IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff
v.
CITY OF PITTSBURGH, PITTSBURGH BUREAU OF POLICE, and DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendants.
COMPLAINT
The United States brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 14141
to remedy a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement
officers of the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police that deprives persons
of rights, privileges, and immunities secured and protected by
the Constitution and laws of the United States. The City of
Pittsburgh, the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police, and the Department
of Public Safety have engaged in a pattern or practice of
subjecting individuals to uses of excessive force, false arrests,
and improper searches and seizures. The defendants have
tolerated this conduct through their failure to supervise, train,
investigate, and discipline police officers adequately.
The United States of America alleges:
DEFENDANTS
1. The City of Pittsburgh ("City") is a municipality in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
2. The Pittsburgh Bureau of Police ("Bureau" or "PBP") is a
law enforcement agency operated by the City.
3. The Department of Public Safety ("DPS") is a government
agency operated by the City, which oversees the Bureau and other
agencies operated for the safety of persons in Pittsburgh.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. This Court has jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345.
5. The United States is authorized to initiate this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14141.
6. Venue is proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as the defendants reside in and the
claim arose in the Western District of Pennsylvania.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
7. From at least 1990 to the present, PBP officers have
engaged and continue to engage in a pattern or practice of using
excessive force against persons in Pittsburgh. This use of
excessive force includes, but is not limited to:
a. use of excessive force in effecting arrests or
detaining persons suspected of engaging in criminal activity;
b. use of excessive force against individuals in
police custody (including persons handcuffed or otherwise
physically restrained);
c. use of excessive force in otherwise routine
encounters with citizens; and
d. use of force after unnecessarily escalating
ordinary encounters with citizens into violent confrontations.
8. From at least 1990 to the present, PBP officers have
engaged and continue to engage in a pattern or practice of
falsely arresting persons in Pittsburgh. These false arrests
include, but are not limited to:
a. falsely arresting persons who witness incidents of
violent police misconduct, who threaten to report incidents of
police misconduct, or who seek to collect evidence of police
misconduct;
b. falsely arresting persons who try to prevent
incidents of police misconduct from occurring;
c. falsely arresting persons who challenge the
authority of PBP officers; and
d. falsely arresting persons for summary offenses
without warrants where such arrests are not authorized by either
City ordinance or state statute.
9. From at least 1990 to the present, PBP officers have
engaged and continue to engage in a pattern or practice of
improperly stopping, searching, and seizing persons in
Pittsburgh. These actions include, but are not limited to:
a. improperly stopping and detaining persons without
lawful authority;
b. improperly searching cars incident to a traffic
stop without lawful authority;
c. improperly searching dwellings or places of
business without lawful authority; and
d. improperly seizing property of persons arrested by
PBP officers without lawful authority for such seizures.
10. The acts or omissions of PBP officers, described in
paragraphs 7-9, above, constitute a pattern or practice of such
conduct by law enforcement officers.
11. The municipal defendants have tolerated the acts of
individual officers, described in paragraphs 7-9, above, through
its acts or omissions. These acts or omissions include, but are
not limited to:
a. failing to train adequately PBP officers to prevent
the occurrence of misconduct;
b. failing to supervise adequately PBP officers to
prevent the occurrence of misconduct;
c. failing to monitor adequately PBP officers who
engage in or who are likely to engage in misconduct;
d. failing to investigate adequately citizen
complaints of police misconduct; and
e. failing to discipline adequately PBP officers who
engage in misconduct.
CAUSE OF ACTION
12. Through the actions described in paragraphs 7-11 above,
the municipal defendants have engaged in and continue to engage
in a pattern or practice of conduct by PBP officers that deprives
persons in Pittsburgh of rights, privileges, or immunities
secured and protected by the Constitution (including the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments) or the laws of the United States in
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14141.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
13. The Attorney General is authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 to seek declaratory and equitable relief to eliminate a pattern or practice of law enforcement officer
conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
WHEREFORE, the United States prays that the Court:
a. declare that the municipal defendants have engaged in a
pattern or practice by PBP officers of depriving persons of
rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, as described in
paragraphs 7-11, above;
b. order the municipal defendants to refrain from engaging
in any of the predicate acts forming the basis of the pattern or
practice of conduct as described in paragraphs 7-11, above;
c. order the municipal defendants to adopt and implement
policies and procedures to prevent PBP officers from depriving
persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected
by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and
d. order such other appropriate relief as the interests of
justice may require.
Respectfully submitted,
JANET RENO, Attorney General of the United States
FREDERICK W. THIEMAN, United States Attorney, Western District of Pennsylvania
ISABELLE KATZ PINZLER, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division
AMY R. HAY, Chief, Civil Division
U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District of Pennsylvania
633 U.S. Post Office and Courthouse
7th and Grant Streets
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
(412) 644-3500
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM, Chief, Special Litigation Section, Civil Rights Division
PHYLLIS COHEN
ROBERT MOOSSY
KEN NAKATA
Trial Attorneys
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
P.O. Box 66400
Washington, D.C. 20035-6400
(202) 514-6255
Updated July 25, 2008