IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

TIMOTHY J. DUNMIRE, : No. 05 CV 0081 

 Plaintiff : 

 : 

 Vs. : 

 : 

STEPHEN M. DETZ and : 

ERIC ZIMMERMAN, : 

 Defendants : 

JOINT PRETRIAL STIPULATION

OF ALL PARTIES

AND NOW, come the parties and, pursuant to the Order of April 21, 2005, file this Joint 

Pretrial Stipulation, asserting the following: 

A. AGREED FACTS:

 1. Stephen M. Detz, at all relevant times, was a police officer employed by the Lititz 

Borough Police Department. 

 2. Officer Detz had a Bachelors’ degree in Criminal Justice, graduated from the 

Reading Police Academy in November, 2001 and began his employment as a Lititz Borough 

police officer on June 2, 2003. 

Case 2:05-cv-00081-BMS Document 31 Filed 09/22/05 Page 1 of 11
3. At approximately 3:00 a.m. on December 12, 2004, Officer Detz was on foot 

patrol in the Borough of Lititz. 

4. While on foot patrol, Officer Detz went to the bottom of the stairs at 12 South 

Broad Street, Lititz, Pennsylvania. 

5. From the bottom of the stairs, Officer Detz radioed to the dispatcher advising

where he was. 

6. Officer Detz went upstairs and knocked on the door to an apartment. 

7. Timothy J. Dunmire, the Plaintiff resided in the apartment at 12 South Broad

Street, Lititz, Pennsylvania. 

8. Plaintiff, Timothy J. Dunmire, answered the door and in response to a request for 

identification, produced a Pennsylvania driver’s license. 

9. At all times material hereto, the Plaintiff, Timothy J. Dunmire, refused entry into 

his home. At no time did the Plaintiff, Timothy J. Dunmire, consent to entry into his home. 

10. Troy A. Whitmyer stepped out onto the landing. 

11. Troy A. Whitmyer, in response to a question, produced his driver’s license as 

identification. 

12. Defendant, Eric Zimmerman, a police officer employed by the Township of 

Warwick, responded as a back-up pursuant to the radio call made by Officer Detz. 

13. During the encounter on the upstairs landing adjacent to Plaintiff Timothy J. 

Dunmire’s apartment, he was handcuffed. 

14. Officers Detz and Zimmerman made a non-consensual entry into the apartment of 

Plaintiff Timothy J. Dunmire. 

2

Case 2:05-cv-00081-BMS Document 31 Filed 09/22/05 Page 2 of 11
15. The Defendant police officers obtained the identity of each person who was inside

the Plaintiff’s apartment on December 12, 2004, at the time in question. 

16. The handcuffs were removed from Plaintiff Timothy J. Dunmire and Troy A. 

Whitmyer. 

17. Both officers left the apartment. 

18. No formal charges were filed against Timothy J. Dunmire or anyone else in the 

apartment as a result of the December 12, 2004 matter. 

19. Defendant Eric Zimmerman was hired by Warwick Township in 1988 as a police 

officer. 

20. Officer Eric Zimmerman attended and completed the 43rd Police Recruit School 

Program held at Harrisburg Area Community College in 1989. 

21. Officer Eric Zimmerman is the officer in charge of conducting an annual “Use of 

Force” training program for all Warwick Township police officers. 

B. DISPUTED FACTS:

1. Whether on December 12, 2004 noise emanated from the 12 South Broad Street 

property that was audible from the street. 

2. Whether on December 12, 2004, Police Officer Stephen M. Detz heard the noise 

and identified the noise as emanating from the 12 South Broad Street property?

3. Whether, and how often, Officer Detz had been to the 12 South Broad Street 

property on prior occasions on domestic type calls. 

3

Case 2:05-cv-00081-BMS Document 31 Filed 09/22/05 Page 3 of 11
4. Whether, and to what extent, Officer Detz knew the identity of the lessee of the

apartment located at 12 South Broad Street. 

5. Whether the nature of the noise emanating from the 12 South Broad Street 

property on December 12, 2004 was of such a volume and nature as to lead a reasonable police 

officer to the conclusion that a fight, altercation or argument was taking place. 

6. The factors and circumstances that a police officer is allowed to consider under 

the totality of the circumstances standard articulated in United States v. Nelson, 284 F.3d 472 

(2002), applying Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), and United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 

(1/15/2002).

C. WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS:

1. WITNESSES:

 a. Timothy J. Dunmire (Plaintiff), 12 South Broad Street, Lititz, 

Pennsylvania, 17543 (describing his encounter with Police Officers Eric Zimmerman and 

Stephen M. Detz in the early morning hours of December 12, 2004.) 

 b. Eric Zimmerman, (Defendant), Police Officer of the Township of 

Warwick, 315 Clay Road, P.O. Box 308, Lititz, Pennsylvania, 17543 (describing his response to 

the request for back-up by Officer Stephen M. Detz, including his encounter with Timothy

Dunmire in the early morning hours of December 12, 2004, the entry into Timothy Dunmire’s 

apartment and the actions taken therein). 

c. Stephen M. Detz (Defendant), Police Officer of the Borough of Lititz, 7 

South Broad Street, Lititz, Pennsylvania, 17543 (expected to describe his response to the noise 

4

Case 2:05-cv-00081-BMS Document 31 Filed 09/22/05 Page 4 of 11
emanating from the 12 South Broad Street property leased to Timothy J. Dunmire, his previous 

experiences at that location, his encounter with Dunmire at the entrance to the apartment, and the 

events leading to the entry to the Dunmire residence, actions taken inside of the residence, and 

his departure). 

d. Aaron Yoder (witness), 237 Landis Valley Road, Lititz, Pennsylvania, 

17543. This witness was inside the Dunmire apartment at the time of the arrival of Police 

Officers Detz and Zimmerman. The witness is expected to describe her activities immediately

before and during the entry of the premises by the police officers. 

e. Nicole Hershman (witness), 10 Middle Lane, Lititz, Pennsylvania, 17543. 

This witness was inside the Dunmire apartment at the time of the arrival of Police Officers Detz 

and Zimmerman. The witness is expected to describe her activities immediately before and

during the entry of the premises by the police officers. 

f. Erin Krushinski (witness), 66 East Center Street, Lititz, Pennsylvania,

17543. This witness was inside the Dunmire apartment at the time of the arrival of Police 

Officers Detz and Zimmerman. The witness is expected to describe her activities immediately

before and during the entry of the premises by the police officers. 

g. Andrew T. Bolton (witness), 308 Regents Drive, Lititz, Pennsylvania,

17543. This witness was inside the Dunmire apartment at the time of the arrival of Police 

Officers Detz and Zimmerman. The witness is expected to describe his activities immediately

before and during the entry of the premises by the police officers. 

h. Troy A. Whitmyer (witness), 231 Noble Street, Lititz, Pennsylvania, 

17543. This witness is expected to describe his activity inside the Dunmire residence at the time

5

Case 2:05-cv-00081-BMS Document 31 Filed 09/22/05 Page 5 of 11
the police arrived, his actions taken outside of the premises, and throughout the duration of the 

encounter with the police officers. 

i. James Anton (witness), 3 Meadowbrook Lane, Lititz, Pennsylvania, 

17543. This witness was inside the Dunmire apartment at the time of the arrival of Police 

Officers Detz and Zimmerman. The witness is expected to describe his activities immediately

before and during the entry of the premises by the police officers. 

2. EXHIBITS:

 a.. Plaintiff’s Exhibits:

Dunmire Exhibit 1 – Two photographs of Plaintiff. 

Dunmire Exhibit 2 – Plaintiff may make use of defense exhibits, specifically 

 Detz Exhibits 1(a) to 1(o). 

 

 b. Defendant Detz’s Exhibits:

Detz Exhibit 1(a)-(o) – 15 photographs taken of the incident area by Robert 

 Hanna on 6/7/2005 

Detz Exhibit 2 – Lititz Borough Police Initial Complaint Report dated 12/12/2004 

Detz Exhibit 3 – Memorandum from Officer Stephen Detz addressed to Chief 

 William Seace dated 12/30/2004 

Detz Exhibit 4 - Lititz Borough Police Department Incident Report (#2004-LZ- 

 04072) dated 12/12/2004 

Detz Exhibit 5 – Stephen Detz’ training records 

Detz Exhibit 6 - Lititz Borough Police Department Incident Report (#2000-LZ- 

 00694) dated 3/3/2000 

Detz Exhibit 7 - Lititz Borough Police Department Incident Report (#2001-LZ- 

 04049) dated 12/21/2001 

6

Case 2:05-cv-00081-BMS Document 31 Filed 09/22/05 Page 6 of 11
Detz Exhibit 8 - Lititz Borough Police Department Incident Report (#2002-LZ- 

 00238) dated 1/24/2002 

Detz Exhibit 9 - Lititz Borough Police Department Incident Report (#2003-LZ- 

 03080) dated 9/10/2003 

Detz Exhibit 10 - Lititz Borough Police Department Incident Report (#2004-LZ- 

 01905) dated 6/4/2004 

Detz Exhibit 11 – Deposition transcript of Timothy Dunmire dated 6/8/2005 & 

 exhibits 

Detz Exhibit 12 – Deposition transcript of Stephen Detz dated 6/8/2005 & 

 exhibits 

Detz Exhibit 13 – Deposition transcript of Eric Zimmerman dated 6/8/2005 & 

 exhibits 

Detz Exhibit 14 – Deposition transcript of Nicole Hershman dated 7/29/2005 

Detz Exhibit 15 – Deposition transcript of Erin Krushinski dated 7/29/2005 

Detz Exhibit 16 – Deposition transcript of Aaron Yoder dated 7/29/2005 

Detz Exhibit 17 – Deposition transcript of Troy Whitmyer dated 7/29/2005 & 

 exhibits 

Detz Exhibit 18 – Deposition transcript of Andrew Bolton dated 7/29/2005 

Detz Exhibit 19 – Deposition transcript of James Anton dated 7/29/2005 

 c. Defendant Zimmerman’s Exhibits:

Zimmerman Exhibit 1 – Officer Zimmerman’s training record 

Zimmerman Exhibit 2 – Officer Zimmerman’s Memorandum dated 12/29/04 

Zimmerman Exhibit 3 – Lancaster County-Wide Communications—12/12/04 

7

Case 2:05-cv-00081-BMS Document 31 Filed 09/22/05 Page 7 of 11
3. Estimated Time for Trial: 

 The parties anticipate 1 1⁄2 to 2 days for trial. 

D. PROPOSED VOIR DIRE: 

Joint Proposed Voir Dire Questions have been electronically filed with the Clerk’s office. 

E. SUMMARY OF THE APPLICABLE LAW:

Without waiving any of the legal arguments advanced in each party’s Briefs for and 

against summary judgment or any of the law contained in the various Proposed Points for 

Charge, the simplest way to summarize the picture seems to be as follows. On December 12, 

2004, at about 3:00 a.m. or 3:30 a.m., Officer Detz, while on foot patrol, heard some type of 

noise which he traced back to what turned out to be Timothy Dunmire’s apartment located at 12 

South Broad Street, Lititz, Pennsylvania. This is an upstairs apartment. An encounter which 

involved Officers Detz and Zimmerman, Timothy Dunmire and a friend, Troy Whitmyer, took 

place outside the apartment on the landing and stairwell adjacent thereto. Timothy Dunmire was 

placed in handcuffs, as was Troy Whitmyer who has asserted no claim. A non-consensual entry 

to the Dunmire apartment took place. There was a search. The occupants were identified. 

Dunmire and his companion were released and the police left. No charges were filed. It has 

long been the law that ordinarily some type of arrest or search warrant is required for an entry 

into a person’s home, or that person’s consent is required. There is a body of case law in both 

Pennsylvania and in the Federal Court system that stands for the proposition the Fourth 

Amendment or its Pennsylvania counterpart does not bar police officers from making warrantless 

8

Case 2:05-cv-00081-BMS Document 31 Filed 09/22/05 Page 8 of 11
entries . . . when they reasonably believe that a person within may be in need of immediate aid. 

The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury can be justification for what would be 

otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency. 

In formulating a reasonable belief, police officers are entitled to use the totality of the 

circumstances standard articulated in cases such as United States v. Nelson, 284 F.3d 472 (2002); 

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968); and more recently United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 

(2002). 

The Supreme Court has held that all claims that law enforcement officers have used 

excessive force—deadly or not—in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure of 

a free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard. 

Marable v. West Pottsgrove Township, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 13754, *29-30 (E.D. Pa. 2005), 

citing Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Further, the Court has found: 

. . . The reasonableness inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the 

question is whether the officers’ actions are objectively reasonable in light of the 

facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying 

intent or motivation. 

Graham, 490 U.S. at 396-397 (1989). The reasonable standard must be considered in light of the 

totality of the circumstances, including an analysis of “whether the suspect posed an immediate 

threat to the safety of the officer or others, whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest, and 

the severity of the crime at issue.” Marable at *31; see, Ankele v. Hambrick, 2003 U.S. Dist. 

Lexis 8817, *32 (E.D. Pa. 2003). 

9

Case 2:05-cv-00081-BMS Document 31 Filed 09/22/05 Page 9 of 11
In denying the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, in essence this Court has 

ruled that there are disputed issues of fact which preclude resolving this matter by way of a 

Motion for Summary Judgment. 

F. UNUSUAL LEGAL ISSUES: 

1. Application of governmental immunity to state law claims. (Covered in Points for 

Charge) 

2. The case law applicable to a rescue type entry into an apartment without consent 

or warrant. (Covered in Points for Charge) 

 

 

Date: September 22, 2005 /s/ Harry W. Fenton 

Harry W. Fenton, ID #55656 

Counsel for Plaintiff, Timothy J. Dunmire 

Date: September 22, 2005 /s/ Craig M. Straw 

Craig M. Straw, ID #78212 

Counsel for Defendant, Eric Zimmerman 

Date: September 22, 2005 /s/ Robert G. Hanna, Jr . 

Robert G. Hanna Jr., ID #17890 

Counsel for Defendant, Stephen M. Detz 

10

Case 2:05-cv-00081-BMS Document 31 Filed 09/22/05 Page 10 of 11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Blanche A. Morrison, an employee with the law firm of Lavery, Faherty, Young & 

Patterson, P.C., do hereby certify that on this 22nd day of September, 2005, I served a true and 

correct copy of the foregoing JOINT PRETRIAL STIPULATION OR ALL PARTIES, via 

electronic filing, as follows: 

Harry W. Fenton, Esquire 

Reilly, Wolfson, Sheffley, Schrum and Lundberg, LLP 

1601 Cornwall Road 

Lebanon, PA 17042 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Craig M. Straw, Esquire 

Deasey, Mahoney & Bender, Ltd. 

1800 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1300 

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Attorneys for Defendant Zimmerman

 /s/ Blanche A. Morrison 

 Blanche A. Morrison, Legal Secretary 

 to Robert G. Hanna, Jr., Esquire 

This document has also been electronically filed and is available for viewing and downloading 

from the ECF system. 

11

Case 2:05-cv-00081-BMS Document 31 Filed 09/22/05 Page 11 of 11