By ROSE BOUBOUSHIAN
(CN) - A cop must face claims that he
helped arrest a black couple whom troopers allegedly tore from their car,
choking the husband and Tasering the wife, a federal judge ruled.
The arrest of Nadine Francis and her
husband, Odinga Arthur, allegedly occurred while the black couple was moving
from Florida to New York for Arthur's job on the night of Feb. 14, 2012.
Francis said she had been driving below
the speed limit and obeying all traffic laws on I-95, but that the Pennsylvania
state police pulled her over near Chester, Pa., at about midnight. Chester
Township Police Officer Richard Barth allegedly arrived as backup.
After Francis provided her license and
registration, Troopers Joseph Harmon and James Sparenga asked for her sleeping
husband's identification, without explaining why they had been pulled over,
according to the complaint.
When Arthur did not immediately present
his ID, and instead sought permission to ask a question, the troopers allegedly
ordered him to exit the car.
Before he could do so, Sparenga grabbed
Arthur's neck in an attempt to pull him through the passenger window, causing
the man to choke, according to the complaint.
Francis said she screamed and begged the
trooper to stop, at which point Harmon used his Taser on her. Sparenga
meanwhile then allegedly slammed Arthur into the ground, handcuffed him and
removed his wallet.
Arthur said Harmon asked him how much
money he had and where he was going, then removed his wife from the car, held
her face down, and handcuffed and interrogated her.
The complaint insists that Francis and
Arthur broke no laws, never posed a threat to the troopers, fully cooperated,
and did not resist arrest or act violently on the night of the incident.
After the troopers allegedly said that the
IDs "came up clean," they held Francis and Arthur overnight at a
Delaware County police station without reading them their Miranda rights,
according to the complaint.
Arthur and Francis said the officers
meanwhile prepared false affidavits of probable cause, charging them with
driving in the left lane, disregarding traffic lane, disorderly conduct, and
resisting arrest.
Francis and Arthur were released on bail
later that day, and the criminal proceedings against them were dismissed in
state court on March 6, 2013.
The three officers are accused in the
complaint of violating Francis and Arthur's Fourth and 14th Amendments, and of
unlawful detention, racial profiling, excessive force, false arrest and
imprisonment, and malicious prosecution.
U.S. District Judge Mary McLaughlin
refused on Feb. 13 to dismiss the malicious prosecution and false arrest and
imprisonment claims against Barth.
"According to the complaint, Barth
was present throughout the interrogation and arrest of the plaintiffs, and he
participated in preparing the affidavits of probable cause," McLaughlin
wrote. "During the time Barth was present, the plaintiffs did not engage
in any unlawful or violent activity and did not resist arrest. Because the
magistrate judge relied on the statements in the affidavit of probable cause to
charge the plaintiffs, it is reasonable to infer that Barth made false
statements or omissions or failed to disclose exculpatory evidence in the
affidavits."
The court also upheld the false arrest and
imprisonment claims, finding that Barth participated in the arrest, despite his
ability to determine that the couple had not violated the law.
"The complaint alleges that Barth
arrived on the scene shortly after the plaintiffs were pulled over, with time
to see for himself that Francis and Arthur were not a threat, were not acting
violently, and were not violating the law," McLaughlin wrote. "There
are no allegations indicating that Troopers Harmon and Sparenga made statements
to Barth regarding probable cause. Barth participated in the arrest of Francis
and Arthur without probable cause, and participated in writing affidavits of
probable cause by making false statements or omissions. There are no
allegations in the complaint that would allow the court to conclude that Barth
was acting reasonably under the circumstances. Barth is free to raise the
argument again at the summary judgment stage."
