|
A. Sara Reedy: Failure to Supervise Offi-
cers who Abuse their Authority
Sara Reedy’s ordeal shows why structured dis-
covery is necessary in claims against officials super-
vising police officers who abuse their authority. Reedy
was nineteen years old and working the night shift as
a cashier at a gas station when she was sodomized by
a man holding a gun to her head. Reedy v. Township
of Cranberry, 2007 WL 2318084 at *1 (W.D. Pa. 2007).
After sexually assaulting her, her assailant ordered
her at gunpoint to remove money from the gas sta-
tion’s safe and rip the phone lines from the wall. After
her assailant left, Reedy fled the station and sought
assistance. Id. at *1.
Unfortunately for Reedy, the police appeared less
interested in apprehending her assailant than accus-
ing her of the theft. After Reedy provided the police
with information regarding the robbery and sexual
assault, she was taken to the hospital where she was
treated and evidence of the sexual assault was gath-
ered. While Reedy was at the hospital, Officer Frank
Evanson formed the opinion that Reedy had fabri-
cated the story and stolen the money in order to
support a heroin habit. While Reedy was still receiv-
ing treatment in the hospital, Evanson accused her of
faking the sexual assault and committing the theft
herself. Without a warrant or informed consent,
Evanson ordered a toxicology screen of Reedy’s blood.
Id. at *1-2.
When Reedy gave a detailed statement to the
police a few days later, she included a description of
Evanson’s inappropriate behavior at the hospital.
After Reedy gave her statement, Officers Evanson
and Meyer visited Reedy at her home and attempted
to intimidate her into admitting she had fabricated
the sexual assault and theft. The Officers threatened
both Reedy and her husband. Reedy refused to re-
cant, whereupon Evanson promised to return with a
warrant for her arrest. Id. at *2.
Evanson obtained an arrest warrant against
Reedy, charging that she had made a false report to
law enforcement, committed theft by unlawful taking
and had received stolen property. When Reedy, now
four months pregnant, became aware of the warrant
a few days later, she turned herself in. At her pre-
liminary hearing, Evanson testified that Reedy was a
flight risk, despite the fact that she had no serious
criminal record, little money and was pregnant. After
bond was set at $5,000, she served five days in jail
while awaiting a bail reduction hearing. Her husband
was forced to sell many of their possessions in an
attempt to make bail. Id.
One month before Reedy’s trial was to begin,
Wilber Cyrus Brown was arrested while in the proc-
ess of committing a robbery and attempting to sexu-
ally assault another convenience store clerk. The
suspect subsequently confessed to a series of sexual
assaults, including the attack upon Reedy. Karen
Kane, Butler County’s Tax Dollars Hard at Work,
PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, 28 Feb. 2007 at 1; Karen
Kane, Assault Victims’ Lawsuit to Delay Prosecution
of Assailant, PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, 17 Aug. 2007
at 1. Although the charges against Reedy were then
dropped, Reedy had already lost her job, was forced to
drop out of school and been deeply traumatized by the
police harassment and intimidation as well her
incarceration. Reedy, 2007 WL 2318084 at *2 (quoting
Compl. at ¶¶53-62).
Reedy brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Officers Evanson and Meyer, their supervisor
Steve Mannell, and the District Attorney of Butler
County, Pennsylvania, as well as Butler County itself
alleging false imprisonment, unlawful detention,
malicious prosecution and harm to her liberty inter-
est in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Id. at *1. At
least with respect to malicious prosecution, Reedy’s
claims were strong enough that Butler County
reached a financial settlement with her outside of
court. Id. at *1.
Evanson, Meyers and Mannell moved to dismiss
the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Defendant Mannell asserted the defense of
qualified immunity and alleged that Reedy had not
pleaded sufficiently detailed facts to show his per-
sonal involvement in the violation of her constitu-
tional rights. Id. at *5. In rejecting Mannell’s motions
to dismiss, District Judge Cercone highlighted the
problem of asymmetric information faced by civil
rights plaintiffs like Sara Reedy. Judge Cercone found
that Reedy had. . . a well-founded basis for the general alle-
gations of the claim based on information
and belief, but is not capable of detailing spe-
cific allegations against the defendant be-
cause such information is exclusively within
the possession and control or knowledge of
the defendant. If the plaintiff does not have
access to such specific information about the
defendant’s behavior because discovery is the
only avenue by which the plaintiff could
learn about the defendant’s specific under-
takings, the plaintiff cannot be expected to
allege anything more than what was in the
original complaint.
Id. at *7 (emphasis added). Judge Cercone next
emphasized the necessity of limited discovery in cases
of qualified immunity. “Only some form of discovery
could satisfactorily verify the veracity of Mannell’s
factual assertion . . . Thus, to foreclose a § 1983 claim
on the defense without even so much as the ability to
explore that distinct possibility would run the risk of
elevating the defense to a level of protection far
beyond its intended purpose.” Id. at *8. In reaching
the decision to allow limited discovery, Judge Cercone
employed a plausibility standard: “It is reasonable to
infer that detectives and officers often confer with
and seek guidance and direction from their supervi-
sors, particularly in challenging or high profile cases.”
Id. at *8
Google "2007 WL 2318084" for the document (an unrelated Supreme Court brief).
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
