David L. Schwalm, a partner in the firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer LLP of Harrisburg, PA, and associate Crystal H. Williamson, recently obtained a defense verdict on behalf of two York County Deputy Sheriffs in a racial profiling case.  The Plaintiff, an African-American Pennsylvania State Trooper, alleged racial-profiling and an unlawful seizure occurred when the two white deputy sheriffs stopped and cited him for motor vehicle violations during an August 2003 traffic stop inYork, Pennsylvania

Although the motor vehicle citations were ultimately dismissed, Plaintiff filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania alleging that the deputies did not have probable cause to make the stop and that he was stopped solely because of his race.  Plaintiff was represented by counsel retained by the ACLU.

Prior to trial, the District Judge granted summary judgment on behalf of York  County and Sheriff William Hose.  Plaintiff contended that those Defendants failed to properly monitor, train and supervise the deputy sheriffs to prevent racial profiling from occurring.  The evidence, however, demonstrated that the deputies had attended state mandated training for deputy sheriffs that included training in ethnic intimidation, cultural diversity, and ethics.  Furthermore, the Court also concluded that no constitutional requirement existed that the Sheriff’s Office have a specific policy prohibiting racial profiling by name.  The Court found that the Sheriff's Offices policies which required equal treatment and compliance with the Constitutional requirements for stops, searches, and seizures were sufficient to address the risk of racial profiling.

At trial, the deputies who were on a traffic enforcement training sessions at the time of the stop observed Plaintiff speed past their car at approximately 50 to 55 MPH in a 25 MPH speed zone on wet streets in a commercial/residential area of the city.  Plaintiff was cited for driving at a speed too fast for the existing conditions.  Plaintiff denied driving that fast.  During the stop, Plaintiff also contended that one of the deputy sheriffs raised his voice and began yelling at him, causing his young son in the car to begin crying. However, the evidence showed that it was necessary to ask the Plaintiff for his license and registration 6 or 7 times, and that the Deputies had to request that he stop making calls on his cell phone, which he did repeatedly during the course of the stop.  When the deputy sheriff learned that Plaintiff was a state trooper, he indicated that he was going to make a complaint to the State Police because of the Plaintiff’s unprofessional conduct.

Plaintiff attempted to demonstrate racial bias on the part of one deputy by introducing evidence of 2 prior disciplinary incidents involving minorities and performance evaluations from a prior police department.   Defense counsel was successfully able to argue that although the disciplinary incidents involved minorities that the incidents were not the result of any discrimination on his part.  The police chiefs who issued the performance evaluations, which were in the range of 3.0-4.0 on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being high, also indicated that the ratings were what was  expected in the department and that there were never any complaints alleging racial bias or mistreatment of minorities, despite the Plaintiff's argument that the evaluations suggested evidence of bias because they did not reflect the highest possible ranking.

Plaintiff claimed that he suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) because of the traffic stop.  Although no physical altercation took place, Plaintiff was never asked to get out of his car, and no search of the car was made, Plaintiff contended that he was in fear because he was aware of other minority law enforcement officers who were shot during the course of routine traffic stops.  Defendants were able to introduce evidence that Plaintiff had been referred to the employee assistance program prior to the traffic stop because of work related issues and those issues continued after the stop.  In addition, Defendants were also able to present evidence that the Plaintiff's behavior during the stop, including making cell phone calls while the Deputies were at his vehicle, failing to produce his license and registration until 6 or 7 requests were made, and even getting out of his car to approach the Deputies' vehicle with his cellular phone, was inconsistent with someone experiencing extreme fear or horror as is required to establish PTSD. 

After a five day trial, the jury of 5 women and 3 men unanimously concluded that the deputies did not violate Plaintiff’s rights either for the unreasonable seizure claim or the equal protection claim.