fbidoj complaint

8/9/2019 Fbidoj Complaint

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fbidoj-complaint 1/7

April 23, 2015

Edward J. Hanko, Special Agent in Charge

Federal Bureau of Investigation

William J. Green, Jr. Building

600 Arch Street, 8th FloorPhiladelphia, PA 19106

RE: Barnett v. Grote, et al., No.: 1:13-cv-02206-JEJ (M.D.Pa.)

Gracey v. Goss, et al., No.: 1:15-cv-00068-YK (M.D.Pa.)Bletz v. John Doe, (not yet in litigation) (M.D.Pa.)

Debra L. Williams v. Chad R. Moyer, et al., No.: 1:13-cv-00675-JEJ (M.D.Pa.)

Landis v. Chad R. Moyer, et al., No.: 1:13-cv-00673-JEJ (M.D.Pa.)Estate of Todd W. Shultz, et al. v. Hadfield, et al., No.: 1:14-cv-02402-JEJ (M.D.Pa.)

Dear Special Agent Hanko:

I represent Stephen R. Gracey, and Travis Barnett, in their respective civil rights litigation,

resulting from two separate excessive force incidents that resulted in their suffering serious injuries

at the hands of troopers who remain employed by the Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”). I also

represent Jeffrey W. Bletz, regarding an incident wherein a PSP trooper shot and killed his dog while

the dog was running away from the trooper and not threatening anyone. Finally, as you were advisedin my letter dated April 22, 2015, I represent Debra L. Williams, Stephen E. Landis, and the Estate

of Todd W. Shultz, in civil rights litigation, resulting from three separate excessive force incidents

that were investigated by the PSP.

In Gracey, despite knowing Gracey’s identity, and the non-violent nature of alleged criminal

conduct, PSP troopers engaged in a dangerous vehicle pursuit with Gracey. After a trooper used aPrecision Immobilization Technique (“PIT maneuver ”) to end the pursuit, one or more of the troopers

ordered Gracey to (a) exit his vehicle, (b) face his vehicle, and (c) place his hands up and on the side

of his vehicle. Gracey complied with the directions, at which time PSP Trooper Kevin M. Goss came

around Gracey’s vehicle and tackled him. Goss admits that he “put hands on the driver” and delivered

a knee str ike to Gracey “up under his abdomen/stomach area due to him being bent over.”

PSP Trooper Benjamin A. Frantz, Goss, and one or more of the other involved troopers “took

[Gracey] to the ground.” The troopers’ technique in tackling and slamming Gracey face-down on theground, is not in accordance with accepted police technique, and placed both Gracey and the troopers

in danger of being injured. Moreover, the technique is defective in that it is non-controlled, causes



2 | P a g e

the person being tackled to instinctively place their arms and hands in front of themselves to breakthe fall, and makes the persons’ arms not immediately accessible for handcuffing.

After being slammed to the ground on his stomach, several troopers piled on top of Gracey,

which made it difficult, at best, for Gracey to place his wrists behind his back for handcuffing. WhileGracey was face-down on the ground, Goss admits that he gave Gracey “several more strikes with a

closed fist” to his “abdomen area, ribcage, back, [and] shoulders[,]” and delivered “a knee strike to

his upper back area.” In addition, PSP Trooper Michael C. Penrose admits that he kneeled with bothof his legs on Gracey’s right leg, and that he “struck [Gracey] several times in the kidney and rib area

with a closed fist.”

A mobile video recorder (“MVR”) captured a portion of the incident on video. In the video,two troopers can be seen kicking what is believed to be Gracey, while he is being restrained on the

ground by several other troopers. When one of the troopers, believed to be PSP Trooper James M.Hanning, Jr., is kicking Gracey, another trooper, believed to be Goss, looks at the MVR, turns backto Hanning and says something to him, at which time Hanning stops kicking Gracey. It is believed

that Goss, Frantz, Penrose, Hanning, and PSP Troopers Marc D. Packrall, Alexander M. Grote,

Gregory R. Strayer, Michael Predajna, and Walter R. Brunner, Jr., observed and/or participated inassaulting Gracey.

As a result of the assault, Gracey suffered serious facial injuries, was bleeding profusely from

around his left eye, and was rendered unconscious. Goss admits that when the beating ended, he hadGracey’s blood on his hands. Ultimately, it was determined that the troopers broke the bones that

comprise Gracey’s left eye orbit in several places, caused serious neck and back injuries, and caused

other traumatic injuries. Gracey underwent surgery on his left eye in an attempt to repair some of thedamage caused to his eye by the troopers. To date, Gracey has not fully recovered from his injuries,some of which are permanent.

Despite knowing that the troopers under his command had caused Gracey to suffer seriousinjury, PSP Trooper Craig R. Finkle completed a Blue Team Entry Report to report only the fact that

the PIT maneuver had been used, and that Grote had attempted unsuccessfully to use his Taser during

the incident. It is believed that none of the involved troopers were disciplined for their unlawfulconduct. Moreover, Franklin County District Attorney Matthew D. Fogal refused to prosecute the

involved troopers. Finally, when I reached out to PSP Chief Legal Counsel Scott R. Ford via email to

discuss the incident, he told me not to email him again and blocked my ability to send him emails.

In Barnett, PSP Troopers Kevin M. Goss and Alexander M. Goss (who were both involved in

the Gracey assault) claimed that Travis Barnett “slipped,” on his wet porch stairs while they were

investigating a reported disturbance. As a result, Barnett suffered a concussion, broken bones in his

face, broken teeth, a displaced ulner nerve in an elbow that required surgical repair, a shoulder injury

that required surgical repair, and facial lacerations on both sides of his face. Barnett was transferred

from the scene via ambulance. The incident occurred in September of 2011. PSP, however, failed to



3 | P a g e

conduct an internal investigation until August of 2013, after it received notification of Barnett’s intent

to file a lawsuit. No troopers were disciplined or criminally prosecuted.

In Bletz, a PSP trooper who was participating in an attempt to serve an arrest warrant on a

person who was mistakenly thought to be residing at Bletz’s home, recklessly fired three bullets at

Bletz’s dog killing it. One of the bullets impacted the ground near a window of a room where Bletz’s

grandchild was located. Witnesses, and a necropsy that was conducted on the dog, definitively

establish that the dog was running away from the trooper, and toward Bletz, when the trooper shot

and killed it. The involved trooper was neither disciplined nor criminally prosecuted.

In Williams, PSP investigated an excessive use of force incident involving the Springettsbury

Township Police Department. When the force occurred, Debra L. Williams was handcuffed to the

rear, with her feet shackled, and in the rear seat of a police vehicle. The involved officers, Chad R.Moyer and Gregory T. Hadfield, were captured on video tasering, punching, and choking Williams.

They claimed that such action was necessary because she spit and kicked. York County District

Attorney Thomas L. Kearney, III, requested that PSP investigate the incident. However, instead of

just investigating the incident, PSP also issued an opinion on the lawfulness of the force used. The

opinion was provided in the form of an expert report submitted by Sgt. Charles S. Mory, Jr.,

Supervisor, PSP Academy Physical Education Unit, who claimed that since 1996, PSP has designated

him as a “Use of Force Expert.” In his report, Sgt. Mory stated in relevant part, the following:

It is my opinion that the actions of the 2 involved Springettsbury Police Officers wereconsistent with the accepted law enforcement theory, practices, training, and

MPOETC standards in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Both officers respondedto their individual perceptions of the threat during their arrest and custody actions.

The female subject was agitated, sounded intoxicated, resistant, uncooperative and

swearing while handcuffed, and in custody in the back of the patrol vehicle. The prisoner kicked at the interior areas of the vehicle, including the protective barrier

between the front and back seats numerous times. This required that the subject be

removed to the rear of the patrol vehicle for the application of leg shackles. The subject

also kicked and spit at the officers during this encounter while handcuffed and leg-shackled in the back seat of the patrol vehicle. The kicks could have easily landed in

the facial area of the custody officer causing injury.

The contact could have been handled a little more effectively if the subject's legs weresecured with tie-ropes rather than leg shackles, to eliminate the kicking. Verbal

interaction with the subject was limited due to her constant "yelling" regarding her

"wish to die".



4 | P a g e

The choice of force options by the custody officers created a chance of injury to thesuspect, but appeared to be in response to the fluid, volatile encounter in the backseat

of the patrol vehicle. Better force option choices, and a coordinated officer approachto secure the subject would have given better results. Force actions with a handcuffed

and leg-shackled subject do not usually include strikes to the face, unless exigentcircumstances present themselves.

Ultimately, the subject was contained and secured, but better force option choices,tactics, and verbalization could have prevented the volatility and subsequent struggle

with subject, Williams, during the encounter.

My conclusions: In light of the United States Supreme Court Case, Graham v. Connor,490 U.S. 386 (1989), the two officers who used force in this incident did so reasonably

under the totality of circumstances confronting them. Their perceptions and actionswere reactionary in nature, and their force options, although poor choices, must beweighed against officer perceived threats, the volatility and fluidness of the situation,

the need for immediate control, and sustained injuries. The actions of the two officers

contained the subject with minimal injury.

Any competent law enforcement officer would know that tasering, punching, and choking, an

already restrained suicidal female prisoner, merely because the prisoner allegedly kicked and spit, is

the unlawful torture of a detainee. Properly trained officers would have simply placed a spit mask on

Williams’ face, and exited the rear seat of the vehicle until Williams calmed down. If Williams could

not be calmed, medical personnel should have been summoned to the scene. Relying on Sgt. Mory’s

“expert” opinion, which is not in accordance with current widely accepted police practices, and bystate and federal law, Kearney refused to prosecute Moyer and Hadfield.

In Landis, PSP investigated an excessive use of force incident, again involving the

Springettsbury Township Police Department. While patrolling in their marked police vehicle on the

evening of April 2, 2011, Chad R. Moyer (the same officer who assaulted Williams) and William

Polizzotto, Jr., encountered Steven E. Landis, who suffers from several disabilities, walking on a

public street. Moyer detained Landis, who wears hearing aids, and who Moyer himself acknowledged

may have mental health issues, for suspiciously walking on a public street and asked him what he was

doing. Moyer discovered an outstanding warrant for Landis’ arrest, of which Landis was not aware.

Landis asked what the warrant was for and Moyer said that he did not know and that Landis

needed to put his hands behind his back. When Landis put his hands up in the air, instead of behind

his back, Moyer swung Landis to the left while using his right leg to trip him, so hard, that both of

Landis’ feet came off of the ground. Moyer slammed Landis down on his stomach, on the asphalt

roadway, next to the curb, with one of Landis’ arms under him, knocking out one of Landis’ hearing

aids.



5 | P a g e

Polizzotto approached on foot with his K9 partner, and immediately sat on Landis’ legs, while

his K9 stood on Landis’ back. Landis begged for Moyer to stop, telling Moyer that he was hurting

him. Moyer told Landis to place his hand behind his back, which he could not do with the officers ontop of him. Landis continued to plead with Moyer, yelling stop, you are hurting me, to which Moyer

stated, “yeah, well I am going to hurt you more.” Moyer stated to Landis, “I got a dog here, listen, I

got a dog here, if you want to get bit, you are going to get bit, put your hand behind your back.”

Landis, still unable to free his arm from underneath himself, continued to plead for Moyer to stop.

Moyer stated to Landis, “You are going to get fucked up,” at which time he kneed Landis hard in the

left ribcage breaking five (5) of Landis’ ribs. Polizzotto used a Taser in drive -stun mode two times

on Landis’ buttocks.

DA Kearney again asked PSP to investigate the incident, and again, instead of just

investigating, PSP issued an opinion regarding the lawfulness of the force used. The opinion wasagain provided in the form of an expert report submitted by Sgt. Mory. In his report, Sgt. Mory stated

in relevant part, the following:

It is my opinion that the actions of the 2 involved Springettsbury Police Officers and

their Police K9 were consistent with the accepted law enforcement theory, practices,training, and MPOETC standards in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Investigative and assessment actions on-scene by the initial contact officer indicated

unusual behavior and an outstanding warrant on the subject, Steve Landis. A warrant

promotes immediate officer caution and concern indicating a possible "threat".

The contact officer moved quickly to arrest and control the subject upon confirming

the identity and warrant, with the arrival of a back-up officer and his K9. Multipleforce options were used by both officers, including displacing the subjects balance to

take him to the ground for handcuffing. It appears that both officers perceived

resistance and a threat from the subject as they struggled to get his hands behind his

back for handcuffing.

The contact could have been handled more effectively if a coordinated arrest effort

had occurred with more verbal communication prior to taking the "hearing deficient"subject to the ground.

Ultimately, the arrest was culminated, but better force option choices, tactics, and

verbalization of commands could have prevented the initial struggle with Landis,during the encounter.

My conclusions: In light of the United States Supreme Court Case, Graham v. Connor,490 U.S. 386 (1989), the two officers who used force in this incident did so reasonably



6 | P a g e

under the totality of circumstances confronting them. Their perceptions and actionswere reactionary in nature, and their force options, although poor choices, must be

weighed against officer perceived threats, the volatility and fluidness of the situation,the need for immediate control, and sustained injuries. The actions of the two officers

contained the subject with minimal injury.

Any properly trained law enforcement officer would know that Moyer unlawfully stopped

Landis while Landis was out for a walk. Moreover, any properly trained law enforcement officer

would know that announcing that “I am going to hurt you more ,” and “You are going to get fucked

up,” just prior to kneeing someone in the ribs causing five (5) ribs to break, is probable cause that the

law enforcement officer committed the crime of aggravated assault. Similarly, any properly trained

law enforcement officer would know that tasering a disabled person who was just unlawfully

assaulted by a fellow officer, instead of acting to protect the person, is an assault. Again, relying on

Sgt. Mory’s cookie-cutter “expert” opinion, which is not in accordance with current widely accepted

police practices, and by state and federal law, Kearney refused to prosecute Moyer or Hadfield.

The fact that the supervisor of the PSP Academy Physical Education Unit, who since 1996,

PSP has regarded as a “Use of Force Expert,” is of the opinion that the uses of force depicted in the

Williams and Landis videos comports with state and federal law, is simply disturbing. Unfortunately,

it also explains why PSP persists in permitting its troopers to engage in official misconduct, and to

oppress citizens who they were sworn to protect, without consequence. My hope is that the FBI and

DOJ will conduct a proper investigation into the aforementioned incidents, and that the DOJ will

force the PSP to implement much needed reforms.

Finally, I have been advised by representatives of PSP that they loath me and wish to silence

me. One tactic used is to attempt to condition settlements on an agreement to partial or complete

confidentiality. I have been advised that PSP regularly includes such terms in settlement agreements.

This tactic undermines PA Right to Know Law. Moreover, public officials, using taxpayer money to

purchase a private lawyer’s silence regarding matters of waste and wrongdoing, is a misuse of public

money.

In my letter dated April 22, 2015, I provided you with a CD containing relevant documents

regarding the Williams and Landis incidents. Enclosed with this letter is a CD containing three

folders: (1) Gracey, (2) Barnett, and (3) Bletz. The folders contain the following:

Gracey

1. Amended Complaint filed 2-9-15;2. Exhibit A to Complaint (video of assault committed by troopers); and

3. Exhibit B to Complaint (photograph of injuries).



7 | P a g e

Barnett

1. Complaint filed 8-31-13;

2.

Statement of Facts filed 3-13-15;3. Deposition Transcript-Travis Barnett;4. Deposition Transcript-Lisa Barnett;

5. Deposition Transcript-Alex M. Grote;

a. Exhibits to Grote Deposition;

6. Deposition Transcript-Kevin M. Goss;a. Errata Sheet to Goss Deposition’

b. Exhibits to Goss Deposition;

7. Deposition Transcript-Virginia Thomas;

8. Photographs of injuries after incident; and9. Photographs of location of incident and permanent disfigurement.

Bletz

1. Video documenting impact location of bullets; and

2. Necropsy report.

My clients and I will cooperate fully with your investigations into these incidents and into

current PSP policies, practices, and training. It would be greatly appreciated if you would keep me

informed on the progress of your investigations.

Sincerely,

Devon M. Jacob, Esquire

Enclosure: CD

Cc US Department of Justice; 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW; Civil Rights Division; Criminal

Section – PHB; Washington, DC 20530

fbidoj complaint

Documents