IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 

TIMOTHY J. DUNMIRE, : No. 

 Plaintiff : 

 : 

 Vs. : 

 : 

STEPHEN M. DETZ, ERIC ZIMMERMAN, : 

DAVID BURGIS, THE BOROUGH OF : 

LITITZ and THE TOWNSHIP OF : 

WARWICK, : 

 Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

COMPLAINT

PARTIES

 1. Plaintiff is Timothy J. Dunmire (hereafter “Dunmire”), an individual who resides 

at 12 South Broad Street, Lititz, Pennsylvania, 17543. 

 2. Defendant is Stephen M. Detz (hereafter “Detz”), an individual employed as a 

police officer by the Borough of Lititz, and available for service there at the Borough of Lititz 

Police Department, 7 South Broad Street, Lititz, Pennsylvania, 17543. 

 3. Defendant is Eric Zimmerman (hereafter “Zimmerman”), an individual employed 

as a police officer by the Township of Warwick, and available for service there at the Township 

of Warwick Police Department, 315 Clay Road, P.O. Box 308, Lititz, Pennsylvania, 17543. 

 4. Defendant is David Burgis (hereafter “Burgis”), an individual employed as a 

police officer by the Township of Warwick, and available for service there at the Township of 

Warwick Police Department, 315 Clay Road, P.O. Box 308, Lititz, Pennsylvania, 17543. 

Case 2:05-cv-00081-BMS Document 1 Filed 01/07/05 Page 1 of 12
2

 5. Defendant is the Borough of Lititz (hereafter “Lititz”), a municipality 

incorporated pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with its principal place 

of business located at 7 South Broad Street, Lititz, Pennsylvania, 17543. 

 6. Defendant is the Township of Warwick (hereafter “Warwick”), a second-class 

township organized and existing within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, having its principal 

place of business located at 315 Clay Road, P.O. Box 308, Lititz, Pennsylvania, 17543. 

 7. At all times material hereto, Lititz and Warwick employed, maintained and 

operated police departments, employing officers and other personnel who, at all times, acted 

under color of state law in enforcing both the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and 

the ordinances of the respective municipalities. 

 8. At all times material hereto, Detz was employed as a police officer by Lititz. 

 9. At all times material hereto, Zimmerman and Burgis were employed as police 

officers with Warwick. 

 10. All actions described in this Complaint as being taken by the individual 

Defendants were taken in the course and scope of their employment with Lititz and/or Warwick. 

JURISDICTION

 11. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. 1983. Jurisdiction is based upon 

28 U.S.C.A. 1331 and 1343. Plaintiff further invokes the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 1367(a) to hear and adjudicate pendant state law claims. 

Case 2:05-cv-00081-BMS Document 1 Filed 01/07/05 Page 2 of 12
3

FACTS

 12. On December 12, 2004, at approximately 2:00 a.m., Dunmire was within his 

residence, located at 12 South Broad Street, Lititz, Pennsylvania, 17543. 

 13. On December 12, 2004, the 12 South Broad Street property was leased to 

Dunmire, and that property was his domicile and home in which he had a leasehold interest to 

the exclusion of all other persons. 

 14. On December 12, 2004, at approximately 2:00 a.m., Detz appeared at the front 

door of Dunmire’s home and banged upon the door, demanding entry. 

 15. In response, Dunmire exited his home, closing the front door behind him. Detz 

and Dunmire had a lengthy conversation outside the front door, during which Detz continued to 

demand entry into the home. 

 16. Dunmire consistently refused permission for entry into his home. 

 17. During this conversation, Detz demanded identification from Dunmire, which was 

produced in the form of a Pennsylvania driver’s license. Detz took possession of the driver’s 

license and, when requested to do so, refused to return it to Dunmire. 

 18. As the conversation between Dunmire and Detz proceeded on the front step of the 

Dunmire home, Zimmerman arrived. Immediately upon his arrival, Zimmerman approached 

Dunmire in a hostile and threatening manner, physically accosted him, grabbed him, pushed him 

against a stair railing, verbally threatened him, placed him in handcuffs and physically injured 

him. 

Case 2:05-cv-00081-BMS Document 1 Filed 01/07/05 Page 3 of 12
4

 19. Upon Dunmire being placed in handcuffs, Detz pushed and banged against the 

closed front door of the Dunmire residence, causing that door to spring open. Immediately 

thereafter, both Detz and Zimmerman entered the Dunmire residence. 

 20. At all times, entry into the Dunmire residence and any time spent within that 

residence was directly contrary to and against the wishes of Dunmire who at no time gave 

consent to such entry or occupancy and, to the contrary, protested against such entry and/or 

occupancy. 

 21. After gaining entry into the Dunmire home, Detz walked throughout that home, 

including the bedroom, bathroom and all other rooms within the Dunmire residence. Detz and 

Zimmerman stayed within the Dunmire residence against the protests of Dunmire and despite 

such protests. 

 22. During the search and occupancy of the Dunmire residence, Dunmire remained 

handcuffed in his own kitchen to his humiliation and embarrassment in the presence of his guests 

then present in his home. 

 23. After entry had already been made by Detz and Zimmerman, Burgis arrived at the 

Dunmire home and, likewise, entered and occupied the home without the consent of Dunmire 

and against his express protest. 

 24. Once the invasion and search of the Dunmire home was completed, Detz, 

Zimmerman and Burgis left. 

Case 2:05-cv-00081-BMS Document 1 Filed 01/07/05 Page 4 of 12
5

COUNT I – VIOLATION OF 

42 U.S.C.A. 1983 - HOME INVASION 

DUNMIRE V. DETZ, ZIMMERMAN AND BURGIS

 25. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 24, set forth above, are incorporated 

herein as if set forth at length. 

 26. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Detz, Zimmerman and Burgis were 

acting under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs and/or usages of Lititz, 

Warwick and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

 27. Defendants deprived Dunmire of his clearly-established rights, privileges and/or 

immunities secured by the Federal Constitution and the laws, specifically those provided by the 

Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, by entering the home of Dunmire without 

his consent and against his protest, without a warrant, without any exigent circumstances, and 

without any reasonable or probable suspicion that any violation of any statute or ordinance had 

taken place and, by their actions, thereby unconstitutionally invaded the home of Dunmire and 

detained him. 

 28. It would be clear, and should have been clear, to a reasonable police officer that 

Dunmire’s conduct on the date in question, in quietly and peacefully occupying his own home, 

was not unlawful under the circumstances. 

 29. It would be clear to a reasonable police officer that the conduct of Detz was 

unlawful in the situation described herein. 

 30. It would be clear to a reasonable police officer that the conduct of Zimmerman 

was unlawful in the situation described herein. 

Case 2:05-cv-00081-BMS Document 1 Filed 01/07/05 Page 5 of 12
6

 31. It would be clear to a reasonable police officer that the conduct of Burgis was 

unlawful in the situation described herein. 

 32. The actions of the three individual Defendants, as described, demonstrates a 

reckless and callous disregard of, or indifference to, Dunmire’s federally protected rights. 

 33. The actions of the three individual Defendants, as described, are the direct, legal 

and proximate causes of the harms, injuries and damages to Dunmire, including but not limited 

to the following: 

 (a) Deprivation of liberty; 

 (b) Great humiliation, embarrassment, mortification and distress; 

 (c) Exposure to and subjection to unlawful, illegal, unreasonable and 

unconstitutional use of force; 

 (d) Exposure to and subjection to unlawful, illegal, unreasonable and 

unconstitutional arrest, detention, confinement and inconvenience; 

 (e) Invasion of a private home; 

 (f) Deprivation of liberty in violation of the Constitutions of the 

United States and Pennsylvania and further violations of state and federal law; 

 (g) Forcing him to expend money on legal representation; 

 (h) Suffering public stigma resulting from the invasion of his home, 

being handcuffed and detained in the presence of his guests in his own home, and 

being verbally and physically harassed by the police in the presence of his guests; 

 (i) Loss of valuable federally protected rights. 

Case 2:05-cv-00081-BMS Document 1 Filed 01/07/05 Page 6 of 12
7

WHEREFORE, Dunmire demands judgment against Detz, Zimmerman and Burgis for: 

 (a) Compensatory damages; 

 (b) Punitive damages; 

 (c) Costs of this litigation; 

 (d) Allowable interest; and, 

 (e) Reasonable attorneys’ fees. 

COUNT II – VIOLATION OF 

42 U.S.C.A. 1983 – FALSE ARREST AND 

UNREASONABLE AND EXCESSIVE FORCE 

DUNMIRE V. DETZ AND ZIMMERMAN

 34. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 33, set forth above, are incorporated 

herein as if set forth at length. 

 35. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Detz and Zimmerman, 

committed under color of state law, Dunmire was deprived of his right to be free from 

unreasonable and excessive force, unlawful search and seizure, and unlawful arrest, to be secure 

in his person and property and home, and to due process of law. 

 36. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Detz and Zimmerman, Dunmire 

sustained physical injuries, emotional harm, loss of liberty and financial losses, all to his 

detriment and harm. 

 37. At all times relevant herein, Defendants Detz and Zimmerman were acting under 

color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs and/or usages of Lititz and Warwick, and 

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

Case 2:05-cv-00081-BMS Document 1 Filed 01/07/05 Page 7 of 12
8

 38. Defendants Detz and Zimmerman deprived Dunmire of his clearly established 

rights, privileges and/or immunities secured by the federal constitution and laws, specifically 

those provided by the Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment by pushing, shoving, 

physically accosting, injuring, hurting and handcuffing the person of Dunmire without a valid 

warrant or probable cause, thereby unconstitutionally arresting, injuring, hurting and humiliating 

Dunmire. 

 39. It would be clear to a reasonable police officer that the actions of Detz and 

Zimmerman were unlawful in the situation described. 

 40. The actions of Detz and Zimmerman demonstrate a reckless and callous disregard 

of or indifference to Dunmire’s federally protected rights. 

 41. The actions of Detz and Zimmerman are the direct, legal and proximate causes of 

the harms, injuries and damages to Dunmire, including but not limited to the following: 

 (a) Deprivation of liberty; 

 (b) Great humiliation, embarrassment, mortification and distress; 

 (c) Subjection to unlawful, illegal, unreasonable and unconstitutional 

use of force; 

 (d) Physical injury and pain; 

 (e) Subjection to unlawful, illegal, unreasonable and unconstitutional 

arrest, detention and confinement; 

 (f) Deprivation of liberty in violation of the Constitutions of the 

United States and Pennsylvania and further in violation of state and federal law; 

 (g) Expending money on legal representation. 

Case 2:05-cv-00081-BMS Document 1 Filed 01/07/05 Page 8 of 12
9

WHEREFORE, Dunmire demands judgment against Detz and Zimmerman for: 

 (a) Compensatory damages; 

 (b) Punitive damages; 

 (c) Costs of this litigation; 

 (d) Allowable interest; and, 

 (e) Reasonable attorneys’ fees. 

COUNT III – VIOLATION OF 

42 U.S.C.A. 1983 – FAILURE TO INSTRUCT, 

SUPERVISE, CONTROL AND DISCIPLINE 

DUNMIRE V. LITITZ AND WARWICK

42. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 41, set forth above, are incorporated 

herein as if set forth at length. 

 43. At all times material hereto, Detz, as an officer of Lititz, was acting under the 

direction and control of Lititz. 

 44. At all times material hereto, Zimmerman and Burgis, as officers of Warwick, 

were acting under the direction and control of Warwick. 

 45. Acting under color of law and pursuant to official policy or custom, both Lititz 

and Warwick knowingly, recklessly, or with deliberate indifference and callous disregard to 

Dunmire’s rights, failed to instruct, supervise, control and discipline on a continuing basis the 

individual Defendants in their duties to refrain from: 

Case 2:05-cv-00081-BMS Document 1 Filed 01/07/05 Page 9 of 12
10

 (a) Unlawfully and maliciously harassing a citizen, who was acting in 

accordance with his constitutional and statutory rights, privileges and immunities 

within his own home; 

 (b) Unlawfully and maliciously invading the home of a private citizen; 

 (c) Unlawfully and maliciously arresting a private citizen within his 

own home, who was acting in accordance with his constitutional and statutory 

rights, privileges and immunities; 

 (d) Otherwise depriving Dunmire of his constitutional and statutory 

rights, privileges and immunities. 

 46. Lititz and Warwick had knowledge, or should have had knowledge, that the 

wrongs to be done, as alleged herein, were about to be committed. Lititz and Warwick had the 

power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of these wrongs and could have done so by 

reasonable diligence, but knowingly, recklessly or with deliberate indifference and callous 

disregard of Dunmire’s rights failed or refused to do so. 

 47. Lititz and Warwick directly or indirectly, under color of law, approved or ratified 

the unlawful, deliberate, malicious, reckless and wanton conduct of the individual Defendants 

described herein. 

 48. The actions of Lititz and Warwick are the direct, legal and proximate causes of 

the harms, injuries and damages to Dunmire, including but not limited to the following: 

 (a) Deprivation of liberty; 

 (b) Great humiliation, embarrassment, mortification and distress; 

 (c) Unlawful, illegal, unreasonable and unconstitutional use of force; 

Case 2:05-cv-00081-BMS Document 1 Filed 01/07/05 Page 10 of 12
11

 (d) Subjection to unlawful, illegal, unreasonable and unconstitutional 

arrest and detention; 

 (e) Invasion of a private home; 

 (f) Physical injury and pain; 

 (g) Deprivation of liberty in violation of the Constitutions of the 

United States and Pennsylvania and further violations of state and federal law; 

 (h) Expending money on legal representation. 

WHEREFORE, Dunmire demands judgment against Lititz and Warwick for: 

 (a) Compensatory damages; 

 (b) Punitive damages; 

 (c) Costs of this litigation; 

 (d) Allowable interest; and, 

 (e) Reasonable attorneys’ fees. 

COUNT IV – FALSE ARREST, ASSAULT AND HOME INVASION 

UNDER PENNSYLVANIA COMMON LAW 

DUNMIRE V. DETZ, ZIMMERMAN AND BURGIS

 49. Paragraphs 1 through 48, set forth above, are incorporated herein as if set forth at 

length. 

 50. The acts and conduct of the individual Defendants constitute assault, battery, false 

arrest, false imprisonment, trespass to real property, trespass to chattels, and intentional infliction 

Case 2:05-cv-00081-BMS Document 1 Filed 01/07/05 Page 11 of 12
12

of emotional distress under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and this Court has 

supplemental jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate these claims. 

WHEREFORE, Dunmire demands judgment against Detz, Zimmerman and Burgis for: 

 (a) Compensatory damages; 

 (b) Punitive damages; 

 (c) Costs; and, 

 (d) All other relief as this Court deems proper. 

 REILLY, WOLFSON, SHEFFEY, SCHRUM 

 AND LUNDBERG LLP 

 By: /s/ Harry W. Fenton 

 Harry W. Fenton, ID #55656 

 Counsel for Plaintiff 

 1601 Cornwall Road 

 Lebanon, PA 17042 

 (717) 273-3733 

Date: January 6, 2005 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Case 2:05-cv-00081-BMS Document 1 Filed 01/07/05 Page 12 of 12