Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Keating v. Coslett

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

March 19, 2014

MARC KEATING, Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK COSLETT, et al., Defendants.

OPINION

JOEL H. SLOMSKY, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This case arises out of an October 2009 incident in which a Pennsylvania state parole agent and two police officers allegedly entered the home of the father of Marc Keating ("Plaintiff' or "Keating"), searched the home, and then handcuffed and strip searched Keating, who was present in the house. As a result of these events, on October 14, 2011, Keating filed a pro se Amended Complaint against the City of Pittston, Pennsylvania State Parole Agent Frank Coslett ("Agent Coslett"), Pittston City Police Officer Justin Tokar ("Officer Tokar") and Pittston City Police Officer Maivaun Houssein ("Officer Houssein") (collectively referred to as "Defendants").

In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by Defendants' entry of the home and the ensuing search and seizure of Plaintiff, all pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983.[1] (Doc. No. 18.) On April 30, 2013, Officer Tokar and Officer Houssein filed a Joint Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking dismissal of the remaining claims against them. (Doc. No. 45.) The same day, Agent Coslett also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking dismissal of the claims against him. (Doc. No. 49.) Plaintiff opposed the Motions. (Doc. Nos. 56-57.) On January 27, 2014, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued a Report, recommending that Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment be granted. (Doc. No. 61.) Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and those objections are now before the Court for consideration.[2] (Doc. No. 68.)

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following factual account is taken from the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation:

Defendant Frank Coslett is a Pennsylvania State Parole agent based out of the Scranton district office. (Doc. 58-2, p. 3). Defendant Justin Tokar, at all relevant times, was a police officer with the Pittston Police Department. Defendant Maivaun Houssein, at all relevant times, was a police officer for the Pittston Police Department. Plaintiff, Marc Keating, is an individual who, at all relevant times, was subject to parole supervision as a result of a criminal conviction and had an approved residence listed with the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole as 3 James Street, Pittston, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 50-2, p.38).
The conditions of Keating's parole included that his approved residence may not be changed without the written permission of the parole supervision staff. (Doc. 50-2, pp. 37, 52; Doc. 48-2, p. 3). Additionally, the conditions of Keating's parole include an express consent by Keating "to the search of [his] person, property and residence, without a warrant by agents of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole." (Doc. 50-2, p. 52). Special conditions were also attached to Keating's parole, including that he "shall submit to urinalysis testing" and "achieve negative results in screening tests... for the presence of controlled substances or designer drugs..." and that he "shall not consume or possess alcohol under any condition for any reason." (Doc. 50-2, p. 53).
The Home Provider Agreement gives the parole supervision staff the right to search the residence at any time when reasonable suspicion exists that conditions of supervision have been violated. (Doc. 50-2, p. 51). Additionally, the Home Provider Agreement signed for the 90 Market Street residence[3] prohibits Keating from living in a residence with firearms, including look-alike firearms such as air rifles, starter pistols or toy guns. (Doc. 50-2, p. 51). When he signed the Home Provider Agreement on October 14, 2009, Keating agreed to these conditions.
Pennsylvania State Parole Agents have to approve the home plan. Parolee must have an approvable site to go to. (Doc. 58-2, p. 6). Agent Coslett believes that, as an agent, he has the power to take custody of a person and incarcerate them, and further that... he has the right to enter a parolee's residence if he has reasonable suspicion to believe that conditions of parole have been violated. (Doc. 58-2, pp. 6-8). If a parolee wishes to change anything on his home plan, including his approved residence, he needs to make a request of his agent, who would then conduct an investigation to approve the change. (Doc. 58-2, p. 7).
The undisputed facts in the record are as follows: On [the] morning of October 14, 2009, Agent Coslett telephoned Keating to tell him he needed to collect a urine sample from him, and then proceeded to Keating's approved residence at 3 James Street. (Doc. 58-2, p. 10; Doc. 50-2, p. 39). Agent Coslett asked Keating where he was living, and Keating told him that he was living at 90 Market Street, and that all his belongings were there and that he was fixing it up. (Doc. 58-2, p. 10). The utilities were in Keating's name at the 90 Market Street residence, and he received mail there for the utilities. (Doc. 50-2, p. 40). Keating testified at his deposition that the residence at 3 James Street was his primary residence, but that he also resided at 90 Market Street from 2007 until April 2012. (Doc. 50-2, p. 24). Keating testified that he was staying at 90 Market Street, on average once or twice a week. (Doc. 50-2, p. 48). Keating further testified in the same deposition that he had been primarily sleeping at the 3 James Street residence, but that he signed the new home agreement letter because Agent Coslett told him he would get "jammed up" if he did not sign it. (Doc. 50-2, p. 40). Agent Coslett informed Keating that staying at 90 Market Street was a violation of his parole because it was not his approved residence, and asked him if he wanted to stay at the Market Street address, and if that is where Keating wished to have his approved residence. (Doc. 58-2, p. 10).
Following the meeting at 3 James Street, Agent Coslett drove to the Market Street residence and met Keating, who had walked to the location. It is unclear from the record as to when Agent Coslett had Keating sign a new Home Provider Agreement for the 90 Market Street residence. Agent Coslett testified that he retrieved a home provider agreement letter and Keating signed the same prior to asking Keating to show him around the Market Street residence, which Keating agreed to do. (Doc. 58-2, p. 10). Keating testified that Agent Coslett presented him with the home agreement letter after Agent Coslett had searched the house for the first time, but before Tokar and Houssein got there. (Doc. 50-2, 35). Regardless, the home provider agreement letter doesn't address the violation of changing residence without permission; rather, it addresses to Keating what the rules of the residence will be if he was going to live at the residence. The agreement was signed at 9: 13 a.m. (Doc. 58-2, p. 12).
Agent Coslett testified that he had reasonable suspicion to search the residence at 90 Market Street because of the change in residence without permission, which was a violation of Keating's conditions of parole. At the time Agent Coslett called the Pittston Police Department, he intended to conduct a parole search of the Market Street residence. A parole search is a warrantless search that can be conducted by an agent whenever there exists reasonable suspicion that conditions of parole have been violated. (Doc. 58-2, p. 15).
At some point Agent Coslett secured a urine sample from Keating, which tested positive for morphine. (Doc. 58-2, p. 11). Keating told Agent Coslett he had used his mother's prescription without her permission, which was a violation of his parole. (Doc. 58-2, p. 11). Agent Coslett began his first search of the Market Street residence, with Keating showing him through the house. Francis Lombardo[4] was sleeping on the living room couch. (Doc. 58-2, p. 11).
Agent Coslett testified that he called his supervisor to advise him of the situation and to ask if there were any other agents in the area to assist him in searching the residence. His supervisor advised him that there were none in the area but to call the police for officer presence. (Doc. 58-2, p. 12). Agent Coslett also called the Pittston Police Department to request that an officer be dispatched to the Market Street residence as an officer safety precaution. (Doc. 58-2, pp. 11-13).
When Officers Tokar and Houssein arrived, Agent Coslett advised them that he was going to conduct a search and that Francis Lombardo was sleeping on the couch. At this point, the record is unclear as to what happened next. Agent Coslett testified that when he and the officers walked into the living room, Agent Coslett noticed that Lombardo had left. (Doc. 58-2, p. 16). Officers Tokar and Houssein testified that Lombardo was asleep on the couch when they entered the room, but that he was gone when they came back downstairs. (Doc. 58-2, pp. 24, 27, 33). Keating testified that Officers Tokar and Houssein went in the house first and started shouting "Gupper's gone" which prompted he and Agent Coslett to reenter the house, at which point Officers Tokar and Houssein both had their guns drawn. (Doc. 50-2, p. 28). Officer Houssein and Officer Tokar testified that they never drew their guns during the entire incident. (Doc. 58-2, pp. 24, 37).
Keating's whereabouts during the search of the residence by the officers and Agent Coslett are also in dispute. Keating testified that Agent Coslett instructed him to sit on the chair while one of the officers watched him while Agent Coslett and the other officer went to the second floor to make sure that Lombardo did not go up there. Officer Houssein testified that Keating came upstairs with him during the search. (Doc. 58-2, p. 35). Agent Coslett testified that he drew his gun at this point. (Doc. 58-2, p. 16).
Once Agent Coslett cleared the bathroom and the bedroom where Keating stayed, he heard a toilet flush. Officer Houssein testified that he was downstairs with Agent Coslett and Officer Tokar when they heard the toilet flush and that they went upstairs to see what was going on. (Doc. 58-2, p. 36). Agent Coslett went back to the bathroom and noticed Keating standing at the bathroom despite having been advised that he was to stay downstairs. Agent Coslett asked him what he was doing and told him he failed to follow the instruction to stay downstairs. He then proceeded to handcuff Keating. Agent Coslett asked Keating if he had any drugs on him. Keating said no, but Agent Coslett proceeded to search him for "obvious concerns." (Doc. 58-2, p. 16). Agent Coslett removed Keating's clothing, searched him, placed all his clothing back on him, re-handcuffed him and he was taken back downstairs for observation by Officer Houssein. During the search of Keating's person by Agent Coslett, Officers Houssein and Tokar stood in the doorway or immediately outside the bathroom. (Doc. 58-2, pp. 17, 26; Doc. 50-2, p. 29). Neither Officer Tokar, Officer Houssein nor Agent Coslett touched Keating during the search, which lasted between five and ten minutes. (Doc. 50-2, p. 29). Officer Houssein took Keating downstairs and he stayed with Keating while Agent Coslett finished his search. (Doc. 58-2, p. 37).
At some point during one of the searches, Agent Coslett found a number of checks in Keating's bedroom made out to a Nicholas D'Amico. The name on the checks was not Keating. (Doc. 58-2, p. 11). Officers Houssein and Tokar both testified that Agent Coslett found the checks while they were present, but Agent Coslett recalled finding the checks during his initial search. (Doc. 58-2, pp. 26, 38). Agent Coslett questioned Keating about the checks and Keating told them he found them on the road but had forgotten to give them to his lawyer. (Doc. 58-2, p. 11). Agent Coslett also opened the refrigerator and saw what he believed to be alcohol, a parole violation. Keating asserts that what Coslett found was just mojito mix, and not alcohol. (Doc. 58-2, p. 11; Doc. 50-2, pp. 39-40).
In his second search, accompanied by the officers, Agent Coslett looked under the mattress and went through the dresser. He did not find anything of significant parole noteworthiness. (Doc. 58-2, p. 18). Officer Tokar described the search as "very controlled." (Doc. 58-2, p. 27). In the second bedroom, that which was used by Lombardo, Agent Coslett found prescription pills and a pellet gun, another violation ofKeating's parole conditions. (Doc. 58-2, pp. 18-19; Doc. 50-2, p. 30).
After the search was completed, the handcuffs that had been placed on Keating were removed. Based on money and work Keating had put towards a degree at Penn State, Agent Coslett and his supervisor made the decision to sanction Keating for his parole violations and order him to the office for a supervisory conference the following week. Additionally, Keating was placed on a 6 p.m. curfew, but he was allowed to reside at the Market Street residence. (Doc. 58-2, p. 19).
Officers Tokar and Houssein never took Keating to the police station, and never put him in a police vehicle. (Doc. 50-2, p. 25). They did file charges against him by criminal complaint, for five counts of receiving stolen property. (Doc. 50-2, p. 26). Keating eventually plead ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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