Judge tosses troopers’ lawsuit
WEST CHESTER » The Chester County Common Pleas Court judge overseeing an unprecedented lawsuit by members of the Pennsylvania State Troopers Association against the former chief law enforcement official in the county, ex-District Attorney Tom Hogan, has dismissed the complaint, saying the matter was legally no longer an issue.
Judge Edward Griffith ruled in favor of Hogan’s motion to dismiss, not on the merits of the case, but over the fact that Hogan is no longer in office and cannot have any authority over the matter that had driven the trooper’s union to court, Hogan’s use
of a “do not call” list that included one of the county’s most respected state troopers.
When Hogan left office in January, he gave up the ability to continue the use of the list, which includes the names of police officers or others that his office is instructed not to use as witnesses in any criminal court proceeding, Griffith said. That was up to newly elected District Attorney Deb Ryan, who was not a party to the suit and Griffith declined to substitute for Hogan as a defendant after she took over.
“In the instant matter, there is no actual controversy and the lawsuit is moot given the change in circumstances since the lawsuit was filed,” Griffith wrote in a 10-page opinion that was filed on Tuesday. “The injunctive relief that the plaintiffs seek can never be granted because Hogan is out of office and does not have any power to direct any action within the District Attorney’s Office. Any injunction that he may issue would have no legal effect.
“Hogan is out of office,” the opinion declared. “There is no risk that he will use the list.” Hogan had asked that the suit be dismissed as far back as February 2019, when he was still in office and had declared his intention to seek a third term. That changed in July when Hogan abruptly dropped out of the race, citing the desire to spend more time with his family. An attorney representing him expressed satisfaction with the ruling and said he anticipated it would not be appealed. “I am pleased that Judge Griffith reached the correct decision in this matter,” said attorney Michael B. Pullano of the Tredyffrin law firm of Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith. “I do not believe that there is a basis for an appeal of this well thought out opinion by the judge and as a result, I hope this is the end of the case.” But an official with the trooper’s association said the group was studying the decision to determine whether it should be contested in an appellate court. “We respect the court’s decision, but we’re disappointed that it didn’t resolve the important and fundamental question before it,” said association president David Kennedy. “(The union) will examine the best course forward. Though this happened under a previous district attorney, troopers, and all police
departments, deserve protection from prosecutors who unfairly tarnish their reputations.”
Hogan, through Pullano, declined to comment.
The suit concerned Hogan’s use of the “do not call list” and the troopers’ insistence that he was abusing his authority in the way he generated the list. According to a memo Hogan sent to Pennsylvania Homeland Security and State Police administrators, he had placed Lt. Brandon Daniels of the southern Chester County state police barracks at Avondale on the list along with two other ex-troopers who had been convicted of crimes.
Daniels had never been charged with or found guilty of a crime. But he had come into conflict with Hogan over an investigation he ran in May 2018 that contradicted a directive on officer-involved shootings that Hogan had issued earlier. The association had argued in its lawsuit — a rarity between police and prosecutors — that Hogan, as district attorney, should be required to notify any of its members of his intent to place them on the do not use list and give the troopers a chance to respond or object to that decision. The suit claims that not giving the troopers a chance to argue their case against inclusion unconstitutionally damages their reputation and denies them the right to fight the decision. Daniels retired in October 2018 from the state police as head of the Troop J Criminal Investigation Unit. He is now the head of the Owen J. Roberts School District police department. In May 2018, Daniels convened and supervised an investigation into the shooting by troopers at a Coatesville man suspected of drunk driving. The driver tried to strike troopers with his car during a chase after they attempted to stop him in London Grove. No one was injured in the shooting. But Daniels, who oversaw the state police investigation into the shooting, refused to cede his authority over the scene to Hogan that night, and — according to Hogan — was deceptive when asked to explain why. He said his failure to follow the District Attorney’s Office orders, and his subsequent deception warranted his inclusion on the “do not call” list. The association argued that such a step was damaging to the reputation of any police officer, and that Daniels, along with other state troopers, had the right to respond to a move to place their names on the list. In response to Hogan’s request to dismiss the case because of his decision to leave the District Attorney’s Office, the association had asked Griffith to put Ryan in the case as the new D.A. so it could clear up whether or not a trooper had the right to confront his accuser before being put on the “do not call” list. Griffith declined, saying that Ryan could have voluntarily substituted her name in the complaint after taking office in January, but had not done so. “These allegations are highly personal to Hogan,” wrote Griffith. “These allegations are specific about facts that do not include Ryan.” To put her in Hogan’s place, the judge said, would be “logically absurd.” Ryan was asked whether her office was keeping a “do not call list,” and what procedures she was utilizing in creating one. She was circumspect in her answer, however, and did not address the use of a “do not call” list directly. “The criminal justice system relies upon the integrity of law enforcement officers to ensure fairness in our pursuit of justice,” she said in an email. “The District Attorney’s Office preserves this integrity by enforcing high professional and ethical standards.” Ryan said her office had a “legal and ethical obligation” to disclose to a defendant any exculpatory evidence that it knows exists, including any information that may be used to impeach the credibility of a witness, including police officers. “In compliance with this obligation, my office has reviewed, and will continue to review and disclose, all exculpatory evidence, including any impeachment evidence involving police officers,” she said. “Our office will not call any witness to the stand, including any police officer, unless we are confident in their credibility, even if it means we may have to withdraw charges against a defendant. Any decisions about whether or not to call an officer to testify, due to impeachment material which exists, will be made on an individual, case-by-case basis.” To contact staff writer Michael P. Rellahan call 610-696-1544.