defendant Philadelphia. Defendant Speiser is



15. Defendant, Philadelphia Police Officer Lt. Robert Otto (Badge No. unknown)

(hereinafter “Otto”) is a Philadelphia Police Officer employed by the Defendant



custom, policy and/or practice of the PPD, and/or the Defendant Philadelphia. Defendant

Otto is being sued in his individual, supervisory, and all other official capacities as a


16. Defendant, Philadelphia Police Officer(s) John & Jane Does 1-X (Badge Nos. unknown)

(hereinafter “Does”) are Philadelphia Police Officers employed by the Defendant



custom, policy and/or practice of the PPD, and/or the Defendant Philadelphia. Defendant


7

Does are being sued in their individual, supervisory, and all other official capacities as a


III. FACTS

17. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 -16 of this complaint as fully set forth

herein.

18. The individually-named Defendant Police Officers, and other police officers involved in

narcotics investigations, have acted on a custom, policy and/or practice of unchecked

discretion and impunity with regard to use of police power and tactics involving narcotics

arrests and investigations.

19. At all relevant times, the individually-named Defendant Police Officers were members or

working in association with Narcotics Field Unit, South Division (hereinafter NFUS).

20. The incident alleged in this complaint occurred on/or about July 19, 2011in the area of

6600 Loretto Ave., in the City and County of Philadelphia.

21. As a part of custom, policy, and/or practice, this area has been arbitrarily determined by

all of the Defendants as a “high drug-crime area”.

22. Mr. George had just arrived for work at COMAR where he worked as an assistant to a

group home for the mentally handicapped.

23. Mr. George was not engaged in any illegal conduct; he was simply a law-abiding

pedestrian engaged in employment for a charitable organization and contributing to

society.

24. Despite Mr. George’s lawful behavior, individual Defendants Spicer and Betts stopped,

frisked, searched seized and arrested Mr. George without reasonable suspicion and/or

probable cause.


8

25. Defendants Spicer and Betts maliciously and forcibly restrained, questioned and hand-

cuffed Mr. George in front of mentally handicapped patients whom Mr. George was

charged with the trust and care for, as well as employers and colleagues.

26. In support of this unlawful arrest, individual Defendants Spicer, Betts and McClosky

fabricated facts in support of probable cause and/or reasonable suspicion, which even if

true were insufficient to justify stopping Mr. George.

27. The affiant individual Defendants Spicer, Betts and McClosky stated, executed,

authorized, and/or adopted the following facts in support of the unlawful arrest of Mr.

George;

a. Defendant Spicer observed Mr. George placing a handgun on his right hip. In fact,

Mr. George was carrying his lunch that he had previously packed for work.

b. Spicer advised Defendant Betts of this imaginary gun, who then followed Mr.

George. While following Mr. George, Defendant Betts did not observe anything

that resembled a handgun.

c. Defendant Spicer allegedly observed Mr. George leave work with two bags in his

hand, where-after Defendant Spicer claims he observed Mr. George place one of

the bags in the trunk and toss the other onto the seat of a vehicle.

d. Based on these fabricated observations, Defendant Betts stopped, detained,

frisked, searched, questioned and arrested Mr. George.

e. As part of the investigation, Defendants Spicer and Betts allegedly recovered a

bag in the seat the vehicle allegedly containing pill bottles of Hydrocodone.

f. Despite explaining that he knew nothing about the bag in the car, and that car was

not his, Defendants Betts nonetheless questioned and detained Mr. George, and


9

for no legal reason, then proceeded to question Mr. George’s employers regarding

the alleged incident and informed them on the fabricated circumstances of Mr.

George’s unlawful arrest.

g. Defendants Spicer, Betts and McClosky then fabricated additional facts alleging

that Mr. George admitted transporting the illegal narcotics for a co-defendant later

arrested, and that the co-defendant stated that Mr. George agreed to transport the

narcotics.

28. After arresting Mr. George, Defendant Spicer contacted ADA Heinz from the District

Attorney’s charging unit to further perpetuate the fabricated facts and circumstances in

order to ensure Mr. George’s charges and prosecution, and to cause the imposition of bail

on Mr. George above and/or to the high end of bail guidelines.

29. On October 24, 2011, Defendants Spicer and Betts further fabricated facts and testimony

under oath at the Preliminary Hearing which resulted in the charges and allegations

against Mr. George being held for court.

30. As a consequence of a 2012 investigation into unconstitutional conduct and practice of

the individually-named Defendants, both the Defendant Williams and Federal

Prosecutors refuse to charge and/or litigate any case involving the individually -named

Defendant Police Officers, and well over one-hundred-and seventy (170) prosecutions

were voluntarily withdrawn.

31. Well before this incident, the individually-named Defendant Police Officers have been

the subject of numerous citizen complaints, internal and Federal investigations for

unconstitutional and unlawful conduct identical to those alleged in this complaint.


10

32. NFU and other units charged with Drug Enforcement have a specific history of similar if

not identical conduct evidenced by investigations and incidents not limited to the

following:

a. The 39th

District Scandal in 1995 involving the unconstitutional and criminal

conduct not limited to fabrication of Probable Cause by a Drug Enforcement Unit

of the PPD known to the Philadelphia Community as the “Four Horseman of the

Apocalypse”.

b. The 2009 investigation of Officer Jeffery Cujdik and his squad members of the

NFU involved in the systematic, unconstitutional and criminal conduct as part of

drug enforcement.

c. Most recently, the investigation and arrest of Officer Jeffery Walker, a member of

the NFU since 1991, for systematic, unconstitutional and criminal conduct as part

of drug enforcement. Walker is currently being prosecuted by the Federal

Government.

33. The individual Defendants Liciardello, Spicer, Betts, Reynolds, Speiser, Otto and

McClosky knowingly agreed to perpetuate and promote the fabrication of evidence and

the unlawful arrest of Mr. George and other citizens in order to promote their careers

based on number of arrests, and to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in overtime

for Court appearances.

34. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendants, City of Philadelphia and Ramsey, were

charged with the responsibility and duty of testing, hiring, training, monitoring,

supervising and disciplining the individually named defendant Police Officers and all

other employees of the PPD.


11

35. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant Williams and individuals under his authority,

were charged with the responsibility of, and duty to, monitor, supervise, investigate and

audit the individually-named Defendant Police Officers for, inter alia, unconstitutional

conduct, criminal conduct, fabrication of evidence, perjury, and other citizen complaints.

36. Furthermore, Defendant Williams and individuals under his authority, were responsible

for reviewing the fabricated facts and circumstances of Mr. George’s arrest for the

purpose of approving charges, determining charges, prosecution and continued litigation.

37. At all times relevant hereto, all of the Defendants acted individually and/or under the

Color of State Law pursuant custom, policy and/or practice, or treated with deliberate

indifference the proper implementation of official policy and/or the systemic violations of

Constitutional Rights by Narcotics Officers and the individually named Defendant Police

Officers.

38. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions, the Mr. George was

unlawfully arrested and imprisoned from July 19, 2011 to October 7, 2011.

39. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions, Mr. George suffered injury in

the form of continued humiliation and loss of liberty in the form of fear and anxiety

associated with unlawful litigation and prosecution up until January 14, 2013 when the

District Attorney’s Office finally acknowledged the unlawful conduct of the individually

named Defendant-Police officers, and withdrew the charges.

40. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions and conduct, Mr. George

suffered injury in the form of $2510.00 in bail he was forced to pay to procure his pre-

trial release from an unlawful detention.


12


suffered humiliation and embarrassment in front of his community, friends, family,

patients, colleagues and employers.

42. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions and conduct, Mr. George was

terminated by his employers and lost all of his income until well-after the matter was

dismissed and the false charges were expunged from his record


suffered injury in the form of losing and/or being evicted from his rental home during the

period of his incarceration, substantial loss of personal property stored at his home, and

the humiliation of being forced borrow money and to live with his finances’ family and

sleep on a couch.


suffered injury in the form of loss of a future home he was in the process of negotiating

and financing for purchase.


suffer injury in the form of Attorney’s Fees and other expenses associated with

defending against unlawful criminal charges and the later expungement of his arrest

record.


suffered damages in the form of pain, humiliation, and psychological trauma, the

deprivation of his Civil Rights and serious and permanent injuries, some of which may be

permanent.


13

IV. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT 1.

DUE PROCESS

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988 as to the Defendants Philadelphia and Ramsey


herein.

48. As a direct and proximate result of the custom, policy and practice regarding the

unmonitored and aggressive implementation of narcotics investigation techniques by the

Defendants Philadelphia, Ramsey and employees, and the deliberate indifference and

callous disregard thereof, committed under the color of state law, Mr. George was

deprived of his right to be secure in his person or property, and to be free of unreasonable

searches and seizures under due process of law protected by the 4th

and 14th

Amendments

of the United States Constitution through 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988.


unmonitored and discretionary implementation of reasonable suspicion and/or probable

cause based on flight and/or in a high crime area, and the deliberate indifference and

callous disregard thereof, employed by the Defendants Philadelphia, Ramsey and

employees, committed under the Color of State Law, Mr. George was deprived of his

right to be secure in his person and property, and to be free from unreasonable searches

and seizures under Due Process protected by the 4th

and 14th

Amendments of the United

States Constitution through 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988.


14


implementation of the permitted use of unreasonable and/or excessive force, and the

deliberate indifference and callous disregard thereof, employed by the Defendants

Philadelphia, Ramsey and employees, committed under the Color of State Law, Mr.

George was deprived of his right to be secure in his person and property, bodily

integrity, and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under Due Process

protected by the 4th

and 14th

Amendment of the United States Constitution through 42

U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988.


implementation of stop and frisk for the purpose of developing or discovering reasonable

suspicion and/or probable cause, unconstitutional investigatory detentions, and unlawful

stops, arrests, searches and seizures, and the deliberate indifference and callous disregard

thereof, employed by the Defendants Philadelphia, Ramsey and employees, committed

under the Color of State Law, Mr. George was deprived of his right to be secure in his

person and property, bodily integrity, privacy, and to be free from unreasonable searches

and seizures, and unlawful detention protected by to Due Process under the 4th

and 14th

Amendments of the United States Constitution through 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988.

52. Insufficient independent and objective oversight, auditing monitoring, training

supervising , disciplining and training by the Defendants Philadelphia and Ramsey of

Police Officers engaged in narcotics investigations caused and facilitated the abuse of

police power, and thus was the proximate cause of the herein-alleged violations Mr.

George’s Constitutional and Civil Rights protected under the 4th

and 14th

Amendments.


15

53. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of all the Defendants, Mr. George sustained

pain, permanent injury, emotional distress, financial loss, all to the his detriment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant for compensatory

damages in an amount in excess of $150,000.00, and punitive damages in an amount in

excess of $150,000.00, plus interest, costs, attorney’s fees, equitable and declaratory relief in

the form of requiring or recommending that the Defendant Philadelphia evaluate, train and

study data on minimal Constitutional requirements in determining an area to be a “high crime

area,” equitable and declaratory relief that probable cause based on flight in a “high crime

area,” is unconstitutional as applied, and such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem

just.

COUNT 2.

EQUAL PROTECTION

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988 as to the Defendants Philadelphia and Ramsey


herein.


implementation reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause based on flight and/or in a

high crime area, and deliberate indifference and callous disregard thereof, employed by

the Defendants Philadelphia, Ramsey and employees, committed under the Color of State

Law, Mr. George was deprived of his right to Equal Protection of the Law under the 14th

Amendment of the United States Constitution through 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988.

56. Insufficient independent and objective oversight, auditing, monitoring, training

supervising and disciplining police officers regarding what constitutes flight and/or a


16

high crime area facilitates the abuse of police power, differential application of the law

based on the arbitrary assessments of communities, differential standards for probable

cause and/or reasonable suspicion, and ultimately searches and seizures based on

arbitrary distinctions with no rational basis of compelling state interest.

57. This arbitrary assessment is overbroad and not the least restrictive means due to the fact

that it subjects law-abiding citizens in particular neighborhoods assessed as “high crime

areas” to a standard not imposed on others within the Defendant Philadelphia’s

jurisdiction.

58. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of all the Defendants, Mr. George sustained

pain, permanent injury, emotional distress, financial loss, all to the plaintiff’s detriment.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against the defendant for compensatory


excess of $150,000.00, plus interest, costs, attorney’s fees, equitable and declaratory relief in

the form of requiring or recommending that the defendant Philadelphia evaluate, train and

study data on minimal Constitutional requirements in determining an area to be a “high crime

area,” equitable and declaratory relief that probable cause based on flight in a “high crime

area,” is unconstitutional as applied, and such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem

just.


17

.COUNT 3.

DUE PROCESS

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988; as to Defendants Liciardello, Spicer, Betts, Reynolds,

Speiser, Otto, McCloskey and Does


herein.

60. As a direct and proximate result of the individual and/or conspired acts or omissions of

the individual herein Defendant Police Officers, committed under the Color of State Law,

and in the course an scope of their duties, the Mr. George was deprived of his right to be

secure in his person or property, bodily integrity, to be free of unreasonable searches and

seizures and the unreasonable use of force, and to be free of unlawful detention, all under

due process of law protected by the 4th

and 14th

Amendments of the United States

Constitution through 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988.


the individual Defendant Police Officers, committed under the Color of State Law and in

the course an scope of their duties, Mr. George was deprived of his right to be secure in

his person or property, bodily integrity, privacy, to be free of unreasonable searches and

seizures and the unreasonable use of force under due process of law protected by the 4th

and 14th

Amendments of the United States Constitution through 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985,

1988.

62. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of individual and/or conspired acts or

omissions of the individual Defendant Police Officers, Mr. George sustained pain,

permanent injury, emotional distress, financial loss, all to the plaintiff’s detriment.


18

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands Judgment against the Defendant for compensatory


excess of $150,000.00, plus interest, costs, attorney’s fees, and such other relief as this

Honorable Court may deem just.

COUNT 4.

EQUAL PROTECTION

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988 as to Liciardello, Spicer, Betts, Reynolds, Speiser, Otto

McClosky and Does

63. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-62 of this complaint as fully set forth

herein.

64. Specifically with regard to the arbitrary, unconstitutional and inaccurate assessment of

the area of Mr. George’s arrest as a “high crime area,” and as a direct and proximate

result of the individual and/or conspired acts or omissions of the individual Defendant

Police Officers, committed under the Color of State Law, in the course an scope of their

duties, Mr. George was deprived of his right to Equal Protection under the Law protected

by the 14th

Amendment of the United States Constitution through 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983,

1985, 1988.


the individual Defendant Police Officers, Mr. George sustained pain, permanent injury,

emotional distress, financial loss, all to the plaintiff’s detriment.




19



COUNT 5.

DUE PROCESS

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988; as to Defendant Williams


herein.

67. The Defendant Williams exercised his administrative duties by approving and permitting

the unlawful arrest and/or treated with deliberate indifference, the approval of warrant(s),

charging and arraignment of the Plaintiff and hundreds of individuals knowing that the

Defendant individual Police Officers routinely falsified evidence, fabricated facts and

circumstances for probable cause, and committed perjury in support of convictions.

68. Defendant Williams treated with deliberate indifference and/or knowingly ignored

Constitutional violations that rise to criminal conduct by the individual Defendant Police

Officers, and intentionally refused and/or knowingly failed to investigate, charge and

prosecute the individual Defendant Police Officers.

69. Defendant Williams treated with deliberate indifference and/or knowingly ignored his

duty to convey and/or inform Mr. George’s Criminal Defense Attorney of mandatory

discovery under Brady v. Maryland and Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure in the

form of any information and/or documents regarding credibility issues of the individual

Defendant Police Officers that are potentially exculpatory.

70. Defendant Williams treated with deliberate indifference and/or knowingly ignored his

duty to convey and/or inform Criminal Defense Attorneys representing individuals


20

arrested by the individual Defendant Police Officers of mandatory discovery under Brady

v. Maryland and Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure in the form of any

information and/or documents regarding credibility issues of the individual Defendant

Police Officers that are potentially exculpatory.

71. As a consequence and proximate result, the individual Defendant Police Officers arrested

the Mr. George and other individuals based on fabrication, tampered evidence and

without probable cause, with impunity and without fear of Criminal Prosecution for their

unlawful conduct.

72. As a consequence and proximate result, the individual Defendant Police Officers Mr.

George and others arrested by the individual Defendant Police Officers were wrongfully

prosecuted and detained in violation of their Constitutional Rights.


the Defendant Williams, committed under the Color of State Law, and in the course an

scope of his duties, Mr. George was deprived of his right to be secure in his person or

property, bodily integrity, to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, to be free of

unlawful detention, and the unreasonable use of force, all protected under due process of

law protected by the 4th

and 14th

Amendments of the United States Constitution through

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988.


omissions of the Defendant Williams, the Plaintiff sustained pain, permanent injury,





21



COUNT6.

EQUAL PROTECTION

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988; as to Defendant Williams


herein.

76. Defendant Williams treated with deliberate indifference and/or intentionally ignored

Constitutional violations that rise to criminal conduct by the individual Defendant Police

Officers, and willfully refused , knowingly failed, and or treated with deliberate

indifference his administrative duties to review allegations, investigate, arrest, charge and

prosecute the individually-named, Defendant Police Officers and other members of the

NFU.

77. The criminal misconduct of the individual Defendant Police Officers and other members

of the Narcotics Field Unit occurred in “High Drug Areas,” and were under virtually

identical facts and circumstances considered sufficient by the Defendant Williams to

investigate, arrest, charge and prosecute the Mr. George and other ordinary citizens.


the Defendant Williams, committed under the Color of State Law, in the course an scope

of his duties, Mr. George was deprived of his right to Equal Protection under the Law

protected by the 14th

Amendment of the United States Constitution through 42 U.S.C. §§

1983, 1985, 1988.


22


omissions of the Defendant Williams, Mr. George sustained pain, permanent injury,






COUNT 7.

DUE PROCESS

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988; as to Charles Ramsey


herein.

81. Defendant Ramsey knew or should have known that the individual Defendant Police

Officers were routinely and systematically violating the Constitutional Rights of

individuals through, inter alia, fabricating evidence, falsifying affidavits and testimony,

use of excessive force, and criminal conduct.

82. The Defendant Ramsey continued to tacitly approve, permit, and/or treat with deliberate

indifference the herein alleged illegal conduct of the members of the Narcotics Field Unit

and the individual Defendant Police Officers.

83. The Defendant Ramsey continued to fail to supervise, monitor, investigate, and/or

discipline the members of the Narcotics Field Unit and the individually named Defendant

Police Officers for the herein alleged Constitutional violations and illegal conduct .


23

84. The Defendant Ramsey willfully and knowingly granted and/or approved the members of

the Narcotics Field Unit and the individually named Defendant Police Officers

unchecked authority, power and discretion in the implementation of investigatory tactics

and methods regarding drug interdiction and the sale of illegal narcotics.

85. The Defendant Ramsey willfully and knowingly ignored , failed to monitor, audit and/or

approve overtime hours accrued by members of the Narcotics Field Unit and the

individually named Defendant Police Officers, which Defendant Ramsey knew

substantially contributed to and provided a further incentive to fabricate evidence.

86. As a consequence and proximate result, the individual Defendant Police Officers arrested

Mr. George and other individuals based on fabrication, tampered evidence and without

probable cause, with impunity and without fear of Criminal Prosecution and/or discipline

for unlawful conduct.


the Defendant Ramsey, committed under the Color of State Law, and in the course an

scope of his duties, the George was deprived of his right to be secure in his person or

property, bodily integrity, to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, to be free of

unlawful detention, and the unreasonable use of force, all protected under Due Process of

law protected by the 4th

and 14th

Amendments of the United States Constitution through

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988.

88. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of individual and/or conspired acts and/or

omissions of the Defendant Ramsey, Mr. George sustained pain, permanent injury,

emotional distress, financial loss, all to the Mr. George’s detriment.


24





COUNT 8.

ASSAULT

Pendant State Law Claim as to Spicer, Betts and McClosky


herein.

90. Defendants Spicer and Betts committed assault by aggressively approaching while

armed, forcibly searching and handcuffing, and physically handling Mr. George in an

aggressive and threatening manner, all of which caused Mr. George apprehension of

malicious, intentional, willful and harmful offensive contact.

91. Defendants Spicer, Betts and McClosky further committed assault by acting and/or

omission through the herein-described conduct by knowingly acting in agreement,

furtherance, concert and conspiracy.

92. As a direct and proximate cause, Mr. George suffered the injuries herein described in this

complaint.






25

COUNT 9.

FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT



herein.

94. By the acts, omissions and conduct incorporated herein, defendants Spicer and Betts

committed false arrest and/or false imprisonment in violation of the laws of Pennsylvania

by maliciously, and willfully detaining and restraining the plaintiff’s body from

movement in all directions without the Mr. George’s consent or under authority of law.

95. By the acts, omissions and conduct in agreement, furtherance, concert and conspiracy

incorporated herein, Defendants Spicer, Betts and McClosky committed false arrest and

false imprisonment in violation of the laws of Pennsylvania by maliciously, and willfully

detaining and restraining Mr. George’s body from movement in all directions without

Mr. George’s consent or under authority of law.


complaint.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants for

compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $150,000.00, and punitive damages in

an amount in excess of $150,000.00, plus interest, costs, attorney’s fees, and such other

relief as this Honorable Court may deem just.


26

COUNT 10.

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS



herein.

98. The individual Defendant Police Officers engaged in criminal conduct and fabricating

evidence in order to support Probable Cause for the purpose of arresting innocent citizens

and Mr. George.

99. By the acts, omissions and conduct of Defendants Spicer, Betts and McClosky,

individually and in furtherance, concert and conspiracy, incorporated herein, constitute

extreme and outrageous conduct that is beyond the bounds of conduct tolerated by

civilized society such that they violate basic concepts of human decency and shock the

conscience of society.


complaint.






27

COUNT 11.

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION



herein.

102. Based on the aforementioned acts, omissions and conduct, Defendants Spicer, Betts and

McClosky committed Malicious Prosecution in violation of Pennsylvania State Law by

maliciously, knowingly and intentionally instituting criminal proceedings against the

Plaintiff without probable cause, and with malicious intent towards the Plaintiff, where-

after the criminal proceeding concluded in the Mr. George’s favor.

103. Defendants Spicer , Betts and McClosky intentionally and maliciously violated the Mr.

George’s Constitutional Rights by fabricating evidence, and arresting the Mr. George

without probable cause in order to increase their arrest records and overtime pay.


complaint.






28

COUNT 12.

ABUSE OF PROCESS



herein.

106. Based on the aforementioned acts, omissions and conduct, Defendants Spicer, Betts and

McClosky committed Abuse of Process in violation of Pennsylvania State Law by

maliciously, knowingly and intentionally using the legal process of arrest, sworn

affidavit, police paperwork, and arraignment to arrest and prosecute Mr. George in order

increase their arrest record and overtime pay.


complaint.





V. DAMAGES RELIEF


herein.

109. As the proximate result of the acts, omissions and conduct herein described and

committed by the Defendants under the Color of State Law and in violation of

Pennsylvania Tort Law, Mr. George suffered injury and damages, not limited to


29

substantial pain, humiliation, physical and psychological injury, equitable and economic

loss, and deprivation of the plaintiff’s civil rights, some of which may be permanent.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment in favor of the Plaintiff as to

all counts, and an award to the Plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages against all

Defendants, attorney’s fees and costs, all applicable interest, and any such other relief that

the Court deems appropriate.

VI. JURY DEMAND


herein.

111. On all the counts, facts and claims herein asserted, the Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by

jury.

Respectfully Submitted,

Brian F. Humble

Brian F. Humble, Esquire

Bar ID: 88887

1500 JFK Blvd, suite 1313

Philadelphia, PA 19102

(215)501-6356

Fx: (215) 525-1340

Email: [email protected]


mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Frederick George v. City of Philadelphia