Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Trial Division Civil Cover Sheet For Prothonotary Use Only (Docket Number) E-Filing Number: 1610043948 DEFENDANT'S NAME PLAINTIFF'S NAME CITY OF PHILADELPHIA DOMINICK OWENS PLAINTIFF'S ADDRESS DEFENDANT'S ADDRESS PLAINTIFF'S NAME DEFENDANT'S NAME 1515 ARCH STREET, 14TH FLOOR PHILADELPHIA PA 19102 5116 TULIP STREET PHILADELPHIA PHILADELPHIA PA 19124 RACHAEL BELL PLAINTIFF'S ADDRESS DEFENDANT'S ADDRESS PLAINTIFF'S NAME DEFENDANT'S NAME 31 COTTON ROAD LEVITTOWN LEVITTOWN PA 19057 MARK ZYCH DEFENDANT'S ADDRESS PLAINTIFF'S ADDRESS 127 MYRTLE AVENUE CHELTENHAM CHELTENHAM PA 19012 TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFFS TOTAL NUMBER OF DEFENDANTS 3 AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY $50,000.00 or less X More than $50,000.00 1 COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION X Complaint Writ of Summons Petition Action Notice of Appeal Transfer From Other Jurisdictions COURT PROGRAMS Arbitration Jury Non-Jury X Other: CLASS Mass Tort Savings Action Petition Commerce Minor Court Appeal Statutory Appeals Settlement Minors W/D/Survival ACTION CASE TYPE AND CODE C1 - CLASS ACTION STATUTORY BASIS FOR CAUSE OF ACTION RELATED PENDING CASES (LIST BY CASE CAPTION AND DOCKET NUMBER) IS CASE SUBJECT TO COORDINATION ORDER? YES NO OCT 20 2016 M. BRYANT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Plaintiff/Petitioner/Appellant: DOMINICK OWENS , RACHAEL BELL , MARK ZYCH Papers may be served at the address set forth below. NAME OF PLAINTIFF'S/PETITIONER'S/APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY JASON E. POWELL PHONE NUMBER (215)525-5850 SUPREME COURT IDENTIFICATION NO. 309032 SIGNATURE OF FILING ATTORNEY OR PARTY JASON POWELL FAX NUMBER (215)525-5860 ADDRESS KANG HAGGERTY & FETBROYT LLC 123 S. BROAD STREET SUITE 1670 PHILADELPHIA PA 19109 E-MAIL ADDRESS jpowell@LawKHF.com DATE SUBMITTED Thursday, October 20, 2016, 12:43 pm FINAL COPY (Approved by the Prothonotary Clerk) KANG HAGGERTY & FETBROYT LLC By: Edward T. Kang David P. Dean Filed and Attested by the Office of Judicial Records Jason E. Powell 20 OCT 2016 12:43 pm Attorney ID Nos. 87823/210044/309032 M. BRYANT ekang@LawKHF.com ddean@LawKHF.com jpowell@LawKHF.com 123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1670 Philadelphia, PA 19109 P: (215) 525-5850 F: (215) 525-5860 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class _________________________________________ : PHILADELPHIA COUNTY DOMINICK OWENS : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : 5116 Tulip Street : CLASS ACTION Philadelphia, PA 19124 : : October Term, 2016 RACHAEL BELL : 31 Cotton Road : NO. __________________ Levittown, PA 19057 : : and : : MARK ZYCH : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 127 Myrtle Avenue : Cheltenham, PA 19012 : : Plaintiffs, : v. : : : CITY OF PHILADELPHIA : 1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor : Philadelphia, PA 19102 : : Defendant. : _________________________________________ NOTICE TO DEFEND NOTICE 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 filing 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 AVISO Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las páginas siguientes, usted tiene veinte (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificación. Hace falta asentar una comparencia escrita o en persona o con un abogado y entregar a la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea Case ID: 161002950 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. avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomará medidas y puede continuar la demanda en contra suya sin previo aviso o notificación. Además, la corte puede decidir a favor del demandante y requiere que usted cumpla con todas las provisiones de esta demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades u otros derechos importantes para usted. 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. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. PHILADELPHIA BAR ASSOCIATION Lawyer Referral and Information Service 1101 Market Street, 11th Floor Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 (215) 238-1701 ASOCIACIÓN DE LICENCIADOS DE FILADELFIA Servicio De Referencia E Información Legal 1101 Market Street, 11th Floor Filadelfia, Pennsylvania 19107 (215) 238-1701 2 Case ID: 161002950 KANG HAGGERTY & FETBROYT LLC By: Edward T. Kang David P. Dean Jason E. Powell Attorney ID Nos. 87823/210044/309032 ekang@LawKHF.com ddean@LawKHF.com jpowell@LawKHF.com 123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1670 Philadelphia, PA 19109 P: (215) 525-5850 F: (215) 525-5860 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class _________________________________________ : PHILADELPHIA COUNTY DOMINICK OWENS : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : 5116 Tulip Street : CLASS ACTION Philadelphia, PA 19124 : : October Term, 2016 RACHAEL BELL : 31 Cotton Road : NO. __________________ Levittown, PA 19057 : : and : : MARK ZYCH : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 127 Myrtle Avenue : Cheltenham, PA 19012 : : Plaintiffs, : v. : : : CITY OF PHILADELPHIA : 1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor : Philadelphia, PA 19102 : : Defendant. : _________________________________________ CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, Dominick Owens, Rachael Bell, and Mark Zych, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by their undersigned counsel, bring this action against Defendant, City of Philadelphia, and in support thereof aver as follows: Case ID: 161002950 PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Dominick Owens is an adult individual residing at 5116 Tulip Street, Philadelphia, PA 19124. 2. Plaintiff Rachael Bell is an adult individual residing at 31 Cotton Road, Levittown, PA 19057. 3. Plaintiff Mark Zych is an adult individual residing at 127 Myrtle Avenue, Cheltenham, PA 19012. 4. Defendant City of Philadelphia is a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 5. Defendant City of Philadelphia operates and maintains the Philadelphia Police Department (the “PPD”). JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 931, 5301 because Defendant is a municipal corporation that resides in and regularly conducts transactions in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 7. Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1006 because Defendant is located in Philadelphia County and all of Plaintiffs’ claims arise from transactions and occurrences that took place in both the City and County of Philadelphia. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 8. Defendant, like other municipalities in Pennsylvania, is given the power under state law to enforce the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 101, et seq., on streets and highways within its boundaries. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 6109. 9. This power includes enforcing speed limits on those streets and highways. 4 Case ID: 161002950 10. Local police, however, may only enforce speed restrictions on a “divided highway” or “limited access highway” within their municipality’s boundaries if the local police department does so under the terms of an agreement with the Pennsylvania State Police (the “State Police”) – that is, a speed enforcement agreement (“SEA”). See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 6109(a)(11). 11. Accordingly, because the PPD is a local police department, it may only enforce speed restrictions on divided or limited access highways within Philadelphia if it does so under the terms of a SEA with the State Police for each of the divided or limited access highways it intends to enforce speed restrictions on. 12. The Vehicle Code defines “divided highway” as “[a] highway divided into two or more roadways and so constructed as to impede vehicular traffic between the roadways by providing an intervening space, physical barrier or clearly indicated dividing section.” 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 102. 13. The Vehicle Code further defines “limited access highway” as “[a] highway in respect to which owners or occupants of abutting lands and other persons have no legal right of access except at points and in the manner determined by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway.” 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 102. 14. A number of highways within the City of Philadelphia are both “divided highways” and “limited access highways” within the meaning of the Vehicle Code, including Interstate 95 (“I-95”), Interstate 76 (“I-76”), and Interstate 676 (“I-676”), among others. 15. Accordingly, the PPD is prohibited from stopping motorists and issuing citations for violations of speed restrictions on I-95, I-76, and I-676, unless it has a current SEA for those highways with the State Police. 16. While the PPD currently has SEAs with the State Police covering certain limited 5 Case ID: 161002950 access and divided highways within Philadelphia city limits (such as divided and/or limited access portions of U.S. Route 1), the PPD has no existing SEA covering I-95, I-76, or I-676. 17. As a result, PPD officers have no authority to stop and cite motorists on those highways for violations of speed restrictions under Subchapter F of the Vehicle Code (75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3361–3368) (“Subchapter F”). 18. The PPD is aware that it lacks authority to stop and cite motorists on I-95, I-76, and I-676 for violations of Subchapter F. 19. On or about July 17, 2012, then-police commissioner Charles H. Ramsey issued a memorandum addressed to all PPD personnel concerning speed enforcement on I-95, I-76, and I676 (the “2012 Memo”). A true and correct copy of the 2012 Memo is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 20. In the 2012 Memo, Commissioner Ramsey notified all PPD personnel that the State Police had decided not to enter into a new SEA with the PPD covering I-95, I-76, and I-676. Id. 21. Commissioner Ramsey further alerted PPD personnel that they were prohibited from issuing citations for any speeding violations on those highways, and further, if PPD officers initiate a traffic stop on those highways, they must contact the nearest State Police facility to conduct an enforcement action. Id. 22. To date, the PPD is still operating without a SEA with State Police covering the portions of I-95, I-76, and I-676 within the City of Philadelphia. 23. Despite lacking the required SEA, and thus the authority to conduct speed enforcement actions, and despite the recognition by former Commissioner Ramsey that such conduct is prohibited, the PPD has continued to stop motorists on the above-mentioned highways and issue citations for speeding violations under Subchapter F. 6 Case ID: 161002950 24. Notwithstanding the 2012 Memo from former Commissioner Ramsey, the PPD operates with a de facto policy of illegally stopping and citing motorists on I-95, I-76, and I-676. 25. In the four years that the PPD has operated without a SEA covering I-95, I-76, and I-676, the City of Philadelphia, through the PPD, has cited, and collected fines from hundreds, if not thousands, of motorists, despite lacking the authority to do so. 26. For example, on December 14, 2014, Plaintiff Rachael Bell was stopped and cited by a PPD officer while driving on I-95. 27. Ms. Bell was cited for failing to drive at a safe speed in violation of Section 3361 of Subchapter F; and was assessed a fine of $162.50, which she paid. 28. As a result of the citation, Ms. Bell believes that she was assessed points on her driver’s license, which in turn, increased her car insurance. 29. On March 8, 2015, Plaintiff Mark Zych was stopped and cited by a PPD officer while driving on I-95. 30. Mr. Zych was cited for driving in excess of 55 miles per hour in violation of Section 3362 of Subchapter F, and was assessed a fine of $234.50. A true and correct copy of the March 8, 2015 citation is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 31. Mr. Zych used paid-time-off from work, and paid for parking, the four times he appeared at traffic court contesting the citation. 32. At the first hearing, Mr. Zych’s counsel argued that the PPD did not have the authority to issue the citation, which the court ignored in finding him guilty. 33. Mr. Zych incurred $35.00 appealing the court’s ruling. 34. At the appeal hearing, the PPD officer who issued the citation admitted that the PPD did not have the authority to issue speeding citations under Subchapter F; then Defendant 7 Case ID: 161002950 attempted to change the offense for which Mr. Zych was cited to failure to drive at a safe speed – which is also under Subchapter F (Section 3361). 35. In light of the 2012 Memo (Ex. A) – not to mention the law – the court allowed Defendant a week to formulate a response to Mr. Zych’s position. 36. A week later (that is, the fourth time Mr. Zych appeared at traffic court), Defendant conceded the impropriety of the citation by withdrawing it. A true and correct copy of the withdrawal of citation is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 37. Despite the foregoing, the PPD has continued to issue speeding citations under Subchapter F on I-95, I-76, and I-676, without having entered into a new SEA with the State Police. 38. For instance, on May 27, 2016, Plaintiff Dominick Owens was stopped and cited by a PPD officer while driving on I-95. 39. Mr. Owens was cited for driving in excess of 55 miles per hour in violation of Section 3362 of Subchapter F, and was assessed a fine of $185.50. A true and correct copy of the May 27, 2016 citation is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 40. Mr. Owens paid Defendant $210.50 for the citation, including court costs. 41. Mr. Owens also used paid-time-off from work, and paid for parking, when he appeared at traffic court on July 20, 2016. 42. As a result of the citation, Mr. Owens was assessed three points on his driver’s license, which in turn, increased his car insurance about $30.00-$40.00 per month. CLASS ALLEGATIONS 43. Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure: All individuals who were stopped and cited by PPD officers for violations of Subchapter F on limited access highways and divided highways within 8 Case ID: 161002950 the City of Philadelphia at a time where the PPD did not have a current SEA with the State Police allowing the PPD to enforce speed restrictions under Subchapter F on those highways, including, but not limited to, citations issued by the PPD for Subchapter F violations on I-95, I-76, and I-676, from July 17, 2012 to present (the “Class”). 44. Pa.R.C.P. No. 1702 provides that an action may be maintained as a class action if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately assert and protect the interests of the class under the criteria set forth in Pa.R.C.P. No. 1709; and (5) a class action provides a fair and efficient method for adjudication of the controversy under the criteria set forth in Pa.R.C.P. No. 1708. Numerosity 45. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1702(1), Class members are so numerous that their individual joinder is impracticable. 46. The precise number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiffs, but the number of people in the proposed Class greatly exceeds the number considered in this judicial district to make joinder impossible. Common questions of fact or law 47. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1702(2), questions of fact and law, except as to the amount of damages each member of the Class sustained, are common to the Class. 48. Common questions of law and fact predominate over the questions affecting only individual Class members. 49. Some of the common legal and factual questions, without limitation, include: 9 Case ID: 161002950 (a) Whether Defendant, acting through the PPD, intentionally misrepresented that it had authority to stop and cite motorists for speed restriction violations under Subchapter F on I-95, I-76, and I676, among others, during the relevant time period; (b) Whether Defendant, acting through the PPD, negligently misrepresented that it had authority to stop and cite motorists for speed restriction violations under Subchapter F on I-95, I-76, and I676, among others, during the relevant time period; and (c) Whether the PPD operates with a de facto policy of stopping and citing motorists for speed restriction violations under Subchapter F on I-95, I-76, and I-676, despite knowing that it lacks an operable SEA with the State Police governing those highways, among others. Typicality 50. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1702(3), Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the Class. 51. Plaintiffs and Class members have all been damaged as a result of Defendant’s actions in illegally stopping and citing them for speed restriction violations on I-95, I-76, and/or I676. In other words, Plaintiffs and Class members were subject to, and harmed by, a common policy and practice applied by Defendant. Adequacy 52. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1702(4), Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. 53. Plaintiffs are familiar with the basic facts that form the bases of the Class members’ 54. Plaintiffs’ interests do not conflict with the interests of the other Class members claims. that they seek to represent. 55. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in Class action litigation and intend to prosecute this action vigorously. 10 Case ID: 161002950 Superiority 56. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1702(5), a class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy because joinder of all Class members is impracticable. 57. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would impose heavy burdens upon the courts and Defendant, and would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications of the questions of law and fact common to the Class. 58. A class action would achieve substantial economies of time, effort and expense; and would assure uniformity of decision as to persons similarly situated without sacrificing procedural fairness. COUNT I Fraud 59. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations contained in all of the preceding paragraphs above as though set forth in their entirety. 60. From July 17, 2012 to present, the PPD has repeatedly represented to numerous motorists, including Plaintiffs, that it had/has the authority to stop and cite those motorists for violations of Subchapter F on I-95, I-76, and I-676. 61. Since July 17, 2012 (and possibly before then), the PPD has not had the authority to stop and cite motorists for violations of Subchapter F on I-95, I-76, and I-676. 62. As such, the PPD’s representations were false. 63. The PPD made the above representations with knowledge of their falsity or recklessness as to whether their representations were true or false. 64. In light of the 2012 Memo – not to mention Pa.C.S.A. § 6109(a)(11), which has been in effect since 1976 – the PPD should have known that it did not have the authority to stop 11 Case ID: 161002950 and cite motorists for violations of Subchapter F on I-95, I-76, and I-676. 65. The PPD made the above misrepresentations with the intent that Plaintiffs would rely on them. 66. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the PPD’s misrepresentations. 67. In reliance on the PPD’s misrepresentations, Plaintiffs (1) stopped their cars along the side of the highway and were detained there until the PPD officer allowed them to leave; (2) paid fines, attorneys’ fees, and court costs associated with the citations issued by the PPD; (3) used paid-time-off from work to go to court; and (4) incurred increased car insurance rates. 68. The PPD’s misrepresentations were material to the above transactions because had Plaintiffs known that PPD did not have the authority to issue the citations issued to them, they would not have done any of the foregoing. 69. The damage suffered by Plaintiffs was proximately caused by the PPD’s misrepresentations. 70. By stopping and citing motorists such as Plaintiffs for violations of Subchapter F on I-95, I-76, and I-676, despite knowing it had no authority to do so, Defendant (acting through the PPD) acted with reckless indifference and conscious disregard of the law, as well as Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s rights. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant for damages in excess of $50,000, plus punitive damages, interest, costs of suit, and for such other relief as the Court deems equitable and just. COUNT II Negligent Misrepresentation 71. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations contained in all of the preceding paragraphs above as though set forth in their entirety. 12 Case ID: 161002950 72. From July 17, 2012 to present, the PPD has repeatedly represented to numerous motorists, including Plaintiffs, that it had/has the authority to stop and cite those motorists for violations of Subchapter F on I-95, I-76, and I-676. 73. Since July 17, 2012 (and possibly before then), the PPD has not had the authority to stop and cite motorists for violations of Subchapter F on I-95, I-76, and I-676. 74. As such, the PPD’s representations were false. 75. In light of the 2012 Memo – not to mention Pa.C.S.A. § 6109(a)(11), which has been in effect since 1976 – the PPD should have known that it did not have the authority to stop and cite motorists for violations of Subchapter F on I-95, I-76, and I-676. 76. The PPD made the above misrepresentations with the intent that Plaintiffs would rely on them. 77. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the PPD’s misrepresentations. 78. In reliance on the PPD’s misrepresentations, Plaintiffs (1) stopped their cars along the side of the highway and were detained there until the PPD officer allowed them to leave; (2) paid fines, attorneys’ fees, and court costs associated with the citations issued by the PPD; (3) used paid time off from work to go to court; and (4) incurred increased car insurance rates. 79. The damage suffered by Plaintiffs was proximately caused by the PPD’s misrepresentations. 80. By stopping and citing motorists such as Plaintiffs for violations of Subchapter F on I-95, I-76, and I-676, despite knowing it had no authority to do so, Defendant (acting through the PPD) acted with reckless indifference and conscious disregard of the law, as well as Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s rights. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant for damages in excess of 13 Case ID: 161002950 $50,000, plus punitive damages, interest, costs of suit, and for such other relief as the Court deems equitable and just. COUNT III Unjust Enrichment 81. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations contained in all of the preceding paragraphs above as though set forth in their entirety. 82. Plaintiffs conferred a benefit upon Defendant by paying fines and court costs associated with citations issued by the PPD for violations of Subchapter F on I-95, I-76, and I-676 since July 17, 2012. 83. Defendant had knowledge of the benefit conferred upon them by Plaintiffs. 84. Defendant received and accepted the benefit conferred upon them by Plaintiffs. 85. Defendant was unjustly enriched at Plaintiffs’ expense in that Defendant accepted the benefit of Plaintiffs’ money without providing a reciprocal benefit to Plaintiffs. 86. Defendant accepted this benefit with knowledge that it was receiving money from illegal speeding citations issued by the PPD. 87. Under the circumstances, Defendant’s acceptance and retention of the benefit of Plaintiffs’ money is unfair and inequitable as they received this benefit at Plaintiffs’ expense. 88. By stopping and citing motorists such as Plaintiffs for violations of Subchapter F on I-95, I-76, and I-676, despite knowing it had no authority to do so, Defendant (acting through the PPD) acted with reckless indifference and conscious disregard of the law, as well as Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s rights. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant for damages in excess of $50,000, plus punitive damages, interest, costs of suit, and for such other relief as the Court deems equitable and just. 14 Case ID: 161002950 JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs hereby demand trial by jury of twelve on all issues so triable. Respectfully submitted, KANG HAGGERTY & FETBROYT LLC By: /s/Jason E. Powell Edward T. Kang David P. Dean Jason E. Powell 123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1670 Philadelphia, PA 19109 P: (215) 525-5850 F: (215) 525-5860 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Dated: October 20, 2016 15 Case ID: 161002950 VERIFICATION I, Mark Zych, have read the foregoing complaint and hereby verify that the factual matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that this veri?cation is made subject to the penalties of 18 4904, relating to unsworn falsi?cation to authorities. Dated: Mafrk Zyc} Case ID: 161002950 VERIFICATION I, Dominick Owens, have read the foregoing complaint and hereby verify that the factual matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that this veri?cation is made subject to the penalties of 18 4904, Dominick Owens relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: P1 (2 Case ID: 161002950 YE,RIFICATION I, Rachael Bell, have read the foregoing complaint and hereby verify that the ftctual matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, informdion, and belief understand that this verification is made subject to the penahies of 18 Pa.C.S.A. I $ 4904, relatmg to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: /r, ,, Case ID: 161002950 Filed and Attested by the Office of Judicial Records 20 OCT 2016 12:43 pm M. BRYANT Exhibit Case ID: 161002950 07/17/12 15:34:08 FROM RSPA TO BT RECEIPT No.463. PAGE 1 OP 2. TO: ALL POLICE PERSONNEL SUBJECT: SPEED ENFORCEMENT ON 1?95, AND 1?676 IN PETLADELPHIA 1. TITLE 75, VEHICLE CODE, SECTION 6109 (A) (ll) REQUIRES A SPEED ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REGIONAL OR MUNICIPAL POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE STATE POLICE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF SPEED RESTRICTIONS ON LIMITED ACCESS HIGHWAYS WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION. THIS AGGREEMENT WOULD ALLOW PHILADELPHIA POLICE OFFICERS TO ISSUE SPEEDING TVRS ON SUCH HIGHWAYS RUNNING THROUGH PHILADELPHIA. 2. THE STATE POLICE HAS DECIDED NOT TO RE-ENTER INTO A SPEED ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT WITH RESPECT TO THOSE PORTIONS OF INTERSTATE 95, INTERSTATE 76 AND INTERSTATE 676 THAT RUN THROUGH THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. 07/17/12 15:34:08 FROM RSPA TO BT RECEIPT NO.463. PAGE 2 OF 2 SUBJECT: SPEED ENFORCEMENT ON AND IN PHILADELPHIA 3. AS A RESULT OF THE STATE POLICE DECISION, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, PHILADELPHIA POLICE OFFICERS ARE PROHIBITED FROM ISSUING ANY SPEEDING VIOLATIONS ON THOSE PORTIONS OF INTERSTATE 95, INTERSTATE 76 AND INTERSTATE 676 THAT RUN THROUGH THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. THE STATE POLICE HAS ADVISED, HOWEVER, THAT IN THE EVENT ANY PPD OFFICER ENCOUNTERS A SPEEDING VIOLATION WHILE TRAVERSING ON THESE HIGHWAYS THAT A PPD OFFICER CAN INITIATE A TRAFFIC STOP BUT MUST CONTACT THE NEAREST STATE POLICE FACILITY FOR APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT ACTION. CHARLES H. RAMSEY POLICE COMMISSIONER TO BE READ AT ALL ROLL CALLS FOR THREE (3) CONSECUTIVE DAYS. DEBORAH A. HAWORTH #8309,? Case ID: 161002950 Filed and Attested by the Office of Judicial Records 20 OCT 2016 12:43 pm M. BRYANT Exhibit Case ID: 161002950 tIUit PHILADELPHIA. PA 19130-6301 ma??t'?'emtieu . . Mun-?4' a 6 DEFENDANTNAME -FIFIST MIDDLE LAST 6A COMM VEH I: Yes N0 7 DEFENDANT ADDRESS I *r-ti-J- has: 9 STATE IU.EPCME B. CITY .. Au MW. -. I1 DH CARRIER NAME different from defendant) 1m Ineurmr-OH souece .rDrivers License Defendant 12 OWNERILESSEE OFI CAFIFIIEFI 5mm Dual defendant) CI Non Drivers License DBMV .. . gym??54. -. 5 . . Glhm: l3 VEHICLE HEG NO 14- I6 MAKE TYPE Ie mm In?) 'Lm?lms 1. 4?3 I 19 VEHICLE HEB NO. HEG VFI 21 STATE 3'3. 21! 2] no" Ci PA #Au SEE BACK OF COPY FDR BREAKDOWN OF TOTAL DUE. 'l'g'gL [It iL? dave at I verily that the facts set Ierth In the manure falsi?cation ta eutha eenIEnce. ya: must appear on the ?null I to ynu eoneen Mg II: the trial In g" absence I mete? taunt! the collateral mdwil?d wiit hem Iarfeiled andaIpIEIled toward your nes and costs. Within 30 a?enl? Inge egg Hg glee mage?lg?enm gur gn_u heveth Eighth: gage; re trial do new in the Gear! at Eamon Pigs. I have served a copy at this Citation en the dent knewled inimrnatlon and belief. this citation a rue end on This vert?cation is made subject to the penalties lilies. ?fiiMVM VIOLATION W75 25. Vehicie Coda El Fiied on Info'rmation Received El Active Work Zone .- CI Wm El Lab Services Requested El Safety Corrldor 1.7334(- 25_ CHARGE SECTION 5. SUBSECTION '15" - '3 :5 _Jma- I?m 3?33.? - 27. Immune new 4_ 29 SPEED TIMED 25. SPEED ALLOWED an. WEIGHT aI, mun mile-Ht 5&2, . ?5 lbs. lbs, 32 FOLLOWED CB. TIMED 34 TILED EOLIIE. SEFIIAL NO. 36 SPEED DEFECT TYPE miles La 9J9, .. 5? 323153.593 . rte. DATE EQUIP. TST. an ace. Winn. ND. 40. LOCATION OF acumen: 2. Max. t?Z-s YES $53 119;}, ?were Matti: I CICC 42 BEECH-PE Elf. 43 WEATHER mm 4.5 WEISE DATE in. NW 47 TIME FOP. 49 DAY . EAR 5i TIME 914M LOCATION: a EatP?etrasza au must and ?garlic! ty n10 days at the citation (Edema: e?averee aide the la In I age Int receipt elthe theel on yau enter a plea ends? the? ne and entail-Idle Ire-ct an the clietion. the summenr trial will a 'eeneelled If you areal-tamed with aagu eug?ne??m Pa. . E543 ?mother vietetonthaIt provides ter the I'npoettien e! apriem he the are to the best {It mam of the Cnmee 3.0.3. 54904] relating to a (18 BADGEINO. 34:58 Ii youdplead guilty or are found guilty. poinIs_may he assessed against your drivers record. An accumulation of mint: SIGNATURE 2" :b a: new 53.73515 mu ~a?5 El FILED 56 LAW DAcc. Inv. Div. DFIPA 1H'It-Zity Police - Ham 5? COMM. 59 SCHOOL YES YES CI N0 HA2. MAT. i] 16 PASS VEH. El El UNMAFIKED In. ms ?315": 4.7355515 413;) A n, .3. hamity?gx ?thin-1?. a, '5 37* ELI.-. saw.? Miami? I: 3:1 Argye?a inn In ea. Kink '7 in; iiv?i??am?s? 35.1? ?33Jim-n": .- A DUE ttlpeto?mn 10 Days at raw it tantrum I: an. rule 1 - "004101 - a 3? ?1In} Ur?aqnll? In Ihu .Ar Case ID: 161002950 Filed and Attested by the Office of Judicial Records 20 OCT 2016 12:43 pm M. BRYANT Exhibit Case ID: 161002950 FIRST DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 124.: 201:?? Commonwealth WITHDRAWAL OF CITATION (S) De?eundant ?s Namei; The Commonwealth withdraws the following citation(s) pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 551, subject to court approval: Violation Issue Date A r. Citation No. .5 ON BEHALF OF THE COMMONWEALTH: - If; i Ef?e! 5; $1331..- If 5 1 .i -- PRINT NAME Date Signature ORDER The Commonwealth?s request to Withdraw the above citation(s) is: granted, and all charges are marked ?withdrawn.? El denied{"43 I ,5 if I I Date Honorable I 02?78 1?08?15 Withdrawal for use at CP level Case ID: 161002950 Filed and Attested by the Office of Judicial Records 20 OCT 2016 12:43 pm M. BRYANT Exhibit Case ID: 161002950 i' i .1 . air?T. l. . i COMMONWEALTH OF CITATION NO. PHILADELPHIA COURT TRAFFIC aria SPRING GARDEN STFIEET a. 0. BOX seem PA 6301 I n: I 151111! .. ugfg Edda la, fl?? emulated! - . . . {run-5 [trim-?Ina MIDDLE LAST SA COMM VEH (abjg?f _El'rw Willi?! {if a? -f II. CITY 9 STATE - - II. mmesee? on masiendana - mt centurion-Infamous ?an License CI Defendant t2 Grimm. nicknamed-cw I: Non Drivers License El BMV r70 732/ I :7 Ia 11. one. vn. 15 STATE 18 come .7247. .27? JD 7 II Iiz/ 1'5 REG No 20 Free YR 21 STATE 22. MAKE 2: Type 24 COLOR CI PA SEE BACK OF COPY FOR BREAKDOWN OF TOTIDE DUE. VIOLATICI TYPE TOTAL (II Said in days of Issuance) 25. ?m Code Filed on Information Flecelved Active Work Zone l: Ordinance Lab Services Requested CI Safety Corridor /2 17. NATURE OF OFFENSE cancelled. It you- ere merged with nine Elton at 75 Fe l? 1543 or any other violation that provides- for the hipddlion of a prison sentence. .t?eu must ep peer on the ehovecle re with couneel. iI you tell: to appear. .ior the trial. you are consenting to the trial In your attached. I you ena- found. guilty the collateral 'ted will be icrieitcdand and?rrll ed-tcward your fines and coats. Within at} of the enlg o! a guilty gee or edludiceLion of out we have the not? to egg or a trial are new in the Court or Common Plan I have served a copy Citation on the Defendant. I verify that the facts set forth In this citation are true and correct to the best of knowle 3 information and belief. This veri?cation is made ooh] act to the penalties of Section 4904 of the. Crimes a [13 a. S. ?4904} relating to the unsworn falsification to autho SIGNATURE deg-2%, . BADGE ND. 3 9M Janna-C 28 TRIED a' SPEED A Vbia?T VEHICLE WEIGHT 7 1, c, the. lbs. '31 FOLLOWED 33 a: SPEED BEHALHD. 55.54133) DEFECT El'lJlP. T517 . f7? miles M2 3 :u DATE EOUIP T5T AW. Ann?mm 0: mm! 5 r7? 7% Elves (25 ammo 42'. SELECTIVE ENF 0F TRAVEL WEIR. Ii- OFFEHSE DHTE 16.09YOU MUST- APPEAH FDFI YOUR SUMMJI FW TRIAL WHICH IS SCHEDULED FOR: 43. MONTH 49. DAY 50. YE Fl 51 TIME- 0'7 to 201 65?? a PM I entree . You meet plead Buii not Gu in 1D dove cf'?aceipt of the citation icon the Home sadeol the ?at In egg or recelnl oi the cliao enter a ?3un plea and 53 the line and coats Indicate-dc nlha citation. Ihe summary trial will 1-w- .I "r?mr' 1. . t7 so censure-ma Hormone .AmimLEDoee on a? 2? C1 FILEDED 5: station 55 um tits. a Low WT ~3ch Elm luv. Div El Eli: Pull-ca I: an.? 5W -- 1 JUVENILE H15 my VEHEI Iii. SCHOOL VEH El YES NO YES El N0 HA2 MAT. IS PASS Cl UNMAFIKED HEW 2?5396? p/i??xxaaf? .Iorks- r2, M404. .42 gnaw/If Flori?: 73;? 7?2;th ?eef-J o? r/ 14/an zw?r?f?g?r .50 (.5 2:..ng 51 TETM. DUE paid Iii: 1D am I'll Ilium? u. ?m?ms?c 1.99:: 7.34%; ?fl?I2. 130204-11 ll plead guilty or are lame gully. points mayWI heu- record. An emulation of points may iasull in the suspension ol priIIit ?Helm. your driv'ng adult guilty arm are found ??lly at certain odemas' Iunciar Vaohic7le Mil-Inuit EPIL IS. 1. 3341 3341?.El 3351.37433me Elm Irma. 3351 when mfed hinr an active can? zone and an I: MI lay the police. and a violation 0 FILES. when occur in an active work zone. 'Flrial Aincunt to _tre g?t?mmll?l? 'hy Municipal Court. Trudi: Division. AOPCA- 2005 DEI- ENDANT t'JI?Ci'P?tf'g?at Please read Richie mentldutfene on reverse side. Case ID: 161002950