LEVANT MARTIN, P.C. By: Robert J. Levant, Esquire ID 77210 320 North 18th Street PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 564-5959 FAX: (215) 564-3939 Filed and Attested by PROTHONOTARY 04 MAR 2013 05:22 pm ATTORNEYS FOR WALTER JOHNSON 4861 Merion Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19131 Plaintiff vs. DREXEL UNIVERSITY 3141 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 DREXEL POLICE OFFICER ROBERT ALLEN Drexel University Police Department 3219 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 DREXEL POLICE OFFICER LAMBERT REBSTOCK Drexel University Police Department 3219 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 DREXEL POLICE OFFICER LOUIS GREGG Drexel University Police Department 3219 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 DIRECTOR OF POLICE ED SPANGLER Drexel University Police Department 3219 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY CIVIL ACTION Term, 2012 NO. JURY DEMAND IS HEREBY MADE Case ID: 130300152 DREXEL POLICE CAPTAIN FRED CARBONARA Drexel University Police Department 3219 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 DOMINIC CECCANECCHIO, Drexel University Dept of Public Safety 3201 Arch Street, Suite 350 Philadelphia, PA 19104 TIFFANY AUGUSTINE Drexel University Dept of Public Safety 3201 Arch Street, Suite 350 Philadelphia, PA 19104 Defendants You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after the complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and ?ling in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. PHILADELPHIA BAR ASSOCIATION Lawyer Referral and Information Service 1101 Market Street Philadelphia, 19107 (215) 238?6300 Case ID: 130300152 AVISO Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene veinte (20) dias de plazo a1 partir de la feeha de la demanda la Haee falta asentar una compareneia esorita 0 en persona 0 con un abogado entregar a la come en forma eserita sus defensas sus objeeiones alas demandas en contra de su persona. Sea aVisado que si usted no se de?ende, 1a corte tomara medidas puede eontinuar 1a demanda en contra suya sin previo aviso Ademas, 1a corte puede decidir a favor del demandante requiere que usted eumpla con todas las provisiones de esta demanda. Usted puede perder dinero sus propiedades otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO 0 SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. ASOCIACION DE LICENCIADOS DE PHILADELPHIA Servicio De Referencia Informaci?n Legal 1101 Market Street Filadelfia, 19107 (215) 238?6300 Case ID: 130300152 LEVANT MARTIN, P.C. By: Robert J. Levant, Esquire ID 77210 320 North 18th Street PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 564-5959 FAX: (215) 564-3939 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF WALTER JOHNSON 4861 Merion Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19131 Plaintiff VS. DREXEL UNIVERSITY 3141 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 DREXEL POLICE OFFICER ROBERT ALLEN Drexel University Police Department 3219 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 DREXEL POLICE OFFICER LAMBERT REBSTOCK Drexel University Police Department 3219 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 DREXEL POLICE OFFICER LOUIS GREGG Drexel University Police Department 3219 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 DIRECTOR OF POLICE ED SPANGLER Drexel University Police Department 3219 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY CIVIL ACTION Term, 2012 NO. JURY DEMAND IS HEREBY MADE Case ID: 130300152 DREXEL POLICE CAPTAIN FRED CARBONARA Drexel University Police Department 3219 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 DOMINIC CECCANECCHIO, Drexel University Dept of Public Safety 3201 Arch Street, Suite 350 Philadelphia, PA 19104 TIFFANY AUGUSTINE Drexel University Dept of Public Safety 3201 Arch Street, Suite 350 Philadelphia, PA 19104 Defendants COMPLAINT- CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, Walter Johnson, by and through his undersigned counsel hereby brings the following Complaint and in support thereof avers as follows: I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT 1. This is an action for monetary damages brought by plaintiff, Walter Johnson, against Drexel University, its agents, employees, and police of?cers for negligence, negligent supervision, negligent in?iction of emotional distress, corporate negligence, assault, battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, intentional in?iction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and malicious prosecution. II. PARTIES AND VENUE 2. Venue is proper as to all of the defendants as the cause of action arose in Philadelphia County pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 1006(a). Case ID: 130300152 3. Plaintiff, Walter Johnson, date of birth March 13, 1968, is a citizen of the Commonwealth of and at all times relevant maintained his residence at the address set forth above. 4. Defendant Drexel University (hereinafter ?Drexel? unless otherwise designated) is a private non?profit domestic educational corporation with a registered of?ce at 3141 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, 19104. 5. Defendant Drexel at all times relevant owned, operated, managed, employed, directed and controlled the agents indenti?ed herein, including the defendant of?cers vis? a-vis the Drexel University Police Department and Drexel?s Department of Public Safety. 6. Drexel?s police force derives its? law enforcement authority pursuant to 71 PS. ?646. 7. Defendant Tiffany Augustine (hereinafter was at all times relevant hereto a civilian Drexel close circuit television (CCTV) camera operator charged with following Drexel?s Public Safety Policy on CCTV, as well as all other applicable Drexel policies, procedures, and applicable laws. 8. Defendant Drexel police officer Robert Allen (badge no: 55) (hereinafter ?Allen? unless otherwise designated) was at all times relevant hereto a full-time sworn municipal police officer with law enforcement authority at Drexel's three campuses: University City Main Campus; Center City Hahnemann Campus; and Queen Lane Medical Campus. 9. Defendant Drexel police officer Lambert Rebstock (badge no: 52) (hereinafter ?Rebstock? unless otherwise designated) was at all times relevant hereto a sworn municipal police of?cer with law enforcement authority at Drexel?s three 3 Case ID: 130300152 campuses: University City Main Campus; Center City Hahnemann Campus; and Queen Lane Medical Campus. 10. Defendant Drexel police of?cer Louis Gregg (badge no: 50) (hereinafter ?Gregg? unless otherwise designated) was at all times relevant hereto a full?time sworn municipal police of?cer with law enforcement authority at Drexel?s three campuses: University City Main Campus; Center City Hahnemann Campus; and Queen Lane Medical Campus. 11. Defendants Allen, Rebstock, Gregg, and Drexel were at all times relevant hereto acting within the course and scope of their employment and authority as Drexel police of?cers. 12. Defendant Augustine was at all times relevant hereto acting within the course and scope of her employment and authority. 13. Defendant Director of Police, Ed Spangler (hereinafter ?Spangler? unless otherwise designated) was at all times relevant hereto a full-time sworn municipal police officer With law enforcement authority, command, and oversight of all policing activity at Drexel's three campuses: University City Main Campus; Center City Hahnemann Campus; and Queen Lane Medical Campus. 14. Defendant Police Captain Fred Carbonara (hereinafter ?Carbonara? unless otherwise designated) was at all times relevant hereto a full?time sworn municipal police of?cer with law enforcement authority, command, and oversight of all of?cers policing Drexel's three campuses: University City Main Campus; Center City Hahnemann Campus; and Queen Lane Medical Campus. 4 Case ID: 130300152 15. Defendant Vice President of Public Safety, Domenic Ceccanecchio, was at all times relevant hereto a civilian employee of Drexel responsible for managing all Drexel security and safety related programs, services, agents, and employees. 16. Defendants are joint and severally, and/or directly liable to plaintiff under the theories enumerated below. FACTS 17. Plaintiff? unfortunate encounter with Drexel police resulted in him being smashed and pinned against a concrete wall by a Drexel police SUV and charged with numerous crimes. 18. The charges were based solely on information and evidence provided to the Philadelphia Police by Drexel and its agents, including the co-defendants. 19. In sum, plaintiff and the man accompanying him were allegedly observed on Drexel CCTV attempting to break into the Bossone building at 3140 Market Street. According to defendants? claims, the doors at issue had fresh pry marks that were consistent and the same size as the screwdrivers recovered from the men. 20. On December 30, 2011, plaintiff and the gentleman with him, both of Whom are African American, were initially acquired at 4:5 on a Drexel CCTV camera, operated by Augustine, mounted on the eastern side of the Bossone building as they ascend the several steps from the Market Street throughway to the building?s courtyard. 21. The CCTV camera footage described herein and observed by Augustine was recorded and stored on digital medium as per Drexel?s CCTV policy described below. 22. The men had done nothing suspicious to warrant Augustine?s use of the camera?s pan, tilt, and zoom functions to zero in on them. Case ID: 130300152 23. Plaintiff was wearing a dark blue hoodie with the hood up. 24. The CCTV camera video shows plaintiff attempting to open several doors and push a turn?style door. These doors are all accessible to the public and located in the Bossone building courtyard and Ludlow Street. 25. The video does not show plaintiff or the man with him attempting to pry open any doors or force open any 26. The video does not show plaintiff or the other gentleman handling, possessing or utilizing screwdrivers in any way. 27. Be that as it may, Augustine notified Drexel Police Headquarters that she had observed two (2) black males on camera attempting to break into the Bossone building. 28. Based on the information provided by Augustine, an aggressive police response took place, with two (2) Drexel Police vehicles seen on CCTV video racing to the corner of 3 and Ludlow to intercept the men, who were simply walking east at the time. 29. The video shows the first Drexel police vehicle, a patrol car, abruptly stop at the corner and Gregg quickly exit the car with his ?rearm drawn, followed by Rebstock. 30. Gregg points his service weapon at plaintiff, who then runs. 31. As plaintiff ran east on Ludlow, he was pursued by Rebstock on foot. Greg can then be seen turning around and pointing his service weapon at plaintiff?s companion, who had his hands raised and did not run. 32. Moments later, as Rebstock pursued plaintiff east on Ludlow, the video shows the second Drexel police vehicle, an SUV driven by Allen, round the corner at a high rate of speed and begin to bear down on plaintiff. Case ID: 130300152 33. As plaintiff ran east on the north sidewalk of Ludlow, with buildings on his left hand side, Drexel CCTV video captures Allen making a wide turn, pointing his SUV at plaintiff and accelerating into him, violently smashing plaintiff against a concrete wall and buckling the vehicle?s hood in the process. 34. The Video then shows Allen open the driver?s side door and begin talking with Rebstock while plaintiff remains pinned against the wall by the SUV. 35. After approximately thirteen (13) seconds elapse on the CCTV video, Allen closes the door and proceeds to reverse his SUV, leaving plaintiff to fall to the ground. 36. According to the Arrest Memo, which lists Allen and Rebstock as the arrestng officers and Augustine as a witness for the complainant, Drexel University, and which was prepared based exclusively upon information from said defendants as well as Gregg, plaintiff was transported to the Hospital of the University of by Medic 7 for treatment. a true and correct copy of that document attached hereto as Exhibit and incorporated herein by reference. 37. The gentleman with plaintiff was released at the scene because he had committed no crime. 38. Augustine watched the entire event unfold and viewed it from multiple camera angles. 39. At the time of the above described events, no Philadelphia Police personnel were on scene. 40. The police documents referenced above and below were all completed after the fact. 7 Case ID: 130300152 41. The Arrest Memo states that the man accompanying plaintiff, identi?ed by Drexel police as Troy Demby ?had proper identi?cation and was released for further investigation by the Philadelphia Southwest Detectives Division?, however, the Af?davit of Probable Cause, inconsistently states that Mr. Demby was ?inadvertently released at the scene?. See a true and correct copy of the Affidavit of Probable Cause attached hereto as Exhibit and incorporated herein by reference. 42. The 75 ~48 Incident Report, prepared and signed by Allen, states that Gregg had ?observed [Troy Demby] Drop a clear red handled screwdriver.? gee a true and correct copy of that document attached hereto as Exhibit and incorporated herein by reference. 43. Gregg completed and signed Property Receipt No. 3014699 stating that he received a radio call that two (2) black males were seen on camera attempting to break into the building at 3120 Market Street. ?Police stopped [Troy Demby] and this is when [he] dropped the above item?, which was described as a ?clear and red handle 6 inch ?at head screwdriver.? Demby] was observed with Walter Johnson. Who also dropped item 3014700.? Se_e a true and correct copy of that document attached hereto as Exhibit and incorporated herein by reference. 44. Allen completed and signed Property Receipt No. 3014700 stating that he received a radio call that two (2) black males were seen on camera attempting to break into the building at 3120 Market Street. When police attempted to stop plaintiff, ?he ?ed east on [sic] dropping the above item?, which was described as a ?blue and red handle 8 inch ?at head screwdriver.? ?[Plaintiff] was stopped and placed under arrest.? SE a true 8 Case ID: 130300152 and correct copy of that document attached hereto as Exhibit and incorporated herein by reference. 45. Allen, Rebstock, and Gregg, returned to the doors that the men had allegedly been seen on CCTV attempting to break and enter, and claim to have observed fresh pry marks consistent with the screwdrivers allegedly recovered. 46. Drexel officers or Philadelphia Detective Theodore Manko, Jr. (badge no: 961) (hereinafter ?Manko? unless otherwise designated), at the behest of the Augustine, Allen, Rebstock or Gregg, photographed the purported pry marks. 47. Based on the information and evidence provided by Augustine, Allen, Rebstock, and Gregg, and in reliance thereupon, Manko submitted police paperwork to the charging unit of the Philadelphia District Attorney?s Office, resulting in plaintiff and Troy Demby being charged with Attempted Burglary, Criminal Conspiracy, Attempted Criminal Trespass, Possession of Instruments of a Crime, and Criminal Mischief. 48. An Arrest Warrant was subsequently issued for Troy Demby. 49. At each of the court dates set forth below, the respective defendants reviewed the police paperwork described herein, but failed to notify the Assistant District Attorney or the detective that the police reports were not accurate and that CCTV video did not show plaintiff or the man with him using screwdrivers to attempt to pry open doors at the Bossone building and adjacent buildings. Those failures constituted reckless indifference toward plaintiff. 50. On January 24, February 1, March 2, and March 16, 2012, Augustine appeared for plaintiff? preliminary hearing. 9 Case ID: 130300152 51. Although each of these times the hearing was continued, Augustine was prepared to offer testimony that she knew or should have known was not supported by the record evidence and CCTV video or was recklessly indifferent to same. 52. On January 24, February 1, March 2, and March 16, 2012, Allen appeared for plaintiff preliminary hearing. 53. Although each of these times the hearing was continued, Allen was prepared to offer testimony that he knew or should have known was not supported by the record evidence and CCTV video or was recklessly indifferent to same. 54. On January 24, February 1, March 2, and March 16, 2012, Gregg appeared for plaintiff? preliminary hearing. 5 5. Although each of these times the hearing was continued, Gregg was prepared to offer testimony that he knew or should have known was not supported by the record evidence and CCTV video or was recklessly indifferent to same. 5 6. On January 24, February 1, March 2, and March 16, 2012, Rebstock appeared for plaintiff preliminary hearing. 5 7. Although each of these times the hearing was continued, Rebstock was prepared to offer testimony that he knew or should have known was not supported by the record evidence and CCTV video or was recklessly indifferent to same. 58. In particular, at each of those hearing dates the foregoing defendants, if called, intended to testify that plaintiff and Troy Demby were apprehended after they were seen on Drexel CCTV using screwdrivers to attempt to pry open doors at the Bossone building and adjacent buildings, and that they dropped same when approached and apprehended as stated above. 10 Case ID: 130300152 59. At the next scheduled preliminary hearing on March 28, 2012, Allen and Rebstock were prepared to similarly testify if called. 60. Augustine and Gregg were called by the prosecution to testify during the March 28, 2012 preliminary hearing. 61. Although plaintiff did not possess a screwdriver or attempt to pry open any doors at Drexel, the following testimony was offered by said defendants at the preliminary hearing. a true and correct copy of the complete transcript of the March 28, 2012 preliminary hearing before the Honorable Joseph J. O?Neill attached hereto as Exhibit 62. Augustine testified in relevant part as follows: Q. And if you could, could you explain to the judge what, if anything, you saw that brings you to court? A. I was monitoring one of our door alarms. I got?we got an alarm for a building on the 3100 block of Market Street. I pulled the camera up. When I pulled the camera up, I saw two males come out of the alleyway near the door. And I kept the camera on them. I watched them walk east on Market Street. They checked the main doors to that building? (N.T. March 28, 2012, p. 5, lines 14?24). What did they do after they tried the ?rst door? A. They kept on going because the campus was closed. They walked east on Market, and they came to a little alcove right before they got to 35th Street and made a right. In there, there are one, two, three, four other buildings. They went through there. They checked all of the doors on all of the other buildings. I kept them on camera. I dispatched the police down to where they were, and I kept them on camera until the police came. (N.T. March 28, 2012, pp. 6, line 21, pp. 7 line 9). Q. Excuse me. I wrote?okay. Where were the two individuals when you ?rst observed them? A. The 3100 block of Market Street. They came out of the darkness from the door that the alarm went off. They came out 11 Case ID: 130300152 of that area. I couldn?t see them at the door, but they came out of the darkness where the door is located. Q. So from the 3100 block of Market, where did they walk? A. They walked east on Market to right before 34th Street, and they turned right into it?s like a courtyard with more buildings, and they walked through there. (N.T. March 28, 212, pp. 8, line 17, pp. 9 line 6). Q. All of these observations were of were on Video? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Do you-- are Videotape are videos are copies of the videos you?ve described available? A. Yes. (NT. March 28, 2012, pp. 9, line 21, pp. 10 line 3). 63. Gregg, for his part, offered the following testimony: Q. And if you could, explain to the Judge the circumstances surrounding your involvement with these defendants. A. Yes. Responding to a radio call, Your Honor, we came into the area of the 3100 block of Ludlow Street being directed by radio to the two black males just coming from a door where an alarm went off, at which time, I approached, got out of the car. I approached Mr. Johnson ?rst. I told him, Police. Mr. Johnson took off running from me. My partner, Of?cer Rebstock sorry. Don?t know his badge number jumped out, started chasing Mr. Johnson. I turned around and went to Mr. Demby. Mr. Demby ?rst told me he didn?t know him. He don?t - he just happened to be walking past, at which time he dropped a screwdriver. I grabbed Mr. Demby. I handcuffed him and placed him under arrest, Your Honor. (N.T. March 28, 2012, pp. 12, line 20, pp. 13 line 16). Q. Okay. Did you notice any damage to the door? A. Yes. I went back with detective Q. Is that Detective Manko? A. Detective Manko. And we saw pry marks like scratch marks on the windows and doors. Q. Was this on more than one door? 12 Case ID: 130300152 A. Yes, that I saw. Q. Okay. How many doors? A. Ibelieve he went to about two or three doors. (N.T. March 28, 2012, p. 14, lines 12-22). Q. Just testify as to what damage you observed. A. I observed one door with scratch marks. Q. Okay. Did you place the screwdriver on a Philadelphia property receipt? A. Yes, I did. (N.T. March 28, 2012, p. 15, lines 8-13). Q. So you respond to this radio call, correct? A. That?s correct. Q. Where do you come into contact with these two people? A. Right at 31st and Ludlow. Q. So right on the corner? A. Yes. Q. And they are just walking across the street at that point, right? A. They?re coming out from Ludlow Street, from where the cameras were following them. Q. And they don?t have anything in their hands, right? A. They have well, I know Mr. Demby dropped a screwdriver. He had a screwdriver in his hands. Q. So he?s walking with a screwdriver? A. When I stopped him, he had a screwdriver in his hands. He dropped it. (N.T. March 28, 2012, p. 18, lines 7-25). 64. Augustine and Gregg clearly knew or should have known that their testimony was not supported by the record evidence and CCTV video or that it was recklessly indifferent to same. 13 Case ID: 130300152 65. At said hearing, Judge Joseph O?Neill Ordered the Drexel CCTV video purporting to show plaintiff and Troy Demby using the screwdrivers as alleged, preserved and produced to the District Attorney and defense counsel. 66. At some point in time, Drexel complied with the Court?s Order and produced a DVD to the District Attorney?s Of?ce of all video depicting all conduct of plaintiff and the gentleman with him that took place on Drexel?s campus on December 30, 2011. 67. According to the Drexel CCTV policy, ?[r]ecorded video will be stored for a period not to exceed 30 days and will then be erased, unless retained as part of a criminal investigation or court proceedings (criminal or civil). . ?Video recorded images will be stored in a secure location with access by authorized personnel only.? 68. Said policy further provides in relevant part that ?[the Senior Assistant Vice President] for Public Safety will review all requests regarding the release or review of recorded Video images obtained through CCTV monitoring. No release or review of recorded video images will occur without authorization by the SAVP for Public Safety or designee and the University Of?ce of General Counsel.? 69. Drexel, through its agents and supervisors acting in the course and scope of their employment, including Director of Police, Ed Spangler, Police Captain Fred Carbonara, and Vice President of Public Safety, Domenic Ceccanecchio, knew, should of know or were recklessly indifferent to the fact that the Drexel CCTV video did not support the averments being made in the police paperwork at issue or the charges being brought by the District Attorney. 70. Drexel, through its agents and supervisors acting in the course and scope of their employment, including Director of Police Ed Spangler, Police Captain Fred Carbonara, 14 Case ID: 130300152 and Vice President of Public Safety, Domenic Ceccanecchio, knew, should of know or were recklessly indifferent to the fact that Augustine and Gregg intended to offer, and did offer, the testimony set forth above. 71. Based on the testimony of Gregg and Augustine as well as the evidence of record, plaintiff was held over for trial on all charges. 72. At no time did any Drexel agent or employee with knowledge of the contents of the CCTV video, including the above named agents and defendants, ever alert the District Attorney?s Of?ce that the video did not show plaintiff or the man seen with him attempting to pry open doors at the Bossone building and adjacent buildings with screwdrivers. 73. After viewing the contents of the Drexel CCTV video, and fully reviewing the information provided by Drexel and its? agents as alleged above, the Philadelphia District Attorney?s Of?ce withdrew prosecution of plaintiff on October 15, 2012. COUNT I PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT A UGUSTINE Negligence 74. The allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 75. The actions and conduct of defendant Augustine constitute negligence. 76. Defendant Augustine was under a duty to Plaintiff to follow Drexel?s Public Safety Policy on CCTV, as well as all other applicable Drexel policies, procedures, and applicable laws. 77. Defendant Augustine is liable to Plaintiff under the following theories: 15 Case ID: 130300152 failure to adhere to Drexel?s policy of not monitoring individuals based on characteristics of race; failure to adhere to Drexel?s policy of only surveying persons based on suspicious behavior, not individual characteristics; failure to accurately report and characterized the events of December 30, 201 1, including non-criminal activity of plaintiff, in accordance with Drexel?s policies and procedures, and reasonable care, so as to prevent an improper police response or overly aggressive police response likely to result in jury; d) Restatement (Second) of Torts 324A, which provides, in relevant part that defendant Augustine, as a Drexel CCTV operator, is subject to liability to third persons, including plaintiff, for physical harm resulting from her failure to exercise reasonable care to protect her undertaking when: 1) her failure to exercise reasonable care increases the risk of such harm, or 2) she has undertaken to perform a duty owed by the other to the third person, or 3) the harm is suffered because of reliance of the other or the third person upon the undertaking. 78. Defendant?s negligence and recklessness increased the risk of harm to plaintiff and was a substantial factor in causing his damages. As a direct and proximate result of the defendant?s actions, plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer physical pain, permanent injuries, serious mental anguish, and emotional distress, fear, anxiety, embarrassment, pecuniary loss, and the loss of the enjoyment of life all to his great detriment. 79. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of the defendant Augustine, plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur financial expenses and economic loss which he is entitled to recover. 16 Case ID 130300152 WHEREFORE, plaintiff Walter Johnson demands judgment against defendants for compensatory damages and punitive damages in excess of $5 0,000, plus interest, and costs, and such other relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate. PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDAN TS ALLEN, REBSTOCK, AND GREGG AM: 80. The allegations contained in foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 81. The actions and conduct of defendants Allen, Rebstock, and Gregg, constitute and resulted in the assault of Plaintiff under the laws of the Commonwealth of 82. Defendants? actions and conduct increased the risk of harm to Plaintiff and was a substantial factor in causing his damages. As a direct and proximate result of the defendants? actions, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer physical pain, permanent injuries, serious mental anguish, and emotional distress, fear, anxiety, embarrassment, pecuniary loss, and the loss of the enjoyment of life all to his great detriment. 83. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of the defendants Allen, Rebstock, and Gregg, Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur ?nancial expenses and economic loss which he is entitled to recover. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Walter Johnson demands judgment against defendants for compensatory damages and punitive damages in excess of $50,000, plus interest, and costs, and such other relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate. 17 Case ID: 130300152 COUNT PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT A GUSTINE Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 84. The allegations contained in foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 85. The actions and conduct of defendant Augustine constitute and resulted in negligent in?iction of emotional distress upon Plaintiff under the laws of the Commonwealth of 86. Defendant?s actions and conduct increased the risk of harm to Plaintiff and was a substantial factor in causing his damages. As a direct and proximate result of the defendant?s actions, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer physical pain, permanent injuries, serious mental anguish, and emotional distress, fear, anxiety, embarrassment, pecuniary loss, and the loss of the enjoyment of life all to his great detriment. 87. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of defendant Augustine, plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur ?nancial expenses and economic loss which he is entitled to recover. WHEREFORE, plaintiff Walter Johnson demands judgment against defendant for compensatory damages and punitive damages in excess of $50,000, plus interest, and costs, and such other relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate. 18 Case ID: 130300152 COUNT IV PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT ALLEN my 88. The allegations contained in foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 89. The actions and conduct of defendant Allen constitute and resulted in the battery of Plaintiff under the laws of the Commonwealth of 90. As a direct and proximate result of the defendant?s actions, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer physical pain, permanent injuries, serious mental anguish, and emotional distress, fear, anxiety, embarrassment, pecuniary loss, and the loss of the enjoyment of life all to his great detriment. 91. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of the defendant Allen, Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur ?nancial expenses and economic loss which he is entitled to recover. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Walter Johnson demands judgment against defendant for compensatory damages and punitive damages in excess of $50,000, plus interest, and costs, and such other relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate. COUNT PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANTS AUGUSTINE, ALLEN, REBSTOCK, AND GREGG Intentional In?iction of Emotional Distress 92. The allegations contained in foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 19 Case ID: 130300152 93. The actions and conduct of defendants Augustine, Allen, Rebstock, and Gregg, constitute and resulted in intentional in?iction of emotional distress upon Plaintiff under the laws of the Commonwealth of 94. As a direct and proximate result of the defendants? actions, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer physical pain, permanent injuries, serious mental anguish, and emotional distress, fear, anxiety, embarrassment, pecuniary loss, and the loss of the enjoyment of life all to his great detriment. 95. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of the defendants Augustine, Allen, Rebstock, and Gregg, Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur ?nancial expenses and economic loss which he is entitled to recover. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Walter Johnson demands judgment against defendants for compensatory damages and punitive damages in excess of $5 0,000, plus interest, and costs, and such other relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate. COUNT VI PLAINTIFF V. DEF ENDAN A US INE ALLEN, REBSTOCK, GREGG, SPANGLER, AND CARBONARA Malicious Prosecution 96. The allegations contained in foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 97. The actions and conduct of defendants Augustine, Allen, Rebstock, Gregg, Spangler, and Carbonara, constitute and resulted in the malicious prosecution of Plaintiff under the laws of the Commonwealth of 98. Notwithstanding the existence of exculpatory CCTV Video evidence, at no time did the above named defendants ever alert the District Attorney?s Of?ce that the video 20 Case ID: 130300152 did not show plaintiff or the man with him attempting to pry open doors at the Bossone building and adjacent buildings with screwdrivers. 99. Defendants? actions and conduct increased the risk of harm to Plaintiff and was a substantial factor in causing his damages. As a direct and proximate result of the defendants? actions, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer physical pain, serious mental anguish, and emotional distress, fear, anxiety, embarrassment, pecuniary loss, and the loss of the enjoyment of life all to his great detriment. 100. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of the defendants Augustine, Allen, Rebstock, Gregg, Spangler, and Carbonara, Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur financial expenses and economic loss which he is entitled to i WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Walter Johnson demands judgment against defendants for compensatory damages and punitive damages in excess of $50,000, plus interest, and costs, and such other relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate. COUNT VII PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDAN A US INE, ALLEN, REBS OCK, GREGG, SPAN GLER, AND CARBONARA Civil Conspiracy 101. The allegations contained in foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 102. The actions and conduct of defendants Augustine, Allen, Rebstock, Gregg, Spangler, and Carbonara, constitute and resulted in a civil conspiracy under the laws of the Commonwealth of 21 Case ID: 130300152 103. Defendants Augustine, Allen, Rebstock, Gregg, Spangler, and Carbonara, conspired to provide false information to the Philadelphia Police Department as alleged above. 104. Accordingly, defendants combined or agreed with the intent to make a false report to police in violation of 18 4906. 105. Defendants acted with malice and intended to harm Plaintiff with their false report, and their conduct was without just cause or excuse. 106. As a direct and proximate result of the defendants? actions, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer physical pain, serious mental anguish, and emotional distress, fear, anxiety, embarrassment, pecuniary loss, and the loss of the enj oyment of life all to his great detriment. 107. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of the defendants Augustine, Allen, Rebstock, Gregg, Spangler, and Carbonara, Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur ?nancial expenses and economic loss which he is entitled to recover. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Walter Johnson demands judgment against defendants for compensatory damages and punitive damages in excess of $50,000, plus interest, and costs, and such other relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate. COUNT PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDAN A UGUSTINE, ALLEN, REBSTOCK, AND GREGG False Imprisonment 108. The allegations contained in foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 22 Case ID: 130300152 109. The actions and conduct of defendants alleged above constituted and resulted in the false arrest of Plaintiff under the laws of the Commonwealth of 110. As a direct and proximate result of the defendants? actions, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer physical pain, serious mental anguish, and emotional distress, fear, anxiety, embarrassment, pecuniary loss, and the loss of the enjoyment of life all to his great detriment. 111. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of the defendants, Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur ?nancial expenses and economic loss which he is entitled to recover. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Walter Johnson demands judgment against defendants for compensatory damages and punitive damages in excess of $5 0,000, plus interest, and costs, and such other relief as?this Court may deem just and appropriate. i COUNT IX PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT CECCANECCHIO Negligence 112. The allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 113. The actions and conduct of defendant Ceccanecchio constitute negligence. 114. Defendant Ceccanecchio is negligent and reckless in breaching the following duties: a) Failure to ensure that the defendant of?cers were properly trained to prevent the negligent or other wrong?il conduct described above, including but not limited to undertaking investigations, stops, pursuits, use of police vehicles, collection of evidence, proper chain of custody of evidence, production of exculpatory evidence, completion of police paperwork, and use of force; 23 Case ID: 130300152 b) Failure to properly supervise and direct the personnel in the Department of Public safety, including the co?defendants, to prevent the negligent or other wrongful conduct described above; c) Failure to promulgate appropriate directives, policies, procedures or protocols in place to prevent the negligent or other wrongful conduct described above; d) Failure to investigate or meaningfully review the actions and conduct described above in order to prevent the wrongful prosecution and incarceration of plaintiff; e) Failure properly train or supervise defendant Augustine so as to ensure her ability to differentiate between criminal and non-criminal conduct, and determine what police response, if any, was required; and f) Failure to properly hire, train, discharge or evaluate its agents, including codefendants, to prevent the negligent or other wrongful conduct described above. 115. Defendant?s actions and conduct increased the risk of harm to Plaintiff and was a substantial factor in causing his damages. As a direct and proximate result of the defendant?s actions, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer physical pain, permanent injuries, serious mental anguish, and emotional distress, fear, anxiety, embarrassment, pecuniary loss, and the loss of the enjoyment of life all to his great detriment. 116. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of defendant Ceccanecchio, Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur ?nancial expenses and economic loss which he is entitled to recover. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Walter Johnson demands judgment against defendants for compensatory damages and punitive damages in excess of $50,000, plus interest, and costs, and such other relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate. 24 Case ID: 130300152 COUNT PLAINTIFF V. DREXEL UNIVERSITY Vicarious Liability 117. The allegations contained in foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 118. Defendants Augustine, Allen, Rebstock, Gregg, Ceccanecchio, Spangler, and Carbonara committed the various torts which are the subject of the foregoing Counts. 119. The conduct and actions of defendants Augustine, Allen, Rebstock, Gregg, Ceccanecchio, Spangler, and Carbonara, which are the subject of the foregoing Counts, were committed within their agency, course, and scope of authority with Drexel University. 120. The conduct and actions of defendants Augustine, Allen, Rebstock, Gregg, Ceccanecchio, Spangler, and Carbonara which are the subject of the foregoing Counts, were authorized, actuated, and performed in furtherance of the business and public safety objectives of Drexel. 121. The conduct and actions of defendants Augustine, Allen, Rebstock, Gregg, Ceccanecchio, Spangler, and Carbonara, which are the subject of the foregoing Counts, were expressly rati?ed by the conduct and actions of Drexel as being an authorized, usual, customary, and necessary as part of its? campus policing and public safety programs. 122. Alternatively, if the conduct and actions of defendants Augustine, Allen, Rebstock, Gregg, Ceccanecchio, Spangler, and Carbonara were outside of their respective scopes of employment, Drexel is vicariously liable pursuant Restatement (Second) of 25 Case ID: 130300152 Torts 317 for failure to reasonable control and supervise its agents, including co- defendants. 123. Accordingly, Drexel is vicariously liable for the conduct and actions of its? agents, including defendants Augustine, Allen, Rebstock, Gregg, Ceccanecchio, Spangler, and Carbonara. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Walter Johnson demands judgment against defendant for compensatory damages and punitive damages in excess of $5 0,000, plus interest, and costs, and such other relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate. COUNT XI PLAINTIFF V. DREXEL UNIVERSITY Corporate Negligence 124. I The allegations contained in foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 125. Defendant Drexel is negligent and reckless in its? breach of the following duties: a) Failure to ensure that the defendant of?cers were properly trained to prevent the negligent or other wrongful conduct described above, including but not limited to undertaking investigations, stops, pursuits, use of police vehicles, collection of evidence, proper chain of custody of evidence, production of exculpatory evidence, completion of police paperwork, and use of force; b) Failure to properly supervise its agents, including the co-defendants, to prevent the negligent or other wrongful conduct described above; 0) Failure to have appropriate directives, policies, procedures or protocols in place to prevent the negligent or other wrongful conduct described above; d) Failure to investigate or meaningfully review the actions and conduct described above in order to prevent the wrongful prosecution and incarceration of Plaintiff; 26 Case ID: 130300152 e) Failure properly train or supervise defendant Augustine so as to ensure her ability to differentiate between criminal and non-criminal conduct, and determine what police response, if any, was required; f) Failure to properly hire, train, discharge or evaluate its? agents, including codefendants, to prevent the negligent or other wrongful conduct described above; and g) Violation of Restatement (Second) of Torts 324A. 126. Defendant?s actions and conduct increased the risk of harm to Plaintiff and was a substantial factor in causing his damages. As a direct and proximate result of the defendant?s actions, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer physical pain, permanent injuries, serious mental anguish, and emotional distress, fear, anxiety, embarrassment, pecuniary loss, and the loss of the enjoyment of life all to his great detriment. 127. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of Drexel, Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur ?nancial expenses and economic loss which he is entitled to recover. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Walter Johnson demands judgment against defendants for compensatory damages and punitive damages in excess of $5 0,000, plus interest, and costs, and such other relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate. LEVANT MARTIN, P.C. By: if Robert J. Levant: Esquire 27 Case ID: 130300152 VERIFICATION Walter Johnson hereby states that he is a party in this action and veri?es that the statements made in the foregoing complaint are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 relating to unswom falsi?cation to authorities. Walter Johns on Dated: 3 '5 ?'43 Case ID: 130300152 XHIB IT m.n.v ALI-LL J._L.uu KHL. LAN PAGE 15/26 . . Arrest Memo District: 18TH RFC dp20 Sector: 1 Time Of Occurrence: 4:58 Location Of Occurrence: 3120 Market St. Location Of Arrest: 3000 Ludlow St. Time Of Arrest: 5:10 Type of Assignment: Radio Call Date:12?30?11 Time Of Assignment: 5300 In Out: Arresting Of?cer: Allen Badge 55 District: DUPD SQUad/Gmup 23 Vacation From To PL Arresting Of?cer: Rebstoek Badge: 52 District: DUPD Squad/GroupZB Vacation from To Pr. ComplainankDrexel University Age: Race: Sex: Male Address:3219 Arch St. Phone# 2154395- 2822 WitneSS:Tif?fany Augustine Address?ZDI Arch St. Phoner?rE 215~895~2822 Defendant: WalterJohnson Age; 44 DOB: 4?1367 Race Sex: Male Address: 1644 S. PA Defendant: Age: DOB: Race Sex: Male Address: {Defendemti Age: DOB: 'Rrgree Sex: Male Address: Item: Flat head screwdriver IteIn: Flathead Screwdriver Item: Preperty receipt 3014699 Property receipt 3014700 Property receipt {alarm to go off at 3120 Market St, Upon rhe of?cer?s arriml they observed the two black ?tting the ?ash blue jearrs and whrte Sweatshirt,? #2 blueJeans, biack sweatshirt and white sneakers), Upon Gregg #50 exiting the police vehicle 3 Elm Started runnmg Walter Johnson 4/13/1967) Rebstock #52 gave chase when Allen #55 driving D1320 Dan'sby rirop Er ?arhead screwdriver. He had proper identi?cation and were released for furtherinvesrigation by Furrher InVeSHgatron by the Peirce Of?cers revealed pry marks en the doors made possibly by a sCrewd?ver. The Police Of?cers made photographs and were turned over to S.W.D.D. 1.399] )0152 Case ID: 130300152 11/15/2612 11:05 2157319968 KHL LAW PAGE 68/28 Commonwealth of AFFIDAVIT OP PROBABLE CAUSE County of Philadelphia Copy Police Incident Number 7 Warrant Control Number: 1118070381 DET MANKO JR THEODO 961 Southwest Detectives Division PROBABLE CAUSE BELIEF IS BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. That after investigation I have probable cause to believe that a warrant of arrest should be issued for: Defendant Name: TROY DEMBY Gender: Race: Alias: DOB: 08/02/1971 Pid: 7Qg?43 Address: 3955 MELLON 31? Philadelphia, PA 19139 CRIMES: DC Number Code Grade Description Count 1118076381 003502 F1 Attempt to commit BURGLARY (300903 F1 CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY 003503 F2 Attempt to commit CRIMINAL THESPASS 000907 M1 PIC 003304 M3 CRIMINAL MISGHIEF 2' That the ?acts tending to ??19 grounds for the Issuance of the warrant of arrest and the probable cause for my belief are as follows: I Note: if extended text exists, see following page(5)) 1118076381 DREXEL UNIVERSITY POLICE STATED THATON 12-30-11 AT APROX THEY RECEIVED A RADIO CALL FROM THE DISPATCHER, THAT SHE IS WATCHING TWO BLACK MALES ON CAMERA TAMPERING WITH THE ENTRY DOORS TO THE BOSS ONE BUILDING LOCATED AT 3120 MARKET ST. SHE ALSO INFORMED THEM THAT THEY SET THE ALARM OFF. DREXEL POLICE ARRIVED AND OBSERVED TWO BLACK MALES FITTING THE DESCRIPTION GIVEN BY DISPATCHER. AS POLICE APPROACHED, ONE MALE (WALTER JOHNSON) RAN WITH POLICE GIVING CHASE. SECOND MALE (TROY DEMBY) WAS OBSERVED BY POLICE DROP A SCREWDRIVER POLICE VEHICLE. THIS MALE WAS ALSO OBSERVED DROPPING A SCREWDRIVER WHILE FLEEING. SCREWDRIVER RECOVERED FROM JOHNSON WAS PLACED ON PR1: 3014700 DURING THIS INVESTIGATION BY DREXEL POLICE SUSPECT TROY DEMBY WAS RELEASED AT SCENE. ARREST WARRANT TO BE SUBMITTED CRIME SCENE WAS SEARCHED BY ASSIGNED DETECTIVE WHO OBSERVED SEVERAL PRY MARKS TO THE DOOR OF THE BOSS ONE BUILDING. THESE MARKS APPEARED BY BE FRESH AND WERE CONSISTENT AND THE SAME SIZE AS THE SCREWDRIVERS RECOVERED FROM THE DEFENDANTS. THE DAMAGE TO THE DOOR AND TOOL MARKS WERE PHOTOGRAPHED BY ASSIGNED. THESE WERE ALSO THE SAME MALES ON THE SURVEILLANCE CAMERA. 709843 IDENTIFIED BY DREXEL POLICE AS THE SAME MALE THEY HAD STOPPED AT TIME OF INCIDENT I, THE AFFIANT, BEING DULY SWORN ACCORDING TO LAW. DEPOSE AND SAY THAT THE FACTS SET FORTH iN THE AFFIDAVIT ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. INFORMATION AND BELIEF AND THAT PROBABLE CAUSE TO AR REST EXISTS. I Affianl: DET MANKO JR THEODO 961 Scuthweat DetectIVe$ Division Sworn to or affirmed and subscribed before me this 6 clay of January, 2012 Alliant Signature Issuing Authority Signature TROY DFMFIY Page 1 of 1 Page Printed: 01(0612012 04:80 AM Case ID: 130300152 Case ID: 130300152 i .64. u-J r?xr?IL. LHW VHUE. i4! PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT COMPLAFNT 0R INCIDENT REPORT 7 35! 3? 8 512:: Maw/f A 5 3 A 0551:35 3?43 UCloseOut mam. 73 Yes El No UYes No E3 Yes No DYes No J. 5 I PROPEHTY {Include Mata. FHUP. ST Mods! Color and Serial No: I Yes No VENICE 1 NAME VEHICLE 2 NAME I VEHIGLE 1 NAME VEHIGLE 2M OPERATORS NAME SENT TERMINAL NO. General No. Data - 5?5" 155 OF 1992. THE THE NOTIFICATION FORM: . a 75-45 From (HEM 1 In-unln . .. W): 1303 0152 FROM WHOM TAKEN 1 AGE SEX Walter Johnson 44 a Cl LOST AND FOUND ADDRESS ems 013mm one 1644 59th St. 12=30w11 18 FOR INVESTIGATION owner: UfKnoum) LAB uses FEE REQUESTED DC NO. Same - Elves 11m18e76831 ADDRESS SEIZURE ND. Same EVIDENCE . NAME BULK OF PROPERTY STORED AT Same Citv Hall . i a 2 Circumstances: 4SWDD 6520 ITEMS OF PROPERTY AND CIRCUMSTANCE 'Desription of evidence: _When police attempeed to 3 Charges Burglary? UNDER WHICH IT WAS RECEIVED INCLUDING THE EXACT LOCATION TAKEN FBOM ?ber and red handle 8 inch flat head sererriver. officers recieved tedio call 2 0 building at 3120 Market on camera top above he fled east on The above male was stopped and 9 On above date and time mh?empting to breakiint dropping the above item. placed under arrest. I If the: person from whom the ab property was taken does not Sig ove amount of money end/or nbeiow,state reason why: REQEHVEB BY PMGE EEQRTMENT Arresting or Receiving Of?cer: (g?personalpropergyfor season FROM WHOM TAKEN (Signamre) safekeeping DeskSupervisor is the Receiving O?icer) I WITNESS (Signamre) BADGE BADGE NO 59:) ?if? evtmemee re hereby acknowledge receipt of the above listed items. 9 awe) (Time) (Evidence Custodian/Collection) RELEASE Wages EUSTQEDJV This Will acknowledge the receipt from the Police Department of the Cit listed above, and Will constitute the release of the City of Philadelphis' and of Philadelphia of the amount of money and/or property its agencies from any and all future responsibility therefor. Returned to Owner or Agent I: by Court Destroyed by Order of Court Petition'No. 19% (Owner 0ming OWNER on AGENT WITNESS (Signature) BADGE NO. DATE I: Escheat to State Escheat List No. To Department of Collections Other Disposition (Explain): REM (Other than Owner ongem) SIGNATURE AND WITNESS DATE 75-3 (Rev. 6/95) PHILMCE Case ID: 803130152 Case ID: 130300152 - FROM mm weal AGE 55" Troy am}, 44 N. 3014599 Cl LOST AND FOUND ADDRESS DATE TIME UNIT 3955 Mellon Si: 12m30m113?5 550 18 . [3 FOR OWNER Whom) LAB uses FEE REQUESTED DC No. . Tro Denb EYES NO PERSONAL PROPERTY ADDRESS SEIZURE no. FOR SAFEKEEPING Same DEFENDANTS NAME BULK OF PROPERTY STORED AT Same city hall ITEMS OF PROPERTY AND CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT INCLUDING THE EXACT LOCATION TAKEN FROM Desription of evidencel clear and red handle 6 inch flat head screwdriver pollee HQ stating that they have two on cameras attempt to'breah into the building at 3120 Market, Police stopped above male and this_is When the above male dropped the I above item. Male was observed withWalter Johnson, Who also dropped item 3014700 - SWDD 5% 6320 3 Charges Burglary the erson from whore the above amount of mone and/or I . . pr?opegty was taken does not?sign below, state reasmiywhy': BY PQMCE Arresting or Receiving Officer: ([f?pemonalpmperiyfor I I PERSON FROM WHOM (swam?)- mfekeepmg DasleSuperw?sor IS the Receiving Officer) BADG A J. I A a A WITNESS (Signature) . BADGE NO. (Type) live; :9 - . ll TEANQEERQEB I hereby acknowledge receipt of the above listed items. (Date) (Time) (Evidence Custodian/Collection) QELEASE FEQM PLHQE DEQAEQTMENT This will acknowledge the receipt fromlthe Police Department of the City of Philadelphia of the amount of money and/or prep arty listed above, and will constitute the release of the City of Philadelphia and its agencies from any and all future responsibility therefor. mi. e?y? Own Returned to Owner or Agent . RE: arm-Agent) I:i by Court AGENT. ?imam? I: Destroyed by Order of Court . Petition No. . WlTNESSfS/gnamre) BADGE no. I DATE Escheat to State Escheai List No. I mate: (Other than Owner ongem) To Department ol Collections AND TITLE Other Disposition (Explain): WITNESS I DATE 75-3 (Rev. 6/95) HEPAEEFMIENF COPY ase 00152 Case ID: 130300152 51CR00002382012, 51CR00012632012 Preliminary Hearing Volume 1 Walter Johnson March 28, 2012 Page 1 i Page 2 i IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION APPEARANCES: [4 - - I COMMONWEALTH ALLISON PAVERO, - I Assistant District Attorney ?vs~ i For the Commonwealth I 5 WALTER JOHNSON i LLOYD LONG, ESQ. COMMONWEALTH i ZAK GOLDSTEIN, ESQ. . I Attorney for Defendant ~vs~ . I [101 i TROY DEMBY [11] - - - [12] I. [13] Courtroom 703, Criminal Justice Center [14] Philadelphia, [15] 1[15] [16] March 28, 2012 [we] [17] [18] ina] {19] BEFORE: 11191 [20] THE HONORABLE JOSEPH J. J. [21] [21] [22} PRELIMINARY HEARING [22] [23] - [[230 [24] [[241 {25] I Page 3 i! Page 4 [1i i INDEX [21 - - - EVIDENCE I AUGUSTINE, after having ESS: DR. CR. RDR. RCR. I 14] been ?rst duly sworn, was examined and Tiffany Augustine 04 08 10 I testified as follows: PO Louis Gregg 11 15 -- i - THE COURT CRIER: State your name for the record and spell your last name. i THE WITNESS: Tiffany Augustine, [10] [Ii] [12] EVIDENCE [131 [14] DIRECT EXAMINATION 1?51 . . [1e] BY MS. PAVERO: [17] Good afternoon. Thank you very much for your [18] patience. I would like to take you back to [19] December 30, 2011, around 5:00 in the aftemoon. [20] 1[20] Were you in the area of 32nd and Arch in the [21] . city and county of Philadelphia? [22] Yes. [23] i[23] And What speci?cally is at that location? [24] A I'm a dispatcher for the Drexel University [25] I Public Safety Department. Iwas in the basement in i Jamie Wiesea 0-C-R Court Reporting System 1 (page 1 a 4) Case ID: 130300152 1 51CR00002382012, 51CR00012632012 Preliminary Hearing Volume 1 Walter Johnson March 28, 2012 Page 5 Page 6 Augustine - direct Augustine - direct the dispatch center. i doing? THE COURT: For who? A They were pulling on them to see if they could . DrexeLUniyersity get in. . . w. Public Safety Department. MR. LONG: Objection to THE COURT: Okay. what -- seeing what they could do. BY MS. PAVERO: MS. PAVERO: No. That wasn?t what I And were you at work at that day? I asked. A Yes. MR. LONG: No. No. The answer. [10] And did something occur at work or did you It's what I'm the answer is what I'm [11] witness something at work that brings you to court objecting to. Speculation, seeing what they [12] today? 3! [12] could do. If she could just describe what she [13] A Yes. saw. [14] And if you could, could you explain to the l[14] THE WITN E88: They were pulling on [15] Judge what, if anything, you saw that brings you to ?15] the doors. [16] court? THE COURT: Sustained as to if 1 was monitoring one of our door alarms. I [17] there was a type of conclusion. I didn't hear [18] got -- we got an alarm for a building on the 3100 that. Trying the doors. That?s all I heard. [19] block of Market Street. lpulled the camera up. BY MS. PAVERO: [20] When I pulled the camera up, I saw two males Okay. [21] come out of the alleyway near the door. AndIkept What did they do after they tried the ?rst [22] the camera on them. I watched them walk pl '1 I. [23] Market Street. They checked the main doors?to_lth_aft A 3? =Theykeptoi1going because the campus was [24] building -- [24] closed. 'VThey-?walked east on Market, and they came [25] When you say checked the door, what were they [25] toiilittle alcoye'right before they got to 35th Page 7 I Page 8 Augustine direct Augustine direct Street and made a right. . further questions. Defense counsel is going In there, there are one two, three, four other to ask you some. Okay? buildings. They went through there. They checked - all of the doors on all of the other buildings. I CROSS-EXAMINATION kept them on camera. - I dispatched the police down to where they BY MR. LONG: were, and I kept them on camera until the police I Good afternoon, ma?am. came. A Good afternoon. [10] Okay. [10] Ma'am, did you see either individual gain [11] And could you describe what these men were access to any building? [12] wearing? A No. There was a taller guy with a blue hoody on Okay. [14] and blue jeans and sneakers. There was a shorter, j[1 4] This started around 32nd and Arch? [15] kind of thick guy with a blue hooded sweatshirt A No. That's where I was at. That's where [16] with a zipper with shirt tails hanging out and i[16] I that's where the dispatch center is located. [17] jeans. Excuse me. lwrote okay. Where were the [18] Okay. two individuals when you ?rst observed them? [19] And you said you dispatched the police at that A The 3100 block of Market Street. They came [20] time? i[20] out of the darkness from the door that the alarm [21] A Yes. went off. They came out of that area. I couldn't [22] Okay. see them at the door, but they came out of the [23] And was that to the area of 3 lat and Market? darkness where the door is located. [24] A 3lst and Ludlow?by the time yeah. Okay. [25] MS. PAVERO: Thank you. {have no So from the 3100 block of Market, where did i Jamie Wiese, (LC-R Court Reporting System 2 (page 5 8) Case ID: 130300152 I 51CR00002382012, 51CR00012632012 Preliminary Hearing Volume 1 Walter Johnson March 28, 2012 Page 9 Page 10 Augustine cross Augustine cross they walk? copies of the Videos you?ve described available? A They walked east on Market to right before [i A Yes. 34th Street, and they turned right into --. itYour Honor,~l would ask like a courtyard with more buildings, and they that you enter an order presenting them. walked through there. THE COURT: Preserved. Ordered And what you saw these individuals doing was MR. LONG: I pulling on doors? THE COURT: to be turned over at A Yes. i the appropriate time. [10] Okay. MR. LONG: At this time, I have no [11] Were both men wearing blue hoodies? further questions for this witness. [12] A Yes. One was a darker shade, but they were i [12] MR. GOLDSTEIN: Ihave no questions [13] both blue. i[13] for this witness. [14] Okay. THE COURT: Thank you. [15] And one was zip~up? [15] MS. PAVERO: Ihave one ?rrther [16] A Yes. question, Your Honor. [17] One was wearing were they both wearing - - - - [18] jeans? [In 8] EXAMINATION It appeared that way. It was starting [20] dark. It was ?ve o?clock in the evening. BY MS. PAVERO: [21] All of these observations were of were on 1230 of lastyear, was that the weekend? [22] video? . :1 I I A Yes". It Was-Hover [23] A Yes. V- And are'any?f these buildings closed on the [24] Okay. . i [24] weekend? a [25] Do you are videotape are videos gi- are 1 I [25] A ?IYes. Audit was Christmas break, so the whole . . Pa?ge11 I Page12 Augustine redirect - Gregg direct university was closed. - I'd like to take you back to December 30th of Okay. . last year around 5:00 in the afternoon. Thank you. i Were you on duty as a police of?cer at Drexel A You're welcome. University in Philadelphia? MS. PAVERO: Your Honor, the A Yes, I was. Commonwealth would call Of?cer Gregg. i And did your tour of duty take you to the area - 3 of 31st and Market Street or 31st and Ludlow? (Witness excused.) A 3 1 st and Ludlow, yes. [10] - - [10] Is that in the city and county of [11] OFFICER LOUIS GREGG, Badge Philadelphia? [12] No. 50, after having been ?rst duly sworn, A Yes, it is. [13] was examined and testi?ed as follows: At that date, time and location, did you come [14] i - - into contact with anyone you see in the courtroom [15] THE COURT CREER: State your name today? [16] for the record and spell your last name. A Yes. Both males, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Demby. [1 7] THE WITN ass; Police Of?cer Louis in 71 us. PAVERO: Indicating the [18] Gregg, Badge number is 50. [18] defendants for the record. [19] THE COURT CHEER: Thank you, sir. 3:[19] BY MS. PAVERO: [20] - And if you could, explain to the Judge the [21] circumstances surrounding your involvement with [22] - [22] these defendants. [23] BY MS. PAVERO: Yes. [24] Good afternoon, of?cer. i[ [24] Responding to a radio call, Your Honor, we [25] A Good afternoon. came into the area of the 3100 block of Ludlow i Jamie Wiese, 0-C-R Court Reporting System 3 (page 9 12) Case ID: 130300152 51CR00002382012, 51CR00012632012 Preliminary Hearing Volume 1 Walter Johnson March 23, 2012 Page 13 i Page 14 Gregg direct Gregg direct Street, being directed by radio to the two black 1 And who has access to this building? maies just coming from a door where an alarm went 1 A Only Drexel students and Drexel employees. off, at which time I approached, got out of the You must-have ID to get into the building: - car. Q. And did the defendants produce any I approached Mr. Johnson ?rst. I told him, identi?cation in order to get into this building? Police. Mr. Johnson took off running from me. My A Not at all. partner, Of?cer Rebstock sorry. Don't know his Okay. badge number jumped out, started chasing And did the defendants have permission to [1 0] Mr. Johnson. [10] enter this building? [11] I turned around and went to Mr. Demby. [11] A No, they did not. {12] Mr. Demby ?rst told me he didn't know him. He 1 [12} Okay. [13] don't he just happened to be walking past, at [13] Did you notice any damage to the door? [14] which time he dropped a screwdriver. I grabbed i[141A Yes. I went back with detective [15] Mr. Demby. I handcuffed him and placed him under ift?] Is that Detective Manko? [16] arrest, Your Honor. 5[16] A Detective Manko. And we saw ply marks like [17] Okay. [17] scratch marks on the windows and doors. [18] And this property where the alarm is going [18] Was this on more than one door? [19] off, is that DreXel University preperty? 7 i[19] A Yes, that I saw. [20] A Yes, it is. - Okay. [21] Okay. [21] How many doors? [22] Closed for the weekend? [22] A I believe?he?went to about two or three doors. Yes, it was. [231 Objection. [24] And was it closed for Christmas break? [24] Objection. [25] A That?s correct. It was. Yes, it was. It [25] MR. LONG: Move to strike the I Page" 15 I Page 16 Gregg direct I i i Gregg - cross believe - Okay. THE COURT: Sustained. [31' Was MR. GOLDSTEIN: as to what Detective Manko did. EVER. LONG: I join in that action. BY MS. PAVERO: Just testify as to what damage you observed. A I observed one door with scratch marks. [10] Okay. l' [11] Did you place the screwdriver on a [12] Philadelphia property receipt? Yes, I did. [14] MS. PAVERO: Okay. Thank you. [15] I have no further questions. [16] Defense counsel is going to ask you some. [17} - - - [1 8] CRO [19] - - - [20] BY MR. LONG: [21] Good afternoon, sir. [22] A Good afternoon. [23] Of?cer, you placed Mr. Dernby into custody? [24] A Yes, I did. Well, I handcuffed him. Yes, I [25] did. 1 1 15] MR. LONG: Your Honor, may I have one moment, please. [9181? IVER. LONG: [1 Q. Was Mr. Demby processed at that point? [11] A No, he was not. Detective Manko Went and got [12] a warrant for his arrest. [13] Okay. i [14] So he actually turned himself in days after [15] this occurred; is that fair to say? A After he knew a warrant was out for his arrest, he turned himself in. l[18] IVER. LONG: Your Honor, motion to strike what he knew. THE COURT: You said i[21] MS. PAVERO: Your Honor, he is just answering his question. THE ceuar: Overruled. You placed him into custody. Why was he Jamie Wiese, 0.C.R Court Reporting System 4 (page 13 :16) Case ID: 130300152 Preliminary Hearing Volume 1 A I said, Police. stop. And your client takes [1 0] off running. [11] And you didn't you're not the one who [12] arrested him; is that correct? [13] A That's correct. I'm too slow to catch your [14] client. You never saw anyone trying to pry that door [16] open that was damaged, right? [17] A No, I did not. [18] And nothing was ever reported missing, right? [19] A Not in my [20] MS. Objection. Relevance. [21] 7 TH COURT: Not to his knowledge. [22] That's ?ne. [23] MR. GOLDSTEIN: Ihave no further [24] questions. [25] THE COURT: Thank you, Of?cer. Walter Johnson March 28, 2012 Page 17 i Page 18 Gregg cross Gregg cross released? MR. LONG: I have no other questions THE COURT: I'm not getting involved for the witness. in this. If it's a motion at a later time, THE Thank you; that's ?ne. Okay. But not now. 1' Counsel. MR. LONG: Iunderstand. BY MR. BY MR. LONG: So you respond to this radio call, correct? So it's fair to say that when you approached I A That's correct. Mr. Demby, he did not ?ee? Where do you come into contact with these two [10] A No, he did not. people? [11] Okay. A Right at 31st and Ludlow. [12] He didn't take any other evasive action, did So right on the corner? [13]he? ?[131At TKes. . [14] A He tried to make pretend he was with the l[14] And they are just walking across the street at [15] person told us to run after the other guy. i[15] that point, right? [16] MR. LONG: Your Honor, objection. EH 6] A They're coming out from Ludlow Street, from [17] Move to strike what he pretended to do. 7] where the cameras were following them. [18] THE COU RT: Iwill strike the word And they don?t have anything in their hands, [19] intended or pretended. right? [20] MR. LONG: Thank you. They have well, I know Mr. Demby dropped a [21] THE COURT: Allow -- and allow that screwdriver. He had a screwdriver in his hands. [22] he pointed to the other man and directed?th'em So he's down street with a [23] to go catch him or something or chase him. screwdriver? . I 3 [24] THE WETNESS: That's correct. ?24] I Stopped him, he had a screwdriver in [25] THE COURT: I'm allowing that. {[25,1hishands. He, dropped it. Page19 i Page 20 Gregg cross - Gregg 4 cross So when you ?rst see him, he had the PAVERO: Thank you, Of?cer. screwdriver? - .5 - - MS. PAVERO: Objection. (Witness excused.) THE COURT: Sustained. - - - BY MR. GOLDSTEIN: i MS. PAVERO: The Commonwealth would When you approached, you just said police and call Of?cer Rebstock. [8]?then my client runs? 1' The offer of proof would be to the i PIC charge on Walter Johnson. THE COURT: The conspiracy? i[11] MS. PAVERO: Okay. That -- THE COURT: It's conspiracy. That's ?ne. One has it, both have it. i [14] MS. PAVERO: Your Honor, then the Commonwealth would rest for purposes of the preliminary hearing. 1? [173 THE COURT: Fine. MR. LONG: I have no evidence, Your [19] Honor. I do have argument. THE Sure. ?an (Argument heard.) [231 - - - THE COURT: All the attempted [25] burglary, conspiracy, criminal attempt are Jamie Wiese, 0.C.R Court Reporting System 5 (page 17 - 20) Case ID: 130300152 51C1i00002382012, 51CR00012632012 Preliminary Hearing Volume I Walter Johnson March 28, 2012 Page 21 Page 22 Gregg cross graded -2. I ?nd anything else I just CERTIFICATION have it as -- I ?nd there is suf?cient [it] I9 .hold the matter for, court: I hereby certify that the A v. . .- The next court date is 4-1842, i proceedings and evidence are contained fully 1104, C3 at 11:00 am. and accurately in the notes taken by me on the - i trial of the above cause and that this copy is (Hearing concluded.) a correct transcript of the same. - - 1 {10] [11] Jamie L. Booker, RPR [12] Of?cial Court Reporter [131 [121 [14} 233} [15] Iii'l?t] [15} [171 [1161 [18] 4171 [19] [20} [21] [22] i[[21] (The foregoing certi?cation of [23] this transcript does not apply to any [24] i[23] reproduction of the same by any means unless [25] 'under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.) I. W, Tairimapor?ng SysteItIZGenerated 20121?04130 17:34:29) Jamie Wiese, O.C.R Court Reporting System 6 (page 21 22) Case ID: 130300152