Dickson City, Pa Police Harass Gun Owners

[cassandrasdaddy]

strangly enough link to chiefs email doesn't work but i did shoot him a line

funniest thing is some officer screwing up is less disconcerting than the impression that they are covering it up its not mentioned in their online police log funny that

 

[Robert Hairless]

Good grief. The Chief of Police has a throwaway e-mail account: mailto:[email protected]

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

nothin says professional like hotmail

 

[BullfrogKen]

Posted by another member elsewhere on the PAFOA board. Anyone interested about the professionalism of Dickson City PD, and the city counsel can find out about it here.

Dickson City incompetence

CarolinaGuy said: Looks like a certain Mayberry-wannabe has been having a tough time with lawsuits as of late...

Not only do they harass citizens...they harass each other.

Including one "part-time officer Karen Gallagher".

link

Dickson City will pay a former borough policeman $50,000 to settle a case in which the ex-officer claimed the police chief and other officers harassed him after he filed a wrongful termination suit in 2005.

Harold A. Nudelman, a Dickson City police officer for 31 years, said he signed paperwork Thursday agreeing to the settlement after consulting with his attorney, Scott Schermerhorn.

“I wanted my day in court,” Mr. Nudelman said, but added he didn’t want to run the risk of taking his suit to trial and coming away with nothing. “I could have gone to court and gotten less from a jury.”

Dickson City council President Barbara Mecca said she had no information about the settlement. Calls to the borough’s chief clerk, Ken Novak, were not returned Thursday.

Mr. Nudelman sued the Police Department, Chief William A. Stadnitski and two officers, Philip F. Davitt and Thomas Logan. The suit claimed the department “engaged in a pattern of selectively targeting” employees at Mr. Nudelman’s new job, Millennium Packaging Services Inc.

To back up that claim, Mr. Nudelman’s lawsuit details what he says was an arrest in November 2004, after a traffic stop involving a Millennium tractor-trailer.

Lawyers for the police say Mr. Nudelman was never arrested but was given a citation for disorderly conduct. The citation was later dismissed by a magisterial district judge, according to the suit.

Mr. Nudelman believed that the officers were harassing him because of an earlier federal suit he had filed, claiming wrongful termination after he was fired in 2004.

That case was settled in 2005, according to court paperwork.

This is the sixth settlement Dickson City has reached in the past 13 months.

In November 2006, the borough settled a wrongful termination suit brought by Mr. Novack for $125,000 — his job was subsequently restored — and also a police civil rights complaint filed by Councilman Anthony Gallis for $80,000.

In January, a police civil rights suit filed by former Councilman William Bott was settled for $25,000, and former zoning officer Ken Sosnowski settled a wrongful termination suit for $21,000 the following month.

Last month, former part-time officer Karen Gallagher settled a sexual harassment suit she brought against the borough for $139,000.

As a result of the rash of lawsuits, the borough’s current liability insurance policy carries a $25,000 deductible, Mr. Novak said last month.

 

[matt33]

I also posted this reply on the PAFOA board:
This whole situation just continues to get more disturbing. Based on what I saw at the council meeting, I can't say that I'm surprised to read about all of the law suits against the city, even amongst their own. The town people should rise up and get their heads on straight. Of course the town people at the meeting didn't inspire confidence that will happen. I hate to generalize, but the political structure in Luzerne and Lackawanna Counties appears to make Cook County, IL look like a model of integrity.

edit to add:
Wow. I never bothered to google any of the officers involved until a minute ago. It sounds like a fair percentage of the police force has been fired, sued, received a cash settlement, and now works for the dept again. It sounds like a well oiled machine. Call me crazy, but I would never return to work for someone who fired me and I subsequently sued them. There's actually a pattern of that crap. In officer Gallagher's case, she sued the city/DCPD for sexual harassment. She made several accusations, including that officers are improperly trained in search techniques. Obviously, she confirmed her own allegation at the OCB. PDF brief of one (of many) suits against the city:
http://www.websupp.com/data/MDPA/3:0...26-22-MDPA.pdf

 

[BullfrogKen]

That link is coming up no good, Matt.

 

[matt33]

I'll be damned. It worked when I posted it, I also tested it 5 minutes after I posted, it worked then too. It was a good read, especially when you factor in Karma.

 

[wristtwister]

When property is seized without warrants

I really didn't read every posting in this thread, but having once been an LEO and having some experience at how to stop harrassment, I would offer the following advice:
1. If the cops raid your "meeting" and take you outside for questioning, ask what you are being investigated in relation to occurring. Unless you are arrested, they have no right to detain you or seize anything.

2. Be courteous, regardless of how frothy the officers act.

3. If you have property seized, ask them what the crime is and under what authority they are taking your property. If you are not charged, they have no right to take your property.

4. File a stolen property report and armed robbery charges against the officer that takes your property in their hands. They are taking property from you "under force of arms" and "color of the badge", and are personally liable for those actions.

5. Get a receipt for the property.

6. Get as much recorded evidence as you can. It's hard to argue with a video of an incident.

7. Don't be afraid to enforce your rights.

8. File complaints with the police department so that you have a record of trying to correct the problem through their own management system.

9. Keep copies of everything.

10. Go after everybody that takes your property or that helps them keep it, i.e. seizing officer, property clerk, watch commander... etc.

:banghead: won't get it done. Bury them in paperwork and keep them dodging their own legal problems.

WT

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

hope they are ready to stroke another check

 

[Deanimator]

File a stolen property report and armed robbery charges against the officer that takes your property in their hands. They are taking property from you "under force of arms" and "color of the badge", and are personally liable for those actions.

That's excellent advice, but is anyone actually legally obligated to entertain your charges? A few years ago, there were a series of news reports in Florida about police departments which wouldn't even accept COMPLAINTs, and in fact wouldn't give people the forms.

If I had to bet, I'd guess that PA Patriot wasn't ALLOWED to file charges in Dickson City. It appears that he has at least reported the theft to the PA State Police.

 

[scrat]

first of all. WOW then second. i think you guys need to do what i read before. on another forum. some people did the same thing. However they sent certifed mail to the chief of police a letter of intent. Stating the laws and cases. Then letting him know that they must inform their officers and make sure they are aware of the letter of the law. When ever they go to dinner they do the same thing send out tons of letters. i will see if i can get a copy of one.

 

[scrat]

something like this needs to be sent last time

I would like to inform the police department in Ventura County, the District Attorney Office, the sheriffs in the area and any other law enforcement agency that I will be legally open carrying an unloaded long gun in the near future in the Newbury Park area. The reason is due to recent illegal activities that you have been powerless to stop and failed to bring them to justice, even though we helped the PD with an investigation. (Refer to case ____.) Consider these cases for a moment:

Warren vs. DC, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, Maryland vs. Wilson, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, Riss v. City of New York, CA Gov't Code s. 821, 845, 846, Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, Bowers v. Devito, Souza v. City of Antioch, CA

As you can see, the government, police force, and military are not in place to protect individuals from harm. That is why we have the second amendment in the Constitution.

The reason why I have decided send this letter (even though as I was told on the phone it was unnecessary) is to put the law enforcement agencies in the area on notice to avoid any "incidents" or misunderstandings. Also if you refer to the case number previously provided, you will understand how the involved parties might make another false 911 call, endangering surrounding citizens.

This letter is now considered a legal notice. Your department is obligated to insure the CLEO's, DA's, sheriffs and any other law enforcement officers are trained properly regarding the legal method of open carrying and/or transportation of an unloaded long gun/handgun. (Please refer to U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals MACKINNEY v NIELSEN to review this method if needed.) Unloaded open carry is legal even without a CCW permit according to the California penal code and the California Bureau of Firearms with some restrictions (i.e. Federal gun free school zone, post office ECT.). Please respond back if you have any questions or concerns.

Thanks,

------personal info here.
Also case number is deleted

taken from calguns

 

[Robert Hairless]

My impression from the council meeting report and others is that the taxpayers of Dickson City, PA, have the kind of police force they want.

They're apparently xenophobic. These people seem insular and unsophisticated, not much concerned with the rights of others, and mistrustful of outsiders with their foreign ways.

They'll evidently tolerate the police chief's excesses because he's not much different from them. They're crafty rather than smart, and destructive when allowed to have control.

I wouldn't be much surprised if evidence in the situation became lost or doctored. I'd be astonished if it were done well enough to deceive anyone.

 

[Deanimator]

I wouldn't be much surprised if evidence in the situation became lost or doctored. I'd be astonished if it were done well enough to deceive anyone.

...which oftimes is a crime more heavily punished than the original offense. Can't say they didn't have it coming...

 

[jahwarrior]

blank.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Jahwarrior,

Thanks for a man-on-the-scene report of what happened. You don't read such a detailed report in the newspaper by any stretch.

<edit>

That is bizzare! I'd never thought I'd hear of a police officer with an attitude like that! He must be one of the "very few bad apples." It has nothing to do with the nature of the job as it stands now. No, really. I know plenty of fast food clerks that puff out their chests, throw a hissy fit, pepper spray you, and put you in cuffs when you politely contend that you gave them a $20 instead of a $10. I mean, lots of fast food clerks do that when they've had to deal with arrogant, rude customers all day. And I've seen plenty of construction workers tackle a kid for calling them "dudes." Thousands of tow truck drivers (even the ones not called on it, even though it was taped) have threatened to make up reasons to arrest a man whose crime was to defend his "crime," of being parked in a public parking lot. Heck, I even saw a college student do a citizen's arrest of a police officer for "assault" after the cop hit him in the shoulder with an M&M. And of course, people gave their support to all these men, because of their service to the community in their "difficult, thankless jobs."

-Sans Authoritas

 

[matt33]

Jahwarrior,
I attended the town council meeting and I was very impressed with your statements. Prior to this meeting, I never met you or any member of your group. I simply could not believe the reaction the town people had when you spoke. I was appalled. You were articulate and reasonable in your statements. They simply didn’t want to hear it. I wish you well and hope you are successful in your legal action against all parties that were part of this violation.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Jahwarrior, based on your reception by everyone there, your only logical recourse is to vote. Because standing in a blindly allegiant throng of teeming insanity trying to convince the irrational and intellectually dishonest about the truth of your ideas won't accomplish anything, but your one vote against all of theirs will.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[jahwarrior]

unfortunately, i'm a resident of scranton, not dickson city. there's little i can do to affect change in that town, besides not shopping there anymore. they made it very clear that our presence, both at the restaurant and at the borough meeting, was not welcome. after a few people who weren't present spoke, they forbade anyone who wasn't a dickson city resident, or not present at the restaurant incident, from speaking. we were heckled, even as we sat silently as residents denigrated and insulted us, and we were dismissed as a bunch of loonies:

"whaddya think, yer some kinda tuff guy wit dat gun?"
"my children shouldn't have to be forced to see a gun!"
"i served in vietnam, and i'll be the first to tell to, that REAL MEN DON'T CARRY GUNS."
"i'm a member of the NRA, and all you guys are doing is makng us look bad."
"why can't you just go somewhere else to have yer gun guy dinners?"
"this ain't the wild west, like texas! this is dickson city, PA! we have traditions here! we don't go around flashing guns and shootin' up the place! what's wrong wit you guys?"

these were the least offensive and backwards comment from locals i can remember.

what is funny is, i belong to other gun/weapon/self defense related forums, and news of this story has reached them. i'm surprised how many have taken to bashing the people who got harrassed for OCing. personally, i normally CC. i didn't know it was legal until last fall, and i'm still uncomfortable with doing it very often. still, i didn't expect other people who value 2A as much as i do to have such a hard time with this. their general thinking is we were asking for trouble, and we got it. it's sad, really.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

the police broke the law, many of them, and they did so knowingly. as a result of their criminal acts, many men were humiliated, and their familes, especially their children, were terrorized. many other people who weren't involved were also scared, not by us, but by the police.

Hmmmm ...

You may have unintentionally said the magic word.

In other threads, I have on occasion complained about how opportunistic prosectors are mis-applying laws passed to combat terrorism by charging individuals who engage in anti-social acts against other individuals with neat-sounding crimes like "terroristic threatening." To a mind of my limited intellect such behavior seems to be obviously wrong, but that's the problem with laws: if you build it, they will come. I remain of the opinion that laws enacted to combat terrorism should be used against ... terrorists.

But ... laws against "terroristic threatening" were in fact enacted to cover situations in which one or more individuals threaten (or conspire to threaten) groups of people. Those of you in the restaurant that night were a group, a "segment of the People." The blatantly unlawful actions of the Dickson City PD did, in fact, "terrorize" your familes. May I suggest that you (meaning all of you involved, the men with the guns and the wives and children) aggressively pursue charging the cops involved with "terroristic threatening," and any other "terroristic ..." charges your collective lawyers can dredge up.

And don't forget to pursue Federal civil rights charges. Wrongful deprivation of liberty under colour of law is, I believe, prohibited by Federal law.

 

[209]

AirForceShooter said, “This is when you file a complaint with your State Attorney General. And I mean a criminal complaint. This is a violation of State law.”

Not necessarily. You may be bearding the very lion who promotes the police action. A State Attorney General is one of the more politic animals in state government.

Deaninator said- “I believe that it has been reported that the principle victim has reported to the PA State Police that his firearm was STOLEN. I believe that as an FFL, he must also report this to the BATFE. Officer Lucy's got some 'splainin' to do...”

Now we’re getting someplace. He should report it to the BATFE. While that may not be effective since they aren’t exactly our friends, there is probably some federal crime involved. But, once again, is there anyone with the correct political leaning in the DOJ who will go forward with the complaint?

Deaninator said- “What would happen to any citizen who held that female cop against her will and stole HER gun? JAIL TIME.”

That is a clear-cut violation of the law. You can’t take a gun from a police officer. What we have stepped into in the incident we are discussing is that a police officer [perhaps] was acting within their [perceived] scope of authority. I don’t know enough about PA law to know if qualified immunity may apply in this case, but the officer will surely claim “public safety” concerns. The gun taken was not in any database. If the city attorney has said qualified immunity won’t apply, that’s a step in the right direction. Should it go to either criminal or civil court, it’s going to boil down to the following;

Did the officer have reasonable articulation to believe the gun seized may be illegal for some reason?
Will that articulation be believed by the average person who may be sitting on the jury should it come to a trial?

The incident is going to have to go to court- if a court will even entertain it. Again, I give you a 50-50 chance that will happen. I hope it does and the officer is found to have violated his rights. But, I’m not holding my breath. I expect the town will settle the case if they may lose- or if the cost of litigation is prohibitive. Setting the case is a bad thing because it won’t create case law.

ForeignDude said- “Not To Hijack The Thread... But it seems that this incident is also making waves among cops”

Yep, I post there also. It has raised a concern among all of us evil rights-violating cops. We talk amongst ourselves. Most of the people on that forum are extremely pro-gun. There are some that are not enlightened. I see LEOs who do fear you owning a gun. We usually try to beat them into submission,

But, I think you will find a lot of police officers are pro-gun. I posted I thought the officers were wrong if OC carry was legal. A PA officer responded it was. I am now educated. But, I have to tell you, should I go visit family in PA, I’m not carrying OC. It’s not in my comfort zone.

I am only on page 3 of a long thread. Forgive me for not reading the rest- I achieved burn-out as I worked 72 hours this week. I’ll try to revisit.

If I don’t get back soon , I’ll say this:

Anytime a police officer violates a law, it should be addressed. I am a police officer and I agree with that.

Some police officers continue to work when it’s apparent they will violate the rights of others. That’s a problem. It is usually caused by internal politics. I liken it to a business keeping an incompetent employee on staff. Granted, the incompetent police officer can cause more damage than an incompetent 7-11 clerk can cause, but you get what you pay for. Employment law, and unions, have placed the rights of employees rights above the rights of others, including the business and government agency who employs the person.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

209 wrote:

Some police officers continue to work when it’s apparent they will violate the rights of others. That’s a problem. It is usually caused by internal politics. I liken it to a business keeping an incompetent employee on staff. Granted, the incompetent police officer can cause more damage than an incompetent 7-11 clerk can cause, but you get what you pay for. Employment law, and unions, have placed the rights of employees rights above the rights of others, including the business and government agency who employs the person.

And can the people who employ the government (wilfully or not) fire who they choose?

Why is it that one customer at a 7-11 can complain once, in person, and get a 7-11 employee fired for a very minor thing, but that a police officer who has done some grievous thing (or his supervisor who did nothing about it) cannot be fired except with a huge popular outcry, bureaucracy and expense? (And even then, good luck.) What is the difference between voluntarily-funded free market businesses and the business of government? Why is there no similar accountability?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[matt33]

And according to the article above at least three Dickson City officers were fired in recent years, and at least two were later reinstated. Another former DCPD officer was recently convicted of a narcotics violation. This is in a town of less than 7,000 residents.

 

[matt33]

And according to the article above at least two Dickson City officers were fired in recent years, and at least two were later reinstated. Another former DCPD officer was recently convicted of a narcotics violation. This is in a town of less than 7,000 residents.

 

[Mainsail]

I think the actions of this one (or several following her lead) officer should not impugn the entire force- or police officers as a whole. Yes, there are cop bashers here in this forum as there are citizen bashers over in theirs. As a media dependant society, we hear far more about the power hungry “bad” cops than the majority that slog through the criminal element day after day. When it’s something negative, it’s Officer X; when it’s something positive it’s a more impersonal “police” that saved the day. I’m thankful for the tremendous job the Tacoma PD does here in town, and I’ve worn their handcuffs for ‘mere open carry’. Guess what everyone? There’s buttholes in all walks of life.
The cop in PA that let her ego get away from her and ran herself down a path she couldn’t back out of (and that’s what I think happened) should be dismissed as a minimum.