Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

April 22, 2015

Edward J. Hanko, Special Agent in Charge


Federal Bureau of Investigation
William J. Green, Jr. Building
600 Arch Street, 8th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19106
RE:

Estate of Todd W. Shultz, et al. v. Hadfield, et al., No.: 1:14-cv-02402-JEJ (M.D.Pa.)


Landis v. Chad R. Moyer, et al., No.: 1:13-CV-00673-JEJ (M.D.Pa.)
Debra L. Williams v. Chad R. Moyer, et al., No.: 1:13-CV-00675-JEJ (M.D.Pa.)

Dear Special Agent Hanko:


I represent Debra Williams, Stephen Landis, and the Estate of Todd W. Shultz, in their
respective civil rights litigation, resulting from three separate excessive force incidents, involving
police officers who remain employed by the Springettsbury Township Police Department.
Importantly, all of the incidents in question were captured on video, and the claims against the
Township Defendants in two of the lawsuits (Williams and Landis) have been settled for $500,000
($250,000 for each lawsuit).
In light of the third incident, I write to inform the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the
U.S. Department of Justice, that law enforcement in Springettsbury Township, York County,
Pennsylvania, has gone rogue, and as a result, the general public is in grave danger. The problem is
systemic, involves numerous public entities and agencies (Springettsbury Township, Pennsylvania;
York County, Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania State Police; and Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police
Association), and numerous public officials and law enforcement personnel (Thomas L. Kearney, III;
Thomas H. Hyers; Chad R. Moyer; William Polizzotto, Jr.; Gregory T. Hadfield; and James A.
Miller).
The most recent incident, a police involved shooting that resulted in the death of Todd W.
Shultz, has prompted me to file this complaint about all three incidents. Regarding the Shultz incident,
on December 29, 2012, police officers from the Springettsbury Township Police Department (James
A. Miller and Gregory T. Hadfield) responded to Kmart, 1094 Haines Road, Springettsbury
Township, York County, Pennsylvania, 17402, to investigate an alleged retail theft incident. Upon
arrival, they encountered Todd W. Shultz in the store, and according to the officers, attempted to take
him into custody. The officers claim that Shultz ignored their commands and refused to permit the
officers to place him in handcuffs. They further claim that when Shultz attempted to leave the store,

2|Page

they deployed TASERs that either failed or were not effective. An officers mobile video recorder
(hereinafter MVR) captured the remainder of the incident. (See Video, Complaint, Exhibit A
(enclosed)).
Outside the store, the officers continued to attempt to take Shultz into custody. A Taser
deployment brought Shultz to the ground. While on the ground, Shultz continued to ignore the
officers commands and refused to submit to handcuffing. Shultz produced a butter knife (see
Photograph, Complaint Exhibit B (enclosed)) and began to make slow swiping motions at the officers
when they approached. Due to obesity (59/328 lbs) and poor physical condition, Shultz moved
slowly and struggled to get up. Officers repeatedly told Shultz to drop the knife but he failed to do
so. Miller struck Shultz several times with an ASP baton, which failed to gain Shultzs compliance.
Shultz rose to his feet, produced a common kitchen table knife (see Photograph, Complaint,
Exhibit C (enclosed)) and a pair of scissors (see Photograph, Complaint, Exhibit D (enclosed)), and
walked toward Hadfield and Miller. Hadfield and Miller placed Shultz at gunpoint, and repeatedly
commanded Shultz to drop it. When Shultz apparently failed to comply, Hadfield and Miller fired
four (4) bullets into the front of Shultzs body, which caused serious but non-fatal injuries. There are
two (2) additional bullets that struck Shultzs abdomen/groin, causing a skin injury; and one of his
fingers, causing a skin and bone injury. The timing and direction of travel of the two bullets that
struck Shultzs abdomen/groin, and finger, causing non-fatal injuries, are not known, and could have
occurred during the first volley of bullets.
Upon being impacted by the first 4-6 bullets, Shultz stopped walking, and turned to the right,
away from Hadfield and Miller, and stood there. Hadfield and Miller continued to command Shultz
to drop it, but according to Hadfield and Miller, Shultz did not do so. Instead, Shultz continued to
just stand there, likely in shock from the injuries that he had just received from the bullets that had
just been fired into the front of his body. Despite the fact that Shultz had turned away from the officers
and was just standing there, when Shultz apparently did not comply with the direction to drop it,
Hadfield and Miller fired eleven (11) more bullets into Shultzs sides and back, causing fatal injuries.
It is clear from where the table knife landed at the crime scene, and from Shultzs actions
while being shot, that at some point during the second volley of bullets, Shultz dropped the table
knife. (See Table Knife at Final Rest, Complaint, Exhibit E (enclosed)). Regardless, Hadfield and
Miller continued to fire bullets into Shultz until he fell to the ground. Collectively, Hadfield and
Miller fired twenty (20) .40 caliber rounds of ammunition at Shultz, striking him with seventeen (17)
bullets. Hadfield fired six (6) bullets and Miller fired fourteen (14) bullets. At 7:40 P.M., on December
29, 2014, Shultz was pronounced dead. On December 31, 2014, Michael W. Johnson, M.D., of
Forensic Pathology Associates, who is a forensic pathologist, performed an autopsy on Shultz. Dr.

3|Page

Johnson determined that Shultz died from multiple gunshot wounds[,] and that [t]he manner of
death is homicide.
During the relevant period of time, Thomas H. Hyers (who recently abruptly resigned) was
the chief of police for the Springettsbury Township Police Department, and Thomas L. Kearney, III,
was (and still is) the District Attorney for York County, Pennsylvania. Prior to December of 2012,
both Hyers and Kearney knew that several police officers of the police department, including
Hadfield, had used excessive and unlawful force against persons while acting in their capacity as
police officers. The Township paid $500,000 to settle related civil rights lawsuits. See Landis v.
Moyer, et al., No.: 1:13-CV-00673 (M.D.Pa.); Williams v. Moyer, et al., No.: 1:13-CV-00675
(M.D.Pa.).
Despite having such notice, Hyers and Kearney took no action to protect the public from any
of the officers, or from the unlawful force policies and practices that they had implemented and
ratified. Specifically, Hyers and Kearney knowingly permitted officers who had been improperly
trained, and/or who had already exhibited poor judgment and unlawful conduct, to continue to have
contact with the public, thereby permitting them to offend again. It took the filing of the Williams
and Landis federal civil rights lawsuits before Hyers conducted internal affairs investigations of the
related incidents, and Kearney conducted criminal investigations of the related incidents. The internal
affairs and criminal investigations that occurred were a sham and results oriented. While officers in
other states are routinely fired and criminally prosecuted for less offensive conduct, none of the
involved officers were ever disciplined or criminally prosecuted by Hyers or Kearney for their
unlawful uses of force.
Kearney asked the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) to investigate all three incidents. The
PSP Shultz investigation report provides that MILLER stated that the suspect approached to the
point where he, HADFIELD, and the civilians were in danger, and he fired several shots at the
suspect. The PSP report further provides that Hadfield related that he paused after firing the first
few rounds and observed that the subject continued to walk. He observed the suspect pause
momentarily and then continue to walk toward him. He related that he fired additional shots at the
suspect, and the suspect dropped to the ground. The PSP report, however, does not discuss the fact
that neither Hadfields nor Millers account of the fatal moments are supported by the video or the
autopsy report. Specifically, it is undisputed that after being shot 4-6 times, and incurring serious but
non-fatal wounds, Shultz stopped walking toward Hadfield and Miller, turned to his right away from
the officers, and was just standing there, when Hadfield and Miller fired eleven (11) more bullets into
his side and back, killing him.
Inexplicably, Hyers and Kearney ignored the best evidence available to them the video and
autopsy report and cleared Hadfield and Miller of any wrongdoing. Despite the obvious unlawful

4|Page

conduct discussed herein, Hyers and Kearney ratified Hadfields and Millers unlawful conduct, by
refusing to discipline them, and by refusing to prosecute them for manslaughter. Instead, Kearney
issued a press release, clearing the officers of any criminal wrongdoing. (See Press Release,
Complaint, Exhibit F (enclosed)).
The press release concludes the actions of the officers in using deadly force in response to
Mr. Shultzs decision to advance while displaying a deadly weapon was reasonable. Clearly, the
press release misrepresents the undisputed facts in that it fails to note that after being shot 4-6 times
and incurring non-fatal wounds, Shultz stopped walking toward Hadfield and Miller, turned away
from the officers, and was just standing there, when Hadfield and Miller fired eleven (11) more bullets
into his side and back, killing him. Moreover, the press release does not discuss the fact that the
shooting continued after Shultz dropped the table knife. Not surprisingly, Hyers and Kearney did not
release the video to the media.
The PSP investigation report indicates that HADFIELD stated the suspect already had
encroached within 21 feet of him prior to being shot, referring to police officer training that indicates
that a subject with a bladed weapon can cover a distance of 21 feet and inflict serious bodily injury
on an officer before the officer has time to react and stop the threat. This statement evidences an
unlawful use of force policy and improper training, because as you likely know, the 21 Foot Rule,
pertains only to situations wherein the officer has a holstered weapon and a suspect is running at him
with an edged weapon. As you also likely know, the 21 Foot Rule has been widely criticized in the
law enforcement community as being misinterpreted, misapplied, and misused, in an attempt to justify
unlawful killings.
Hyers and Kearney knew from at least the Williams and Landis cases, that officers, including
Hadfield, had used excessive force against individuals in the past; yet they failed to take any action
to prevent future violations. (See Williams Video, Complaint, Exhibit G (enclosed); Landis Video,
Complaint, Exhibit H (enclosed)). Instead, they conducted sham investigations designed to insulate
the accused officers from penalty, did not issue any discipline (except related to the use of profanity
while committing assaults), issued public statements condoning and excusing the unlawful uses of
force, and when the Township agreed as a condition of settlement to ask the Pennsylvania Chiefs of
Police Association to review its policies and practices, it is believed that neither the Township nor the
Association took any action.
What is occurring in York County under the supervision of District Attorney Thomas L.
Kearney, III, and in Springettsbury Township, Pennsylvania, is dangerous and unlawful. Police
officers who (1) punched and choked a suicidal restrained female; (2) slammed a disabled man to the
ground, kneed him in the ribs breaking five (5) ribs, and tasered him; and (3) shot a man eleven (11)
times in the sides and back killing him, were never criminally prosecuted or disciplined (except one

5|Page

officer for the use of profanity). You will note when you review the District Attorneys criminal
investigation into these matters that he has repeatedly relied upon an expert who is employed by
the PSP whose opinions are not supported by modern police practices or current law, and sham
investigations that involve leading questions and that are results oriented.
Enclosed is a CD containing three folders: (1) Williams, (2) Landis, and (3) Shultz. The
folders contain the following relevant and material documents:
Williams Folder
1. Williams Second Amended Complaint (containing allegations and claims against the
Township Defendants that have since been settled);
2. Williams Fourth Amended Complaint (the currently pending Complaint);
a. Complaint Exhibit A: Video of incident;
b. Complaint Exhibit B: York County DAs press release policy/practice;
c. Complaint Exhibit C: York County DAs press release in the Williams case; and
3. Township Settlement Agreement.
Landis Folder
1. Landis Second Amended Complaint (containing allegations and claims against the
Township Defendants that have since been settled);
2. Landis Third Amended Complaint (the currently pending Complaint);
a. Complaint Exhibit A: Video of incident;
b. Complaint Exhibit B: York County DAs press release policy/practice;
c. Complaint Exhibit C: York County DAs press release in the Landis case; and
3. Township Settlement Agreement.
Shultz Folder
1. Shultz Complaint;
a. Exhibit A Shultz Video;
b. Exhibit B Butter Knife;
c. Exhibit C Table Knife;
d. Exhibit D Scissors;
e. Exhibit E Table Knife at Final Rest;
f. Exhibit F DAs Press Release in Shultz;
g. Exhibit G Williams Video;
h. Exhibit H Landis Video; and
2. Shultz Autopsy Report [Presently Not a Public Record].

6|Page

My clients and I will cooperate fully with your investigations into these incidents. It would
be greatly appreciated if you would keep me informed on the progress of your investigations.

Sincerely,

Devon M. Jacob, Esquire

Enclosure: CD
Cc

US Department of Justice; 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW; Civil Rights Division; Criminal
Section PHB; Washington, DC 20530