CIVIL COVER SHEET JS 44 (Rev. 12/12) The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS Tanya Brown-Dickerson, Administratrix of the Estate of Brandon TateBrown, deceased obo the Estate and all others similarly situated City of Philadelphia Nicholas Carrelli Heng Dang Philadelphia (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Philadelphia County of Residence of First Listed Defendant (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) NOTE: (c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. Attorneys (If Known) Brian R. Mildenberg, Esq. 215-545-4870 Mildenberg Law Firm, PC 1735 Market Street, Ste. 3750, Phila., PA 19103 Craig Straw, Esq. / John Coyle, Esq. City of Philadelphia Law Department, 1515 Arch St, 14th Fl. Philadelphia, PA 19102 II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) ’ 1 U.S. Government Plaintiff ’ 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party) ’ 2 U.S. Government Defendant ’ 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) PTF Citizen of This State ’ 1 DEF ’ 1 and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4 of Business In This State Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State ’ 5 ’ 5 Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6 IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) CONTRACT ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ TORTS 110 Insurance 120 Marine 130 Miller Act 140 Negotiable Instrument 150 Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment 151 Medicare Act 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans (Excludes Veterans) 153 Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran’s Benefits 160 Stockholders’ Suits 190 Other Contract 195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ REAL PROPERTY 210 Land Condemnation 220 Foreclosure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 240 Torts to Land 245 Tort Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ PERSONAL INJURY 310 Airplane 315 Airplane Product Liability 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 330 Federal Employers’ Liability 340 Marine 345 Marine Product Liability 350 Motor Vehicle 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability 360 Other Personal Injury 362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice CIVIL RIGHTS 440 Other Civil Rights 441 Voting 442 Employment 443 Housing/ Accommodations 445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment 446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other 448 Education FORFEITURE/PENALTY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 365 Personal Injury Product Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 371 Truth in Lending ’ 380 Other Personal Property Damage ’ 385 Property Damage Product Liability PRISONER PETITIONS Habeas Corpus: ’ 463 Alien Detainee ’ 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence ’ 530 General ’ 535 Death Penalty Other: ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 550 Civil Rights ’ 555 Prison Condition ’ 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of Confinement ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 690 Other BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157 ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 830 Patent ’ 840 Trademark ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ LABOR 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 720 Labor/Management Relations 740 Railway Labor Act 751 Family and Medical Leave Act 790 Other Labor Litigation 791 Employee Retirement Income Security Act ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ SOCIAL SECURITY 861 HIA (1395ff) 862 Black Lung (923) 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 864 SSID Title XVI 865 RSI (405(g)) FEDERAL TAX SUITS ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant) ’ 871 IRS—Third Party 26 USC 7609 ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ 375 False Claims Act 400 State Reapportionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce 460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 480 Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Sat TV 850 Securities/Commodities/ Exchange 890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 893 Environmental Matters 895 Freedom of Information Act 896 Arbitration 899 Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes IMMIGRATION ’ 462 Naturalization Application ’ 465 Other Immigration Actions V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only) ’ 1 Original Proceeding ’ 2 Removed from State Court ’ 3 Remanded from Appellate Court ’ 4 Reinstated or Reopened ’ 5 Transferred from Another District (specify) ’ 6 Multidistrict Litigation Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): 42 USC sec. 1983 VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause: Action for wrongful death/excessive force/municipal liability and reforms DEMAND $ ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION VII. REQUESTED IN UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. COMPLAINT: VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instructions): Hon. Stewart Dalzell IF ANY JUDGE DATE CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: ’ Yes ’ No JURY DEMAND: DOCKET NUMBER 10-5952 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD 9/2/15 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA — DESIGNATION FORM to be used by counsel to indicate the category of the case for the purpose of assignment to appropriate calendar. see attached listing see attached listing Address of Defendant: Philadelphia, PA Place of Accident, Incident or Transaction: Address of Plaintiff: (Use Reverse Side For Additional Space) Does this civil action involve a nongovernmental corporate party with any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock? (Attach two copies of the Disclosure Statement Form in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1(a)) Does this case involve multidistrict litigation possibilities? RELATED CASE, IF ANY: Case Number: 10-5952 Judge Hon. S. Dalzell Date Terminated: Yes9 No9 Yes9 No9 active Civil cases are deemed related when yes is answered to any of the following questions: 1. Is this case related to property included in an earlier numbered suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court? Yes9 No9 2. Does this case involve the same issue of fact or grow out of the same transaction as a prior suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court? Yes9 No9 3. Does this case involve the validity or infringement of a patent already in suit or any earlier numbered case pending or within one year previously Yes9 terminated action in this court? No9 4. Is this case a second or successive habeas corpus, social security appeal, or pro se civil rights case filed by the same individual? Yes9 CIVIL: (Place No9 U in ONE CATEGORY ONLY) A. Federal Question Cases: B. Diversity Jurisdiction Cases: 1. 9 Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts 1. 9 Insurance Contract and Other Contracts 2. 9 FELA 2. 9 Airplane Personal Injury 3. 9 Jones Act-Personal Injury 3. 9 Assault, Defamation 4. 9 Antitrust 4. 9 Marine Personal Injury 5. 9 Patent 5. 9 Motor Vehicle Personal Injury 6. 9 Labor-Management Relations 6. 9 Other Personal Injury (Please specify) x 7. 9 Civil Rights 7. 9 Products Liability 8. 9 Habeas Corpus 8. 9 Products Liability — Asbestos 9. 9 Securities Act(s) Cases 9. 9 All other Diversity Cases 10. 9 Social Security Review Cases (Please specify) 11. 9 All other Federal Question Cases (Please specify) ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION I, (Check Appropriate Category) Brian R Mildenberg , counsel of record do hereby certify: x9 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2, Section 3(c)(2), that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the damages recoverable in this civil action case exceed the sum of $150,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs; 9 Relief other than monetary damages is sought. x DATE: Attorney-at-Law Attorney I.D.# NOTE: A trial de novo will be a trial by jury only if there has been compliance with F.R.C.P. 38. I certify that, to my knowledge, the within case is not related to any case now pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court except as noted above. DATE: Attorney-at-Law CIV. 609 (5/2012) Attorney I.D.# LIST OF NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF PARTIES: TANYA BROWN-DICKERSON, Administratrix of the Estate of BRANDON-TATE BROWN, deceased, on behalf of the Estate as Administratrix and a class of all others similarly situated, ADDRESS: 5238 Horrocks Street Philadelphia, PA 19124, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA 1500 Arch Street, 14th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103, NICHOLAS CARRELLI, 1500 Arch Street, 14th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103, HENG DANG, 1500 Arch Street, 14th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103, Defendants. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM TANYA BROWN-DICKERSON et al. Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al., Defendants. In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court, counsel for plaintiff shall complete a Case Management Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time of filing the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (See § 1:03 of the plan set forth on the reverse side of this form.) In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said designation, that defendant shall, with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on the plaintiff and all other parties, a Case Management Track Designation Form specifying the track to which that defendant believes the case should be assigned. SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS: (a) Habeas Corpus – Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 through § 2255. (b) Social Security – Cases requesting review of a decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits. (c) Arbitration – Cases required to be designated for arbitration under Local Civil Rule 53.2. (d) Asbestos – Cases involving claims for personal injury or property damage from exposure to asbestos. XXXXXX (e) Special Management – Cases that do not fall into tracks (a) through (d) that are commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense management by the court. (See reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation of special management cases.) (f) Standard Management – Cases that do not fall into any one of the other tracks. MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, P.C. /s/ Brian R. Mildenberg By: BRIAN R. MILDENBERG, ESQUIRE Identification No.: 84861 1735 Market Street, Suite 3750 Philadelphia, PA 19103 brian@mildenberglaw.com (215) 545-4870 Counsel for Plaintiff IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, P.C. By: BRIAN R. MILDENBERG, ESQUIRE Identification No.: 84861 1735 Market Street, Suite 3750 Philadelphia, PA 19103 brian@mildenberglaw.com (215) 545-4870 ____________________________________ : TANYA BROWN-DICKERSON, : Administratrix of the Estate of : BRANDON-TATE BROWN, deceased, : on behalf of the Estate as Administratrix : and a class of all others similarly situated, : 5238 Horrocks Street : Philadelphia, PA 19124, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, : th 1500 Arch Street, 14 Floor : Philadelphia, PA 19103, : : NICHOLAS CARRELLI, : 1500 Arch Street, 14th Floor : Philadelphia, PA 19103, : : HENG DANG, : 1500 Arch Street, 14th Floor : Philadelphia, PA 19103, : : Defendants, : ____________________________________: Counsel for Plaintiff CLASS ACTION FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS; and, COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM COMPLAINT COMES NOW Plaintiff, requesting this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor, and against Defendants, and for her Complaint, alleges, upon information and belief, as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff is Tanya Brown-Dickerson, an adult individual and citizen of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, residing therein at the address listed on the caption of this Complaint. 2. Plaintiff is the natural mother of Brandon Tate-Brown, deceased. Brandon Tate-Brown died on December 15, 2014, when he was shot one time in the back of his head by Philadelphia Police Officer, Defendant Nicholas Carrelli, while his person was unarmed, during a traffic stop. 3. Plaintiff has qualified and been duly appointed Administratrix of the Estate of Brandon Tate-Brown, and was granted Letters of Administration by the Register of Wills of Philadelphia County on January 8, 2015, File # A0090-2015. 4. Plaintiff brings this action as Administratrix of the Estate of Brandon Tate- Brown. With respect to state law claims for wrongful death and survival, persons listed pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 2204 are decedent’s intestate heirs, Plaintiff and decedent’s natural father, Terrell T. Skinner (last known residence address: 293 South Jones Street, Lock Haven, PA 17745). This action is brought on their behalf, and they are being served with Notice pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 2205. 5. Plaintiff also brings this action on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, and seeks class certification of the injunctive relief claims against the Philadelphia Police MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM Department for violations of Plaintiff’s federal civil rights and rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution. 6. Defendant, the City of Philadelphia, is a municipality and City of the First Class, duly existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 7. Defendant, Nicholas Carrelli, is, upon information and belief, an adult individual and citizen of Philadelphia, who is employed by Defendant the City of Philadelphia as a Police Officer. Upon information and belief, Defendant Carrelli is the Police Officer who discharged his weapon and shot Brandon Tate-Brown one time in the back of the head on December 15, 2015, killing Brandon Tate-Brown. Upon information and belief, the City of Philadelphia Police Department refused to publically identify the name of Carrelli until June, 2015. Further, upon information and belief, until June, 2015, the City of Philadelphia falsely claimed that Brandon Tate-Brown was reaching for a gun into his front side passenger door when shot, requiring Carrelli to kill him. The City has now admitted that story to be false. 8. Defendant, Heng Dang, is, upon information and belief, an adult individual and citizen of Philadelphia, who is employed by Defendant the City of Philadelphia as a Police Officer. Upon information and belief, Officer Dang was Officer Carrelli’s partner on December 15, 2015, and, upon information and belief, Dang was the driver of the police car that puled over Brandon Tate-Brown for the aforesaid traffic stop, while Carrelli sat in the passenger seat of said police vehicle. Upon information and belief, the City of Philadelphia Police Department refused to publically identify the name of Dang until June, 2015. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 9. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 10. This action is properly maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) & MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 11. With respect to the claims herein for equitable relief from the City of Philadelphia’s long term pattern and practice of conduct that violates Plaintiff’s federal civil rights and rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution as regards training for, procedures concerning, performance of, and investigation of officer involved physical altercations, use of force, and discharge of firearms, the Class is defined as: (a) all persons in the City of Philadelphia who have been or may in the future be injured or injured or killed, or who come into contact with Philadelphia Police Officers during arrest where physicality, use of force, or discharge of firearms is involved; and (b) all minorities who have or may in the future come into contact with Philadelphia Police Officers where the aforesaid factors are involved and/or where a police conduct during the interaction results from or is affected by failure to train or a racially discriminatory application of policy (including but not limited to disparate impact and intentional discrimination). 12. The claims for equitable relief sought against the Philadelphia Police Department may proceed as a class action because: a. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members in impracticable; b. There are questions of law or fact common to the class, including but not limited to whether the involved customs, polices and procedures of the Philadelphia Police Department violate federal civil rights laws and the Pennsylvania Constitution. c. Plaintiff’s claims are common to and typical of the class members with respect to the injunctive relief requested. d. The harms suffered by Plaintiff are typical of the harms suffered by the class MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM and a final judgment ordering the relief requested is appropriate relief in this action. e. Plaintiff and undersigned counsel will fairly and adequately represent the rights of the class. f. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Plaintiff Class, making declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the Plaintiff Class as a whole appropriate and necessary. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 13. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 14. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction and venue is appropriate in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because the actions complained of herein all occurred in this District. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. THE KILLING OF BRANDON TATE-BROWN 15. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 16. On or about December 15, 2014, in the early morning, pre-dawn hours, decedent, Brandon Tate-Brown, a 26-year-old black male, was lawfully driving a 2014 White Dodge Charger with Florida license plates. 17. On or about such date, Defendants Officer Carrelli and Officer Dang were working in the 15th Police District, in full uniform, in a marked police cruiser, allegedly patrolling the district. 18. On such date, at or near the 6000 block of Frankford Avenue, according to police reports, said Defendants claim they observed Brandon Tate-Brown, an African American male, driving the said late model Dodge Charger, a luxury vehicle, in the middle of MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM the night. 19. At or about said time, according to said Defendants, upon observing Brandon Tate-Brown driving the said vehicle, and believing that Brandon’s daytime running lights were on (as opposed to full headlights) the said Defendant police officers engaged their police lights and pursued Brandon Tate-Brown, signaling for him to pull over. 20. In compliance with the police officers, Brandon Tate-Brown engaged his turn signal and pulled over on the 6700 block of Frankford Avenue, in front of several shops and directly adjacent to a gun dealership. 21. According to surveillance video viewed by Plaintiff, Brandon Tate-Brown complied with the officers when pulling him over. According to the video, Plaintiff believes that Brandon Tate-Brown’s headlights were on while he was driving and at the time he was pulled over. 22. The video shows a long interaction between the two Defendant officers and Brandon Tate-Brown prior to Brandon Tate-Brown being asked to step out of his vehicle. 23. Plaintiff believes the video shows that for a period of time prior to Brandon Tate-Brown being asked to step out of his vehicle, Carrelli, the discharging officer, appeared to have his gun pointed at Brandon Tate-Brown for the duration of Brandon’s time inside of his vehicle. 24. According to official police reports, the police officer Defendants claim to have pulled Brandon Tate-Brown over for driving without headlights. MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 25. The police documents also claim that they were just pulling him over to check on him, make sure he was ok, have him turn on the lights, and then go on his way. 26. The fact that on video, the officers appeared to act aggressively and/or have their guns drawn during the interaction with Brandon Tate-Brown while he was still in his vehicle is not in accordance with standard police procedure, or in accordance with the statement that they were just checking on the safety of a motorist. 27. The police officers and the police department have made several inconsistent and seemingly dishonest claims and statements concerning the decision to pull over Brandon Tate-Brown. Upon information and belief, one eyewitness who is also a Philadelphia Parking Authority Officer, and who was assisting Philadelphia Police Officers at the scene, during the event, observed police state that they thought Brandon was matched the description of a suspect from an earlier robbery. There was no mention of headlights as an issue. 28. The police department advised the Medical Examiner on the date in question that Brandon Tate-Brown was pulled over for a routine traffic stop, and made no mention of headlights. 29. After pulling Brandon Tate-Brown over, Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that at least one of the officers became aggressive with Brandon Tate-Brown for no reason, pulling a gun on Brandon Tate-Brown and pointing the gun at him while still in his vehicle, while he was cooperating with police. 30. During this time period, Plaintiff believes and avers that, instead of just checking on the safety of a motorist driving without full headlights (their stated reason for MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM pulling him over) the police officers began an aggressive interaction with Brandon with the intent of harassing Brandon Tate-Brown, instigating a struggle, assaulting him, arresting him, and charging him with a crime. When Brandon Tate-Brown resisted, and tried to run from the aggressive and assaultive officers, Carrelli shot Brandon Tate-Brown once in the back of the head from close range. 31. During the initial approach, and, Plaintiff believes, while pointing a gun at Brandon, the officers aggressively questioned Brandon about his vehicle. 32. Brandon explained, truthfully, that he worked at a car rental agency, and that he was using the car by permission of his manager, and identified the agency as Hertz, producing appropriate paperwork at the request of the officers, and providing the phone number and contact information for his manager. 33. Pursuant to the police side of the story, the officers were just checking on Brandon’s safety, since his headlights were out, and then intending to let him go. Instead of doing that, however, they needlessly became aggressive, pulled a gun, inquired into ownership of the vehicle, called in the plates, and learned that the vehicle was allegedly registered to Dollar Rental Car (a 100% owned subsidiary of Hertz), and not “Hertz.” Upon learning this, the officers again approached Brandon’s vehicle and this time ordered him to step out of the vehicle. 34. This order constituted an unlawful arrest of Brandon Tate-Brown. 35. Hertz owns Dollar Rental Car, which is a fully owned subsidiary of Hertz and has been since 2012. MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 36. A reasonable police officers knows or should know that not every rental car is registered in the name of the rental dealer, because of the overlapping ownership in the industry or because many times the dealers are franchises, subsidiaries or agents of a related company. When dealing with rental cars, officers know or should know that these facts do not create reasonable suspicion of crime or probable cause to arrest a driver. 37. The rental car being registered to Dollar, Hertz’s subsidiary, was not a basis to request Brandon to step out of the vehicle. 38. This, combined with a lack of full headlights, was no basis to arrest the driver of the vehicle or to continue the traffic investigation. 39. Police reports state that it is due to this alleged “inconsistency” that the decision was made to ask Brandon Tate-Brown to leave the vehicle and to place him under arrest. 40. There was no inconsistency and even if there was, there was no evidence that any crime was being committed, nor any probable cause or reasonable suspicion as to same. Rather, a simple question about the rental car would have answered any valid concern, and if the intention of the police were, as officially stated, to just check on safety, have Brandon turn on the lights, and then send him on his way, this rental car issue would not have caused the officers to decide to arrest Brandon by directing him out of his vehicle. 41. Once Brandon was asked to exit the vehicle, Carrelli claims he then spotted a gun in Brandon’s vehicle lodged between the center console and the passenger seat, and claims to have called out “Gun,” to his partner. MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 42. Brandon complied with the request to exit the vehicle. 43. Once he exited the vehicle, he continued to comply with Hang’s instructions. During this time, according to an eyewitness statement, Hang pointed a gun at Brandon’s back, demanding to know where the “gun” was. 44. Upon information and belief, Brandon denied having a gun. 45. After the overly aggressive pullover, and after Carrelli was pointing a gun at Brandon while he was still in the car and pulled over (and before any allegation that Brandon had a gun in the car), Brandon Tate-Brown now had Hang pointing a gun at his back. 46. From Brandon Tate-Brown’s perspective, his life was in danger due to these two overly aggressive and inappropriate police officers pointing guns at him from the start of their interaction. 47. Upon information and belief, along with the aggressiveness in pulling their guns, the defendant rookie police officers also acted aggressively and in a threatening manner towards Brandon Tate-Brown, such that Brandon Tate Brown reasonably feared they were going to shoot him or harm him physically. 48. Although Carrelli claims to have seen a gun, he did not obtain the alleged gun from the car, secure the gun, or take any action to document the existence of the alleged gun. Rather, at or about the time that Hang was pointing a gun directly at Brandon’s back, according to the eyewitness, a struggle broke out between Hang and Brandon Tate-Brown. 49. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the struggle began because Hang was MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM pointing a gun to Brandon’s back, a threat to shoot him, and, along with his overly aggressive partner, Carrelli, who had his gun pointed at Brandon during the earlier phase of the stop, before Brandon was asked to step out of the vehicle, he was acting aggressively towards Brandon. Brandon Tate-Brown reasonably feared for his life and safety at this moment. 50. In the alternative, Brandon Tate-Brown resisted Hang because Hang began to physically beat, hit or harm Brandon Tate-Brown. 51. As Brandon resisted Hang, who was pointing a gun at Brandon’s back, Carrelli, upon information and belief, decided to become physically violent with Brandon, and engaged in a struggle with Brandon wherein Brandon was beaten and subjected to unlawful and excessive force. 52. Instead of securing the alleged gun that was allegedly in the car, Carrelli claims that he went around the vehicle to help Hang fight Brandon Tate-Brown. 53. Brandon Tate-Brown was now being beaten by two overly aggressive police officers who were rookies, and neither of which had been on the police force for more than a year. He struggled with them to protect himself, and several times, broke free from their grips, and ran away from them. The struggle took place in the middle of Frankford Avenue. 54. Brandon Tate-Brown was unarmed for the entire duration of the struggle. 55. In subsequent police interviews, the officers confirm hat Brandon Tate-Brown never threw a punch at them or hit them in any way during the struggle when he was trying to escape their violence. MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 56. At no time during the struggle, even according to police accounts, was Brandon Tate-Brown armed or holding a weapon. 57. Brandon Tate-Brown was carrying a cellphone for the duration of the struggle, which was ringing during and after the struggle, according to EMT records. 58. During the struggle, near the end of the struggle, Brandon again broke free from the officers. According to the video, he ran across Frankford Avenue, in the direction of his vehicle, across the rear of his vehicle. Carrelli chased Brandon, and as Brandon, in a running motion, reached the rear right brake light of his vehicle, running across the back from left to right, Carrelli discharged his firearm one time, shooting Brandon in the back of his head, killing him. At the time Brandon was shot, he was near the rear of his vehicle, not near or reaching into the passenger side front door where the gun was alleged to have been located. 59. Hours after the shooting, a police evidence team finally recovered an alleged gun in Brandon’s vehicle. Months later, the police claimed that that the weapon allegedly found was reported stolen in 2012, and that a “mixture” of DNA on the weapon likely contained Brandon’s DNA. 60. The official police department position from the date of the incident in December, 2014, as released to the public, was that Carrelli was justified in shooting Brandon Tate-Brown because, at the time of the shooting, Brandon Tate-Brown was reaching for the alleged gun into the front passenger seat of the vehicle. 61. However, the surveillance video shows, as stated, that Brandon Tate-Brown was shot near the rear of his vehicle, by the right rear brake light, not near the passenger door MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM or reaching into the passenger door. 62. The claim that Brandon Tate-Brown was reaching into the vehicle for a gun at the time he was shot is a complete fabrication on the part of the Defendant officers and the police department. 63. Moreover, Plaintiff never believed the police story that Brandon Tate-Brown had a gun in his vehicle. Rather, due to the inconsistencies and false statements uncovered, including the false claim by the police officers that Brandon Tate-Brown was shot because he was reaching into the passenger side door for his gun, Plaintiff believes that these police officers have no credibility. 64. In June, 2015, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Ramsey admitted that there was never any evidence that Brandon Tate-Brown was reaching for a gun when he was shot, and, in a complete turnaround from the original story, blamed the original false police narrative public’s and the news media’s thirst for details. 65. Plaintiff, however, believes and avers that the false released narrative fed to the public for six months, that Brandon Tate-Brown had to be shot because he was reaching into the passenger door for a gun, was always an intentional lie. 66. The alleged gun was not recovered from the vehicle for several hours after the shooting. 67. During this time, it would have been possible for Defendant police officers to plant a “drop gun” in the vehicle. A “drop gun” is a gun planted by a police officer to falsely implicate a suspect in the possession of a gun. Brandon’s blood, bodily fluids and DNA were MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM all over the street and sidewalk after the shooting. It would have been possible for police officers to wipe some of Brandon’s DNA onto a drop gun. 68. Almost immediately after the shooting, business owners, including the owners of the aforesaid gun dealership, were called by police to the scene prior to opening of business in order to obtain any video surveillance evidence from their places of business. 69. For this purpose, upon information and belief, police entered the aforesaid places of business, including the aforesaid gun dealership, to review and seize video surveillance equipment. 70. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, based upon the false claim by police that Brandon Tate-Brown was reaching for a gun when he was shot, that in fact, this claim is a lie, and that to bolster this lie, and protect themselves from discipline or prosecution, a drop gun was obtained and used, and placed in the vehicle, where it remained for several hours before the evidence team removed it. 71. In addition, on video captured by news cameras, the evidence team is seen placing the alleged gun against the car hood, where Brandon’s DNA could have been located as a result of the shooting near the rear of the vehicle, contaminating the evidence. Importantly, of several swabs of DNA taken from the alleged gun, Brandon’s DNA appears nowhere except for the swab from the butt of the gun. This is the area where the evidence team is seen to have contaminated the gun by placing the butt of the gun on the vehicle next to which Brandon had just been shot in the head and around and upon which was his blood and DNA. MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 72. This improper handling of the crime scene invalidates any claim that Brandon’s DNA was on the alleged gun. 73. Brandon’s fingerprints were not on the gun. 74. In order to believe that Brandon had a gun in the vehicle, a fact finder must find the police officers’ testimony to be credible. However, as stated, the police made several contradictory and dishonest statements and claims concerning the events in question. Upon information and belief, a fact finder could decide that the officers, due to these inconsistent statements, are not credible, and refuse to believe that any gun was seen during the traffic stop. 75. In addition, an unauthorized photograph taken at the scene, from behind police lines, and then posted online, by an unknown person, shows that Brandon’s body, or the car, was moved after Brandon was killed to position Brandon near the passenger side of the door. Supporting this assertion, the Medical Examiner noted in his report that the scene was disturbed. Moving Brandon’s body closer to the passenger side, or moving the car so that the body would be near the passenger door, was, upon information and belief, an action taken to support the false assertion that Brandon was reaching into the passenger side door before he was shot. Responding officers also confirmed that the body was rolled over. Upon information and belief, this moving of the body constituted tampering with the scene, another dishonest practice. 76. Upon information and belief, the force used against Brandon Tate-Brown was excessive from the start. From the decision to pull him over for no reason, or because he, being a black male, allegedly matched a prior robbery, to the decision to ask him to step out of MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM the vehicle and arrest him because his car rental paperwork said “Hertz” but the car was registered to “Dollar,” a subsidiary of Hertz, to pointing a gun at him while he was still in the vehicle (before any alleged claim that Brandon had a gun in the vehicle), to pointing a gun at Brandon’s back after he complied and stepped out of the vehicle, to becoming physical and starting a struggle with Brandon, to chasing him and beating him, and then, finally, to shooting him while he was unarmed, in the back of the head, near the rear of his vehicle, the actions of the Defendant police officers constituted excessive and unlawful force, unlawful seizure and arrest. 77. In addition, for at least part of the time, the Police Officers mistook Brandon’s cell phone for a gun or other weapon. Plaintiff believes that if Carrelli saw anything, it was a cell phone, and not a gun, and does not believe as not credible, any of the officers’ claims regarding the alleged gun that was allegedly recovered from the vehicle. 78. The lack of fingerprints, a DNA “mixture” appearing only on the contaminated butt of the gun (but not on any other swabs from the gun), Brandon’s DNA all over the street and sidewalk, and a gun that was stolen in 2012 from an unknown party do not lead to a conclusion that Brandon Tate-Brown ever possessed this gun. A fact finder could decline to believe that the police story regarding the gun is credible, and instead, could believe that the gun was a “drop gun.” The police department has regularly contented with known cases of police officers planting evidence on suspects. 79. Additional lies told by the police immediately after the shooting included telling the first EMT on the scene that Brandon was shot because he was shooting his gun at police and telling persons on the scene that Brandon was shot because he was reaching into MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM his vehicle for a gun. 80. Later that morning, at Internal Affairs, Carrelli repeated that false story to his Sgt. and dishonestly stated that Brandon was shot while reaching for the gun. 81. As stated, Commissioner Ramsey has now admitted that there was never any evidence Brandon was reaching for a gun, and that same was a false story. 82. Despite the false story, Carrelli has not been disciplined, and continues to hold his badge and gun as a police officer. 83. Major deficiencies in PPD training contributed to and were a substantial factor in the unlawful pullover, arrest, seizure, beating, and killing of Brandon Tate-Brown. As explained below, these deficiencies have also been identified by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) as requiring substantial reform and correction. 84. The actions of the foregoing Defendant police officers were negligent, reckless, and/or, in the alternative, malicious and intentional, and tinged with racial bias. 85. The PPD was negligent and recklessly indifferent in the hiring and training of the aforesaid Defendant Police Officers. 86. The aforesaid Defendant Police Officers, rookies in their first year of employment, were provided with the very same deficient training and procedures noted as lacking and deficient by the DOJ. 87. The police investigation into the shooting was deficient, less than forthcoming, non-transparent, and lacks even any scintilla of credibility. MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 88. The police department, as a result of the investigation and false statements by the officers involved, for a period of six months, falsely maintained that Brandon was reaching into the car for his gun, in the passenger door. The entire time, the Department had a video that showed the truth: Brandon was killed at the rear of his vehicle. This incredible and arrogant deception is more than mere error; Plaintiff believes that the police have intentionally lied and continue to do so concerning the facts of Brandon’s death. The powers that be did not want “another Ferguson” in Philadelphia, and came out strong, from the morning of the shooting and for a period of six months after, in an effort to taint Brandon’s name, and paint him as the aggressor reaching for a gun, when none of that was ever true. These officers should have their badges and guns taken from them, at the very least. But the Department has not disciplined them in any way for their conduct. And that Department has not been disciplined. No heads have rolled, no resignations have been demanded; business continues as usual. This Honorable Court has the hold the Department accountable for the illegal and dishonest actions of the Philadelphia Police Department concerning killing of Brandon TateBrown. 89. The investigation lacks all hallmarks of accuracy and integrity. Police officer and witness statements were not were not videotaped. Police officers were questioned only after the witnesses signed statements that were composed by police investigators. This is contrary to the practices of proper investigation in officer use of force, and adds to the lack of credulity of the police department’s findings in the investigation. The police changed their story several time during events. The statements and findings of investigation appear to have been intentionally embellished to lead to a conclusion that the shooting was justified. 90. The police refused, for six months, to release evidence, or the video MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM surveillance of the shooting, to the public. At all times, during this refusal, the police maintained Brandon was shot because he was reaching for a gun into the front passenger seat. At all times, the video, which they continued to hide, showed otherwise. 91. The police department has acted with a lack of transparency, further leading to questions as to what they are hiding. 92. The police department first released minor, selected portions of statements and evidence, but failed to release any evidence that could be used to support Plaintiff’s claims. 93. The police department has engaged in a failed attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the public, by refusing to release the video and claiming that Brandon Tate-Brown was reaching into the passenger side door when he was shot, a fabrication. 94. After six months of public pressure and legal actions, in June, 2015, the police department finally released the video to the public and admitted that their claim that Brandon Tate-Brown was reaching for a gun was false. Still, the investigation has not been reopened and the officers remain on the street. 95. Based upon the police department fabrications involved, Plaintiff believes and avers that the police evidence cannot be trusted in this case, and seeks a formal finding that the police department has lied during the investigation, and that the jury be instructed as to such lies, and that the jury be instructed that if it believes the police lied or tampered with evidence, that they may find in favor of the Plaintiff. 96. Further, upon a showing that police lied or tampered with any evidence, or made any false statements or official reports, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court enter MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM judgment in her favor, as a sanction for spoliation of evidence. 97. As a direct and proximate result of the deficiencies in training, policies, operations, and investigations, Brandon Tate-Brown sustained injuries and damages including death. B. THE PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT’S USE OF FORCE TRAINING, POLICIES, PRACTICES, AND INVESTIGATIONS ARE DEFICIENT AND VIOLATE PLAINTIFF’S FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION 1. 98. The 2015 DOJ Report At all times relevant hereto, the Philadelphia Police Department has knowingly continued and maintained practices and policies that violate Plaintiff’s federal civil rights and the Pennsylvania Constitution. 99. In or around “2013, amidst a drop in violent crimes and assaults against the police, the number of Philadelphia Police Department (“PPD”) officer involved shootings (“OIS”) was on the rise, as was the number of fatal OISs, which was uncovered and reported” by” the Philadelphia Inquirer. An Assessment of Deadly Force in the Philadelphia Police Department, US Department of Justice, March 23, 2015 (hereafter “DOJ Report”) at 1. 100. In recognition of the problems in the PPD relating to use of force, the United States Justice Department began an investigation related to officer use of force, deadly use of force, and officer involved shootings. Id. 101. The investigation by the Department of Justice was “conducted by an interdisciplinary team of researchers, analysts, and subject matter experts over a 12-month period.” Id. 102. As a result of the investigation, the Department of Justice issued the DOJ MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM Report on or about March 23, 2015. 103. In the Report, the DOJ made the following findings and/or recommendations, inter alia: a. Finding: PPD officers do not receive regular, consistent training on the department’s deadly force policy. Recommendation: The PPD should develop a standard training module on [use of deadly force] and require all sworn personnel to complete the training on an annual basis. b. Finding: The PPD requires officers to complete crisis intervention training (“CIT”) in order to obtain an electronic control weapon (“ECW”) [taser]. This requirement conflates the two tactical approaches and limits the distribution of less-lethal tools throughout the department. Recommendation: ECWs should be standard-issue weapons for all PPD officers assigned to uniformed enforcement units; All PPD officers in uniformed enforcement units should be required to carry ECW’s on their duty belts at all times. c. Finding: PPD recruit training is not conducted in a systemic and modular fashion. As a result, some recruit classes receive firearms training close to the end of the academy, whereas others receive it early on. Recommendation: The PPD should revise the sequencing of its academy curriculum so that recruits are continually building on previously learned skills; Skills that require continual training and refinement, such as firearms, defensive tactics, communications, and driving, should be staggered throughout the length of the academy. d. Finding: For some PPD recruits, de-escalation training has been little more MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM than lecture and observations. Focus group participants generally agreed that more de-escalation training was needed at the academy; Recommendation: The PPD should revamp its academy de-escalation training, ensuring that recruits receive more hours of scenario training, which allows each recruit to exercise and be evaluated on verbal de-escalation skills; PPD de-escalation training should be expanded to include a discussion of tactical de-escalation. e. Finding: Incidents involving discourtesy, use of force, and allegations of bias by PPD officers leave segments of the community feeling disenfranchised and distrustful of the police department. Recommendation: PPD’s academy should significantly increase the scope and duration of its training on core and advanced community oriented policing. f. Finding: The PPD lacks a field-training program to help transition academy graduates into full-time work as officers. Recommendation: The PPD should develop a field-training program. g. Finding: The PPD’s annual in-service training requirements tend to be limited to municipal police officer education and training commission standards. As a result, officers do not regularly receive in-service training on threat perception, decision making, and de-escalation. Recommendation: The PPD should add at least one additional day of reality-based training to its annual requirements. Recommendation: The PPD should include training in procedural justice during the next offering of mandatory in-service program courses. Recommendation: The PPD should include training in fair and impartial policing during the next offering of man- datory in-service program courses. MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM h. Finding: The PPD requires that officers qualify with their firearms just once per calendar year. Recommendation: The PPD should require that officers qualify with their weapons at least twice per year. i. Finding: PPD officers do not receive in-service defensive tactics training. Recommendation: The PPD should provide periodic defensive tactics training. j. Finding: OIS investigations generally lack consistency. Recommendation: The PPD should establish a single investigative unit devoted to criminal investigations of all deadly force incidents. Recommendation: PPD deadly force investigation team (“DFIT”) members should have the experience and training necessary to conduct thorough and objective OIS investigations. Recommendation: The PPD should develop a manual for conducting OIS investigations from a criminal standpoint. k. Finding: The PPD’s current practice for recording interviews of witnesses and discharging officers is through typed notes. Recommendation: The PPD should establish a policy that interviews of all critical witnesses and suspects in the course of an OIS investigation will be video and audio recorded. l. Finding: The IAD shooting team waits for the district attorney’s office (“DAO”) to decline charges against an officer before it interviews discharging officers and closes its investigation. As a result, most officers involved in shootings are not interviewed until three or more months after the incident occurred. Recommendation: The PPD should revise its policy and practice so that the criminal investigative unit assigned to each OIS is the primary point of contact with the DAO. The IAD should be extricated from this role. MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM Recommendation: The shooting team should conduct interviews with all discharging officer(s) as soon as practical, but not later than 72 hours after the incident. Recommendation: The IAD should set a goal to close administrative investigations within 30 days of the DAO’s declination. Recommendation: All interviews of discharging officers should be video recorded. m. Finding: The scope of shooting team investigations focuses solely on policy, while largely neglecting officer tactics and decision making. Recommendation: The shooting team should significantly enhance their investigative scope to include officer tactics and decision making. Recommendation: Shooting team investigative reports should highlight findings and any inconsistencies in policy, procedure, and training for the use of force review board to evaluate in their decision. Recommendation: The shooting team should develop an operations manual, delineating all of their investigative activities, reporting, and role in the review process. n. Finding: The UFRB and PBI are duplicative processes that at times have conflicting outcomes. This sends a mixed message to members of the department and causes unnecessary internal strife. Recommendation: The PPD should dismantle the two-board system for OISs and combine the functions of the UFRB and PBI into one integrated board. Recommendation: The newly established board should conduct a comprehensive review of each incident. Recommendation: Voting board members should include command staff, a sworn officer one rank higher than the involved officer, a peer officer, and at least one citizen representative. Recommendation: Shooting team investigators MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM should make a formal presentation of the facts to the board, highlighting any potential conflicts and key points for deliberation amongst the board. Recommendation: Board members should have the opportunity to call witnesses and ask questions related to the incident. Recommendation: After board proceedings are complete, voting members should deliberate the case and issue a finding by majority vote. o. Finding: The PPD has begun posting a significant amount of data and case information on its website. Still, more transparency is needed for properly keeping the community informed. Recommendation: The PPD should, at a minimum, publish directive 10, directive 22, and the yet-to-be-written directive of the UFRB on the OIS webpage. Recommendation: The PPD should update its website as case files are closed and available for public dissemination. Recommendation: The PPD website should be updated to include more detailed accounts of the OIS and DAO review of the incident. Recommendation: The PPD should publish a detailed report on use of force, including deadly force, on an annual basis. The report should be released to the public. p. Finding: The PPD does not fully accommodate the [Police Advisory Commission (“PAC”)] in its role to provide independent civilian oversight of police operations in Philadelphia. Recommendation: The PPD should work with the PAC and accommodate requests for important documentation, investigative files, and data related to all uses of force, including OISs. q. Finding: Distrust in the ability of the PPD to investigate itself pervades MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM segments of the community. Scandals of the past and present, high profile OIS incidents, and a lack of transparency in investigative outcomes help cement this distrust. Recommendation: The PPD should establish a policy stating that the police commissioner or designee will hold a press conference on an OIS incident within 72 hours of the incident. Recommendation: The PPD should enter into an agreement with the police advisory commission allowing a PAC observer access to all pertinent documentation related to an OIS investigation. Recommendation: The police commissioner should enter into a memorandum of understanding with an external, independent investigative agency, through which the investigation of all OISs involving an unarmed person will be submitted for review. r. Finding: The PPD lacks a field training program to help transition academy graduates into full-time work as officers. Recommendation: The PPD should develop a field training program. s. Finding: PPD officers do not receive in-service defensive tactics training. Recommendation: The PPD should provide periodic defensive tactics training. t. Finding: The PPD’s current practice for recording interviews of witnesses and discharging officers is thought typed notes. Recommendation: The PPD should establish a policy that interviews of all critical witnesses and suspects in the course of an OIS investigation will be video and audio recorded. u. Finding: The PPD lacks official training requirements for IAD shooting team members. Recommendation: Current and future members of the shooting team should be required to receive specialized training in OIS investigations. MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 104. All of the finding and recommendations in the DOJ Report are incorporated herein by reference. 105. As to racial bias in use of deadly force matters, the DOJ Report found as follows: a. The racial composition of suspects in OISs was 80% Black, 10% Hispanic, 9% White, and 1% Asian. b. White suspects were unarmed in 8 of 32 OISs (25%). Black suspects were unarmed in 45 of 285 OISs (15.8%). Hispanic suspects were unarmed 4 of 340 OISs (14.7%). Asian suspects were unarmed in 1 of 5 OISs (20%). c. Black suspects in OISs were the most likely to be the subject of a threat perception failure by police (i.e., believing the suspect was armed when he was not). 106. In summary, the DOJ Report stated as follows: “The department has much work to do in the months and years ahead. Our assessment uncovered policy, training, and operational deficiencies in addition to an undercurrent of significant strife between the community and department. It yielded 48 findings and 91 recommendations for the department to reform its deadly force practices.” Id. at 9. 107. The foregoing “policy, training, and operational deficiencies” create a risk of imminent harm to persons interacting with police in arrest, use of force or possible use of force situations. As a result of these deficiencies, lack of training, and lack of appropriate and modern police investigation techniques, persons being arrested or pulled over by police, or MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM coming into contact with police in use of force situations are in imminent danger of harm. 108. The foregoing deficiencies have contributed to wrongful deaths and injuries to suspects and other members of the public dealing with police in use of force or potential use of force situations, have contributed to a pattern of conduct in police shootings that fail to meet the minimum standards required under federal law and the Pennsylvania Constitution, and have denied those interacting with police in these situations of their basic rights to life, liberty, equal protection, substantive and procedural due process of law, and nondiscrimination, all in violation of the federal Civil Rights Act and the Pennsylvania Constitution. 2. Prior Reports, Litigation, Policy, Practice, and Custom 109. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 110. As noted in the Complaint in the related class action Bailey et al. v. City of Philadelphia, E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 10-5952, “the PPD has a history of conducting stops, frisks, detentions and searches without probable cause or reasonable suspicious and of intentionally subjecting persons to these measures, at times accompanied by the unreasonable use of force, based on their race or ethnicity.” Id. at paragraph 80. 111. Paragraphs 80 through 98 in the aforesaid Bailey action are incorporated by reference herein, and are re-alleged as though restated herein in full. 112. The foregoing action was resolved by way of Consent Decree, which upon information and belief, is still in effect. MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 113. By and through their actions as aforesaid, the Defendants have continued to violate the rights of Plaintiff and the class members to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, made without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. 114. By and through their actions aforesaid, the Defendants have denied Plaintiff and the class members equal protection of the laws when searches, seizures, stops, and frisks are conducted on the basis of race or ethnic origin, either intentionally, or by disparate impact or treatment. 115. In addition to the relief provided by the Court in the aforesaid Consent Decree, Plaintiff seeks court supervision of implementation of all recommendations of the DOJ in the DOJ Report. CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I WRONGFUL DEATH PLANTIFF v. DEFENDANTS 116. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 117. The foregoing actions of Defendants were the direct and proximate cause of the wrongful death of Brandon Tate-Brown. 118. The forgoing actions of Defendants constitute wrongful acts, neglect, unlawful violence, negligence, and/or recklessness and/or malicious and intentional misconduct. 119. By virtue of the Pennsylvania Wrongful Death Act, Plaintiff is entitled on behalf of the beneficiaries of the Estate to recover compensatory and punitive damages, and MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM damages for any hospital, nursing, medical, funeral, and estate administration expenses necessitated by reason of injuries causing death. COUNT II FALSE ARREST PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANTS 120. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 121. This claim is brought pursuant to Pennsylvania’s survival statute. 122. The Defendants pulled Brandon Tate-Brown over for no valid reason 123. The Defendants arrested Brandon Tate-Brown when they directed him to step out of his vehicle and restricted his movements and freedom; he was not free to leave. 124. The Defendants arrested Brandon Tate-Brown without probable cause, and stopped him without reasonable suspicion. 125. The Defendants were not authorized to arrest Brandon Tate-Brown. 126. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid, Brandon Tate-Brown was harmed, for which harm compensatory and punitive damages may be recovered. COUNT III ASSAULT PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANTS MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 127. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 128. By virtue of their wrongful conduct, as aforesaid, prior to his death, Defendants engaged in acts that were meant to cause a reasonable apprehension of imminent and harmful contact. 129. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid, Brandon Tate-Brown was harmed, for which harm compensatory and punitive damages may be recovered. 130. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. COUNT IV BATTERY PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANTS 131. By virtue of their wrongful conduct, as aforesaid, Defendants, prior to the death of Brandon Tate-Brown, made harmful and offensive contact with him, and caused him to suffer serious injuries including but not limited to blunt force trauma wounds, and pain and suffering. 132. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid, Brandon Tate-Brown was harmed, for which harm compensatory and punitive damages may be recovered. COUNT V PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION 42 Pa.C.S. 8309 ET SEQ. MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANTS 133. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 134. By virtue of their wrongful conduct as aforesaid, Defendants subjected Brandon Tate-Brown to injury to his person. 135. Upon information and belief, Brandon Tate-Brown’s race (African American), was a substantial factor in the decision to pull Brandon Tate-Brown over, and to assault and mistreat him, in that he allegedly matched the description of an African American male involved in a prior robbery on the date in question. In addition, the discriminatory policies and practices of the police department raise an inference of racial motivation. 136. Thereafter, the Defendants acted aggressively towards Brandon Tate-Brown, and subjected him to actions constituting the crimes of simple and aggravated assault, and recklessly endangering another person. 137. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants acted with malicious intention towards the race or color of Brandon Tate-Brown. 138. As a result, Defendants are liable for general and special damages, including damages for emotional distress, punitive damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs, and injunctive and other equitable relief. COUNT VI VIOLATION OF PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION Request for Declaratory and Equitable Relief Plaintiff, on behalf of the Estate and a class of all others similarly situated MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM v. all Defendants 139. The Pennsylvania constitution provides, inter alia, as follows: Section 1. All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness. … Section 8. The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation subscribed by the affiant. Section 9. [T]he accused… cannot … be deprived of his life, liberty or property unless by the judgment of his peers of the law of the land. Section 26. Neither the Commonwealth nor any political subdivision thereof shall deny to any person the enjoyment of any civil right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise of any civil right. 140. The forgoing deficiencies identified by the DOJ and prior reports and litigation findings constitute a policy, practice or custom of the Philadelphia Police Department that violates the Pennsylvania Constitution provisions previously cited. 141. As a result of the foregoing deficiencies, Plaintiff suffered harm, injury, and death. MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 142. As a result of the foregoing deficiencies, and as long as they still exist, other citizens of Philadelphia are at imminent risk of harm, injury and police misconduct in the use of force, should they come into contact with, be arrested by, or be subjected to use of force by police. 143. So long as these violations of the Pennsylvania Constitution persist, the Police Department is operating in a manner that violates the rights of persons of the Pennsylvania Constitution, as aforesaid. 144. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks on behalf of the Estate and a class of similarly situated individuals, the following declaratory and injunctive relief: a. A declaratory judgment that Defendant the City of Philadelphia, through the PPD, violated the rights of Brandon Tate-Brown under the Pennsylvania Constitution; b. A declaratory judgment that the class is in imminent harm based upon the aforesaid violations; c. A permanent injunction ordering the City of Philadelphia to complete all of the 91 recommendations of the DOJ Report, in order to come into compliance with standards required under the Pennsylvania Constitution, on pain of contempt of court for failure to comply; d. An order appointing a Master, Trustee, Receiver, or Monitor over the reform efforts of the Philadelphia Police Department in implementing the said reforms, who will report to the court as to progress or lack thereof, and who will be empowered to take actions needed to ensure such reforms are completed; MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM e. An order that this court’s jurisdiction over the Police Department’s reform efforts shall continue until complete; and, f. An award of counsel fees and costs of suit, and any other form of relief that is appropriate in the interests of justice. COUNT VII FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION 42 USC SEC. 1983 VIOLATIONS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION Plaintiff, on behalf of the Estate and a class of all others similarly situated v. all Defendants 145. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 146. The foregoing actions of Defendants constitute a policy, practice, or custom in violation of the rights of Plaintiff and the Class under the Fourth Amendment to the United States constitution in the use of force and deadly force. 147. As a direct and proximate cause of said policies and customs, and lack of training and supervision, Plaintiff was injured and killed. 148. The force used against decedent was excessive, unreasonable and unlawful. 149. The arrest of decedent was unreasonable and unlawful. 150. The violations of the rights of Plaintiff and the class were undertaken knowingly, or with deliberate indifference to the rights of Plaintiff and the class. 151. The Fourth Amendment is applicable to Defendants through the Fourteenth Amendment and may be enforced herein through 42 USC 1983. MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM COUNT VII FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION 42 USC SEC. 1983 VIOLATIONS OF EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE Plaintiff, on behalf of the Estate and a class of all others similarly situated v. all Defendants 152. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 153. The foregoing actions of Defendants constitute a policy, practice, or custom racial discrimination in violation of the rights of Plaintiff and the Class under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 154. As a direct and proximate cause of said policies and customs, and lack of training and supervision, Plaintiff was injured and killed. 155. The violations of the rights of Plaintiff and the class were undertaken knowingly, or with deliberate indifference to the rights of Plaintiff and the class. Defendants have actively targeted African Americans and minorities for unlawful treatment. 156. The Fourteenth Amendment may be enforced herein through 42 USC 1983. COUNT VII FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION 42 USC SEC. 2000(d) et seq. DISCRIMINATION IN FEDERALLY FUNDED PROGRAM Plaintiff, on behalf of the Estate and a class of all others similarly situated v. all Defendants 157. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM 158. The foregoing actions of Defendants constitute a policy, practice, or custom racial discrimination in violation of the rights of Plaintiff and the Class under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 159. The enforcement activities of the police department subject to the instant Complaint are funded, in part, with federal funds. 160. As a direct and proximate cause of said policies and customs, and lack of training and supervision, Plaintiff was injured and killed. 161. The violations of the rights of Plaintiff and the class were undertaken knowingly, or with deliberate indifference to the rights of Plaintiff and the class. Defendants have actively targeted African Americans and minorities for unlawful treatment. 162. The actions of Defendants violate 42 USC Sec. 2000(d), et seq., which proscribes discrimination based upon race or ethnicity in federally funded programs. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the class, and against Defendants, and to order the following relief: a. A declaratory judgment that Defendant the City of Philadelphia, through the PPD, violated the federal civil rights of Brandon Tate-Brown and his rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution; b. A declaratory judgment that the class is in imminent harm based upon the aforesaid violations; c. A permanent injunction ordering the City of Philadelphia to complete all of the 91 recommendations of the DOJ Report, in order to come into compliance with standards required under the US Constitution, the MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM Pennsylvania Constitution, and federal civil rights statutes, on pain of contempt of court for failure to comply; d. An order appointing a Master, Trustee, Receiver, or Monitor over the reform efforts of the Philadelphia Police Department in implementing the said reforms, who will report to the court as to progress or lack thereof, and who will be empowered to take actions needed to ensure such reforms are completed; e. An order that this court’s jurisdiction over the Police Department’s reform efforts shall continue until complete; and, f. An award of counsel fees and costs of suit, and any other form of relief that is appropriate in the interests of justice. g. With respect to Plaintiff’s individual claims, an award of compensatory, punitive, special, wrongful death, and general damages, in an amount to be determined at trial; h. With respect to Plaintiff’s individual claims, an award of counsel fees and costs of suit; and i. Such additional relief as may be appropriate or required in the interests of justice. MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM Respectfully submitted, MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, P.C. /s/ Brian R. Mildenberg By: BRIAN R. MILDENBERG, ESQUIRE Identification No.: 84861 1735 Market Street, Suite 3750 Philadelphia, PA 19103 brian@mildenberglaw.com (215) 545-4870 Counsel for Plaintiff Dated: 9/1/2015 MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, PC 1735 MARKET STREET, SUITE 3750 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 545-4870 WWW.MILDENBERGLAW.COM