lower merion stalking lawsuit michael john mcgrath

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GABRIELLE DREXLER :14 Rose Lane :Rosemont, PA 19010 : CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiff, : NO. v. :

TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION : 71 East Lancaster Avenue :Ardmore, PA 19003, :

and :TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE :DEPARTMENT, c/o TOWNSHIP OF LOWER : MERION :71 East Lancaster Avenue :Ardmore, PA 19003, :

and :Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, c/o TOWNSHIP :OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT, :71 East Lancaster Avenue :Ardmore, PA 19003, :

and :Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH, :c/o TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE : DEPARTMENT, :71 East Lancaster Avenue :Ardmore, PA 19003, :

Defendants. :and :

Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA, c/o :TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE :DEPARTMENT, :71 East Lancaster Avenue :Ardmore, PA 19003, :

Defendants. :

Case 2:11-cv-04467-CDJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/11 of 36

2

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, GABRIELLE DREXLER, (hereinafter referenced as “Plaintiff” as context

dictates), by and through her undersigned counsel, Jeffrey R. Lessin & Associates, & P.C.,

files this Complaint and sues Defendants, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP

OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT, Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN and

Police Superintendant MICHAEL J. McGRATH. The individual Defendants are sued

individually, and in their capacities as TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE

DEPARTMENT Police personnel. Plaintiff hereby alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION and SUMMARY of ACTION

1. This is an action at law for damages sustained by a citizen of the United

States against individuals, police officers of the TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE

DEPARTMENT and the TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION itself, respectively.

2. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN repeatedly

stalked her while he was on duty as a police officer with TOWNSHIP OF LOWER

MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT, and also that he physically assaulted her.

3. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION,

TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT, under the leadership of

Defendant Police Superintendant MICHAEL J. McGRATH, has a custom, pattern,

practice and/or policy of failing to monitor the actions of its police officers while they are on

duty, and also a custom, pattern, practice and/or policy of allowing police officers with

untreated mental illnesses and/or mental problems, which negatively affect their functioning

as police officers and how they deal with the public whom they are supposed to serve, to


3

be and/or remain as police officers on active duty.

4. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION,

TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT, including Defendant Police

Superintendant MICHAEL J. McGRATH, fail to appropriately train, supervise, and/or

discipline officers who engage in illegal behavior, including stalking a citizen while on duty

and/or assault and battery. As a result of this custom, pattern, practice and/or policy

and/or failure to train, supervise, and/or discipline such officers, some officers, including

Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN believe they are above the law, above

reproach, and free to conduct themselves as they will while supposedly functioning as

police officers, and believe they are free to engage in illegal activity, such as stalking,

assault and/or battery, without fear of repercussion.

5. By this complaint, Plaintiff seeks judicial redress for violation of her civil

rights.

6. Plaintiff brings this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 seeking monetary

relief for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the

United States. Plaintiff also seeks damages under Pennsylvania tort law.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1343 and

1367, this being an action authorized by law to redress the deprivation under color of

Pennsylvania law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom and usage of a right, privilege and

immunity secured to Plaintiff by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution

of the United States.


4

8. The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum

or value of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00).

9. Venue is properly placed in the Unites States District Court of the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania as it is where all parties reside or have business addresses and

where the events complained of occurred.

PARTIES

10. Plaintiff is an adult individual, citizen of the United States and resides in

Rosemont, Lower Merion Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

11. Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION and TOWNSHIP OF LOWER

MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT are municipal entities, municipal corporations and/or

political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and were the employers of

Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN and Police Superintendant MICHAEL J. McGRATH.

All actions and/or omissions were performed by the individual police officers listed were in

the name of Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION and TOWNSHIP OF LOWER

MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT.

12. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN is an adult individual, duly

appointed and presently acting as a police officer in the TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION

and TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT. Defendant Police

Officer MICHAEL JOHN is being sued in his individual capacity for money damages.

13. Defendant Police Superintendant MICHAEL J. McGRATH is an adult

individual, duly appointed and presently acting as a police officer and superintendent of

police in the TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION and TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION


5

POLICE DEPARTMENT. He is being sued in his individual capacity for money damages.

14. Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA is an adult individual, duly

appointed and presently acting as a police officer in the TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION

and TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT. Defendant Police

Officer STEPHEN SALERA is being sued in his individual capacity for money damages.

15. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants, each of them acting separately and

in concert, through conduct sanctioned under color of state law, statute, township

ordinances, regulations, policies, practices, customs and/or usages engaged in conduct

resulting in injury to Plaintiff, depriving her of the rights, privileges and immunities secured

by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and the

laws of the United States and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. TOWNSHIP OF LOWER

MERION, by and through the individual members of the TOWNSHIP OF LOWER

MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT, who are its agents and employees, together with the

identified individual defendants and persons whose identities are presently unknown to

Plaintiff, acting under color of law, statute, township ordinance, regulations, policies,

practices, customs and/or usages have subjected Plaintiff and other persons to a pattern

of conduct consisting of intimidation, stalking, assault and battery resulting in the denial of

the rights privileges and immunities guaranteed Plaintiff and other citizens by the

Constitution of the United States and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

16. This systematic pattern of conduct consisted of a large number of individual

acts of violence, physical contact, intimidation, stalking and/or humiliation visited upon

Plaintiff and other citizens by members of the TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE


6

DEPARTMENT, acting in concert with persons unknown to Plaintiff under color of law.

These acts of violence, physical contact, intimidation, stalking and/or humiliation which

occurred under color of law, have no justification or excuse in law and are illegal, improper

and unrelated to any activity in which police officer may appropriately and legally engage

in the course of protecting persons or property or ensuring civil order.

17. Despite the fact that TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION and TOWNSHIP OF

LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT officials knew or should have known of the fact

that this pattern of conduct was being carried out by their agents and/or employees, said

Defendants, through their officials, particularly the superintendent of police, have taken no

adequate effort to order a halt to this course of conduct, to make redress to Plaintiff or

other citizens injured thereby, or to take any disciplinary action whatever against any of its

employees and/or agents, thus having the effect of encouraging their employees and/or

agents to continue in this pattern of conduct

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

18. On Wednesday May 5, 2010, Plaintiff and her father had a domestic dispute

at their home at 14 Rose Lane, Rosemont, PA 19010.

19. Police officers were summoned to the home of Plaintiff and her father,

including Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN.

20. The police officers dispatched to the home of Plaintiff and her father on said

date questioned Plaintiff and her father separately, with Defendant Police Officer

MICHAEL JOHN being the officer who questioned Plaintiff, although Plaintiff did not

know or note his name at that point.


7

21. The domestic dispute was resolved without any citations being issued, and

the police left the home.

22. Plaintiff had no further contact with any police personnel until approximately

two (2) weeks later, when Plaintiff was sitting on the steps of St. Thomas of Villanova

Roman Catholic Church (located at 1229 East Lancaster Avenue, Rosemont, PA 19010)

which property abuts the backyard of Plaintiff’s home, one evening.

23. At that time, as Plaintiff was sitting on the church steps, speaking on the cell

phone, she was facing Lancaster Avenue and the Sunoco A-Plus station located across

the street from the church (at 1240 Lancaster Avenue, Rosemont, PA 19010), in whose

lot a police cruiser was parked.

24. After approximately fifteen (15) minutes, the police cruiser engine, headlights

and brake lights turned on, the police cruiser turned around and proceeded across

Lancaster Avenue in the parking lot of St. Thomas of Villanova Roman Catholic Church.

25. The said police cruiser then slowly approached Plaintiff, and stopped very

close to the steps upon which Plaintiff was seated.

26. Once the police cruiser stopped , the police officer operating it, later identified

as Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, greeted Plaintiff, calling her “Gabriella,”

asked Plaintiff if she remembered his face as familiar, indicated that he remembered her,

and said he hoped that she got her own place to live since he was at her home. He then

asked her to hang up her cell phone so she could chat with him.

27. Plaintiff then ended the phone call with her friend, indicated to Defendant

Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN her belief that he was mistaken, and inquired as to how


8

he knew her name.

28. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN then told Plaintiff that he was

the officer who spoke to her on May 5, 2010 and said that he could never forget her face.

29. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN then received a message via

radio dispatch that there was a police call in Gladwyne, Pennsylvania regarding allegations

of some sort of underage drinking or drug use.

30. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN told Plaintiff that this was a

routine police call, and that he would like to finish speaking with her when he was finished

with the police call.

31. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN then arranged to meet Plaintiff

after his police call, approximately an hour later in the abandoned Smith & Hawken parking

lot located on Montrose Ave, near its intersection with Rose Lane in Rosemont,

Pennsylvania.

32. Approximately an hour later, Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN and

Plaintiff did meet in the said abandoned Smith & Hawken parking lot, where they spoke

for at least an hour.

33. During that conversation, Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN asked

for Plaintiff’s cell phone number and email address, and gave Plaintiff his email address,

but not his phone number.

34. Almost immediately upon parting, Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN

emailed Plaintiff and initiated an extensive exchange of emails over the next few months.

35. The majority of emails sent by Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN


9

were sent while he was on duty, and a number were sent directly from his police cruiser,

sent to alert Plaintiff that he was in her neighborhood to see her while he was on duty.

During this time period, Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN and Plaintiff often met

in person, but there was no sexual or intimate contact between them.

36. Over the span of several weeks of this contact, Plaintiff began to develop

romantic feelings for Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, who heretofore had

hidden from Plaintiff the fact that he was married and had seven children.

37. One day approximately in July of 2010, Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL

JOHN asked to see Plaintiff in person and admitted that he was married and had seven

children. This upset Plaintiff greatly, but Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN

represented to Plaintiff that he was in the process of divorcing his wife.

38. Plaintiff initially believed Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN when

he said he was in the process of divorcing his wife, and so continued to meet, email, and

talk with Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN in July 2010, although no sexual or

intimate contact took place then between Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN.

39. Later in July, 2010, Plaintiff came to the realization and belief that Defendant

Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN was not telling the truth and was not in the process of

divorcing his wife.

40. Thereafter, Plaintiff informed Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN that

it was inappropriate for them to continue to have contact.

41. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN thereafter contacted Plaintiff and

asked to meet with Plaintiff on whatever date was a Wednesday of that week (which


10

Plaintiff believes was likely July 21, 2010), to bring closure to the relationship between

Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN and Plaintiff.

42. Plaintiff agreed to meet Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN on said

Wednesday, and Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN told Plaintiff he would meet

her in his private motor vehicle at the end of her street at approximately 10:30am

43. After Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN picked Plaintiff up in his

motor vehicle, they went for coffee to discuss what Plaintiff perceived as Defendant Police

Officer MICHAEL JOHN dishonesty in pursuing a relationship with her. Plaintiff stated

during the conversation that she felt it was inappropriate for them to have a relationship in

light of the fact that Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN was married with seven

children, and was not, in fact, in the process of getting a divorce.

44. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN suggested they continue the

conversation after they were done their coffee.

45. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN suggested they go to a public

park to finish their discussion, and Plaintiff acquiesced.

46. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN then drove to a public park

located in Gladwyne, Lower Merion Township.

47. Once at said park, Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN and Plaintiff

walked for approximately a mile, when Plaintiff noticed there was no one else nearby.

48. At that point, Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN attempted to hug

Plaintiff, and Plaintiff told Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN that she did not feel

comfortable with him hugging her.


11

49. After Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN attempted to hug Plaintiff,

she backed away from him and started moving in the direction of the parking area where

he had parked the vehicle.

50. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN then demanded that Plaintiff look

at him, and give him a hug to show that there were no hard feelings.

51. Then, instead of a hug, Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN sexually

assaulted Plaintiff, forcefully grabbing her left breast under her shirt.

52. Plaintiff then pulled away from Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN’s

grip and demanded to be taken back to her home.

53. At this time, in what Plaintiff understood to be an attempt to threaten,

intimidate and/or frighten Plaintiff, Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN told

Plaintiff that he knew, given his status as a Lower Merion Township police officer, and the

fact that there is a system at the Lower Merion Township police department where officers

will coverup misconduct of fellow police officers, he could get away with criminal conduct

if he so chose, and could get away with “murder” if he so chose. Defendant Police Officer

MICHAEL JOHN told Plaintiff that he could perform legal favors for Plaintiff if Plaintiff

maintained a relationship with him.

54. He also told Plaintiff at this time, and at other times, that he suffered mental

illness, but did not accept any treatment for the mental illness.

55. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN did take Plaintiff home without

further assaultive incident, but then commenced a campaign of harassment, stalking, and

intimidation of Plaintiff, while on duty as a Lower Merion Township police officer.


12

56. During the later portion of July and August 2010, after Plaintiff had clearly

communicated to Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN that it was inappropriate for

them to have further contact with each other, Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN

followed, harassed, stalked and intimidated Plaintiff.

57. The harassment, stalking, and intimidation of Plaintiff, while he was on duty

as a Lower Merion Township police officer, consisted of repeatedly driving past her

residence, repeated parking in her neighborhood for extended periods of time while he was

supposed to be conducting police business, repeatedly parking his police cruiser behind

bushes on private property abutting the rear of Plaintiff’s residence for extended periods

of time while on duty to peer and peep into Plaintiff’s residence, repeatedly calling and

emailing Plaintiff while on duty to tell he was looking into her home, looking into her

bedroom, and attempting to make contact with her against her wishes, putting her in great

fear and apprehension.

58. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN continued to follow, harass, stalk

and intimidate Plaintiff after Plaintiff communicated to Defendant Police Officer

MICHAEL JOHN that she wanted no further contact with him.

59. In mid August 2010, Plaintiff told a neighbor about the misconduct of

Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, but not report same to the authorities for fear

of retribution.

60. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff believes that her neighbor reported said

misconduct to personnel at Lower Merion Township.

61. After Plaintiff was informed that her neighbor reported said misconduct to


13

personnel at Lower Merion Township, another Lower Merion Township contacted Plaintiff.

She spoke to that officer twice over the phone, but did not go to the police station to file

formal charges against Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN.

62. On October 13, 2010, Plaintiff was stopped in a parked motor vehicle by

another Lower Merion Township police officer, later identified as Defendant Police Officer

STEPHEN SALERA in Plaintiff’s neighborhood in an unconstitutional vehicle stop which

Plaintiff believes and avers was either in retaliation for the report of Defendant Police

Officer MICHAEL JOHN’s misconduct, or further harassment by Defendant Police Officer

STEPHEN SALERA, a fellow member of the Lower Merion police department, at the

request of, and/or on behalf of Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING DAMAGES

63. As a direct and proximate result of the above mentioned acts of the

Defendants, Plaintiff has been caused to suffer great mental harm, anguish pain, suffering

and injury, including physical symptoms and exacerbation of preexisting conditions, from

the time of the incident until now, and will continue to suffer same well into the future, and

may in the future lose sums of money due to medical expenses past, present and future;

may in the future have lost wages, earnings and earning capacity, due to the misconduct

alleged in this complaint and by reason of having been greatly humiliated and held up to

public scorn and ridicule as a result of the foregoing acts.

64. Plaintiff has been forced to incur obligations for investigation, attorney fees,

court reporter fees and other expenses in the prosecution and protection of her civil rights,

which is a serious burden to her.


14

65. Due to the intentional, egregious, outrageous and at least recklessly

indifferent nature of the misconduct of Defendants as outlined in this complaint, Plaintiff

demands not only compensatory damages, but punitive damages, as against Defendant

Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN only.

66. Plaintiff was so distraught by this series of events, that she physically had

symptoms and sought attention from a psychiatrist about this series of events.

COUNT IPLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN

CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONSFOURTH AMENDMENT- UNREASONABLE SEARCH

67. Plaintiff incorporates all her previous allegations herein as though set forth

fully and at length.

68. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy inside her home and on her

family’s property, which Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN violated repeatedly by

frequently monitoring Plaintiff’s neighborhood and home, and by parking his police cruiser

behind bushes on private property abutting the rear of Plaintiff’s residence for extended

periods of time while on duty to peer and peep into Plaintiff’s residence, repeatedly calling

and emailing Plaintiff while on duty, to tell her he was looking into her home, looking into

her bedroom, and attempting to make contact with her against her wishes, putting her in

great fear and apprehension.

69. This violation of Plaintiff’s reasonable expectation of privacy constituted a

warrantless, baseless and unconstitutional search and/or was otherwise a violation of

Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights.


15

70. Such an invasion of Plaintiff’s reasonable expectation of privacy is per se

unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

71. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN’s intent and purpose in violating

Plaintiff’s reasonable expectation of privacy was to follow, harass, stalk and intimidate

Plaintiff, and was done deliberately, intentionally, and at least with reckless disregard of

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

72. The above-referenced misconduct is a violation of the Fourth Amendment

to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment

to the United States Constitution, as well as 42 U.S.C. §1983.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff GABRIELLE DREXLER demands compensatory damages

against the Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, individually, jointly and severally,

in an amount in excess of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000.00) and further demands

punitive damages against the Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, in an amount

in excess of ($100,000.00). A demand is also made for costs, expenses, reasonable

attorney fees and such other relief as the Court deems just, proper and equitable. Plaintiff

demands a trial by jury.

COUNT IIPLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN

CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONSFOURTH AMENDMENT- PERSONAL SECURITY AND LIBERTY



74. The rights guaranteed citizen under the Fourth Amendment to the United


16

States Constitution, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

States Constitution, include the right to personal security and personal liberty. See Boyd

v. United States, 6 S.Ct. 524, 116 U.S. 616, 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886).

75. Plaintiff had the right to personal security and personal liberty in her home,

which was violated by Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN when he repeatedly

monitored Plaintiff’s neighborhood and home with no legitimate purpose, and parked his

police cruiser behind bushes on private property abutting the rear of Plaintiff’s residence

for extended periods of time while on duty to peer and peep into Plaintiff’s residence,

repeatedly calling and emailing Plaintiff while on duty to tell her he was looking into her

home, looking into her bedroom, and attempting to make contact with her against her

wishes, putting her in great fear and apprehension.








COUNT III

PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA

CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

FOURTH AMENDMENT- UNREASONABLE SEARCH/SEIZURE


17



77. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy inside her friend’s motor

vehicle parked near her family’s property, which Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN

SALERA violated by pulling his police cruiser behind the parked vehicle she occupied near

her family’s property on private property, utilizing both lights and his siren, waking

neighbors, and demanding that Plaintiff get out of the vehicle and show him identification,

shouting and berating her, putting her in great fear and apprehension.

78. This violation of Plaintiff’s reasonable expectation of privacy constituted a

warrantless, baseless and unconstitutional search and/or was otherwise a violation of

Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights.

79. Such an invasion of Plaintiff’s reasonable expectation of privacy is per se

unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

80. Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA’s intent and purpose in

violating Plaintiff’s reasonable expectation of privacy was to follow, harass, frighten and

intimidate Plaintiff, and was done deliberately, intentionally, and at least with reckless

disregard of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

81. The above-referenced misconduct is a violation of the Fourth Amendment

to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment

to the United States Constitution, as well as 42 U.S.C. §1983.



18

against the Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA, individually, jointly and

severally, in an amount in excess of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000.00) and further

demands punitive damages against the Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA,

in an amount in excess of ($100,000.00). A demand is also made for costs, expenses,

reasonable attorney fees and such other relief as the Court deems just, proper and

equitable. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

COUNT IV

PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANTS TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OFLOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent MICHAEL J.

McGRATH

FEDERAL “MONELL” CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS



83. This cause of action is brought by Plaintiff against Defendants TOWNSHIP

OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT and

Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH for deprivation by it of her constitutional

rights within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §1983.

84. The state and federal courts have, for decades, held that police officers are

bound to respect the rights of citizens against unreasonable searches, the rights of citizens’

liberty and security, and the rights of citizens not to be followed, harassed, stalked and

intimidated in their own homes by a police officer on duty, in addition to the right to be free

of unreasonable searches and seizures.

85. Despite knowledge of state and federal law governing the conduct of its/their


19

police officers, Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER

MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH

maintain a custom, pattern, practice and/or policy of failing to train TOWNSHIP OF

LOWER MERION police officers, including, but not limited to Defendants Police Officer

MICHAEL JOHN and Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA, about the proper use of the

police power, about the illegality of a police officer following, harassing, stalking and

intimidating citizens in their own homes, about the illegality of a police officer repeatedly

monitoring a particular citizen’s neighborhood and home with no legitimate purpose, and/or

parking his police cruiser behind bushes on private property abutting the a citizen’s

residence for extended periods of time while on duty to peer and peep into the citizen’s

residence, and/or repeatedly calling and emailing the citizen while on duty to tell her he

was looking into her home, looking into her bedroom, attempting to make contact with her

against her wishes, and, with regard to Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA,

about the proper and allowable ways in which a warrantless vehicle stop may be made in

comport with the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

86. Further despite such knowledge, Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER

MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police

Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH maintain a custom, pattern, practice and/or

policy of failing to discipline or correct officers, including Defendant Police Officer

MICHAEL JOHN who engage in such misconduct.

87. The unlawful custom, pattern, practice and/or policy of Defendants

TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE


20

DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH is illustrated in this

case by the fact that the Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN’s police cruiser was

equipped with GPS or other location monitoring equipment, such that Defendants

TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE

DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH actually knew and

could track the movements and location of Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN’s

police cruiser, and so knew that Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN had repeatedly

parked his police cruiser in the vicinity of Plaintiff’s home and on private property for

extended periods of time when he was supposed to be patrolling.

88. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that discovery will show that

Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION

POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH’s unlawful

custom, pattern, practice and/or policy will be further illustrated at trial by the fact that, for

an extended period of time prior to the incidents involving Plaintiff, Defendants TOWNSHIP

OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT and

Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH were aware of similar misconduct and/or

other misconduct committed by Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, Defendant

Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA and other TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE

DEPARTMENT police officers, and failed to take proper disciplinary action.

89. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that discovery will show that

Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION

POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH’s unlawful


21

custom, pattern, practice and/or policy is to instruct, train and teach its police officers in

such a manner as to believe and understand, as Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL

JOHN told Plaintiff he believed and understood, that TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION

POLICE DEPARTMENT police officers could commit acts of misconduct, including the

misconduct engaged in by Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN and Defendant

Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA, without fear of repercussion or prosecution.

Illustrative of this custom, pattern, practice and/or policy, inter alia, is the fact that

Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN told Plaintiff that he knew, given his status as

a TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT police officer, and the fact

that there is a system at the Lower Merion Township police department where officers will

coverup misconduct of fellow police officers, he could get away with criminal conduct if he

so chose, and could get away with “murder” if he so chose. Regarding Defendant Police

Officer STEPHEN SALERA, illustrative of this custom, pattern, practice and/or policy, inter

alia, is the fact that other Lower Merion Township police department had previously made

illegal vehicle stops in the past without repurcussion or discipline.

90. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff avers that Police Superintendent

MICHAEL J. McGRATH, the commanding officers and/or other policy makers at

Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION and TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION

POLICE DEPARTMENT are responsible for the development and implementation of

training for Defendant TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT’s police

officers, including Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN and Defendant Police

Officer STEPHEN SALERA.


22

91. Also upon information and belief, Police Superintendent MICHAEL J.

McGRATH, the commanding officers and/or other policy makers at Defendants

TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION and TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE

DEPARTMENT have failed to implement training for Defendant TOWNSHIP OF LOWER

MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT’s police officers about the proper use of the police

power, about making vehicle stops in comport with the Fourth Amendment, about the

illegality of a police officer following, harassing, stalking and intimidating citizens in their

own homes, about the illegality of a police officer repeatedly monitoring a particular

citizen’s neighborhood and home with no legitimate purpose, and/or parking his police

cruiser behind bushes on private property abutting the a citizen’s residence for extended

periods of time while on duty to peer and peep into the citizen’s residence, and/or

repeatedly calling and emailing the citizen while on duty to tell her he was looking into her

home, looking into her bedroom, and/or attempting to make contact with her against her

wishes.

92. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff avers that Police Superintendent

MICHAEL J. McGRATH, the commanding officers and/or other policy makers at

Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION and TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION

POLICE DEPARTMENT are responsible for the supervision and discipline of Defendants


DEPARTMENT’s police officers, including Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN and

Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA.

93. Also upon information and belief, Police Superintendent MICHAEL J.


23



DEPARTMENT have failed to appropriately train, supervise and/or discipline said police

officers regarding the aforementioned issues, despite being aware of the illegality of such

conduct, and despite the fact that similar misconduct and disciplinary issues arise with both

frequency and regularity.

94. As a result of this custom, pattern, practice and/or policy, Defendant Police

Officer MICHAEL JOHN and Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA felt perfectly

safe, secured and protected in committing the misconduct described herein, including the

assault/battery alleged against Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN in Count V,

which was performed while he was not on duty.

95. Upon information and belief, Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH,

the commanding officers and/or other policy makers at Defendants TOWNSHIP OF

LOWER MERION and TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT , acted

with deliberate indifference by failing to train Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN

and Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA in their constitutional obligations to

respect individuals’ rights to remain free from illegal searches, harassment, stalking, and

intimidation, and his constitutional obligations to respect individuals’ rights to personal

liberty and security; further that failure was a direct cause of the misconduct detailed

herein.

96. Further, upon information and belief, Police Superintendent MICHAEL J.



24


DEPARTMENT, acted with deliberate indifference by actually instructing, encouraging

and/or ratifying the misconduct by police officers.

97. Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, and Defendant Police Officer

STEPHEN SALERA ,Individually, and in their capacity as a Police Officers, acting under

color of law as authorized police officers for Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION

and TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police

Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH, while in the acts aforesaid, resulted in a

constitutional deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights in violation of the Fourth

Amendment of the United States Constitution, as applied to the states under the

Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

98. In addition to the facts alleged above, Plaintiff believes and avers that, at

trial, Plaintiff will prove the following specific facts supporting her “Monell” claim of

municipal liability against Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION and TOWNSHIP

OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent MICHAEL J.

McGRATH, relative to the violation of her constitutional rights:

a. Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION and TOWNSHIP OF LOWER

MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT, through Police Superintendent MICHAEL J.

McGRATH, other officers and other policy makers, established a course of conduct,

custom, pattern, practice and/or policy whereby they failed to train TOWNSHIP OF

LOWER MERION police officers, including, but not limited to Defendant Police Officer

MICHAEL JOHN and Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA , about the proper


25

use of the police power, about making vehicle stops in comport with the Fourth

Amendment, about the illegality of a police officer following, harassing, stalking and

intimidating citizens in their own homes, about the illegality of a police officer repeatedly

monitoring a particular citizen’s neighborhood and home with no legitimate purpose, and/or

parking his police cruiser behind bushes on private property abutting the a citizen’s

residence for extended periods of time while on duty to peer and peep into the citizen’s

residence, and/or repeatedly calling and emailing the citizen while on duty to tell her he

was looking into her home, looking into her bedroom, and/or attempting to make contact

with her against her wishes;

b. Despite such knowledge, Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION,

TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent

MICHAEL J. McGRATH maintain a custom, pattern, practice and/or policy of failing to

discipline or correct officers, including Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN and

Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA ,who engage in such misconduct;

c. Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER


actually knew and could track the movements and location of Defendant Police Officer

MICHAEL JOHN’s police cruiser, and so knew that Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL

JOHN had repeatedly parked his police cruiser in the vicinity of Plaintiff’s home and on

private property for extended periods of time when he was supposed to be patrolling;

d. Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER



26

were aware of similar misconduct and/or other misconduct committed by Defendant Police

Officer MICHAEL JOHN, Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA and other

TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT police officers for an extended

period of time prior to the incidents involving Plaintiff, and failed to take proper disciplinary

action;

e. Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER

MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH’s

unlawful custom, pattern, practice and/or policy is to instruct, train and teach its police

officers in such a manner as to believe and understand, as Defendant Police Officer

MICHAEL JOHN told Plaintiff he believed and understood, that TOWNSHIP OF LOWER

MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT police officers could commit acts of misconduct,

including the misconduct engaged in by Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, and

Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA without fear of repercussion, discipline or

prosecution. Illustrative of this custom, pattern, practice and/or policy, inter alia, is the fact

that Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN told Plaintiff that he knew, given his status

as a TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT police officer, and the

fact that there is a system at the Lower Merion Township police department where officers

will coverup misconduct of fellow police officers, he could get away with criminal conduct

if he so chose, and could get away with “murder” if he so chose;

f. Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH, the commanding officers

and/or other policy makers at Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION and

TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT have failed to implement


27

training for Defendant TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT’s police

officers about the proper use of the police power, about the necessity of conducting vehicel

stops in comport with the Fourth Amendment, about the illegality of a police officer

following, harassing, stalking and intimidating citizens in their own homes, about the

illegality of a police officer repeatedly monitoring a particular citizen’s neighborhood and

home with no legitimate purpose, and/or parking his police cruiser behind bushes on

private property abutting the a citizen’s residence for extended periods of time while on

duty to peer and peep into the citizen’s residence, and/or repeatedly calling and emailing

the citizen while on duty to tell her he was looking into her home, looking into her bedroom,

and/or attempting to make contact with her against her wishes;

g. Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH, the commanding officers


TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT have failed to appropriately

train, supervise and/or discipline said police officers regarding the aforementioned issues,

despite being aware of the illegality of such conduct, and despite the fact that similar

misconduct and disciplinary issues arise with both frequency and regularity;

h. As a result of this custom, pattern, practice and/or policy, Defendant Police

Officer MICHAEL JOHN and Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA felt perfectly

safe, secured and protected in committing the misconduct described herein, including the

assault/battery alleged against Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN in Count V,

which was performed while he was not on duty;

i. Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH, the commanding officers


28


TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT, acted with deliberate

indifference by failing to train Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN and Defendant

Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA in their constitutional obligations to respect individuals’

rights to remain free from illegal searches, harassment, stalking, and intimidation, and his

constitutional obligations to respect individuals’ rights to personal liberty and security;

further that failure was a direct cause of the misconduct detailed herein;

j. Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH, the commanding officers


TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT, acted with deliberate

indifference by actually instructing, encouraging and/or ratifying the misconduct by police

officers.

k. Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER

MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH,

established a course of conduct, custom, pattern, practice and/or policy whereby its

commanding officers and/or other policy makers ratified, approved and encouraged

misconduct by police officers by lack of discipline when police misconduct was reported;

99. Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER

MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT have a history of threatening, assaulting, intimidating,

harassing, stalking and/or following innocent citizens while on duty and/or in uniform, of

refusing to honestly report, investigate, charge or recommend charges against agents,

servants, workmen and/or employees of Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION,


29

TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT who do so against citizens

similarly situated as Plaintiff and depriving them of their constitutional rights within the

meaning of 42 U.S.C. §1983.

100. The constitutional deprivations were caused by the lack of training,

supervision, review and discipline by Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION,

TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent

MICHAEL J. McGRATH with regard to their officers, and police officers in general and

Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN and Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN

SALERA , in particular, by failing to train, supervise, review and discipline said Defendants

in how to appropriately interact with citizens without causing the deprivation of

constitutional rights, and by failing to train, supervise, review and discipline said officers,

departing from the prevailing standards.

101. Prior to the date of the incident involving Plaintiff, Defendants TOWNSHIP

OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT

permitted, tolerated and overlooked and/or approved the constitutional violations of citizens

by officers of its police department, including, but not limited to Defendant Police Officer

MICHAEL JOHN, Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA and other officers

similarly situated, who were not properly trained and supervised to appropriately interact

with citizens without causing the deprivation of constitutional rights.

102. Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER

MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT is responsible for the promulgation, adoption, and

implementation of official policies for its officers and police officers in general and


30

Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN and Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN

SALERA, in particular, to appropriately interact with citizens without causing the

deprivation of constitutional rights.

103. As a direct and proximate result of the above-mentioned unconstitutional acts

of Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION

POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH, Plaintiff

has sustained mental distress and injuries, financial damages and deprivation of civil rights

as indicated herein.


against Defendants TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION

POLICE DEPARTMENT and Police Superintendent MICHAEL J. McGRATH, solely,

jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000.00).

A demand is also made for costs, expenses, reasonable attorney fees and such other relief

as the Court deems just, proper and equitable. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

COUNT V

PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN

STATE LAW VIOLATIONS

ASSAULT and BATTERY



105. Plaintiff suffered offensive physical contact, at the hands of Defendant

Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, in the form of a sexual assault, in particular, as described


31

in ¶¶48 through 53 above.

106. The said actions of Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, constituted

both assault and battery.

9107. Under Pennsylvania law, a cause of action for battery depends not upon the

severity of the contact or injury, but upon the intent and offensiveness of the contact. In

Cohen v. Lit Brothers, 166 Pa. Super. 206, 70 A.2d 419 (1950), the court held that "a

battery is committed whenever the violence menaced in an assault is actually done, though

in ever so small a degree, upon the person."

108. In this case, great and menacing unwanted physical contact was done to

Plaintiff, when Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN grabbed her and forcefully

grabbed her left breast.








COUNT VI

PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN

STATE LAW VIOLATIONS

IINTENTIONAL INFLICTION of EMOTIONAL DISTRESS


http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=162&SerialNum=1950120501&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.07

32



110. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN,

acting individually and in concert and conspiracy, did knowingly, intentionally, maliciously,

negligently and/or recklessly inflict emotional distress upon Plaintiff, in the absence of any

valid or reasonable basis.

111. As a result of all Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN’s conduct,

Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress, mental anguish, loss of

reputation and/or related losses. The actions of said Defendant exceeded the normal

standards of decent conduct and were wilful, malicious, oppressive, outrageous and

unjustifiable and, therefore, punitive damages are necessary and appropriate.








COUNT VII

PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANTS

CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS UNDER THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION


33



113. At all time relevant hereto, Defendants, acting in concert and conspiracy,

committed the above-referenced acts against Plaintiff. As a direct result of these actions,

Plaintiff was denied rights under the laws and Constitution of the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania.

114. The conduct of Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN was undertaken

knowingly, intelligently, intentionally, negligently, recklessly and/or with malice and the

reckless disregard for truth and the rights of Plaintiff.

115. As a result of all Defendants’ conduct, acting in concert and conspiracy,

Plaintiff’s rights under, but not limited to, Article 1, sections 1, 8, 9, 13 and 26 of the

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the laws of the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania were violated, as Plaintiff was subjected to the violations described herein.

As a result, Plaintiff suffere emotional distress, mental anguish, loss of reputation, scorn

of the community, financial and/or related losses.

116. The actions of all Defendants exceeded the normal standards of decent

conduct and were wilful, malicious, oppressive, outrageous and unjustifiable and, therefore,

punitive damages are necessary and appropriate.






34




COUNT VIII

PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANTS

CIVIL CONSPIRACY



118. At all times relevant hereto, all Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN,

and Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA, acting in concert and conspiracy with

other police officers, together committed acts against Plaintiff, including an unwarranted

detention and unlawful search and seizure, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of

emotional distress on October 13, 2010, as described herein. At that time, Plaintiff was

stopped in a parked motor vehicle by Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA in

her neighborhood in an event which Plaintiff believes and avers was either in retaliation

for the report of Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN’s misconduct, or further

harassment by a fellow member of the Lower Merion police department at the request of,

and/or on behalf of Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN.

119. At that time, Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN SALERA, a fellow

TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT police officer of Defendant

Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, with lights and siren in operation, pulled behind the

parked vehicle occupied by Plaintiff yards from her home, and demanded Plaintiff exit the


35

vehicle and produce identification for no valid or legitimate reason.

120. Plaintiff believes and avers this police stop was either in retaliation for the

report of Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN’s misconduct, and/or further

harassment by a fellow member of the Lower Merion police department at the request of,

and/or on behalf of, Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, done in an effort to

intimidate or frighten Plaintiff into keeping quiet about Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL

JOHN’s misconduct.

121. The conduct of the Defendant officers, acting in concert and conspiracy, was

undertaken knowingly, intelligently, intentionally, negligently, recklessly and/or with malice

and the reckless disregard for truth and the rights of Plaintiff.

122. As a result of saidconduct, acting in concert and conspiracy, Plaintiff’s rights

under, but not limited to, Article 1, sections 1, 8, 9, 13 and 26 of the Constitution of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania were

violated, as Plaintiff was subjected to intimidation, harassment, and the misuse of police

power; that she was improperly detained and seized, unlawfully interrogated and denied

due process and equal protection of the law by Defendant Police Officer STEPHEN

SALERA . As a result, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress,

mental anguish, loss of reputation, scorn of the community, and/or related losses.

123. The said actions exceeded the normal standards of decent conduct and were

wilful, malicious, oppressive, outrageous and unjustifiable and, therefore, punitive damages

are necessary and appropriate.



36

against the Defendant Police Officer MICHAEL JOHN, and Defendant Police Officer

STEPHEN SALERA, individually, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of One

Hundred Thousand ($100,000.00) and further demands punitive damages against the said

Defendants, in an amount in excess of ($100,000.00). A demand is also made for costs,

expenses, reasonable attorney fees and such other relief as the Court deems just, proper

and equitable. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

Respectfully Submitted,

JEFFREY R. LESSIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

BY: JRL5292

JEFFREY R. LESSIN, ESQUIRE

MARK T. RICHTER, ESQUIRE

I.D. Nos. 43801 and 45195

Attorneys for Plaintiff Gabrielle Drexler

1500 J.F.K. Boulevard, Suite 600

Philadelphia, PA 19102

215-599-1400


lower merion stalking lawsuit michael john mcgrath

Documents