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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FREDERICK GEORGE 5419 Willows Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19143 Plaintiff, V. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
1

CIVIL ACTION No. ___________________

CITY AND COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA C/o City of Philadelphia Law Dept. 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)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

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

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 3 of 29

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 Plaintiffs 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.
3

Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 4 of 29

7. Defendant, District Attorney Rufus Seth Williams (hereinafter Williams), is the Chief District Attorney and policy-maker for the District Attorneys 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 5 of 29

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 6 of 29

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 7 of 29

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. Georges lawful behavior, individual Defendants Spicer and Betts stopped, frisked, searched seized and arrested Mr. George without reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause.
7

Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 8 of 29

25. Defendants Spicer and Betts maliciously and forcibly restrained, questioned and handcuffed 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 9 of 29

for no legal reason, then proceeded to question Mr. Georges employers regarding the alleged incident and informed them on the fabricated circumstances of Mr. Georges 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 Attorneys charging unit to further perpetuate the fabricated facts and circumstances in order to ensure Mr. Georges 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 10 of 29

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.

10

Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 11 of 29

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. Georges 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 Attorneys 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 pretrial release from an unlawful detention.

11

Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 12 of 29

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 Attorneys 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.

12

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

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.

13

Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 14 of 29

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. Georges Constitutional and Civil Rights protected under the 4th and 14th Amendments.

14

Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 15 of 29

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, attorneys 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

15

Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 16 of 29

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 Philadelphias 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 plaintiffs 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, attorneys 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.

16

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

.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 plaintiffs detriment.

17

Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 18 of 29

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, attorneys 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. Georges 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 plaintiffs 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

18

Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 19 of 29

excess of $150,000.00, plus interest, costs, attorneys 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. Georges 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

19

Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 20 of 29

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 plaintiffs 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

20

Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 21 of 29

excess of $150,000.00, plus interest, costs, attorneys 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.

21

Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 22 of 29

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 plaintiffs 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, attorneys 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 .

22

Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 23 of 29

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. Georges detriment.

23

Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 24 of 29

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, attorneys 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, attorneys fees, and such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just.

24

Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 25 of 29

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 plaintiffs body from movement in all directions without the Mr. Georges 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. Georges body from movement in all directions without Mr. Georges 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, attorneys fees, and such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just.

25

Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 26 of 29

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, attorneys fees, and such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just.

26

Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 27 of 29

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, whereafter the criminal proceeding concluded in the Mr. Georges favor. 103. Defendants Spicer , Betts and McClosky intentionally and maliciously violated the Mr. Georges 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, attorneys fees, and such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just.

27

Case 2:13-cv-04152-LS Document 1 Filed 07/17/13 Page 28 of 29

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, attorneys 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

28

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

substantial pain, humiliation, physical and psychological injury, equitable and economic loss, and deprivation of the plaintiffs 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, attorneys 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: bhumblelaw@gmail.com

29