ShareThis Page
Valley News Dispatch

Buffalo Township 'marijuana' case heads to federal mediation

Chuck Biedka
| Monday, March 19, 2018, 1:09 p.m.
Flowering hibiscus
Renaudsechet
Flowering hibiscus

A Buffalo Township couple's federal civil rights lawsuit is heading to mandatory mediation.

Edward Cramer and his wife, Audrey, claim township police and an insurance agent mistook their flowering hibiscus plants for marijuana. They allege they were handcuffed and forced to sit in the back of a police car for hours while police searched their house and property for marijuana in October.

The couple initially filed a lawsuit in Butler County Court, but the case was moved to federal district court.

The Cramers, both in their late 60s, are alleging use of excessive force, false arrest, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy.

The case is scheduled for mediation April 17 in the Pittsburgh offices of mediator David White.

Expected to participate in the session are the couple's attorneys, attorneys for Nationwide Insurance and its agent, and legal counsel for Buffalo Township police.

The Cramers were released without being charged,because police found no marijuana on their property.

Later that month, Nationwide sent the Cramers a policy notification claiming marijuana had been found growing on the property and, if the couple failed to remove the plants, Nationwide would cancel their insurance.

The Cramers' lawsuit said a Nationwide insurance agent came onto their property to investigate an insurance claim and, while there, took pictures of their hibiscus plants so “as not to reveal that they had flowers on them so that they would appear to resemble marijuana plants.”

Chuck Biedka is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 724-226-4711, cbiedka@tribweb.com or via Twitter @ChuckBiedka.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me