ShareThis Page

Arlington couple files lawsuit against Pittsburgh police officers

| Friday, Oct. 11, 2013, 4:30 p.m.

A traffic stop led to Pittsburgh police violating the rights of an Arlington couple when officers broke down the door of their house to look for weapons, a lawsuit filed Friday alleges.

Pittsburgh police Officer David Sisak stopped a car driven by Joseph Milcarek Jr. on Feb. 4, 2012, because he allegedly had a suspended license plate, according to the complaint filed in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. While checking Milcarek's information, Sisak learned he was the defendant in a protection from abuse proceeding involving a woman who was the female passenger in his car. Sisak also found a shotgun shell in the car.

Sisak could not be reached for comment.

Police spokeswoman Diane Richard said she did not know about the lawsuit and declined comment.

According to the complaint, Sisak arrested Milcarek for violating the PFA and sought for a search warrant at the address listed on Milcarek's license to look for weapons. Defendants in PFA cases are not allowed to have firearms or ammunition.

When Sisak and other officers arrived at the home, neighbors told them Milcarek didn't live there. Instead, the address belonged to Milcarek's parents, Joseph, 71, and Mary Milcarek, 67.

After obtaining a search warrant, police broke down the rear door of the house and “unnecessarily damaged a number of items in the home” during their search, the complaint alleges. When the officers left, they left the broken door leaning against the frame, the lawsuit says.

The Milcareks said Sisak and other officers violated their Fourth Amendment rights because they invaded their privacy. The lawsuit does not identify the other officers by name.

“They really had no reason to be there,” said Chuck Hoebler, an attorney representing the couple. “They searched the home without justification.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.