Harris v. Krasner

• Decision Date: 12 May 2023
• Docket Number: Civil Action 22-839
• Parties: CRYSTAL HARRIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LAWRENCE KRASNER, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

1

CRYSTAL HARRIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LAWRENCE KRASNER, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 22-839

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

May 12, 2023

OPINION

Slomsky, J.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION .................1

II. BACKGROUND .................2

A. Factual Background................2

B. Amended Complaint .................5

C. Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint ................7

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW.................8

IV. ANALYSIS .................9

A. Plaintiff Harris's Section 1983 Claims Alleged in Counts I and II against Defendants Will Be Dismissed .................10

1. Counts I and II against District Attorney Krasner and Assistant District Attorney Kean Will Be Dismissed .................10

a. DA Krasner and ADA Kean Are Entitled to Absolute Immunity .................11

i. The Law on Absolute Immunity.................11 ii. First Prong of Absolute Immunity: Conduct of DA Krasner and ADA Kean Underlying Plaintiff's Cause of Action .................12

iii. Second Prong of Absolute Immunity: Function Served by the Conduct of DA Krasner and ADA Kean .................12

iv. DA Krasner and ADA Kean Are Entitled to Absolute Immunity .................15

2. Counts I and II against the City of Philadelphia Will Be Dismissed.................17

B. Request for Injunctive Relief under the Pennsylvania Constitution in Count III against Defendants Krasner and Kean Will Be Denied .................18

C. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim Alleged in Count V against Defendants Will Be Dismissed .................20

1. DA Krasner and ADA Kean Are Entitled to High Public Official Immunity .................20

2. DA Krasner, ADA Kean, and the City Are Entitled to Immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act .................22

V. CONCLUSION .................24

I. INTRODUCTION

In August 2020, during a criminal hearing at which she was called as a witness, Plaintiff Crystal Harris, a police officer with the Philadelphia Police Department (“PPD”), learned that a member of her family had filed a complaint against her years earlier with the PPD's Internal Affairs Division (“IAD”). According to Harris, this family member filed the complaint in 2014 (the “IAD Complaint”) in retaliation for Harris reporting his eight years of inappropriate sexual conduct with Plaintiff Kadeyja Dixon-Fowler, a minor in Harris's family. Upon learning of the IAD Complaint Harris contacted the District Attorney's Office to have it removed from her personnel file, but she did not receive any response.

Two months later, Plaintiff was called to testify in another criminal matter and learned that the IAD Complaint was still in her personnel file. She therefore contacted the Fraternal Order of Police (“FOP”), which then contacted the District Attorney's Office to discuss expunging the IAD Complaint. Someone in the District Attorney's Office involved with Harris's IAD Complaint told her that that the Complaint would be expunged from her personnel file because it was determined after an investigation that the Complaint was unfounded. Plaintiff later learned, however, that her name was placed on what is known as a Do Not Call List, which contains the names of police officers who should not be used as witnesses by the District Attorney's Office.

As a result of these events, Plaintiffs filed in this Court a Complaint, followed by an Amended Complaint naming as Defendants various parties.^[1]Defendants responded to the Amended Complaint with two Motions to Dismiss, which are presently before the Court for disposition.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff Harris has been a police officer with the PPD for over twenty-three (23) years, seventeen of which were spent in the PPD's Highway Patrol Unit. (Doc. No. 15 at 2.) The Highway Patrol Unit focuses on enforcing Philadelphia's traffic laws and on policing high crime areas for offenses such as robbery, rape, unlawful possession of a firearm, and other crimes in progress. (Id. at 4.)

PPD officers receive overtime pay for testifying at criminal proceedings. (Id.) Harris earned approximately $30,000 per year in overtime pay for her court appearances as a police officer testifying in criminal matters. (Id. at 5.) Around August 2020, Plaintiff learned during a criminal hearing at which she was testifying that an internal affairs complaint was filed against her in 2014 and was a part of the discovery provided to defense counsel in that case. (Id.) Also included with the discovery was her disciplinary record containing reports of Internal Affairs Division (“IAD”) investigations of any other complaints filed against Harris. (Id.) The IAD Complaint was filed with the IAD by one of the male members of her family. (Id.) It alleged that she abused her authority as an officer. (Id.) Harris believes that this family member filed the complaint against her in retaliation for her reporting his sexual molestation of Plaintiff Kadeyja Dixon-Fowler over an eight year period.^[2] (Id.)

Upon learning of the existence of the IAD Complaint, Harris sought the help of her Captain, Anthony Luca, to have it removed from her personnel file and future discovery files because it “impact[s] her arrests and subsequent courtroom testimony as a police officer.” (Id.) The District Attorney's office initially did not respond to any calls placed to seek assistance in removing the IAD Complaint from her personnel file.^[3](Id.) In October 2020, Plaintiff again was called to testify as a witness in another criminal proceeding and discovered that the same IAD Complaint was included in the case's discovery file.^[4] (Id.) After the proceeding ended, she went to the union office of the Fraternal Order of Police (“FOP”) and spoke to a Willie Sierra about the IAD Complaint. (Id.) The FOP contacted the District Attorney's office and then “[l]egal counsel for the FOP and DA's offices became involved.” (Id. at 5-6.) Harris later learned that personnel in the IAD had investigated the Complaint against her, determined that it was unfounded, and expunged it from her personnel file. (Id. at 6.)

The following year, on May 1, 2021 at around 7:00 p.m., Harris and her partner, Officer Kenneth Fazio, were on patrol and pulled over and arrested a female driver they suspected was driving under the influence.^[5](Id. at 2.) As part of standard operating procedures for Philadelphia police officers, a report documenting the arrest was prepared using the Preliminary Arraignment Reporting System (“PARS”).^[6](Id. at 3.) Because Officer Fazio is male and the stopped driver was female, police protocols and procedures required Harris as a female officer to “approach the suspect driver in the car,” “search/pat the suspect down,” and “take the female suspect into custody.” (Id.)

About twelve hours after the suspect's arrest, Assistant District Attorney Kean (“ADA Kean”) sent an email to “Harris's captain, Anthony Luca, and others stating he was declining prosecution of the arrest because it was not clear which officer did what during the arrest and Plaintiff Harris was Do Not Call.” (Id.) The Do Not Call List referred to by ADA Kean is described in the Amended Complaint as:

a list of police officers who are not to be called to testify in court created by the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office in or around late 2017. This list created by the District Attorney's Office essentially is a list of “dirty cops” . . . police officers who have allegedly engaged in criminal activity. The list also contains names of Philadelphia police officers who had an IAD complaint filed against them, and despite many having their IAD complaint determined to be unfounded, Defendant Krasner has sought to continue to impermissibly impugn their reputations and to directly affect their overtime pay.

(Id. at 4.) Additionally, “ADA Kean further requested the PARS be updated without showing any of Plaintiff Harris's involvement with the arrest and then to resubmit the case.” (Id. at 3.)

As a result of her placement on the Do Not Call List, Harris avers that her “days as an investigating police officer [are] over as she would not be permitted to testify in court. Her career as an investigating officer [is] over.” (Id. at 6.) As a result of these events, since May 13, 2021, Harris has received psychiatric care, took a leave of absence under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), and returned to work on restricted desk duty. (Id.)

Moreover, Plaintiff Dixon-Fowler:

has engaged in risky self-harm behavior since learning that her sexual assault as a minor is being divulged to members of the community by Defendant City of Philadelphia, the circumstances and facts of the assault are now to be used in cross[-]examination against her family member, Plaintiff Harris, in the prosecution of another unrelated crime[,] and has suffered extreme emotional and mental harm.

(Id.)

B. Amended Complaint

On September 14, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint against Defendants City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia District Attorney's Office,^[7]District Attorney Lawrence Krasner (“DA Krasner”), and Assistant District Attorney Brian Kean (“ADA Kean”).^[8](See id. at 1.) The Amended Complaint contains two claims by Plaintiff Crystal Harris and three claims by both Harris and Plaintiff Kadeyja Dixon-Fowler against Defendants. (See id. at 6-12.)

Harris sues all Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983^[9] alleging they violated (1) her free speech rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution (Count I) and (2) her procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Count II). (See id. at 6-9.) On these Counts, it is unclear whether Harris sues DA...