‘Highly unusual, and something the appeals court will look at closely’

The last part of District Attorney Stacy Parks Miller’s lawsuit against Centre County has been dismissed.

In an order Thursday, U.S. Judge Matthew Brann granted a motion from the county, Commissioner Steve Dershem, former commissioner Chris Exarchos, former administrator Tim Boyde and former solicitor Louis Glantz, dismissing the district attorney’s last charges in the civil suit.

Brann was in the same position earlier this year when he dismissed the other charges Parks Miller brought against the county and its officials, as well as Judge Pamela Ruest, a handful of defense attorneys and her former paralegal, Michelle Shutt.

“Judge Brann again noted that I was cleared of all wrongdoing from the false allegations,” Parks Miller said. “However, he dismissed this civil rights claim by incredibly finding that lies by Judge Ruest, Shutt and the county actors to set me up for a crime I did not commit, which also led to a bogus search warrant which was executed then canceled, would not violate the Constitution.”

It’s the latest chapter in an ongoing battle in Bellefonte.

It started in 2015 when some attorneys brought up allegations at a commissioners meeting, claiming Parks Miller had forged Ruest’s signature on a fake bail order as part of an investigation into a murder-for-hire scheme targeting one of her assistant DAs.

It rolled from there. A search warrant was served on the DA’s office. Parks Miller handed the allegations over to the state Office of Attorney General. The case was presented to a grand jury that decided the signature was valid and declined to recommend charges.

Parks Miller hired an attorney, Bruce Castor, who also became a special deputy DA, a role he later fulfilled at the same time he was also the solicitor general, then the OAG’s first deputy and ultimately the acting AG after Kathleen Kane stepped down after her conviction and before new AG Bruce Beemer was confirmed and installed this week.

The search warrant was the basis of Parks Miller’s Fourth Amendment claim, alleging the search warrant violated her constitutional rights.

“I hold that they do not,” Brann wrote. “Parks Miller follows a creative path to what is for her a pleasing result.”

He did not go along with the county’s argument that Parks Miller had no expectation of privacy in her workplace office, but said her legal arguments were all based upon police officers lying to obtain warrants. None of the Bellefonte police officers were named in the case.

“Neither the Pennsylvania or U.S. Constitution supports his legal conclusion and these are questions for a jury to resolve,” Parks Miller said. “At least he did not personally attack my lawyers or me this time for simply setting forth the same factual history of this matter again. Judges are supposed to be dignified and neutral arbiters of law, not instruments of ridicule who attempt to embarrass litigants with claims as serious as these. I look forward to other judges reviewing his opinions in this matter.”

Brann said his review of the warrant showed sufficient probable cause. He also points to the fact that there were three allegations in the warrant. In addition to forgery and tampering with public records, there was theft of services for using government time and employees for work on her campaign.

The grand jury did find evidence that there was some use of staff time, although there was no recommendation of charges.

“Accordingly, I conclude there was sufficient probable cause,” Brann wrote.

“I am very pleased with Judge Brann’s decision that dismisses the county and its representatives from the federal litigation. The decision was based upon his determination that there was a basis for the search warrants to be issued for the district attorney’s office. I would hope that this puts an end to the litigation initiated by Ms. Parks Miller,” said county attorney Mary Lou Maierhofer.

Castor’s response makes that unlikely. He told the Centre Daily Times he had never expected a ruling in Parks Miller’s favor from Brann, who called the arguments “inartful” and “vitriolic” in his previous rulings. He said the case will be appealed.

“The court’s opinion ignores three critical factual findings: the grand jury found as a fact Judge Ruest signed the order, and thus statements to the contrary must be false. Two, that Judge Ruest told the police she knew nothing of the (investigation in question), which is impossible because of her extensive involvement in that investigation. Three, there can never be probable cause when the issue under investigation cannot as a matter of law constitute a crime. ‘Forgery’ requires criminal intent, but this was an investigation to catch a criminal by deception,” Castor said.

He also said he found it “interesting” that Brann relied less on the county’s arguments than his “own theory.”

“Highly unusual, and something the appeals court will look at closely,” Castor said. “District Attorney Parks Miller will get her claims reviewed anew as the appeals court, in this type of appeal, several judges, not just one person, will make an independent determination from the trial judge. “

Parks Miller still has another case in federal court. She is the defendant in a suit brought by Shutt.

This story was originally published September 1, 2016 at 1:23 PM with the headline "‘Highly unusual, and something the appeals court will look at closely’."