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 :
Philadelphia, PA 19103 :
:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY :
Rufus Seth Williams :
Three South Penn Square :
Philadelphia, PA 19107 :
:
POLICE COMISSIONER :
Charles H. Ramsey :
C/o City of Philadelphia Law Dept. :
1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor :
Philadelphia, PA 19102 :
:
POLICE OFFICER :
Thomas Liciardello (Badge # 4383) :
Individually and in his official capacity :
C/o City of Philadelphia Law Dept. :
1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor :
Philadelphia, PA 19102 :
:
POLICE OFFICER :
Michael Spicer (Badge # 5180) :
Individually and in his official capacity :
C/o City of Philadelphia Law Dept. :
1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor :
Philadelphia, PA 19102 :
:
POLICE OFFICER :
Perry Betts (Badge # 4383) :
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 1 of 29
2
Individually and in his official capacity :
C/o City of Philadelphia Law Dept. :
1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor :
Philadelphia, PA 19102 :
:
POLICE OFFICER :
Sgt. Joseph McClosky (Badge # 331) :
Individually and in his official capacity :
C/o City of Philadelphia Law Dept. :
1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor :
Philadelphia, PA 19102 :
:
POLICE OFFICER :
John Speiser (Badge #7169) :
Individually and in his official capacity :
C/o City of Philadelphia Law Dept. :
1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor :
Philadelphia, PA 19102 :
:
POLICE OFFICER :
Brian Reynolds (Badge # 4268) :
Individually and in his official capacity :
C/o City of Philadelphia Law Dept. :
1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor :
Philadelphia, PA 19102 :
:
POLICE OFFICER :
Lt. Robert Otto (Badge No. unknown) :
Individually and in his official capacity :
:
POLICE OFFICERS :
John Does 1-X (Badge Nos. Unknown) :
C/o City of Philadelphia Law Dept. :
1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor :
Philadelphia, PA 19102 :
:
Defendants :
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 2 of 29
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.
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 3 of 29
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.
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 4 of 29
5
10. Defendant, Philadelphia Police Officer Michael Spicer (Badge no. 5180)(hereinafter
“Spicer”) 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 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
under the command and authority of the Defendants Philadelphia and Ramsey, and at all
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 5 of 29
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
being sued in his individual, supervisory, and all other official capacities as a
Philadelphia Police Officer.
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
being sued in his individual, supervisory, and all other official capacities as a
Philadelphia Police Officer.
15. Defendant, Philadelphia Police Officer Lt. Robert Otto (Badge No. unknown)
(hereinafter “Otto”) 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 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
Philadelphia Police Officer.
16. Defendant, Philadelphia Police Officer(s) John & Jane Does 1-X (Badge Nos. unknown)
(hereinafter “Does”) are Philadelphia Police Officers 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 practice of the PPD, and/or the Defendant Philadelphia. Defendant
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 6 of 29
7
Does are being sued in their individual, supervisory, and all other official capacities as a
Philadelphia Police Officer.
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.
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 7 of 29
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
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 8 of 29
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.
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 9 of 29
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.
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 10 of 29
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.
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 11 of 29
12
41. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions and conduct, Mr. George
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
43. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions and conduct, Mr. George
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.
44. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions and conduct, Mr. George
suffered injury in the form of loss of a future home he was in the process of negotiating
and financing for purchase.
45. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions and conduct, Mr. George
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.
46. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions and conduct, Mr. George
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.
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 12 of 29
13
IV. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT 1.
DUE PROCESS
42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988 as to the Defendants Philadelphia and Ramsey
47. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 -46 of this complaint as fully set forth
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.
49. As a direct and proximate result of the custom, policy and practice regarding the
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.
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 13 of 29
14
50. As a direct and proximate result of the custom, policy and practice regarding the
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.
51. As a direct and proximate result of the custom, policy and practice regarding the
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.
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 14 of 29
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
54. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 -53 of this complaint as fully set forth
herein.
55. As a direct and proximate result of the custom, policy and practice regarding the
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
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 15 of 29
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
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.
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 16 of 29
17
.COUNT 3.
DUE PROCESS
42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988; as to Defendants Liciardello, Spicer, Betts, Reynolds,
Speiser, Otto, McCloskey and Does
59. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 -58 of this complaint as fully set forth
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.
61. 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 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.
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 17 of 29
18
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, 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.
65. As a direct and proximate result of the 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.
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
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 18 of 29
19
excess of $150,000.00, plus interest, costs, attorney’s fees, and such other relief as this
Honorable Court may deem just.
COUNT 5.
DUE PROCESS
42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988; as to Defendant Williams
66. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 -65 of this complaint as fully set forth
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
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 19 of 29
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.
73. As a direct and proximate result of the individual and/or conspired acts or omissions of
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.
74. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of individual and/or conspired acts or
omissions of the Defendant Williams, the Plaintiff sustained pain, permanent injury,
emotional distress, financial loss, all to the plaintiff’s 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
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 20 of 29
21
excess of $150,000.00, plus interest, costs, attorney’s fees, and such other relief as this
Honorable Court may deem just.
COUNT6.
EQUAL PROTECTION
42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988; as to Defendant Williams
75. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 -74 of this complaint as fully set forth
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.
78. As a direct and proximate result of the individual and/or conspired acts or omissions of
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.
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 21 of 29
22
79. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of individual and/or conspired acts or
omissions of the Defendant Williams, 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
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.
COUNT 7.
DUE PROCESS
42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988; as to Charles Ramsey
80. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 -79 of this complaint as fully set forth
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 .
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 22 of 29
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.
87. As a direct and proximate result of the individual and/or conspired acts or omissions of
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.
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 23 of 29
24
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, and such other relief as this
Honorable Court may deem just.
COUNT 8.
ASSAULT
Pendant State Law Claim as to Spicer, Betts and McClosky
89. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 -88 of this complaint as fully set forth
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.
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, and such other relief as this
Honorable Court may deem just.
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 24 of 29
25
COUNT 9.
FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT
Pendant State Law Claim as to Spicer, Betts and McClosky
93. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 -92 of this complaint as fully set forth
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.
96. As a direct and proximate cause, Mr. George suffered the injuries herein described in this
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.
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 25 of 29
26
COUNT 10.
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
Pendant State Law Claim as to Spicer, Betts and McClosky
97. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 -96 of this complaint as fully set forth
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.
100. As a direct and proximate cause, Mr. George suffered the injuries herein described in this
complaint.
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, and such other relief as this
Honorable Court may deem just.
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 26 of 29
27
COUNT 11.
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
Pendant State Law Claim as to Spicer, Betts and McClosky
101. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 -100 of this complaint as fully set forth
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.
104. As a direct and proximate cause, Mr. George suffered the injuries herein described in this
complaint.
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, and such other relief as this
Honorable Court may deem just.
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 27 of 29
28
COUNT 12.
ABUSE OF PROCESS
Pendant State Law Claim as to Spicer, Betts and McClosky
105. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 -104 of this complaint as fully set forth
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.
107. As a direct and proximate cause, Mr. George suffered the injuries herein described in this
complaint.
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, and such other relief as this
Honorable Court may deem just.
V. DAMAGES RELIEF
108. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 -107 of this complaint as fully set forth
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
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 28 of 29
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
110. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 -107 of this complaint as fully set forth
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]
Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 29 of 29