A Clearfield woman has been granted the right to sue three police officers who forced their way into her Nichols Street home in search of a man who was wanted on a warrant for nonpayment of fines and costs totaling $600.

U.S. District Judge Stephanie L. Haines in Johnstown concluded in an opinion issued late last week that Carla Orndorf had multiple valid federal and state claims against two Clearfield Borough officers and a Lawrence Township officer stemming from a Feb. 23, 2020, incident.

Haines sustained claims by Orndorf that her First and Fourth Amendment rights had been violated and she will allow Orndorf to pursue a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by the unwarranted entry into her home.

The incident occurred when police were summoned by a neighbor in response to a possible domestic dispute.

Clearfield Police Officers Shawn Fye and Austin Miller, driving separate marked vehicles, arrived and found Carla Orndorf and a man, later identified as Michael Bloom, standing on Orndorf’s enclosed front porch.

Orndorf approached the officers and said there were no problems. The officers, however, still wanted to speak to Bloom, but he had left the home.

The officers told Ordorf to contact them if he returned.

In the meantime, the officers determined there was an outstanding warrant for Bloom and they returned to the neighborhood, telling Orndorf about the warrant and relating that she could be charged with “harboring a fugitive” if she failed to report his return to her residence.

The officers continued to cruise the neighborhood and eventually spotted Bloom in the Orndorf home.

In their return to the property, Miller and Fye were joined by Officer Douglas Clark of the Lawrence Township Police Department.

Clark and Miller went to the front door while Fye guarded the back door.

They told Orndorf they had seen Bloom in the residence and they needed to speak to him.

She closed the door.

The officers knocked again.

She asked the officers if they had a search warrant or an arrest warrant.

They retorted they did not need a warrant.

At that point, Clark put his foot to block Orndorf’s attempts to close the door.

Clark and Miller then pushed through Orndorf and Fye came into the home through the back door.

Police took Bloom, who was in the bathroom, into custody and charged Orndorf with two counts of hindering apprehension and disorderly conduct.

The charges against Orndorf were eventually resolved in her favor.

She then filed a civil rights lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in

Johnstown, charging the three officers violated her Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure, in addition to five other claims.

She asserted her First Amendment Rights were violated and contended police filed charges against her in retaliation for her insistence they show her a search or arrest warrant — a violation of her First Amendment rights.

Orndorf, represented by Williamsport attorneys Michael J. Zicobello and Joshua Cochran, also charged Fye with malicious prosecution and a state-law malicious prosecution claim against all three officers.

Her federal civil suit included a state-law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Clearfield Borough and Lawrence Township were charged civilly with failure to properly train their officers.

The defendants sought dismissal of all the claims, arguing before Haines that the officers legally entered Orndorf’s home.

The officers argued they did not need a search warrant because they had an arrest warrant for Bloom.

Fye and Miller, represented by Alexander W. Brown and Bernard P. Matthew Jr. of Greensburg, and Clark, represented by Charles H. Saul and Kyle T. McGee of Pittsburgh, also retorted that they had probable cause to charge Orndorf for hindering the apprehension of Bloom.

Haines in her opinion summed up the defendants’ arguments: “Put simply, if the officers had probable cause to enter Orndorf’s home then their actions cannot violate Orndorf’s civil rights or be perceived as malicious or as intentionally causing stress.”

Haines in her 20-page opinion denied all of the defense motions to dismiss except the claims of malicious prosecution.

She found the officers at the time of the incident had probable cause to file the charges (except for the disorderly conduct) against Orndorf, but noted those charges were later dismissed.

The focus of Haines’ opinion rested on the Fourth Amendment issue — whether police had the right to force their way into the Orndorf home.

The defendants claimed entering the home based on an arrest warrant does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Citing federal law, Haines noted an arrest warrant does not stand in the place of a search warrant unless an emergency situation exists.

She ruled that officers may rely on “exigent circumstances, case-by-case, to justify a warrantless entrance into the home to make an arrest.”

Haines found no such emergency existed to warrant a forced entry into Orndorf’s home.

In the Orndorf incident, there was no report of violence, weapons or illegal substances, she stated.

Haines noted also that Bloom was wanted “for unpaid fines stemming from convictions of misdemeanor offenses.”

“The need to pursue a (misdemeanor offender) does not trigger a categorical rule allowing home entry. … When the nature of the crime, the nature of the flight, and surrounding facts present no such exigency, officers must respect the sanctity of the home — which means they must get a warrant,” Haines stated as she cited a federal precedent.

The officers in the Orndorf incident, she wrote, “had no reason to believe a dangerous or violent situation was at hand and the arrest warrant for Bloom was relatively innocuous for unpaid fines levied for a history of misdemeanors.”

She concluded Orndorf made an argument for a Fourth Amendment violation against Fye and Miller.

Haines also upheld Orndorf’s First Amendment claim, noting Orndorf, by demanding a search warrant from the officers, was engaging in “protected activity.”

Her lawsuit reports she was criminally charged as retaliation for the exercise of her free speech rights.

Haines also let stand Orndorf’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by the incident.

“Pushing into someone’s home and threatening one with arrest is intentional extreme behavior that could cause several emotional distress,” the judge ruled.

Haines has not issued any further deadlines in the case.

Orndorf’s attorney could not be reached for comment.