April 23, 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:

Barnett v. Grote, et al., No.: 1:13-cv-02206-JEJ (M.D.Pa.)

Gracey v. Goss, et al., No.: 1:15-cv-00068-YK (M.D.Pa.)
Bletz v. John Doe, (not yet in litigation) (M.D.Pa.)
Debra L. Williams v. Chad R. Moyer, et al., No.: 1:13-cv-00675-JEJ (M.D.Pa.)
Landis v. Chad R. Moyer, et al., No.: 1:13-cv-00673-JEJ (M.D.Pa.)
Estate of Todd W. Shultz, et al. v. Hadfield, et al., No.: 1:14-cv-02402-JEJ (M.D.Pa.)

Dear Special Agent Hanko:

I represent Stephen R. Gracey, and Travis Barnett, in their respective civil rights litigation,
resulting from two separate excessive force incidents that resulted in their suffering serious injuries
at the hands of troopers who remain employed by the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP). I also
represent Jeffrey W. Bletz, regarding an incident wherein a PSP trooper shot and killed his dog while
the dog was running away from the trooper and not threatening anyone. Finally, as you were advised
in my letter dated April 22, 2015, I represent Debra L. Williams, Stephen E. Landis, and the Estate
of Todd W. Shultz, in civil rights litigation, resulting from three separate excessive force incidents
that were investigated by the PSP.
In Gracey, despite knowing Graceys identity, and the non-violent nature of alleged criminal
conduct, PSP troopers engaged in a dangerous vehicle pursuit with Gracey. After a trooper used a
Precision Immobilization Technique (PIT maneuver) to end the pursuit, one or more of the troopers
ordered Gracey to (a) exit his vehicle, (b) face his vehicle, and (c) place his hands up and on the side
of his vehicle. Gracey complied with the directions, at which time PSP Trooper Kevin M. Goss came
around Graceys vehicle and tackled him. Goss admits that he put hands on the driver and delivered
a knee strike to Gracey up under his abdomen/stomach area due to him being bent over.
PSP Trooper Benjamin A. Frantz, Goss, and one or more of the other involved troopers took
[Gracey] to the ground. The troopers technique in tackling and slamming Gracey face-down on the
ground, is not in accordance with accepted police technique, and placed both Gracey and the troopers
in danger of being injured. Moreover, the technique is defective in that it is non-controlled, causes

2|Page

the person being tackled to instinctively place their arms and hands in front of themselves to break
the fall, and makes the persons arms not immediately accessible for handcuffing.
After being slammed to the ground on his stomach, several troopers piled on top of Gracey,
which made it difficult, at best, for Gracey to place his wrists behind his back for handcuffing. While
Gracey was face-down on the ground, Goss admits that he gave Gracey several more strikes with a
closed fist to his abdomen area, ribcage, back, [and] shoulders[,] and delivered a knee strike to
his upper back area. In addition, PSP Trooper Michael C. Penrose admits that he kneeled with both
of his legs on Graceys right leg, and that he struck [Gracey] several times in the kidney and rib area
with a closed fist.
A mobile video recorder (MVR) captured a portion of the incident on video. In the video,
two troopers can be seen kicking what is believed to be Gracey, while he is being restrained on the
ground by several other troopers. When one of the troopers, believed to be PSP Trooper James M.
Hanning, Jr., is kicking Gracey, another trooper, believed to be Goss, looks at the MVR, turns back
to Hanning and says something to him, at which time Hanning stops kicking Gracey. It is believed
that Goss, Frantz, Penrose, Hanning, and PSP Troopers Marc D. Packrall, Alexander M. Grote,
Gregory R. Strayer, Michael Predajna, and Walter R. Brunner, Jr., observed and/or participated in
assaulting Gracey.
As a result of the assault, Gracey suffered serious facial injuries, was bleeding profusely from
around his left eye, and was rendered unconscious. Goss admits that when the beating ended, he had
Graceys blood on his hands. Ultimately, it was determined that the troopers broke the bones that
comprise Graceys left eye orbit in several places, caused serious neck and back injuries, and caused
other traumatic injuries. Gracey underwent surgery on his left eye in an attempt to repair some of the
damage caused to his eye by the troopers. To date, Gracey has not fully recovered from his injuries,
some of which are permanent.
Despite knowing that the troopers under his command had caused Gracey to suffer serious
injury, PSP Trooper Craig R. Finkle completed a Blue Team Entry Report to report only the fact that
the PIT maneuver had been used, and that Grote had attempted unsuccessfully to use his Taser during
the incident. It is believed that none of the involved troopers were disciplined for their unlawful
conduct. Moreover, Franklin County District Attorney Matthew D. Fogal refused to prosecute the
involved troopers. Finally, when I reached out to PSP Chief Legal Counsel Scott R. Ford via email to
discuss the incident, he told me not to email him again and blocked my ability to send him emails.
In Barnett, PSP Troopers Kevin M. Goss and Alexander M. Goss (who were both involved in
the Gracey assault) claimed that Travis Barnett slipped, on his wet porch stairs while they were
investigating a reported disturbance. As a result, Barnett suffered a concussion, broken bones in his
face, broken teeth, a displaced ulner nerve in an elbow that required surgical repair, a shoulder injury
that required surgical repair, and facial lacerations on both sides of his face. Barnett was transferred
from the scene via ambulance. The incident occurred in September of 2011. PSP, however, failed to

3|Page

conduct an internal investigation until August of 2013, after it received notification of Barnetts intent
to file a lawsuit. No troopers were disciplined or criminally prosecuted.
In Bletz, a PSP trooper who was participating in an attempt to serve an arrest warrant on a
person who was mistakenly thought to be residing at Bletzs home, recklessly fired three bullets at
Bletzs dog killing it. One of the bullets impacted the ground near a window of a room where Bletzs
grandchild was located. Witnesses, and a necropsy that was conducted on the dog, definitively
establish that the dog was running away from the trooper, and toward Bletz, when the trooper shot
and killed it. The involved trooper was neither disciplined nor criminally prosecuted.
In Williams, PSP investigated an excessive use of force incident involving the Springettsbury
Township Police Department. When the force occurred, Debra L. Williams was handcuffed to the
rear, with her feet shackled, and in the rear seat of a police vehicle. The involved officers, Chad R.
Moyer and Gregory T. Hadfield, were captured on video tasering, punching, and choking Williams.
They claimed that such action was necessary because she spit and kicked. York County District
Attorney Thomas L. Kearney, III, requested that PSP investigate the incident. However, instead of
just investigating the incident, PSP also issued an opinion on the lawfulness of the force used. The
opinion was provided in the form of an expert report submitted by Sgt. Charles S. Mory, Jr.,
Supervisor, PSP Academy Physical Education Unit, who claimed that since 1996, PSP has designated
him as a Use of Force Expert. In his report, Sgt. Mory stated in relevant part, the following:
It is my opinion that the actions of the 2 involved Springettsbury Police Officers were
consistent with the accepted law enforcement theory, practices, training, and
MPOETC standards in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Both officers responded
to their individual perceptions of the threat during their arrest and custody actions.
The female subject was agitated, sounded intoxicated, resistant, uncooperative and
swearing while handcuffed, and in custody in the back of the patrol vehicle. The
prisoner kicked at the interior areas of the vehicle, including the protective barrier
between the front and back seats numerous times. This required that the subject be
removed to the rear of the patrol vehicle for the application of leg shackles. The subject
also kicked and spit at the officers during this encounter while handcuffed and legshackled in the back seat of the patrol vehicle. The kicks could have easily landed in
the facial area of the custody officer causing injury.
The contact could have been handled a little more effectively if the subject's legs were
secured with tie-ropes rather than leg shackles, to eliminate the kicking. Verbal
interaction with the subject was limited due to her constant "yelling" regarding her
"wish to die".

4|Page

The choice of force options by the custody officers created a chance of injury to the
suspect, but appeared to be in response to the fluid, volatile encounter in the backseat
of the patrol vehicle. Better force option choices, and a coordinated officer approach
to secure the subject would have given better results. Force actions with a handcuffed
and leg-shackled subject do not usually include strikes to the face, unless exigent
circumstances present themselves.
Ultimately, the subject was contained and secured, but better force option choices,
tactics, and verbalization could have prevented the volatility and subsequent struggle
with subject, Williams, during the encounter.
My conclusions: In light of the United States Supreme Court Case, Graham v. Connor,
490 U.S. 386 (1989), the two officers who used force in this incident did so reasonably
under the totality of circumstances confronting them. Their perceptions and actions
were reactionary in nature, and their force options, although poor choices, must be
weighed against officer perceived threats, the volatility and fluidness of the situation,
the need for immediate control, and sustained injuries. The actions of the two officers
contained the subject with minimal injury.
Any competent law enforcement officer would know that tasering, punching, and choking, an
already restrained suicidal female prisoner, merely because the prisoner allegedly kicked and spit, is
the unlawful torture of a detainee. Properly trained officers would have simply placed a spit mask on
Williams face, and exited the rear seat of the vehicle until Williams calmed down. If Williams could
not be calmed, medical personnel should have been summoned to the scene. Relying on Sgt. Morys
expert opinion, which is not in accordance with current widely accepted police practices, and by
state and federal law, Kearney refused to prosecute Moyer and Hadfield.
In Landis, PSP investigated an excessive use of force incident, again involving the
Springettsbury Township Police Department. While patrolling in their marked police vehicle on the
evening of April 2, 2011, Chad R. Moyer (the same officer who assaulted Williams) and William
Polizzotto, Jr., encountered Steven E. Landis, who suffers from several disabilities, walking on a
public street. Moyer detained Landis, who wears hearing aids, and who Moyer himself acknowledged
may have mental health issues, for suspiciously walking on a public street and asked him what he was
doing. Moyer discovered an outstanding warrant for Landis arrest, of which Landis was not aware.
Landis asked what the warrant was for and Moyer said that he did not know and that Landis
needed to put his hands behind his back. When Landis put his hands up in the air, instead of behind
his back, Moyer swung Landis to the left while using his right leg to trip him, so hard, that both of
Landis feet came off of the ground. Moyer slammed Landis down on his stomach, on the asphalt
roadway, next to the curb, with one of Landis arms under him, knocking out one of Landis hearing
aids.

5|Page

Polizzotto approached on foot with his K9 partner, and immediately sat on Landis legs, while
his K9 stood on Landis back. Landis begged for Moyer to stop, telling Moyer that he was hurting
him. Moyer told Landis to place his hand behind his back, which he could not do with the officers on
top of him. Landis continued to plead with Moyer, yelling stop, you are hurting me, to which Moyer
stated, yeah, well I am going to hurt you more. Moyer stated to Landis, I got a dog here, listen, I
got a dog here, if you want to get bit, you are going to get bit, put your hand behind your back.
Landis, still unable to free his arm from underneath himself, continued to plead for Moyer to stop.
Moyer stated to Landis, You are going to get fucked up, at which time he kneed Landis hard in the
left ribcage breaking five (5) of Landis ribs. Polizzotto used a Taser in drive-stun mode two times
on Landis buttocks.
DA Kearney again asked PSP to investigate the incident, and again, instead of just
investigating, PSP issued an opinion regarding the lawfulness of the force used. The opinion was
again provided in the form of an expert report submitted by Sgt. Mory. In his report, Sgt. Mory stated
in relevant part, the following:
It is my opinion that the actions of the 2 involved Springettsbury Police Officers and
their Police K9 were consistent with the accepted law enforcement theory, practices,
training, and MPOETC standards in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Investigative and assessment actions on-scene by the initial contact officer indicated
unusual behavior and an outstanding warrant on the subject, Steve Landis. A warrant
promotes immediate officer caution and concern indicating a possible "threat".
The contact officer moved quickly to arrest and control the subject upon confirming
the identity and warrant, with the arrival of a back-up officer and his K9. Multiple
force options were used by both officers, including displacing the subjects balance to
take him to the ground for handcuffing. It appears that both officers perceived
resistance and a threat from the subject as they struggled to get his hands behind his
back for handcuffing.
The contact could have been handled more effectively if a coordinated arrest effort
had occurred with more verbal communication prior to taking the "hearing deficient"
subject to the ground.
Ultimately, the arrest was culminated, but better force option choices, tactics, and
verbalization of commands could have prevented the initial struggle with Landis,
during the encounter.
My conclusions: In light of the United States Supreme Court Case, Graham v. Connor,
490 U.S. 386 (1989), the two officers who used force in this incident did so reasonably

6|Page

under the totality of circumstances confronting them. Their perceptions and actions
were reactionary in nature, and their force options, although poor choices, must be
weighed against officer perceived threats, the volatility and fluidness of the situation,
the need for immediate control, and sustained injuries. The actions of the two officers
contained the subject with minimal injury.
Any properly trained law enforcement officer would know that Moyer unlawfully stopped
Landis while Landis was out for a walk. Moreover, any properly trained law enforcement officer
would know that announcing that I am going to hurt you more, and You are going to get fucked
up, just prior to kneeing someone in the ribs causing five (5) ribs to break, is probable cause that the
law enforcement officer committed the crime of aggravated assault. Similarly, any properly trained
law enforcement officer would know that tasering a disabled person who was just unlawfully
assaulted by a fellow officer, instead of acting to protect the person, is an assault. Again, relying on
Sgt. Morys cookie-cutter expert opinion, which is not in accordance with current widely accepted
police practices, and by state and federal law, Kearney refused to prosecute Moyer or Hadfield.
The fact that the supervisor of the PSP Academy Physical Education Unit, who since 1996,
PSP has regarded as a Use of Force Expert, is of the opinion that the uses of force depicted in the
Williams and Landis videos comports with state and federal law, is simply disturbing. Unfortunately,
it also explains why PSP persists in permitting its troopers to engage in official misconduct, and to
oppress citizens who they were sworn to protect, without consequence. My hope is that the FBI and
DOJ will conduct a proper investigation into the aforementioned incidents, and that the DOJ will
force the PSP to implement much needed reforms.
Finally, I have been advised by representatives of PSP that they loath me and wish to silence
me. One tactic used is to attempt to condition settlements on an agreement to partial or complete
confidentiality. I have been advised that PSP regularly includes such terms in settlement agreements.
This tactic undermines PA Right to Know Law. Moreover, public officials, using taxpayer money to
purchase a private lawyers silence regarding matters of waste and wrongdoing, is a misuse of public
money.
In my letter dated April 22, 2015, I provided you with a CD containing relevant documents
regarding the Williams and Landis incidents. Enclosed with this letter is a CD containing three
folders: (1) Gracey, (2) Barnett, and (3) Bletz. The folders contain the following:
Gracey
1. Amended Complaint filed 2-9-15;
2. Exhibit A to Complaint (video of assault committed by troopers); and
3. Exhibit B to Complaint (photograph of injuries).

7|Page

Barnett
1. Complaint filed 8-31-13;
2. Statement of Facts filed 3-13-15;
3. Deposition Transcript-Travis Barnett;
4. Deposition Transcript-Lisa Barnett;
5. Deposition Transcript-Alex M. Grote;
a. Exhibits to Grote Deposition;
6. Deposition Transcript-Kevin M. Goss;
a. Errata Sheet to Goss Deposition
b. Exhibits to Goss Deposition;
7. Deposition Transcript-Virginia Thomas;
8. Photographs of injuries after incident; and
9. Photographs of location of incident and permanent disfigurement.
Bletz
1. Video documenting impact location of bullets; and
2. Necropsy report.
My clients and I will cooperate fully with your investigations into these incidents and into
current PSP policies, practices, and training. 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