Easton insurer pays $100,000 to settle suit
    Excessive-force trial for police defendants was to start Monday
    By Tracy Jordan
    Of The Morning Call
    April 8, 2004

    The city of Easton's insurance company settled a federal lawsuit for $100,000 Wednesday rather than go to trial Monday to defend against a claim that police used excessive force by allowing a dog to bite a handcuffed suspect.

    The settlement with Keith A. Rosenberg of Easton includes court costs and fees to his attorney, John P. Karoly Jr.

    While City Council members were relieved to settle one of four pending excessive-force lawsuits against the Police Department, Mayor Phil Mitman said he would have preferred a trial to vindicate the officer involved and the department.

    ''If it had been our decision alone, we would have chosen to litigate it because we knew the case was strong,'' Mitman said. ''However, when it got down this low it was the insurance company's call, not the city's.''

    Karoly disagreed with Mitman's assessment.

    ''There has to be consent by everyone for the city to settle — from the former mayor on down,'' Karoly said. ''And you don't pay $100,000 if those allegations are untrue.''

    Karoly said he also does not believe the settlement was an attempt to avoid legal expenses but rather to avoid a jury verdict. Karoly estimated the insurance company would have incurred legal expenses of about $15,000 to proceed with this trial, which was scheduled to last three to four days.

    The city is responsible for paying its deductible of $25,000 toward the settlement.

    ''I think this is best thing for the city,'' said council Vice President Michael P. Fleck. ''We're trying to get rid of the stuff that was left over from the past administration so we can start fresh, but it's hard to start fresh and clean while someone is dragging our Police Department's name through the mud.''

    Since Mitman became mayor in January, he has appointed a new police chief and replaced other high-ranking officers.

    The city's insurance company, the St. Paul Cos., was represented by an outside attorney, David J. McMain of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads of Philadelphia.

    McMain could not be reached for comment Wednesday, but last week he said the city was prepared to defend against Rosenberg's claim that he was bitten by Sgt. Michael Vangelo's police dog ''Bere'' after officer David Beitler had handcuffed him following a foot chase in March 1999.

    Police said in court documents that Rosenberg, who had been a passenger in a stolen car, was apprehended by the police dog and then handcuffed.

    The lawsuit named the city, Vangelo, former Police Chief Larry Palmer, former Mayor Thomas F. Goldsmith and Lt. Douglas Schlegel, who was supervisor of the K-9 unit at the time.

    Karoly has filed three other federal lawsuits against Easton for alleged excessive-force civil rights violations by police, but no trial dates are imminent.

    Karoly also was one of three attorneys who won a $1.9 million settlement for three men who were assaulted by Easton police officers or their dogs on the Route 22 bridge after the Easton vs. Phillipsburg high school football game in 1997.

    The settlement was reached after a three-week trial in May that ended in a $1.3 million jury verdict against the city.

    Karoly also settled a lawsuit with Bethlehem police last month for nearly $8 million after a five-month trial involving a 1997 drug raid during which police shot and killed John Hirko Jr.

    Easton also agreed to a $75,000 settlement last year with Liam Courtney Williams, who was represented by attorney Stephen M. Mowrey in a lawsuit claiming a police dog bit Williams while he was handcuffed. The officers involved in that lawsuit were Thomas Migliore and Dominick Marraccini.

    tracy.jordan@mcall.com
    610-559-2148


    FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. NoNonsense English offers this material non-commercially for research and educational purposes. I believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, i.e. the media service or newspaper which first published the article online and which is indicated at the top of the article unless otherwise specified.

    Back to Repression and Police Dog Abuse