JOHNSTOWN – A federal lawsuit filed by two Clearfield Borough police officers against Clearfield County District Attorney William A. Shaw, Jr. has been dismissed.
On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Kim R. Gibson dismissed the lawsuit after Shaw filed a brief and argued “prosecutorial immunity,” according to the memorandum order.
Officer Brian Dixon and Sgt. Gregory Neeper filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on June 18, 2008. The two alleged that the Clearfield DA retaliated against them in violation of their First Amendment rights. The complaint also alleged “malicious prosecution” by Shaw.
According to the memorandum order, Shaw’s brief read that his proceedings against both Dixon and Neeper were not “retaliatory” in nature but due to his belief in the Plaintiffs’ “lack of credibility after filing a false report.”
The lawsuit was “dismissed with prejudice,” barring any further action by the plaintiffs on the same claim.
Both Neeper and Dixon were charged following a Dec. 3, 2007 domestic dispute in Clearfield Borough. The two were exonerated following their respective preliminary hearings last spring.
Dixon was charged with unsworn falsification to authorities, false reports to law enforcement authorities and official oppression.
It was alleged that Anthony Werman, the man who was involved in the domestic dispute, attempted to assault police officers. As a result of charges against Neeper and Dixon, the charges of attempted homicide against police officers were withdrawn, according to a previous GantDaily report.
At the preliminary hearing, Lawrence Township Police Officer John Walker testified that he had arrived on scene as back-up. He said that at arrival, Dixon and Officer Michael Rummel were already on scene. He testified that when Werman approached the door, he could not see a knife on him.
Walker stated that Dixon was in front of the door, while Werman was partially concealed by the door. In his testimony, he said that he couldn’t see Werman’s left arm or shoulder. But he said the defendant did not have a knife in his right hand.
Walker said that Werman was being offensive. He said at one point, Werman attempted to close the door on Dixon. He said that Dixon put his foot in the door and attempted to grab Werman and could not do so. He said that Dixon went after Werman and struck him with his flashlight.
Walker said that Werman tripped, and he was first to make contact with him. He said that Rummel helped handcuff him. The two, then, took the defendant to a squad car for transport to the Clearfield County Jail.
Walker said that he returned for his handcuffs and another member of the township police was with Dixon. He said that while Officer Julie Wehler was present, he did not hear Dixon make any references to a knife or safety concerns due to a knife.
“I didn’t know where the knife was,” said Walker. “It wasn’t on Werman.”
“When I found that Werman was being charged with attempted homicide I questioned it.”
He testified that if a weapon is present, it is practice to call out the weapon and notify other officers.
Walker said that while waiting outside the apartment, Dixon came and showed him a knife. He said the two tried to theorize where it came from.
Walker also testified that he was upset with reports that Werman charged at them with a knife, as he felt it was made up.
Rummel testified that Werman charged them from the kitchen at a fast walk. He said that Werman was belligerent and made a statement about killing them. He said that was when Dixon went into him. He said that Werman backed away, and he and Walker took him down and secured him.
Rummel said that while transporting Werman he received a call from Dixon over the radio. He said they were told to make sure they patted the defendant down, because a knife had been found. Rummel testified that he did not see a knife in Werman’s hands. He also testified that he could not see Werman’s left hand, when he was at the doorway.
Under cross-examination, Rummel said that while they were taking the defendant into custody, his attention was on him.
Rummel was presented with a written statement that he had prepared. In the statement, he noted Werman had mentioned the police officers were lucky that he (Werman) had dropped his knife. He said that Werman told them that they were lucky to get the knife from him, as he would have killed them.
Rummel was also asked if he told Clearfield Borough Police Chief Jeff Rhone about a silver flash, which he had noticed, in the apartment. He testified that he did.
He also testified that he initialed Dixon’s report for the situation. He said it was posted at the station and is the practice of the CBPD. Rhone later testified that officers who initial a report indicate that they have read it and didn’t find discrepancies.
Defense Attorney Stephen Greenberg asked for all charges against Dixon to be dismissed. He stated that there wasn’t evidence to show that Werman did not have a knife. He pointed out that neither Rummel nor Walker could see the man’s left hand.
Clearfield County District Attorney William A. Shaw Jr. argued that it was an argument best heard by a jury.
Ireland went over his own notes, repeatedly and too pointed out that neither Rummel nor Walker could see the man’s left hand. He said that they neither had an idea if the man had a knife, nor did they search for one.
“I’m going to dismiss all of these charges,” said Ireland.
The second case brought allegations that Neeper and Dixon conspired and worked to intimidate Rummel from speaking to state police in an investigation into the overall incident.
Rummel testified that he was contacted by Neeper on Jan. 11, 2008 about Rummel’s scheduled meeting with the state police the next day. He testified that Neeper told him he (Rummel) was not going to meet with the state police but with the union attorneys about the details surrounding the investigation.
Rummel said that Neeper also told him, “I can’t tell you not to go talk to the state, but I am advising you not to meet with the state.”
Rummel said that upset him. He said that he felt Neeper was trying to discourage him from speaking to the state police. He later testified that he was not intimidated, only angry.
Rummel testified later that night, he ran into Dixon at Sheetz. He said that Dixon told him they were meeting with the union attorneys the next day, not the state. He said it made him feel the same way – angry. Rummel later testified that Dixon was the union steward, or the liaison between the union and the police department.
Rummel said that when his shift was over, he went to meet with the union attorney. He said that he was offered a ride by his fellow officers but turned it down. He said that he did not have a lot of time, while he had a meeting at his son’s school.
Rummel said that he arrived at the Comfort Inn dining area first. Greenburg then arrived, and the two discussed Rummel’s legal options. Rummel said that both Dixon and Neeper arrived and sat behind him – one to each side. He said he felt uncomfortable, as he was the focal point for attention.
Rummel also testified that he was aware that Dixon had received the same information from the state police about an investigation into the Werman incident.
Dave Mason, Neeper’s attorney, asked if Rummel eventually talked to the state police. He said that he did.
Mason also asked Rummel if he had been intimidated by Neeper’s statement to him. Rummel said he was neither intimidated at that point, nor when Neeper offered him a ride to the Comfort Inn.
Rummel also testified under cross-examination that he did not report any of the inaccuracies that he believed Dixon had filed.
A man from the Teamsters 205 testified that it was a union steward’s duty to handle the day-to-day issues, and if they could not handle the issues, the union would. He said that the steward is expected to advise their fellow officers of their rights.
In closing arguments Mason asked for all charges against Neeper to be dismissed. He noted that Rummel talked to the state police and was neither intimidated nor deterred from doing so. He also said that Rummel testified that he was not, and there was no evidence of a conspiracy between Neeper and Dixon to prevent Rummel from speaking with state police.
Greenberg argued that Dixon was doing his duties as a steward in advising Rummel to learn his legal rights in the investigation.
“Dixon did what stewards do,” argued Greenberg.
Shaw countered, “The testimony speaks for itself.”
Shaw argued that Dixon and Neeper were working Rummel over not to speak with the state police. “They’re hiding behind the badge of union steward now.”
“Mr. Rummel was clear he was not intimidated,” said Ireland, however.
Ireland stated that it was not just the issue of the union, but the right people have under the constitution to consult with an attorney. He noted that Rummel did talk to the state police.
“He was free to and did act of his own wishes,” said Ireland. “I cannot even find the elements of an offense here.”
Ireland dismissed all charges against both men in the case.
Afterward, Rhone noted he believed justice was done, and that both men had their due process.
