IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CENTRE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

Transcription

1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CENTRE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STACY PARKS MILLER, PETITIONER v. NO. BELLEFONTE POLICE DEPARTMENT, RESPONDENT PETITION FOR RETURN OF SEIZED PROPERTY The District Attorney of Centre County ( Petitioner ), Stacy Parks Miller, by and through her counsel Bruce L. Castor, Jr., requests this Honorable Court order the Bellefonte Police Department ( Respondent ) to return property seized from her government office January 24, 2015, and in support thereof respectfully represents 1. Petitioner is the twice elected District Attorney of Centre County, Pennsylvania. 2. Respondent is the Bellefonte Police Department, Bellefonte, Centre County, Pennsylvania. 3. On Saturday, January 24, 2015, officers from Respondent police department executed a search warrant at the Centre County District Attorney s Office of Petitioner and seized physical items. 4. Respondent did not ask Petitioner to voluntarily allow the proper prosecuting authorities to view the items sought under conditions that would preclude tampering or damaging the items, as Petitioner was prepared to do. 5. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that said seized physical items are in the possession of Respondent in Centre County.

2 6. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that the search warrant executed on her office lacked probable cause to permit such a search and seizure in violation of the U.S. and the Pennsylvania Constitutions. 7. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that said search warrant contains material and intentional falsehoods, as well as misstatements of fact, all in reckless disregard for the truth. 8. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that said search warrant is further invalid in that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the warrant. 9. Petitioner avers that the warrant application itself indicates that it was not approved by an attorney for the Commonwealth. 10. Petitioner believes and therefore avers when it obtained the warrant, Respondent was well aware that the Office of the Attorney General is conducting the investigation of allegations against Petitioner, and that Petitioner is fully cooperating with that investigation. 11. Respondent elected, for reasons unknown, not to approach the OAG to review and approve the affidavit. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that Respondent sought no such review knowing the OAG would refuse to approve the warrant as wholly defective, failing to state a nexus to the allegations, based on conjecture and innuendo, and lacking probable cause. Instead, Respondent sought to rush its seizures before the OAG could obtain a court order enjoining Respondent, which is evidence of the improper motivations underlying Respondent s purported investigation. 12. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that Respondent sought and obtained said search warrant in direct contravention of an explicit order of the proper prosecuting authority, the Office of Attorney General. 13. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that the items seized are necessary to the performance of her duties as District Attorney and that Respondent is obstructing the administration of justice by unlawfully retaining them. 14. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that the Commissioners of Centre County are actively engaging in official oppression against the District Attorney in retaliation for multiple motives, including but not limited to A. Investigating the son of one of the Commissioners in a murder case and exposing his drug use to the community;

3 B. Exposing a suppressed potential criminal investigation within the prison and forcing the Commissioners to turn over documents to the State Police so that a proper police investigation could be conducted. C. Proposing and gathering votes to pass a motion requiring that potential criminal investigations within the prison be brought before the prison board for open discussion and proper referral to criminal agencies rather than being decided solely by the Commissioners in house outside of the board. D. Contentious policy disagreements between Petitioner and the Commissioners regarding the Commissioners efforts to loosen and lower work release criteria for inmates which would have created serious safety risks in domestic violence cases. One Commissioner even asked, Is there some way to figure out what PFAs are legitimate or not? E. Policy disagreements between Petitioner and Commissioners regarding their impression that Petitioner seeks sentences that are too long and there are too many people in jail costing too much money regardless of the risks to the public at large. F. Investigating the Commissioners for reported violations of the Sunshine Act. 15. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that the Solicitor of Centre County Louis Glantz, Esq. in conspiracy with County Commissioners Steve Dershem, Chris Exarchos, and Michael Pipe, and lawyers Bernard Cantorna, Esq. and Phil Masorti, Esq., with actual malice, and a reckless disregard for the truth, has initiated and/or advanced a false, defamatory, and unethical attack against the District Attorney, in retaliation for the District Attorney performing her Constitutional duties to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth as set forth above and below A. Philip Masorti, Esq., brought forward a forgery complaint to the press in his role as the current employer of Petitioner s accuser. Petitioner, in her duties as District Attorney, was the impetus in a drug trafficking case and search warrants served on the office of the law firm of Phil Masorti for drug trafficking. Ultimately, a lawyer at the law firm of Phil Masorti, was subsequently prosecuted and disbarred for shipping drugs into Masorti s office and trafficking in illegal drugs. B. Bernard Cantorna, Esquire, was a defense attorney for an aggravated child abuse case in September of 2013, tried personally by the District Attorney in her official capacity as attorney for the Commonwealth. Cantorna s experts performed so poorly on cross examination that the

4 last purported expert left before testifying out of fear of being made a fool of on cross-examination. The Defendant was convicted of causing seriously bodily injury to an infant that was nearly fatal and sentenced to years in state prison. Cantorna began filing documents with actual malice, and a reckless disregard for the truth, and initiated and/or advanced a false, defamatory, and unethical attack against the District Attorney, in retaliation for her doing her job resulting in the conviction of Cantorna s child abusing client. C. Bernard Cantorna, Esquire, is a close confidant of county solicitor Louis Glantz, Esquire. They have shared the same office space at the same law office for many years. D. Seeking a full and fair investigation, Petitioner forwarded the forgery allegation to a neutral law enforcement agency immediately upon learning of the forgery allegation. E. Despite this, at a Commissioner s meeting on January 20, 2015, Bernard Cantorna, Esq., close friend to Solicitor Glantz, appeared at that meeting, posing as a member of the concerned public, and he, Solicitor Glantz, and the other conspirators lied to the public by definitively stating for sure there was no investigation underway, when the matter was already referred to, and accepted by, of the Office of Attorney General. Furthermore, the conspirators falsely, maliciously and recklessly stated Petitioner was suppressing the investigation and discussed her resignation. F. At that meeting, all parties acted with actual malice, and a reckless disregard for the truth, and have initiated and/or advanced a false, defamatory, and unethical attack against Petitioner District Attorney in retaliation for her zealously representing the Commonwealth on behalf of the people of Centre County. 16. Since the January 20, 2015 meeting, members of this conspiracy (including at least one lawyer, Solicitor Glantz, subject to the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Responsibility) have gone on television and given interviews, acting with actual malice, and a reckless disregard for the truth, and have initiated and/or advanced a false, defamatory, and unethical attack against the District Attorney in retaliation for her doing her job 17. Members of this conspiracy have also directed the Respondent to intervene/interfere with the OAG s investigation to further their conspiracy in retaliation against Petitioner for doing her job. 18. Petitioner believes and therefore avers Respondent, acting at the behest of the conspirators, is unlawfully holding items integral to the administration of

5 justice in Centre County, without which Petitioner cannot properly perform her duties as District Attorney, potentially compromising pending investigations and prosecutions, and thereby putting the citizens of Centre County at risk. 19. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that Respondent has unlawfully seized legally protected investigative material including, but not limited to, material related to confidential informants and electronic surveillance. 20. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that Respondent, at least unwittingly, is abetting the advancement of the malicious, reckless, unethical and illegal attack on the District Attorney by the County Commissioners, Solicitor Glantz and lawyers Cantorna and Masorti, despite the fact that the matter is in the hands of the Office of Attorney General properly having been referred by Petitioner as required under the Commonwealths Attorneys Act. 21. Rules 353 and 588 empower the Court to order the return of the seized items to Petitioner. 22. The Commonwealth s Attorneys Act explicitly states that the District Attorney shall be the Chief Law Enforcement Officer for the county in which that official serves. By definition, Respondent is a subordinate law enforcement agency to the office held by Petitioner. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that only the Office of Attorney General has jurisdiction to investigate Petitioner under the law, and Respondent knowingly exceeded its authority to advance the agenda of persons outside of law enforcement by circumventing the correct legal procedures that the OAG had already begun to employ. WHEREFORE, Petitioner, the District Attorney of Centre County, respectfully requests Your Honorable Court order an immediate hearing directing Respondent to show cause why Respondent should not forthwith be required to return all items seized from Petitioner under color of a search warrant executed on Petitioner s County office January 24, Respectfully Submitted, Bruce L. Castor, Jr. Attorney ID #46370 ROGERS CASTOR 26 East Athens Avenue Ardmore, PA Direct Fax Bruce@RogersCastor.com