IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, Civil Division TIMOTHY JACOB SCHILLING, RILEY and Plaintiffs, vs. SOUTHSIDE SIN CITY, THE GARAGE DOOR MARK POLICE OFFICER MICHAEL POLICE CHIEF JAMES K. and UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH OF THE COMMONWEALTH SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Defendants. No.: PLAINTIFF COMPLAINT Code: Filed on Behalf of: Plaintiffs, Timothy Riley and Jacob Schilling Counsel of Record for this Party: ROBERT N. PEIRCE, ESQUIRE Pa ID. No.: 76130 MAX PETRUNYA, ESQUIRE Pa ID. No.: 309122 ROBERT PEIRCE ASSOCIATES, P.C. Firm ID. No.: 839 2500 Gulf Tower 707 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 281-7229 STEVEN M. BARTH, ESQUIRE BARTH ASSOCIATES Pa ID. No.: 89395 PO. Box 23627 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 779-3806 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, Civil Division TIMOTHY RILEY and JACOB SCHILLING, Plaintiffs, vs. No.: SOUTHSIDE SIN CITY, THE GARAGE DOOR MARK POLICE OFFICER MICHAEL POLICE CHIEF JAMES K. and UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH OF THE COMMONWEALTH SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Defendants. NOTICE TO DEFEND 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 this Complaint and Notice were served, by entering a written appearance personally or by an attorney and ?ling in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, THEN YOU SHOULD GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP: THE ALLEGHENY COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 11th FLOOR KOPPERS BUILDING 436 SEVENTH AVENUE PITTSBURGH, PA 15219 TELEPHONE 412-261-5555 YOU MUST RESPOND TO THIS COMPLAINT WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OR A JUDGMENT FOR THE AMOUNT CLAIMED MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BEFORE THE HEARING. IF YOU DO NOT APPEAR FOR THE HEARING, THE CASE MAY BE HEARD IMMEDIATELY BEFORE A JUDGE. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO A TRIAL DE NOVO ON APPEAL FROM A DECISION ENTERED BY A JUDGE. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, Civil Division TIMOTHY RILEY and JACOB SCHILLING, Plaintiffs, vs. No.: SOUTHSIDE SIN CITY, THE GARAGE DOOR MARK POLICE OFFICER MICHAEL POLICE CHIEF JAMES K. and UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH OF THE COMMONWEALTH SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Defendants. COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, Timothy Riley and Jacob Schilling, by and through their undersigned counsel, Robert N. Peirce Esquire; Max Petrunya, Esquire; and Steven M. Barth, Esquire, and ?le the following Complaint in Civil Action: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Timothy Riley is an adult individual residing at 207 Marie Avenue, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, 15202. 2. Plaintiff Jacob Schilling is an adult individual who resides at 339 Plumer Avenue, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, 15202. 3. Defendant the Garage Door Saloon is a business organized under the law of this Commonwealth, and is the owner, management agent of and/or trades and does business as the Garage Door Saloon located at 219 Atwood Street, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, 1521 3. 4. The Garage Door Saloon also has its liquor license registered to this address. 5. Defendant Southside Sin City, Inc., is a corporation organized under the law of this Commonwealth, and is the owner, management agent of and/or traded and does business as the Garage Door Saloon located at 219 Atwood Street, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, 1 5213. 6. Southside Sin City, Inc. is also the owner of the liquor license registered to this address. 7. Defendant Mark Welshonse (hereinafter referred to as ?Defendant Welshonse?), is an adult individual who is the agent, servant, employee, manager and/or of?cer for Defendant the Garage Door Saloon and/or Defendant Southside Sin City, Inc., and is the owner, management agent of and/or trades and does business as The Garage Door Saloon located at 219 Atwood Street, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, 15213, and is also the owner of the liquor license registered to this address. 8. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant the Garage Door Saloon and Defendant Southside Sin City, Inc., will be collectively referred throughout the Complaint as ?Garage Door Saloon Defendants.? 9. Defendant University of Pittsburgh Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education (hereinafter referred to as ?Defendant Pitt Police?), is a Commonwealth of university organized pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of which runs a police department and police force which is vested with the responsibility of enforcing the laws within the campus of the University of Pittsburgh and is also responsible for the actions of the members of its police department which is located at Jerome Cochran Public Safety Building, 3412 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, 15260. 10. Defendant Pitt Police is vested with management and administration of law enforcement on the University of Pittsburgh and is also vested with the supervision of police of?cers so employed. 11. Defendant Police Of?cer Michael Rosfeld (hereinafter referred to as ?Defendant Rosfeld?), is an adult individual who at all times relevant hereto was employed by all Defendant Pitt Police. 12. Defendant Police Chief James K. Loftus (hereinafter referred to as ?Defendant Police Chief?), is an adult individual who at all times relevant hereto was employed by all Defendant Pitt Police and is the highest of?cer for the Defendant Pitt Police. Police Chief Loftus is vested with the responsibility of enforcing the laws within the University of Pittsburgh and is also responsible for the actions of the members of its police department. This Defendant is vested with the management and administration of law enforcement in the University of Pittsburgh, by and through his agency, the Defendant Pitt Police, in which he is further vested with the supervision of police of?cers so employed. 13. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Police Chief acted through his agents, servants, and/or employees who were acting within the course and scope of their employment for this entity. 14. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Rosfeld and Police Chief were employed as police of?cers and/or as a chief by Defendant Pitt Police. 15. This suit is against Defendants Rosfeld and Police Chief, individually and in their capacity as Police Of?cer/Police Chief for Defendant Pitt Police. 16. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Pitt Police acted through their agents, servants, and/or employees, who were then and there acting within the course and scope of their employment for these entities. JURISDICTION 17. At all times relevant hereto, this Honorable Court has concurrent jurisdiction over actions that arise under 42 U.S.C. ?1983 and state law. Prior Facts and History pertaining to the Pitt Police 18. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Pitt Police understood and knew that all police of?cers employed by the Department must only ?le Police Criminal Complaints with ?true and correct? facts to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief of said police of?cer. 19. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Pitt Police understood and knew that police of?cers employed by the Department who ?le false and incorrect facts in Police Criminal Complaints undercut the rule of law required to run an orderly and open society. 20. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Pitt Police understood and knew that ?ling Police Criminal Complaints that do not comply with the standard for ?true and correct facts to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief? known to that particular Police Of?cer are knowingly, recklessly, and/or negligently subjecting members of the community to unwarranted criminal charges which can affect the freedom, good name, health, and ?nances of that member of the community in a negative and/or harm?il manner. 21. At all times relevant hereto, all of the Defendants understood and knew that ?ling false and inaccurate Police Criminal Complaints for malicious, improper, and/or abusive reasons against members of society are unlawful and a perversion of the legal system and society as a whole. 22. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Rosfeld was employed by Defendant Pitt Police on December 9, 2017 as a police of?cer. 23. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Police Chief and Defendant Pitt Police were responsible for the training and education of Defendant Rosfeld and other police of?cers employed by the Defendant Pitt Police. 24. At all times relevant hereto, this training included topics such as when to ?le criminal charges, basis for ?ling criminal charges, how to investigate criminal cases, how to arrest individuals in a safe manner, and/or how to separate parties to an alleged criminal activity while at a scene in order to prevent violence between the parties. 25. At all times relevant hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendant Police Chief and/or Defendant Pitt Police knew, or should have known, of complaints regarding the conduct of Defendant Rosfeld in regard to his interactions with the public and/or his performance as a Pitt Police Of?cer. 26. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Rosfeld did not receive the appropriate training and/or education from the Defendant Police Chief and/or Defendant Pitt Police in how to investigate and/or ?le criminal complaints as well as interactions with members of the public when called to the scene. 27. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Police Chief and/or Defendant Pitt Police either knew, or should have known, of Defendant Rosfeld?s prior work performance at his prior jobs as a police of?cer and/or failed to investigate and con?rm the quali?cations of Defendant Rosfeld as a police of?cer when they hired him and allowed him to utilized police powers. 28. At all times relevant hereto, prior to December 9, 2017, the Defendant Police Chief and/or Defendant Pitt Police knew, or should have known, the following in regard to Defendant Rosfeld and his conduct as an of?cer, along with the Pitt Police in general: a. Defendant Rosfeld was not fully quali?ed to perform his duties as a Pitt Police Of?cer; b. Defendant Rosfeld was not trained appropriately in his required duties as a Pitt Police Of?cer; c. Defendant Rosfeld?s prior work history and conduct raised red ?ags and/or concerns pertaining to his ability to work safely with the public in performing his job duties as a Pitt Police Of?cer; (1. The relationship between Pitt Police Of?cers and owners of certain bars in the Oakland area created an environment where the Constitutional rights of members of the general public were considered secondary to persons/businesses who either had a ?nancial and/or personal relationship with the Pitt Police and/or all Defendants; 6. Criminal complaints were ?led by Pitt Police Of?cers which did not comply with the evidence available to them and resulted in false accusations, arrests, and/or charges being brought against members of the general public; f. The Defendant Pitt Police and/or Defendant Police Chief knew, or should have known, that the Pitt Police lacked the training, policies and procedures, and/or force continuum regarding when to utilize force in an arrest situation; and, g. The Defendant Pitt Police and/or Defendant Police Chief did not institute and/or condone the use of de-escalating policies and procedures by their of?cers when interacting with members of the general public. The Incident of December 9, 201 7 29. On or about December 9, 2017, Plaintiffs Tim Riley and Jacob Schilling went out in Oakland for the evening to celebrate Mr. Riley?s 24?h birthday on December 9, 2017. 30. At approximately 10:00 Mr. Riley and Mr. Schilling entered the Garage Door Saloon to celebrate Mr. Riley?s birthday. 31. At all times relevant hereto, the Garage Door Saloon Defendants and Defendant Welshonse utilized cameras on their premises for security and recording purposes. 32. .The Garage Door Saloon?s security cameras were operating on December 9, 2017 and recorded footage of what occurred in the bar that evening. 33. After having one and/or two alcoholic drinks at the Garage Door Saloon, Mr. Schilling and a friend were unreasonably forcefully extricated from the bar without warning by bar owner, Defendant Mark Welshonse. 34. It is believed that Defendant Welshonse acted with ill motive and/or recklessly and/or negligently in his conduct when he forcefully removes Plaintiff and his friend from the Garage Door Saloon that evening. 35. Mr. Schilling and his friend did not engage in any conduct that was dangerous to any of the general public, nor did they do anything that would warrant their forceful removal from the bar. 36. Mr. Schilling and his friend would have le? the premises without any need for violence and/or force if the Garage Door Saloon Defendants and Defendant Welshonse would have asked them to leave. 37. At all times relevant hereto, the Garage Door Saloon Defendants, by and through their agents, servants, and/or employees, as well as Defendant Welshonse, who resorted to a violent and forceful removal of Plaintiff without attempting to ask him to leave the bar. 38. In the process of removing Mr. Schilling and friend from the bar, Mr. Riley approached Mr. Welshonse from behind and tapped him on the shoulder to inquire as to why his friends were being forcefully removed from the bar. 39. At all times relevant hereto, Mr. Riley did not act aggressively and/or antagonistic to Defendant Welshonse when he attempted to get his attention to ?nd out why Defendant Welshonse was forcefully removing his friend from the bar. 40. After tapping Defendant Welshonse on the shoulder, suddenly and without warning, Defendant Welshonse proceeded to turn around and slam Mr. Riley up against the wall. 41. After slamming Mr. Riley against the wall, Defendant Welshonse immediately used his knee to violently strike Mr. Riley in his groin area. 42. Mr. Riley was then thrown out of the bar by Defendant Welshonse. 43. Immediately after being thrown out of the bar by Defendant Welshonse, Mr. Riley proceeded down Atwood Street to a police cruiser he spotted. 44. In that police cruiser was Of?cer McGinnis. Mr. Riley asked Of?cer McGinnis to come down to the Garage Door Saloon to help him with the situation that had just ensued. 45. On his way down to the Garage Door Saloon, Mr. Riley informed Of?cer McGinnis of the events that had transpired in the Garage Door Saloon and indicated that he needed help with the owner of the Garage Door Saloon. 46. When Of?cer McGinnis and Mr. Riley arrived at scene, Defendant Welshonse was verbally assaulting, intimidating, and/or arguing with Mr. Schilling outside of the bar. 47. Defendant Rosfeld also responded to the scene, at which point Defendant Welshonse instructed Defendant Rosfeld to arrest Mr. Riley and Mr. Schilling. 48. It is believed that Defendant Rosfeld and the Garage Door Saloon Defendants and/or Defendant Welshonse have a prior ?nancial, personal, and/or business relationship and/or knew each other before this date. 49. Defendant Rosfeld immediately resorted to physical contact and/or violence and did not attempt to use the force continuum in his interaction with the Plaintiffs when he came to the scene. 50. As a result of either his lack of training and/or his disregard for such policy, Defendant Rosfeld laid his hands-on Mr. Riley and Mr. Schilling, threw them up against the wall, and handcuffed them. 51. After being handcuffed by Defendant Rosfeld, Mr. Schilling and Mr. Riley pleaded with Defendant Rosfeld to review the security footage from inside the bar. 52. Upon information and believe, it is alleged that this footage would have shown that the Plaintiffs did not do anything which would justify a forceful removal from the bar, and further would show the two were attacked by Defendant Welshonse. 53. Defendant Rosfeld proceeded into the bar with Mr. Welshonse who he immediately shook hands with in a friendly manner. 54. At all times relevant hereto, the cameras located on the premises of the Garage Door Saloon Defendants could have been viewed that night and/or copies of the camera footage could have been given to Defendant Rosfeld. 55. At all times relevant hereto, neither of the actions stated above occurred and an opportunity was missed by the Defendants to stop the situation from escalating. 56. After Defendant Rosfeld and Defendant Welshonse conferred in the bar, Defendant Rosfeld retuned outside and told Mr. Riley and Mr. Schilling that they were going to jail for their conduct. 57. Mr. Riley and Mr. Schilling were transported to a detention center where, again, the two individuals pleaded with Defendant Rosfeld to review the security footage to show that the charges that were going to be brought against them were invalid. 58. During this transfer, Mr. Riley asked Defendant Rosfeld for medical attention, which Defendant Rosfeld denied. 59. Throughout the entire time of their transfer to the detention center, and while at the detention center, Defendant Rosfeld insulted and intimidated Mr. Riley and Mr. Schilling. 60. Furthermore, Defendant Rosfeld told Mr. Riley and Mr. Schilling that he reviewed the security footage from the Garage Door Saloon and that the two were going to jail for their conduct. 61. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Rosfeld know that his representations to the Plaintiffs of what was on the security footage was false and is evidence that he knew, or should have known, that further holding Mr. Riley and Mr. Schilling under arrest was a violation of their Constitutional rights. 62. Defendant Rosfeld even put in the Criminal Complaint that was ?led against Mr. Riley and Mr. Schilling that he had reviewed the security footage which con?rmed all of the information provided by Defendant Welshonse about the events that transpired that evening. 63. This claim by Defendant Rosfeld to both Mr. Riley and Mr. Schilling, and which is contained in the Criminal Complaint that was ?led against Mr. Riley and Mr. Schilling, is false. 64. In fact, Defendant Rosfeld had not reviewed any of the security footage from the Garage Door Saloon that evening and had fabricated all of the information in the police report. 65. Following their removal from the detention center, Mr. Riley and Mr. Schilling were sent down to the Allegheny County Jail on the evening of December 9, 2017. 66. The individuals remained in the Allegheny County Jail overnight until they were released late morning on December 10, 2017. 67. Defendant Rosfeld ?led a Criminal Complaint against the Plaintiffs for two charges of simple assault, unlawful trespassing, public drunkenness, and disorderly conduct with physical altercation which are attached as Exhibits 1 and 2 to this Complaint. 68. At the time of the ?ling of the charges, Defendant Rosfeld knew the allegations in the Criminal Complaint were false and not supported by the evidence. 69. Even though Defendant Rosfeld knew that these charges were false, he signed the Criminal Complaints which contained the following requirement for truthfulness: a. I verify that the facts set forth in this complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge or information and belief. This veri?cation is made subject to the penalties of Section 4904 of the Crimes Code (18 4904) relating to unswom falsi?cation to authorities. 70. At all timesrelevant hereto, the Garage Door Saloon Defendants and Defendant Welshonse knew these charges were false and chose not to inform the proper authorities in order to stop this criminal proceeding. 71. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Rosfeld did not conduct a constitutionally allowed investigation in order to determine the accuracy of these charges. 72. Instead, Defendant Rosfeld, as an employee, agent, and/or servant of Defendant Pitt Police and/or Defendant Police Chief, conducted an unconstitutional action against the Plaintiffs for purposes outside the law. 73. On December 21, 2017, at the preliminary hearing for the ?ve charges brought against Mr. Riley and Mr. Schilling, all charges were withdrawn by Assistant District Attorney John Michael Pittman, Esquire, based on the fact that the footage contained on the security cameras from the Garage Door did not support any of the allegations contained in the Criminal Complaint, and in fact contradicted those allegations. 74. At all times relevant hereto, Assistant District Attorney Pittman reviewed the security footage from the Garage Door Saloon Defendants and Defendant Welshonse in order to make this determination. 75. At all times relevant hereto, this security footage was in the possession of all Defendants from December 9, 2017 on, and nothing was done by any of the Defendants to stop these criminal proceedings. 76. These criminal proceedings were only halted because the District Attomey?s of?ce saw the ?agrant falsity of the claims brought against Plaintiff. 77. Furthermore, upon information and belief, the security footage from the Garage Door on December 9, 2017 does not show any unlawful activity by Mr. Riley and Mr. Schilling, and any such unlawful activity purported to have occurred in the Criminal Complaint authored by Defendant Rosfeld is completely fabricated. 78. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Rosfeld was acting under the authority of Pitt Police and in direct violation of the policies and procedures of the Pitt Police Department related to the investigation of alleged criminal activity and the arrest of individuals involved in the alleged activity. 79. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Rosfeld failed to conduct any investigation of the events as described by the owner of the Garage Door Saloon, and furthermore, failed to review exculpatory evidence which would have shown that the individuals that were arrested should not have been arrested and unlawfully detained. 80. As a result of Of?cer Rosfeld?s willful police misconduct, Mr. Riley and Mr. Schilling were deprived of their civil rights and were unjustly detained and incarcerated. 81. Following the falsi?cation of this Criminal Complaint, Of?ce Rosfeld was suspended from duty at the University of Pittsburgh Police Department. 82. Upon information and belief, the actions of Of?cer Rosfeld on December 9, 2017 are not isolated to this event. Of?cer Rosfeld has engaged in prior misconduct before. 83. Of?cer Rosfeld was terminated from the University of Pittsburgh Police Department in January 2018 as a result of his actions as an of?cer. 84. As a result of the actions of all Defendants, Plaintiffs have sustained the following damages: a. They have suffered pain, inconvenience, embarrassment, humiliation, and mental anguish; b. They have, and will be required, to pay large sums of money for legal services; 0. Their general health, strength, and vitality has been impaired; d. They have been, and will be, deprived of economic opportunities; and, e. They have been, and will in the future, be unable to enjoy various pleasures of life that they previously enjoyed. COUNT I BATTERY Plaintiffs v. Defendants Southside Sin City, Inc., the Garage Door Saloon, and Mark Welshonse 85. All of the above paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 86. In the course of Defendant Welshonse?s intentional and wrongful actions in removing the Plaintiffs from the bar, Mr. Welshonse physically contacted Plaintiffs, which was both harmful and highly offensive to Plaintiffs. 87. The actions of Mr. Welshonse constituted battery under the laws of the Commonwealth of as follows: a. In wantonly, knowingly, and recklessly causing harmful and/or offensive contact with Plaintiffs; b. In wantonly, knowingly, and recklessly causing harmful bodily injury to the Plaintiffs; c. In wantonly, knowingly, and recklessly using excessive force to remove the Plaintiffs from the bar; and, d. In wantonly, knowingly, and recklessly causing physical harm to Plaintiffs without provocation or cause. 88. Defendant Welshonse committed the aforementioned act with the intent of causing harmful and/or offensive contact against Plaintiffs. 89. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant Welshonse, Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages previously set forth. 90. At all times relevant hereto, the actions of Defendant Welshonse were outrageous, willful, wanton, and gross acts of reckless indifference. Therefore, Defendant Welshonse should be subject to the imposition of punitive damages, which Plaintiffs claim against them. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Timothy Riley and Jacob Schilling, respectfully request judgement to be entered in their favor and against Defendants, jointly and separately, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional arbitration limits, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys? fees, punitive damages, and any other relief this court deems appropriate. COUNT II BATTERY Plaintiffs v. Defendant Rosfeld, Defendant Pitt Police, and Defendant Police Chief 91. Each of the above paragraphs is incorporated herein by reference. 92. At all times relevant, Defendants University of Pittsburgh Police Department and Police Chief were responsible for the actions of the members of its police department. 93. At all times relevant, Defendants acted through its agents, servants and/or employees, who were acting within the scope of their employment for these Defendants. 94. In the course of Defendants? intentional and wrongful actions during the arrest of Plaintiffs, they physically contacted Plaintiffs person, which was both harmful and highly offensive to Plaintiffs. 95. The actions of these Defendants, through their agents, servants and/or employees constitute a battery under the laws of the Commonwealth of as follows: a. In wantonly, knowingly and recklessly causing harmful and/or offensive contact against Plaintiffs; b. In wantonly, knowingly and recklessly causing harmful bodily injury to the Plaintiffs; c. In wantonly, knowingly and recklessly using excessive force to effectuate Plaintiffs? arrest, which caused Plaintiffs to suffer physical harm as previously set forth; d. In wantonly, knowingly and recklessly causing physical harm to Plaintiffs without provocation or cause. 96. Defendants, acting through their agents, servants and/or employees, committed the aforementioned acts with the intent of causing harmful and/or offensive contact against Plaintiffs. 97. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, acting through their agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiffs suffered the injuries and damages previously set forth. - 98. At all times relevant, these Defendants had a policy and/or custom to intimidate and/or violently subdue citizens of the general public without justi?cation. Therefore, these Defendants can be held liable for the conduct of individual police of?cer Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Timothy Riley and Jacob Schilling, respectfully requests judgment be entered in their favor and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional arbitration limits, plus interest, costs, attorneys? fees, punitive damages, and such other relief as this Court may deem appropriate. COUNT 42 U.S.C. 1983 Plaintiffs v. Defendant Rosfeld, Defendant Pitt Police, and Defendant Police Chief 99. Each of the above paragraphs is incorporated herein by reference. 100. At all times relevant, each Defendant was a state actor and/or was acting under color of state law for 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 purposes. 101. At all times relevant, it was the practice, policy and/or custom of Defendants and/or their of?cers, including the individual police of?cer Defendant to use excessive force in effectuating arrests without provocation or cause, thereby depriving individuals of their rights. 102. Defendants? actions and omissions, as more fully described above, constitute violations of 'Plaintiffs? rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Said rights include the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to liberty of the individual, and the right to be free from abusive, arbitrary and capricious governmental action. These rights are enforceable via 42 U.S.C. 1983. 103. As a direct and proximate result of these violations of Plaintiffs? Constitutional rights, Plaintiffs Timothy Riley and Jacob Schilling, suffered the injuries and damages previously set forth. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Timothy Riley and Jacob Schilling, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all Defendants, jointly and severally, and award to them compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional arbitration limits, plus interest, costs, attorneys? fees, punitive damages, and such other relief as this Court may deem appropriate. COUNT IV - OF TOLERANCE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE ENFORCEABLE VIA 42 U.S.C. 1983 Plaintiffs v. Defendant Rosfeld, Defendant Pitt Police, and Defendant Police Chief 104. Each of the above paragraphs is incorporated herein by reference. 105. The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a result of the excessive forced used by the individual police of?cer Defendant and violations of their Constitutional Rights were the direct and proximate result of all of the University of Pittsburgh Police Department and Police Defendants? patterns, practices and customs of subjecting citizens to unreasonable and excessive force without provocation or cause. 106. This practice, custom and/or policy was established and maintained by all University of Pittsburgh Police Department and Police Defendants through their knowing acquiescence and tolerance of such activities and behavior by their police of?cers, and failure to act to prevent the same. 107. This practice, custom and/or policy existed on and prior to the attacks upon Plaintiffs. 108. The practices, customs and/or policies of all University of Pittsburgh Police Department and Police Defendants consisted of the following: a. Deliberate indifference to the Constitutional Rights of the citizens by the University of Pittsburgh Police Department; b. Deliberate indifference to the need to protect citizens by the University of Pittsburgh Police Department from attacks by police of?cers; c. Deliberate indifference to their police of?cers? use of excessive force in arresting individuals; d. Deliberate indifference to the obvious need for training and supervision of their police of?cers, including Defendants; e. Failing to properly train their police of?cers, including Defendants that excessive force would not be applied when arresting individuals; f. Failing to properly supervise their police of?cers, including Defendants, so that excessive force would not be applied when arresting individuals; g. In failing to properly and effectively train, educate and instruct their police of?cers as to the procedures for effectuating arrests so as to avoid the use of excessive force against individuals; h. In failing to refrain from conduct likely to cause physical injury to Plaintiffs; i. In failing to refrain from conduct that violated the Constitutional Rights of Plaintiffs; j. In allowing these of?cers to arrest individuals with the use of excessive force; k. In promoting an atmosphere where citizen?s rights are ignored in order to cover up police misconduct; 1. In allowing an atmosphere to arise in the police department where undocumented and/or unspeci?ed policies and procedures are adhered to even though they compromise the rights of citizens; m. In failing to adequately police the police and to promote an atmosphere of compliance; n. In failing to provide training which promotes de- escalation in arrest situations; 0. In failing to provide policies and procedures which promote de-escalation in arrest situations; p. In utilizing a use of force policy which promotes excessive force; q. In utilizing a use of force policy which is unconstitutional. 109. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? practices, customs and/or policies, Plaintiffs suffered the injuries and damages previously set forth and was deprived of their Constitutional Rights. These rights are enforceable via 42 U.S.C. 1983. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Timothy Riley and Jacob Schilling, respectfully requests judgment be entered in their favor and against all Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional arbitration limits, plus interest, costs, attorneys? fees, punitive damages and such other relief as this court may deem appropriate. COUNT 42LU.S.C. 8 1985 Plaintiffs v. Defendant Rosfeld, Defendant Pitt Police, and Defendant Police Chief 110. Each of the above paragraphs is incorporated herein by reference. 111. At all times relevant, each defendant was a state actor and/or was acting under color of state law for 42 U.S.C. 1985 purposes. 112. At all times relevant, it was the practice, policy and/or custom of Defendants and/or their of?cers, including the individual police of?cers to use excessive force in effectuating arrests without provocation or cause, thereby depriving individuals of their rights and conspiracy thereof. 113. At all times relevant hereto, it is the practice, policy and/or custom of Defendants and/or their of?cers to treat the public different than they treat of?cers who are being investigated for criminal and/or violations of the law. 114. Defendants? actions and omissions, as more fully described above, constitute a conspiracy to violate the Plaintiff?s rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Said rights include the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to liberty of the individual, and the right to be free from abusive, arbitrary and capricious governmental action. These rights are enforceable via 42 U.S.C. 1985. 115. As a direct and proximate result of these violations of Plaintiffs? Constitutional rights, Plaintiffs Tim Riley and Jacob Schilling, suffered the injuries and damages previously set forth. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Timothy Riley and Jacob Schilling, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all Defendants, jointly and severally, and award to them compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional arbitration limits, plus interest, costs, attorneys? fees, punitive damages, and such other relief as this Court may deem appropriate. COUNT VI MALICIOUS PROSECUTION Plaintiffs v. Defendant Rosfeld, Defendant Pitt Police, and Defendant Police Chief 116. Each of the above paragraphs is incorporated herein by reference. 117. The actions of Defendants, as aforesaid, constitute malicious prosecution of criminal proceedings under the laws of the Commonwealth of as follows: a. Defendants took part in the procurement, initiation, or continuation of criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs when they initiated a Criminal Complaint against them; b. Defendants acted in a grossly negligent manner and without probable cause in initiating this criminal case for a purpose other than that allowed under law; 0. Defendants? actions in ?ling the criminal suit against Plaintiffs were done with a malicious motive in that Defendants attempted to intimidate Plaintiffs into giving up their rights and to avoid repercussions from utilizing excessive force during an arrest; (1. The criminal proceedings terminated in Plaintiffs? favor; e. In ?ling a criminal complaint for misdemeanors in order to cover up excessive force used upon the Plaintiffs; f. In failing to notify senior of?cers in the University of Pittsburgh Police Department that Plaintiffs Tim Riley and Jacob Schilling did not commit the crimes they were accused of in the af?davit of probable cause; g. In failing to investigate the video footage before ?ling the criminal complaint; h. In failing to drop the charges after the video was reviewed; i. In concealing, hiding, and misrepresenting the accurate and correct information from the appropriate authorities so that these criminal charges could go forward; j. In failing to interview all witnesses. k. In ?ling a false criminal complaint and allowing said policy to exist. 118. As a direct and proximate result of these violations of Plaintiffs? Constitutional Rights, Plaintiffs Timothy Riley and Jacob Schilling, suffered the injuries and damages previously set forth. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Timothy Riley and Jacob Schilling, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all Defendants, jointly and severally, and award to them compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional arbitration limits, plus interest, costs, attorney fees and such other relief as this Court may deem appropriate. COUNT VII MALICIOUS PROSECUTION Plaintiffs v. Defendants Southside Sin City, Inc., the Garage Door Saloon, and Mark Welshonse 119. Each of the above paragraphs is incorporated herein by reference. 120. The actions of Defendants, as aforesaid, constitute malicious prosecution of criminal proceedings under the laws of the Commonwealth of as follows: a. Defendants took part in the procurement, initiation, or continuation of criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs when they initiated a Criminal Complaint against them; b. Defendants acted in a grossly negligent manner and without probable cause in initiating this criminal case for a purpose other than that allowed under law; 0. Defendants? actions in ?ling the criminal suit against Plaintiffs were done with a malicious motive in that Defendants attempted to intimidate Plaintiffs into giving up their rights and to avoid repercussions from utilizing excessive force during an arrest; d. The criminal proceedings terminated in Plaintiffs? favor; e. In ?ling a criminal complaint for misdemeanors in order to cover up for unnecessary force used upon the Plaintiffs; f. In failing to notify the Pittsburgh Police Of?cers that Plaintiffs Tim Riley and Jacob Schilling did not commit the crimes they were accused of by the owner of the Defendant bar; g. In failing to drop the charges after the video was reviewed; h. In concealing, hiding, and misrepresenting the accurate and correct information from the appropriate authorities so that these criminal charges could go forward; 121. As a direct and proximate result of these violations of Plaintiffs? Constitutional Rights, Plaintiffs Timothy Riley and Jacob Schilling, suffered the injuries and damages previously set forth. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Timothy Riley and Jacob Schilling, respect?illy requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all Defendants, jointly and severally, and award to them compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional arbitration limits, plus interest, costs, attorney fees and such other relief as this Court may deem appropriate. COUNT ABUSE OF PROCESS Plaintiffs v. Defendant Rosfeld, Defendant Pitt Police, and Defendant Police Chief 122. Each of the above paragraphs is incorporated herein by reference. 123. The actions of Defendants, as aforesaid, constitute an abuse of process under the laws of the Commonwealth of as follows: a. Defendants used a legal process against Plaintiffs when they initiated criminal charges against them; b. Defendants? primary purpose for arresting Plaintiffs and ?ling the criminal charges was for the sole purpose to coerce Plaintiffs into giving up their rights and to avoid repercussions for use of excessive force in an arrest as well as embarrassment in knowingly using excessive force upon a member of the public; c. Defendants? actions in arresting Plaintiffs and ?ling the criminal charges against Plaintiffs caused signi?cant harm; d. In concealing, hiding, and misrepresenting the accurate and correct information from the appropriate authorities so that these criminal charges could go forward. 124. As a direct and proximate result of these violations of Plaintiffs? Constitutional Rights, Plaintiffs Timothy Riley and Jacob Schilling, suffered the injuries and damages previously set forth. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Timothy Riley and Jacob Schilling, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all Defendants, jointly and severally, and award to them compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional arbitration limits, plus interest, costs, attorneys? fees, punitive damages, and such other relief as this Court may deem appropriate. COUNT IX ABUSE OF PROCESS Plaintiffs v. Defendants Southside Sin City, Inc., the Garage Door Saloon, and Mark Welshonse 125. Each of the above paragraphs is incorporated herein by reference. 126. The actions of Defendants, as aforesaid, constitute an abuse of process under the laws of the Commonwealth of as follows: a. Defendants used a legal process against Plaintiffs when they initiated criminal charges against them; b. Defendants? primary purpose for arresting Plaintiffs and ?ling the criminal charges was for the sole purpose to coerce Plaintiffs into giving up their rights and to avoid repercussions for use of excessive force in an arrest as well as embarrassment in knowingly using excessive force upon a member of the public; c. Defendants? actions in arresting Plaintiffs and ?ling the criminal charges against Plaintiffs caused signi?cant harm; d. In concealing, hiding, and misrepresenting the accurate and correct information from the appropriate authorities so that these criminal charges could go forward. 127. As a direct and proximate result of these violations of Plaintiffs? Constitutional Rights, Plaintiffs Timothy Riley and Jacob Schilling, suffered the injuries and damages previously set forth. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Timothy Riley and Jacob Schilling, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all Defendants, jointly and severally, and award to them compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional arbitration limits, plus interest, costs, attorneys? fees, punitive damages, and such other relief as this Court may deem appropriate. COUNT X- FALSE ARREST Plaintiffs v. Defendant Rosfeld, Defendant Pitt Police, and Defendant Police Chief 128. Defendants? actions and omissions, as more fully described in the factual component of this Complaint, caused and resulted in Plaintiffs Tim Riley and Jacob Schilling?s improper, wrongful and false arrest. 129. Defendants, without lawful cause, did not act to prevent or expeditiously remedy Plaintiffs Timothy Riley and Jacob Schilling?s arrest. 130. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs suffered the injuries and damages previously set forth. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Timothy Riley and Jacob Schilling, respect?illy requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Defendant Police Chief, Defendant University of Pittsburgh Police Department and/or Of?cer Defendants, jointly and severally, and award to them compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional arbitration limits, plus interest, costs, attorneys? fees, punitive damages, and such other relief as this Court may deem appropriate. COUNT XI - FALSE IMPRISONMENT Plaintiffs v. Defendant Rosfeld, Defendant Pitt Police and Defendant Police Chief 131. Defendants? actions and omissions, as more fully described in the factual component of this Complaint, resulted in Plaintiffs? incarceration for a period of time. 132. Plaintiffs? liberty was further restricted during the months the case was pending after he posted bail and was released into the community. 133. All criminal charges against Plaintiffs Timothy Riley and Jacob Schilling were withdrawn prior to the commencement of any trial. 134. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs suffered the injuries and damages previously set forth. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Timothy Riley and Jacob Schilling respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendant University of Pittsburgh Police Department and/or Of?cer Defendants, jointly and severally, and award to them compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional arbitration limits, plus interest, costs, attorneys? fees, punitive damages, and such other relief as this Court may deem appropriate. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Respectfully submitte By: 111, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, Civil Division TIMOTHY RILEY and JACOB SCHILLING, Plaintiffs, vs. No.: SOUTHSIDE SIN CITY, THE GARAGE DOOR MARK POLICE OFFICER MICHAEL POLICE CHIEF JAMES K. and UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH OF THE COMMONWEALTH SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Defendants. VERIFICATION I verify that the averments of fact made in the foregoing COMPLAINT are true and correct and based on my personal knowledge, information or belief. I understand that averments of fact in said document are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. ?4904, relating to unswom falsi?cations to authorities. ?ma Dated TIMOTHY RILEY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, Civil Division TIMOTHY RILEY and JACOB SCHILLING, Plaintiffs, vs. N0.: SOUTHSIDE SIN CITY, THE GARAGE DOOR MARK POLICE OFFICER MICHAEL POLICE CHIEF JAMES K. and UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH OF THE COMMONWEALTH SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Defendants. VERIFICATION I verify that the averments of fact made in the foregoing COMPLAINT are true and correct and based on my personal knowledge, information or belief. I understand that averments of fact in said document are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. 08. ?4904, relating to unswom falsi?cations to authorities. Dated SCHILL COMPLIANT FOR DISCLOSURE PROTECTED IIEALTII INF . 7 Patient Name: WI ii i \11 Social Security Number: Date of Birth: 5/22/1961 I hereby voluntarily authorize the release and disclosure of ray protested health information (medical and/or insurance information) for the purpose of research, review and evaluation in connection to a legal claim and/or litigation. The information is to be disclosed bv: And is to be provided to: West Penn Hospital Robert Peirce Associates, P.C. Pittsburgh, PA 15224 707 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1918 I request that the provider listed above disclose my protected medical information, for the time period of February 1, 2016 to the present . Please disclose the following records: Entire record including but not limited to: office notes, operative reports, physical therapy notes, diagnostic reports all the below listed. (The patient has instituted a personal injury action in which his entire medical history is at issue) HIV and/or AIDS related Information Mental health records including notes, as well as and/or records Information related to elicit drug and/or alcohol abuse, dependence and/or treatment Billing Records including all statements, itemized bills, and insurance records Other: x-rays, photographs, diagnostic tests, charts, and nursing notes Only information related to: It is also requested of the above provitler that this protected health information be disclosed in electronic format disc, e-mail) whenever possible, pursuant to the Act, U.S.C. 8 17935(e). Of course, if the above provider has not maintained electronic records, traditional paper copies will be accepted. understand that the facility disclosing the above information cannot condition my treatment, payment, enrollment or eligibility for benefits due to my signing this authorization, pursuant to 45 CFR In signing this authorization, I tmderstand that Robert Peirce Associates, P.C. is authorized to use or disclose my protected health information for a purpose other than treatment, payment, or health care operations. Information disclosed by this authorization may be subject to re-disclosure by the recipient and may no longer be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule 45 CFR ?164. I further understand that I may revoke this authorization at any time. I acknowledge that to effectively revoke this authorization. Robert Peirce 8.: Associates, P.C. must receive, in writing, a letter including: the patient?s name and address, the patient?s desire to revoke this authorization, the date of the revocation, the effective date of this authorization, and the patient?s signature. However, I understand that any action taken prior to my revoking this authorization cannot be reversed. This authorization will expire two (22 years from the date of tny signature unless otherwise specified here: '7 . July 2, 2018 Date Patient Signature Or if patient cannot sign: Date Signature of Authorized Representative Relationship to Patient COMPLIANT FOR DISCLOSURE OF PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION Patient Name: Wl Social Security Number: Date of Birth: 5/22/1961 I hereby voluntarily authorize the release and disclosure of my protested health information (medical and/or insurance information) for the purpose of research, review and evaluation in connection to a legal claim and/or litigation. The information is to be disclosed by: And is to be provided to: West Penn Hospital Robert Peirce Associates, P.C. 4800 Friendship Avenue 2500 Gulf Tower Pittsburgh, PA 15224 707 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1918 I request that the provider listed above disclose my protected medical information, for the time period of February 1, 2016 to the present . Please disclose the following records: Entire record including but not limited to: of?ce notes, operative reports, physical therapy notes, diagnostic reports all the below listed. (The patient has instituted a personal injury action in which his entire medical history is at issue) HIV and/or AIDS related lnfomiation Mental health records including notes, as well as and/or records Information related to elicit drug and/or alcohol abuse, dependence and/or treatment Billing Records including all statements, itemized bills, and insurance records Other: x-rays, photographs, diagnostic tests, charts, and nursing notes Only information related to: It is also requested of the above provider that this protected health information be disclosed in electronic format disc, e-mail) whenever possible, pursuant to the HTTECII Act. 42 U.S.C. 6 17935te). Of course, if the above provider has not maintained electronic records, traditional paper copies will be accepted. I understand that the facility disclosing the above information cannot condition my treatment, payment, enrollment or eligibility for bene?ts due to my signing this authorization, pursuant to 45 CFR In signing this authorization, I understand that Robert Peirce Associates, is authorized to use or disclose my protected health information for a purpose other than treatment, payment, or health care operations. Information disclosed by this authorization may be subject to re-disclosure by the recipient and may no longer be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule 45 CFR ?164. I further understand that I may revoke this authorization at any time. I acknowledge that to effectively revoke this authorization. Robert Peirce Associates, P.C. must receive, in writing, a letter including: the patient?s name and address. the patient?s desire to revoke this authorization, the date of the revocation, the effective date of this authorization, and the patient?s signature. However, I understand that any action taken prior to my revoking this authorization cannot be reversed. This authorization will expire two (22 years from the date of my signature unless otherwise specified here: r: - July 2, 2018 ?Z/z Date Patient Signature Or if patient cannot sign: Date Signature of Authorized Representative Relationship to Patient ?me: no 6684 at!? was utv adov . 55%) 00:8: (AWL mam an arrow mama-m mm I X1 memw Heanasma so ma?a/um? MWIWW Mum . om? 0135808 1avuom 1 mum-numnnupm 1a mamas am ?Was-amaahmmn .CI am We '22: gum im an I a 1-: nan-c a 1 mg; EN: eatu'?tmm as manna (an-lam? man (wow ovum-mum Um . mam am I ?swam an: 31mm wanWNW swam" com Vd 'Hounaswd Am SNDIWI as; mm Vd AHLOWLI. WV 1.8311 099 MN mm 9? 1mm wamnw HOMBSUH WON mam Whom 0 7949314 17-04883 Mum mum. warm JOSEPH 7% Masses-um Wm mud mum ?human: mourn-yarn Mohandas-3mm: a. in cram 7932A Dam: 1 2701 A1 div 13 2 M2 Eqwm 52a I: mm mm: w. 18 2701M SIMPLE ASSAULT M2 2 Tho can: ammo to cause a Intan?onany. knowing? or reddeaaly caused may Injury to Mad: mm. In Vietnam 0! 18 Pa. 6.8. ?27o1(a)(1). The mat attempted to cause or hteneanaily. or Manly caused bodily Injury to Raise cm. tn violation of 13 Pa. as. 5270mm him an: (lb-m Dream 13m Dam 2 3503 81! d? ?0 1 M3 ?Tu was Elma-n 18 380381! DEFIANT TRESPASSER M3 1 COUNT The actor. knoMng that tho ado: was not named cr privileged to do so. enacted or temalned In a place. namely. Mark Walahom 223 Atwood Street Pumhurgh PA 15213 as In which notice agents! trespass was given by actual communication to the actor. nameiy. Oman and the we! de?ed an order to leave. which was pmonatly communicated :0 him by the met a! the premises at other outbound person. 18 Pa. ca 53503?Im1m and mead? AOPC 412A - aw. 09m New 6 mam-a 11-04583 an Mus mm nuomv JOSEPH ?ay fam? tam 3 8503 ?DISORDERLY CONDUCT M3 The aclct. Intent to came substantial helm at actions lncanvanlanca at the new In can?: an: ?ramble wamlng to ?slat enacted a hazardous o: phyalully ofhnalw condition an act or acts aewad no purpose. In vlolallon ol 18 no.3. 55503031?) and I COUNT 4825 - Rev. 09MB Fianna 13m 138:3 4 5505 db 18 1 Em? El man [3mm ?uvial!? 13 3505 PUBLIC DRUNKENESS 1 COUNT . The actor mama In a public place manlleslly under lho In?uence of alcohol are controlled substance as de?ned In the controlled Substance Drug Dam and Gasman: Ad. In the degree that he or she may have endangered nlmsell or ether nelson: or mm. o: annoyed persons In In vlolallon at 18 Pa. 0.8. 58605. Page 3 of 4 Nama- a mom 17.04533 Rn: Mam mm nmomv JOSEPH 2 nan 3 belief. 4. thug-u 833373?? mm?wdg?yd mm manta-ya: a may; a madam mam memdMa-Imm mal?Mdpd?aammbar?dad t/etdua?n . ll?o/n (We) ?mammals 7 0 5?0 ?a3 W?u??um A093 4125 - Rev. 09/08 Page 4 o! a mass-s 17-04883 Firm with a: mm 11MOTHY JOSEPH RILEY AFFIDAVIT 01 PROBABLE CAUSE 1- mm o) Date when Anion: neceivcd iniermetien: 121912017 b) Daze When the scum oi?ini?omation (Police 0mm. ini?omem. Victim. Co-Deieodom. Defeodmt. etc.) mowed inhumane: 1219(2017 2. a) How Amen! knows min ponleuier person commired crime: (personal ehoemioo. defendant's admissions. cicJ: Pom! Observation Mme Slalomanio b] How the source knows this particular pcmo committed the crime: Peteonei Obeomiinn. Victim Statements How boil: Amen! end/or some ofhu'otmetion known that penicnier crime he: been comiieeci: Foams! Observation. Victims Statements 3, 18 5503 CONDUCT 18 3503 B11 TRESPASSER 18 2701 A1 SIMPLE ASSAULT 1B 2701 A1 SIMPLE ASSAULT 18 5505 PUBLIC ORUNKENESS ow GARAGE DOOR SALOON Source is presumed toiiohie. Le. other Police 0mm. Eyewitness, Victim oi?Crime. etc. Source he: sis-co Information in the pain which has led to meet audio: conviction Defendant's reputation ibr criminal ?clMiy This some made decimation against hislim penal interest to the above oii'enso ameni under other Police 0mm combomcd details unite intonation P880 1 012 mmouvnam lamest-o 17-04683 .3 mm mom JOSEPH RILEY On December 9. 2017 st 2226. i. Oli?loar Rosteld responded to Moehnis's call for assistance at the Garage Door Saloon (223 Ahmed Street. Pittsburgh, PA 15213). On scene I made O?loer MoGinnio whom had three males up against the wall oitho business. me males were identi?ed as 'l'lrnothy Riley. Jacob Schilling. and Daniel Humphrey. Allihroo males were medicated With the odor oi alcoholic beverage emanating lroln their person. i detained Riley lor of?cer's delay as Its was extremely belligerent. yelling at Of?cer MoGlnnis and business owner. Merit Walshonse and one olhls empioyee'o Roles Conic. Waishonsa stated he had Riley. Sol-tiling. Humphrey and an unimown light skin black male ihrown out oiihe bar ior trying to light char patrons in the back mom. All males had to be physically escorted out by stall and pushed out the side door. Once thrown out the lighiairin biadr male than kicked the glass side door oi the business causing the glass to spider. Wolshonse and Cool: than mtostalde to ooniront the males. The mirnown male than lied with Wolshonse giving obese. Cook tiled in move the remaining males along when he was attadred by them. Riley. sailing. and Humphrey than sited: Cook attempting to shove. push. and kick him. Weiahonse stated once he say that Cook was under attack he hrolre oil chose and went back to help. Riley. Settling. and Humphrey then began to attack Waiehonsa until oiliaer Macinnls arrived and was sole to detain the males I reviewed video verifying Weiehonso and Cook's version oi the incident recorded view secretly camera and the footage will be given to ms at a later limo. Riley. Sdtillng. end iiumphney were transported back to station. Riley. Sohiling. and Bumphrey will be charged with Public Omnirennesa. 2 counts of Simple assault. de?ant trespass, and Disorderly conduct. Riley. Sohiilng. end will be transported to the AOJ houelng so their ongoing course of conduct had not legitimate purpose. was a danger to other. and of?cers had no reason to believe it mule oases ii released. I, MICHAEL ROSFELD . EBB LAN Emma?? MY . Walk/?an) Swntomadamhedbefaenra 0 . clam! . bac? .ao fin .Maglmid cranium ?r?Nb?daydWy. SEAL Page 2dr: lxm; MIMOIPAL GOURT .. .. \8 was: me?mww mm mm mans-rams JAcoa ANTHONY SCHILLING PITTSBURGH.PA mm mm mm 339 PLUMER AVE PA 15202 Plum: 1350.6?! On?! N5 0 0? 1m PTN- 679415;? I 11-04091 mamasLawn: an [manna mom: 1 mm an: mWomm I Bum vac-Ir 330 mm a l-BG-llmm. 7&3th bibs awn mcnmumw 'n MICHAEL ROSFELD 40310 WM momma-aw OF PITTSBURGH 950021529 . amen/am 1. mammamnn ?imam-9mm mamas-mama :01 mom manuals-b h??mm C2 mam 12109I2017 23:00 acmam - m. 0010 Page 1 0M EXHIBIT tabbks? warm. 5% a mesa-s 17-04333 an Mada 1 mm JACOB ANTHONY [$41sz If We .m WOW am mm hum-ya: ?hm ?madam hm ?and!? cab-nu le'A ram 0:3? 1 2701 2701M ASSAULT M2 2 COUNTS The actor attenuated to cause or Intentionally. knowingly or recklessly caused bodlly Injury to Mark Wblalrcnae. tn deletion at 18 P0. 0.8. 5270mm). The actor attempted to cause or madmally. lcrowlugly or "sel?essly mused bodily lrdury to Ralnd cm. In vldlatlon of 18 Fe. 0.8. 5270101)?). tram Amp Ohm Drama m4 ream 2 3503 311 de- 13 1 i was?: a mm ama? 18 3503311 DEFIANT TRESPABSER M3 1 COUNT The actor. knowing that are actor was not [loomed or privileged to do so. entered or remained In a place. nmly. Mark Welshm 223 Atwood sneer Pittsburgh PA 15213 as towhloh notion against trespass was given by acme! oomunloa?on In the actor. namely. Owner. and are actor dolled an order to leave. which was personally communicated to turn by the more! the premises or other authorized pom 18 Pa. 0.5. and (2). have 412A Rev. 09/08 Page 2 of 4 Maw Diem. mm a mom 17.04553 an Mile mm JACOB ANTHONY game mason-um new E13974 18m 18? 3 5503 cf? 13 i M3 13 W0 CONDUCT M3 1 COUNT The ?lot. Intent to cause wbsunual ham or oa?ouo luoonvanlenoe or If the amt misled In dlmdorly oonoud one: masonoblo wamlng lo doom. created a hazardous or o?onelvo oonoltion an act cram which saw no balloon moss. In vlolauon of 18 Pa.C.s. 555033)?, and ?w?m 3% mm mm .52.. ?Mg ma?a am Ohm DTBMA 19m 4 5505 cm! 13 1 1a 5505 Puauc DRUNKENEBS 8 1 COUNT The actor oppomd In a public place manifestly undo! the ln?uanu of alcohol or a controlloo ouhslonoo as de?ned In the Controlled Substance Drug Davina and coal-now Ad. to the dogma that he orshe may have endangered or othat portions or property. or annoyed persons to his In of 18 Pa. as. 5&5. AOPC 412A - Rev. 09/08 7?33:de 9:34:5me mm WW 0 mam 17-04833 - RR I mm JACOB ANTHONY 4 hum Mandamus: tensed ems-dreams: ma ratepanaudgwd?nw dWaa?e?maz-wybh?de) dram tomb Manama-unwed) a [1/10/ I ?7 2/7 I (some 151 "l 7 Qg?o ~03 magnum mm 850:. ADP: 412A . Rev. 09108 Page 4 on manna: ammo: Wm 4R7: 0 79498208 17-04883 We mm Moos ANTHONY scwumc AFFIDAVIT of PROBABLE CAUSE 1- mm 3) Duo when Milan: uoolvcd intimation: 121912017 8) Dow when the source oflnfomam (Police omcen. inibrmom. Victim. (to-Defendant, Dorondom. etc.) mom-d 12M2017 2. mm a) ?ow Amos-n imam this particular poison commiicd came: (mm! obsomxion. damn admissions. elm}: Pomona! Damnation. Victim Statement: by How tho mm oflnibnwioo known this pmlculnr person committed the aim: Pomona! Milan. Victims Statements 9) How both Anion: 6000? source o?nroumlon knows that ponlcuiu' aim: has been commilod: mailman. Viahmsmomom . a. 18 5503 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 18 3883 DEFIANT TRESPASSER 18 2701 A1 ASSAULT 18 2701 A1 SIMPLE ASSAULT 18 5505 PUBLIC: DRUNKENESS 4. GARAGB DOOR SALOON .. . . . i . Sow is mind wilobio. Le. cilia: Police 0mm. Eyewitness. Victim of Crime. ac. Samoa has given information in the which has led to must and!" conviction Defendant?s remain for erlailnnl uciMly This source mode declaration against him: penal lam to the aim: ammo Mani Mo: ?he: Police 00km counteract! don": emu infatuation Page I. of 2 mm Wanama- meat-e 17-04883 ?rst 3 Wm JACOB ANTHONY SCHILUNG On December 9. 201? at 2226. I. Of?cer Rosteid responded to Of?oar MoGinnta?s can for assistance at the Garage Door Soioon (223 Atwood Street. Pittsburgh. PA 13213). On scene I made omnactwith Of?cer Moeinnia whom had three mates up 393th tho wait oftna business. the males were identi?ed an ?motny Riiey. Jacob and Daniel Humphrey. All than mates were law with the odor of oleohoiic buvantge cumming from tnatr pom. I detained Riley tor oi?oer's sciaty as he was my boi?getont. why at Of?oor and business owner. Merit Weishonso and one of his ornptoyao?o Raise Cook Weiahome stand he had Ritay. swung. Humpiuoy and an unknown tight black main Wn out of the bar for trying to ?ght other patrons in the heat room. mates tied to be physics!? escorted out by staff and posited out the side door. Once out the light aittn black mote titan kicked the gluon aide doorottho business coming the glass to outdar. Weiehonse and Cook then went outatda to connont the mates. The mom male than)!? with Walshonso giving chase. Cook tried to mow: the remaining mates aiong when he was matted by them. Riley. Schlitng. and Humphrey than attack Cook attenuating to shove. push. and look nun. Watchmen otatod once Ito say that Cook was under attack he broke of! dune and want back to nab. Riley. smiling. and Humphray then began to attack Weishonso untii o?toor Mothnis mm and was onto to detain the males. i reviewed video outlying Welshman and Cook's version at the incident recorded view security camera and the (outage Will be given to me at a later ttmo. R?oy. Butane. and we tramportad back to Station. Riley. Schning. and Humphrey win he charged with Drunkenness. 2 counts at Simple assoutt. de?ant trespass. and Disorderly conduct. Riley. Schiilng. and Humphrey will be Immortal to the ACJ homing as their ongoing come of conduct had not tognbnato purpose. was a dangerto other. and of?cers nadno mason to bottom: ttwoutd cease "released. 1. women. nosreua 0 dayd . De C. . 7 [2 ,mwamm Mounties eddies 151$de PIG. 2 of 2