Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

VAN GERVE v. UPPER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania


July 28, 2004.

KIM VAN GERVE
v.
UPPER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: EDMUND LUDWIG, Senior District Judge

ORDER-MEMORANDUM

AND NOW, this 28th day of July, 2004, the "Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants, Upper Merion Township and Upper Merion Police Officer Patrick Krouse" is granted, and judgment is entered in favor of defendants and against plaintiff, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.*fn1 "Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the Reply Brief of Defendants Krouse and Upper Merion Township" is denied.*fn2

According to the complaint, on September 12, 2001, in the course of executing a search warrant at plaintiff's home, defendant Patrick Krouse stole cash and jewelry, and thereby violated plaintiff's civil rights, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.*fn3 The undisputed facts are as follows: On September 12, 2001, plaintiff Kim Van Gerve left for work around noon. Van Gerve, N.T. at 16. Before leaving, she observed her jewelry in her dresser drawer, together with $800 to $900 in cash. Id. at 51-52, 65-66. Once she departed, the house was empty. Id. at 139. When she returned at 10:30 that evening, the house was in disarray and plaintiff's jewelry and cash were missing. Id. at 18, 32-33.

  Defendant Krouse submitted an affidavit stating that he was one of eight law enforcement officers who executed the search warrant in plaintiff's home. ¶ 5. He denies having taken plaintiff's property. ¶ 15. The house was in disarray when the officers arrived, and plaintiff's son was present. ¶¶ 7, 8. During the search, the officers seized from plaintiff's son drug-related items and $2195. ¶¶ 13, 14.

  In her deposition, plaintiff admits that she has no knowledge connecting Krouse or anyone else to the disappearance of the jewelry or cash. Van Gerve, N.T. at 120-21. Even assuming the cash and jewelry were taken in the course of the execution of the search warrant, plaintiff has no evidence that the thief was Krouse, rather than one of the other officers.*fn4 Without evidence on this issue, there is no credible basis from which to conclude that Krouse took the missing items. Judgment must therefore be entered in favor of defendant and against plaintiff.*fn5


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.