Avalon woman claims police violated her civil rights during search of home
An Avalon woman claims in a federal lawsuit that an Avalon police officer and two Bellevue police officers violated her civil rights during a search of her home.
Nicole L. Anderson, age unknown, claims Avalon Officer Sean Kirley lacked probable cause for the Feb. 11, 2001, search and then falsely arrested her for heroin found in the home that belonged to her sons. Allegheny County prosecutors dropped the charges when a judge ruled the search warrant did not state probable cause and threw out the evidence, the lawsuit states.
Anderson's lawyer, Robert Mielnicki, could not be reached for comment.
Kirley could not be reached for comment, and no attorney was listed for him in court documents.
The lawsuit claims Bellevue Officers James Niglio and Earl Grubbs participated in the unlawful search.
Attorney Paul Krepps, who represents them, said the Bellevue officers were investigating a drive-by shooting and had probable cause for their search.
“That's why they went to Avalon to that house, because they had reason to believe that there might be evidence in that house related to this drive-by shooting,” Krepps said.
Once drugs were found in the house, Avalon police halted the search and obtained a new warrant, he said. The Bellevue officers pulled out to continue their investigation of the shooting, Krepps said.
The lawsuit was moved to U.S. District Court from the county court.
Brian Bowling is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-325-4301 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
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 â 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.