ShareThis Page

Beaver Falls man's suit alleges Stowe police withheld evidence

| Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2013, 3:21 p.m.
David Andrews of Beaver Falls talks about being falsley accused of luring a child and his subsequent lawsuit against the Stowe Police Department on Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2013.
Andrew Russell | Tribune-Review
David Andrews of Beaver Falls talks about being falsley accused of luring a child and his subsequent lawsuit against the Stowe Police Department on Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2013.

Stowe police were so intent on convicting a Beaver Falls man of attempting to lure a child into his car last year that they withheld evidence from both the defense and prosecution, the man, who was acquitted, says in a federal lawsuit he filed on Wednesday.

The luring incident occurred on Nov. 25, a Sunday, according to the lawsuit. David Andrews, 52, said, “I was at home, doing laundry, taking it easy.”

The 15-year-old victim told police that a man in his 30s with black hair in a four-door, red car tried to lure her into the car as she was walking home in McKees Rocks, the lawsuit says. She gave police a partial license plate number that started with “ACG” and told them there were no bumper stickers on the car, according to the suit.

The next day, the girl spotted Andrews going to his office in McKees Rocks in a two-door, red car with a license plate whose number begins with “JDG.” The vehicle's back bumper has a large blue sticker that says, “Keep Tahoe Blue.”

Despite the discrepancies, she and her mother followed Andrews to work and reported to police that he was the man who tried to lure her into his car, the lawsuit says.

Stowe Officer Robert Scuilli prepared an arrest affidavit that falsely said the girl provided a partial plate number beginning with “JDG” and reported the suspect had black and gray hair instead of just black hair, the lawsuit claims. According to the suit, Scuilli omitted mention of the bumper sticker. Acting police Chief Matthew Preininger was aware of the deception and went along with it, the lawsuit says.

Preininger and Stowe's solicitor, Jack Cambest, couldn't be reached for comment. Mike Manko, spokesman for the district attorney's office, declined to comment.

Andrews' attorney, Tim O'Brien, who didn't handle Andrews' criminal case, said Stowe police refused to turn over the original 911 call transcript and original incident report to either Andrews' defense attorney or the assistant district attorneys handling the case.

They only handed it over on the day of Andrews' trial, when his criminal defense attorney subpoenaed the 911 dispatcher, he said.

“At that point, the game was up because the dispatcher was going to come in and tell the truth,” O'Brien said.

Andrews said his attorney tried to persuade police to look at cellphone tower records that provide the data showing that he was on the phone at his Beaver Falls home within 10 minutes of the luring incident.

Authorities refused to credit a neighbor's testimony that Andrews' car was in his driveway shortly before the incident occurred 35 miles away, he said.

One of the hardest things for him to accept was their indifference to the evidence, he said.

“They never even asked me any questions,” Andrews said.

Brian Bowling is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at

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.

click me