E:\Data\CPM\Rowe Amended Federal Complaint.doc 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 

 

RAYMOND CHARLES ROWE : 

136 North Broad Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 : 

vs. : C.A. No: 03-4243 

 : 

LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : 

 DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE : 

50 N. Duke Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

and : 

DETECTIVE JAN WALTERS : 

50 N. Duke Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

JOHN DOE(S) DETECTIVES : 

LANCASTER COUNTY : 

District Attorney’s Office : 

50 N. Duke Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

JANE DOE(S) DETECTIVES : 

LANCASTER COUNTY : 

District Attorney’s Office : 

50 N. Duke Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

LANCASTER CITY, PENNSYLVANIA : 

CITY HALL : 

120 N. Duke Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

MAYOR CHARLES SMITHGALL : 

City Hall : 

120 N. Duke Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

JOHN DOE(S) OFFICIALS : 

City Hall : 

120 N. Duke Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

Case 2:03-cv-04243-JS Document 2 Filed 08/01/03 Page 1 of 17
E:\Data\CPM\Rowe Amended Federal Complaint.doc 2

 and : 

JANE DOE(S) OFFICIALS : 

City Hall : 

120 N. Duke Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

LANCASTER CITY BUREAU OF POLICE : 

39 E. Chestnut Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

CHIEF OF POLICE WILLIAM M. HEIM : 

39 E. Chestnut Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

CAPTAIN OF DETECTIVES JOHN L. : 

 FLEMMING, JR. : 

39 E. Chestnut Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

DETECTIVE SGT. PETER ANDERS : 

39 E. Chestnut Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

DETECTIVE SONJA STEBBENS : 

39 E. Chestnut Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

DETECTIVE KENT SWITZER : 

39 E. Chestnut Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

SGT. ERIC F. STEWART : 

39 E. Chestnut Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

DETECTIVE PETER SAVAGE : 

39 E. Chestnut Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

DETECTIVE JOSEPH McGUIRE : 

50 N. Duke Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

OFFICER KEVIN FORD : 

39 E. Chestnut Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

Case 2:03-cv-04243-JS Document 2 Filed 08/01/03 Page 2 of 17
E:\Data\CPM\Rowe Amended Federal Complaint.doc 3

 and : 

OFFICER K. PATRICK DANZ : 

39 E. Chestnut Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

OFFICER BRADLEY SHENK : 

39 E. Chestnut Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

OFFICER MICHAEL DEAN : 

39 E. Chestnut Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

OFFICER MATTHEW BLAKE : 

39 E. Chestnut Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

OFFICER WILSON : 

39 E. Chestnut Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

JOHN DOE(S) OFFICERS : 

39 E. Chestnut Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

JANE DOE(S) OFFICERS : 

39 E. Chestnut Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

JOHN DOE(S) DETECTIVES : 

39 E. Chestnut Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

JANE DOE(S) DETECTIVES : 

39 E. Chestnut Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

LANCASTER CRIME COMMISSION : 

c/o City Hall : 

120 N. Duke Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

JOHN DOE(S) OFFICERS : 

39 E. Chestnut Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

Case 2:03-cv-04243-JS Document 2 Filed 08/01/03 Page 3 of 17
E:\Data\CPM\Rowe Amended Federal Complaint.doc 4

JANE DOE(S) OFFICERS : 

39 E. Chestnut Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

JOHN DOE(S) COMMISSION MEMBERS : 

LANCASTER CRIME COMMISSION : 

City Hall, 120 N. Duke Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

JANE DOE(S) COMMISSION MEMBERS : 

LANCASTER CRIME COMMISSION : 

City Hall, 120 N. Duke Street : 

Lancaster, PA 17602 : 

 and : 

PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF LIQUOR : 

 CONTROL ENFORCEMENT : 

 PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE : 

3655 Vartan Drive : 

Harrisburg, PA 17110 : 

 and : 

OFFICER DAVID CHRISTENSEN, AGENT : 

PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF LIQUOR : 

 CONTROL ENFORCEMENT : 

 PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE : 

3655 Vartan Drive : 

Harrisburg, PA 17110 : 

 and : 

JOHN DOE(S) AGENTS : 

PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF LIQUOR : 

 CONTROL ENFORCEMENT : 

 PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE : 

3655 Vartan Drive : 

Harrisburg, PA 17110 : 

and : 

JANE DOE(S) AGENTS : 

PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF LIQUOR : 

 CONTROL ENFORCEMENT : 

 PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE : 

3655 Vartan Drive : 

Harrisburg, PA 17110 : 

 and : 

JOHN DOE(S) ENFORCEMENT BOARD : 

 MEMBERS : 

3655 Vartan Drive : 

Harrisburg, PA 17110 : 

 and : 

Case 2:03-cv-04243-JS Document 2 Filed 08/01/03 Page 4 of 17
E:\Data\CPM\Rowe Amended Federal Complaint.doc 5

JANE DOE(S) ENFORCEMENT BOARD : 

 MEMBERS : 

3655 Vartan Drive : 

Harrisburg, PA 17110 : 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Raymond Charles Rowe, by and through undersigned counsel, Philip J. Berg, 

Esquire institutes this action to recover for damages as a result of the violation of his 

constitutional rights, when he was wrongfully arrested and assaulted by the use of unreasonable 

and unnecessary force by law enforcement in violation of the Civil Rights Act. Further Plaintiff, 

Raymond Charles Rowe, was denied and/or deprived his due process rights in violation of the 

Constitution. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as attorney fees, 

interests and costs for this wrongful violation of his rights. The Complaint was timely filed on 

July 21, 2003 and this Amended Complaint is being filed to correct spelling of certain 

Defendants names and to correct certain addresses of some Defendants and to eliminate the 

duplicate names of two (2) Defendants. 

I. JURISDICTION

1. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983, 1985 and 1988 and the 

Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is 

founded upon 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1343 and the aforementioned statutory and 

Constitutional provisions. Plaintiff further invokes the pendent jurisdiction of this Court to 

consider claims arising under state law. 

Case 2:03-cv-04243-JS Document 2 Filed 08/01/03 Page 5 of 17
E:\DATA\CPM\ROWE AMENDED FEDERAL COMPLAINT.DOC 6 

 2. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages against each of the named Defendants, jointly 

and severally, in an amount in excess of One Hundred Fifty Thousand ($150,000.00) Dollars and 

a claim for punitive damages, attorney fees and costs against each of the named Defendants, 

jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of One Hundred Fifty Thousand ($150,000.00) 

Dollars. 

II. THE PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Raymond Charles Rowe is and was at all relevant times a citizen of the United 

States of America residing at 136 North Broad Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17601. 

4. Defendant Lancaster County, District Attorney’s Office is an agency of the County of 

Lancaster, Pennsylvania and is charged with executing and enforcing the laws of the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States of America with regard to crime, public 

safety, etc. with its office located at 50 North Duke Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. 

5. Defendant Detective Jan Walters was at all relevant times a duly appointed acting official 

within Lancaster County, District Attorney’s Office with offices located at 50 North Duke Street, 

Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. 

6. Defendants Detectives (John and Jane Doe) were at all relevant times duly appointed and 

acting officials within Lancaster County, District Attorney’s Office with offices located 50 N. 

Duke Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. 

7. Defendant Lancaster City, Pennsylvania is a municipal corporation within the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that owns, operates, manages, directs, and controls Lancaster 

City with offices located City Hall, 120 N. Duke Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. 

Case 2:03-cv-04243-JS Document 2 Filed 08/01/03 Page 6 of 17
E:\DATA\CPM\ROWE AMENDED FEDERAL COMPLAINT.DOC 7 

8. Defendant Mayor Charles Smithgall was at all relevant times a duly elected and acting 

official within Lancaster City, Pennsylvania with offices located City Hall, 120 N. Duke Street, 

Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. 

9. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Officials within the governmental agency acted by 

and through its duly authorized actual and apparent agents, servants, workmen and employees 

who were acting within the scope of their agency and/or employment and who acted under the 

color of state law, with offices located City Hall, 120 N. Duke Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 

17602. 

10. Defendant Lancaster City Bureau of Police is an agency of the City of Lancaster within 

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and is charged with executing and enforcing the laws of the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States of America with regard to crime, public 

safety, alcohol, etc. with offices located at 39 East Chestnut Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 

17602. 

11. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, Lancaster City Bureau of Police, acted by and 

through its duly authorized actual and apparent agents, servants, workmen and/or employees who 

were acting within the scope of their agency and/or employment and who acted under the color 

of state law, with offices located 39 East Chestnut Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. 

12. Defendant Chief of Police William M. Heim was at all relevant times a duly appointed 

and acting official within Lancaster City Bureau of Police with offices located at 39 East 

Chestnut Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. 

13. Defendant Captain of Detectives John L. Flemming, Jr. was at all relevant times a duly 

appointed and acting official within Lancaster City Bureau of Police with offices located at 39 

East Chestnut Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. 

Case 2:03-cv-04243-JS Document 2 Filed 08/01/03 Page 7 of 17
E:\DATA\CPM\ROWE AMENDED FEDERAL COMPLAINT.DOC 8 

14. Defendant Detective Sgt. Peter Anders was at all relevant times a duly appointed and 

acting official within Lancaster City Bureau of Police with offices located at 39 East Chestnut 

Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. 

15. Defendant Detective Sonja Stebbens was at all relevant times a duly appointed and acting 

official within Lancaster City Bureau of Police with offices located at 39 East Chestnut Street, 

Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. 

16. Defendant Detective Kent Switzer was at all relevant times a duly appointed and acting 

official within Lancaster City Bureau of Police with offices located at 39 East Chestnut Street, 

Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. 

17. Defendant Sgt. Eric F. Stewart was at all relevant times a duly appointed and acting 

official within Lancaster City Bureau of Police with offices located at 39 East Chestnut Street, 

Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. 

18. Defendant Detective Peter Savage was at all relevant times a duly appointed and acting 

official within Lancaster City Bureau of Police with offices located at 50 N. Duke Street, 

Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. 

19. Defendant Joseph McGuire was at all relevant times a duly appointed and acting official 

within Lancaster County Detectives with offices located at 50 N. Duke Street, Lancaster, 

Pennsylvania 17602. 

20. Defendant Officer Kevin Ford was at all relevant times a duly appointed and acting 

official within Lancaster City Bureau of Police with offices located at 39 East Chestnut Street, 

Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. 

21. Defendant Officer K. Patrick Danz was at all relevant times a duly appointed and acting 

official within Lancaster City Bureau of Police with offices located at 39 East Chestnut Street, 

Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. 

Case 2:03-cv-04243-JS Document 2 Filed 08/01/03 Page 8 of 17
E:\DATA\CPM\ROWE AMENDED FEDERAL COMPLAINT.DOC 9 

22. Defendant Officer Bradley Shenk was at all relevant times a duly appointed and acting 

official within Lancaster City Bureau of Police with offices located at 39 East Chestnut Street, 

Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. 

23. Defendant Officer Michael Dean was at all relevant times a duly appointed and acting 

official within Lancaster City Bureau of Police with offices located at 39 East Chestnut Street, 

Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. 

24. Defendant Officer Matthew Blake was at all relevant times a duly appointed and acting 

official within Lancaster City Bureau of Police with offices located at 39 East Chestnut Street, 

Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. 

25. Defendant Officer Wilson was at all relevant times a duly appointed and acting official 

within Lancaster City Bureau of Police with offices located at 39 East Chestnut Street, Lancaster, 

Pennsylvania 17602. 

26. Defendants John Doe(s) and Jane Doe(s) Officers were at all relevant times duly 

appointed and acting officials within Lancaster City Bureau of Police with offices located at 39 

East Chestnut Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. 

27. Defendants John Doe(s) and Jane Doe(s) Detectives were at all relevant times duly 

appointed and acting officials within Lancaster City Bureau of Police with offices located at 39 

East Chestnut Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. 

28. Defendant Lancaster Crime Commission is an agency within the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania that is a criminal investigatory and advisory body located with offices located City 

Hall, 120 N. Duke Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. 

29. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, Lancaster Crime Commission, acted by and 

through its duly authorized actual and apparent agents, servants, workmen and employees who 

Case 2:03-cv-04243-JS Document 2 Filed 08/01/03 Page 9 of 17
E:\DATA\CPM\ROWE AMENDED FEDERAL COMPLAINT.DOC 10 

were acting within the scope of their agency and/or employment and who acted under the color 

of state law, with offices located City Hall, 120 N. Duke Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. 

30. Omitted 

31. Defendants John Doe(s) and Jane Doe(s) Officers were at all relevant times duly 

appointed and acting officials within Lancaster Crime Commission with offices located City 

Hall, 120 N. Duke Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. 

32. Defendants John Doe(s) and Jane Doe(s) Commission Members were at all relevant times 

duly appointed and acting officials within Lancaster Crime Commission with offices located City 

Hall, 120 N. Duke Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. 

33. Defendant Pennsylvania Bureau of Liquor Control Board Enforcement is within the 

exclusive province of the Pennsylvania State Police, which manages and directs policies and 

procedures as to liquor control with offices located at 3655 Vartan Drive, Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania 17110. 

34. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, Pennsylvania Bureau of Liquor Control Board 

Enforcement, acted by and through its duly authorized actual and apparent agents, servants, 

workmen and employees who were acting within the scope of their agency and/or employment 

and who acted under the color of state law, with offices located 3655 Vartan Drive, Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania 17110. 

35. Defendant Officer David Christensen was at all relevant times duly appointed and acting 

official within Pennsylvania Bureau of Liquor Board Enforcement with offices located at 3655 

Vartan Drive, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110. 

36. Defendants John Doe(s) and Jane Doe(s) Agents were at all relevant times duly appointed 

and acting officials within Pennsylvania Bureau of Liquor Board Enforcement located at 3655 

Vartan Drive, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110. 

Case 2:03-cv-04243-JS Document 2 Filed 08/01/03 Page 10 of 17
E:\DATA\CPM\ROWE AMENDED FEDERAL COMPLAINT.DOC 11 

37. Defendants John Doe(s) and Jane Doe(s) Board Members were at all relevant times duly 

appointed and acting officials within Pennsylvania Bureau of Liquor Board Enforcement located 

at 3655 Vartan Drive, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110. 

38. At all times relevant hereto, all herein named Defendants were acting under color of state 

law. 

III. THE FACTS

39. Plaintiff incorporates the facts averred in paragraphs 1 through 38 the same as if set forth 

at length herein. 

40. On or about July 20, 2001, Plaintiff Raymond Charles Rowe was engaged in employment 

as a disc jockey at the Chameleon Club, 233 North Water Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. 

41. The Chameleon Club is a reputable establishment doing business for many years at its 

location. 

42. On or about July 20, 2001, the Chameleon Club held an event that included patrons of 

majority status as well as those less than twenty-one (21) years of age. 

43. In accordance with the notification requirements of including the under twenty-one (21) 

age group, the Chameleon Club did timely notify the Pennsylvania Liquor Board Enforcement 

Division of the aforementioned planned event. 

44. Upon receipt of said notification, it is incumbent upon the Pennsylvania Liquor Board 

Enforcement Division to contact the local police, and such notification was made. 

45. At midnight on or about July 20, 2001 and extending into the early hours of July 21, 

2001, several dozen officers and Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board Enforcement agents entered 

the club, under the direction of Defendant David Christensen, including but not limited to the 

named Defendants. 

Case 2:03-cv-04243-JS Document 2 Filed 08/01/03 Page 11 of 17
E:\DATA\CPM\ROWE AMENDED FEDERAL COMPLAINT.DOC 12 

46. The aforementioned raid was an “open inspection,” not in response to any complaints and 

produced no findings of underage drinking and warranted no arrests of the attendees. 

47. The aforementioned may have been part of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board 

Enforcement Division’s “Operation Clean Sweep,” a three-day targeting of possible heightened 

criminal activity in Lancaster. 

48. The officers’ entry and conduct was physically menacing in nature to the club attendees. 

49. Officers ordered that the lights be turned up and the music turned down. 

50. The request to turn off the music was made to Plaintiff Raymond Charles Rowe, who at 

the time was wearing headphones and did in fact comply with the request. 

51. Plaintiff made an inquiry as to why the music was to cease and received a response from 

an officer that a raid was being executed. 

52. At the direction of the manager of the Chameleon, Plaintiff Rowe resumed playing the 

music. 

53. Defendant Sgt. Eric F. Stewart, Lancaster Police, thereafter demanded the Plaintiff turn 

the music off. 

54. Plaintiff Rowe responded to Defendant Sgt. Stewart that he had resumed playing at the 

direction of the club manager. 

55. Defendant Sgt. Stewart responded with profanity and demanded compliance. 

56. Defendant Sgt. Stewart thereafter lunged at Plaintiff Rowe who in turn put his hand up 

and said he did not want any problems. 

57. Defendant Sgt. Stewart intentionally lunged at Plaintiff Rowe a second time, physically 

grabbed Plaintiff’s shirt, and grabbed him around the neck and throat, pulling Plaintiff out of the 

disc jockey booth. 

Case 2:03-cv-04243-JS Document 2 Filed 08/01/03 Page 12 of 17
E:\DATA\CPM\ROWE AMENDED FEDERAL COMPLAINT.DOC 13 

58. Defendant Sgt. Stewart was assisted by other officers in the physical extraction of 

Plaintiff Rowe from the disc jockey booth. 

59. At the time of this forced extraction, Plaintiff’s daughter had her arms around her father’s 

legs, screaming at the officers to leave her father alone. 

60. Plaintiff Rowe was thereafter slammed headfirst into the floor five (5) feet below the 

booth by the officers and dragged towards the steps. 

61. The same officers physically and simultaneously assaulted Plaintiff Rowe holding him by 

the throat, legs, and side. 

62. At no time during the altercation did the Plaintiff Rowe resist or offer any physically 

menacing motions toward the officers. 

63. Plaintiff was thereafter dragged to the entrance of the second floor, down the steps, and 

outside of the club. 

64. Plaintiff during this time, lost consciousness and awakened to an ambulance crew 

questioning him as to the availability of any seizure medication, having had an episode of seizure 

prior to regaining consciousness. 

65. Plaintiff was thereafter placed in a police vehicle and taken to the police station. 

66. Plaintiff was not taken directly to a hospital or any other medical facility for his injuries. 

67. After an hour, Plaintiff was charged with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. 

68. As a direct and proximate result of the above described unlawful, malicious, and 

intentional acts of the Defendants, all committed under the color of authority of the office, 

governmental agency, and government, Plaintiff Rowe suffered grievous bodily harm, all of 

which violated his rights under the laws and Constitution of the United States of America, in 

particular the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments thereof and 42 USC s 1983 and 1988. 

Case 2:03-cv-04243-JS Document 2 Filed 08/01/03 Page 13 of 17
E:\DATA\CPM\ROWE AMENDED FEDERAL COMPLAINT.DOC 14 

69. As a further result of the above described acts, Plaintiff Rowe was deprived of the right 

of due process of the law under the laws and Constitution of the United States of America, in 

particular the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments thereof. 

70. Further the assault of Plaintiff Rowe was unwarranted, unjustifiable and excessive in 

force. 

71. As a further result of the above described act, Plaintiff Rowe was deprived of the rights 

and immunities secured to him under the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including but not limited to his rights under the 14th

Amendment to be secure in his person, to be free from punishment and denial of his liberty 

without due process and to the equal protection of the laws. 

72. Defendants intentionally subjected the Plaintiff to these deprivations by acting or by 

endorsing acts in disregard for the Plaintiff’s rights. As a direct result of the acts, Plaintiff 

a. suffered severe injuries, including but not limited to initial injuries of loss of 

consciousness, seizure, injuries to head, neck, back, trunk, ribs, shoulders, arms 

[multiple bruises on arms and trunk] ankles and legs, 

b. ongoing injuries including numbness and tingling and pain in elbows, lower arms 

and fingers; numbness and tingling and pain in legs; stiffness top of spine and 

neck’ and migraine headaches 

c. was forced to endure pain and mental suffering, 

d. was forced to incur medical and legal expenses and loss of earnings and of 

reputation, and 

e. was deprived of his physical liberty, all to his great detriment and loss. 

Case 2:03-cv-04243-JS Document 2 Filed 08/01/03 Page 14 of 17
E:\DATA\CPM\ROWE AMENDED FEDERAL COMPLAINT.DOC 15 

IV. LEGAL CLAIMS

73. Plaintiff incorporates the facts averred in paragraphs 1 through 72 the same as if set forth 

at length herein. 

74. Prior to July 2001, Defendant City of Lancaster initially permitted, promoted, tolerated, 

and ratified a practice of police operations by which “raids” were effectuated without proper 

supervision, training and control and in violation of the constitutional principles of the United 

States and of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

75. Prior to July 2001, all Defendants engaged in and executed operations by which “raids” 

were effectuated without proper supervision, training, and control and in violation of 

constitutional rights. 

76. All Defendants had specific knowledge of the unconstitutional conduct and intentionally 

acquiesced to the same by failing to establish proper procedures and/or by failing to train the 

officers executing the same or by failing to impose sanctions upon those in violation. 

77. As a result of the aforementioned, the police action of July 20 – 21, 2001 was one of 

willful and malicious conduct levied against the Plaintiff inclusive of but not limited to assault, 

infliction of emotional distress, excessive use of force, and unlawful arrest in violation of 42 

USC section 1983, 1985 and 1988. 

78. At all times herein, Defendants were acting in conspiracy with all other Defendants in 

violating Plaintiff Rowe’s constitutional rights. 

79. The Defendant officers and agents involved in the act of July 20 and July 21, 2001 acted 

within the course and scope of employment and were acting under the color of state law at which 

time they intentionally and maliciously acted against the Plaintiff. 

80. In so executing the “raid” of July 20 – 21, 2001, Defendants intentionally deprived the 

Plaintiff of federal cognizable rights and said deprivation occurred under the color of state law. 

Case 2:03-cv-04243-JS Document 2 Filed 08/01/03 Page 15 of 17
E:\DATA\CPM\ROWE AMENDED FEDERAL COMPLAINT.DOC 16 

81. In the aforementioned execution, the Plaintiff was deprived of his rights, privileges and 

immunities under the laws and Constitution of the United States of America and Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, specifically the right to be secure in his person, to be free from excessive 

punishment, to due process and to equal protection secured by Article 1, Sections 1, 8, 9, 13, 26 

of the Pennsylvania Constitution and by the 5th, 8th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. 

Constitution. 

82. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Sgt. Stewart and the other Defendant officers who 

assisted him were acting as officers of the Defendant City of Lancaster and the other 

governmental law enforcement agencies, and acting at all times within the course and scope of 

their employment. 

83. Defendant Sgt. Stewart and other Defendant officers who assisted him, placed Plaintiff in 

fear of imminent, unpermitted, offensive bodily contact and did in fact subject Plaintiff to such 

bodily contact. 

84. The acts of said Defendants as set forth in the proceeding paragraphs, constitute the 

unwarranted, cruel, inhumane, unjustifiable and excessive assault, all to Plaintiff’s great 

detriment and loss. 

85. The acts of said Defendants as set forth in the proceeding paragraphs deprived Plaintiff of 

his rights, privileges and immunities under the laws and the Constitution of the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania: in particular to be secure in his person and property, to be free from excessive 

punishment, to due process, and to equal protection of the laws, secured unto him by Article I, 

Sections 1, 8, 9, 13 and 26 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, all to his great detriment and loss. 

Case 2:03-cv-04243-JS Document 2 Filed 08/01/03 Page 16 of 17
E:\DATA\CPM\ROWE AMENDED FEDERAL COMPLAINT.DOC 17 

IV. RELIEF SOUGHT

86. Plaintiff incorporates the facts averred in paragraphs 1 through 85 the same as if set forth 

at length herein. 

87. Plaintiff Rowe seeks compensatory damages, against each and every named Defendant 

herein, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of One Hundred Fifty Thousand 

($150,000.00) Dollars. 

88. Plaintiff Rowe seeks punitive damages and treble damages against each and every named 

Defendant herein, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of One Hundred Fifty Thousand 

($150,000.00) Dollars. 

89. Plaintiff Rowe seeks attorney fees, interest and costs against each and every named 

Defendant herein, jointly and severally. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Raymond Charles Rowe, respectfully prays that his demand for 

relief be granted against each of the Defendants, jointly and severally. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 ________________________ 

 PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE 

 Attorney for Plaintiff, 

 Raymond Charles Rowe 

 706 Ridge Pike 

 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444 

 Attorney ID # 09867 

 (610) 825-3134 

 

Case 2:03-cv-04243-JS Document 2 Filed 08/01/03 Page 17 of 17