Clearfield officers deny using force in home entry

Two named in civil rights suit refute claims

Two Clearfield Police officers, in answer to a federal lawsuit, have denied they used "force" in February 2020 to enter the home of a woman on the 200 block of Walther Avenue in order to apprehend her then-boyfriend.

Carla Orndorf, the resident of the home, in her lawsuit contended she did not give officers Shawn Fye and Austin Miller (and a third officer Douglas Clark of Lawrence Township) consent to enter her home without a search warrant.

She wanted to see a search warrant before allowing entry, but after failing to convince her they didn't need a warrant, Miller and Clark pushed their way through the front door and entered the residence.

Fye, who was at the back door of the home, then entered.

The officers were in search of Michael Bloom, alleged to be Orndorf's boyfriend at the time.

Bloom was apprehended while in the bathroom on a sheriff's arrest warrant noting he owed $600 in fines and costs.

The Clearfield officers eventually charged Orndorf with two misdemeanor offenses of hindering apprehension.

Those charges were later dismissed.

In response to the incident that occurred on Feb. 23, 2020, Orndorf, through Williamsport attorneys Michael J. Zicolello and Joshua J. Cochran, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit charging police violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The suit also claims police violated her First Amendment right, in which she charged the officers with filing misdemeanor offenses against her for demanding to see a search warrant.

Her lawsuit also charges police with malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In May of 2020, the officers sought dismissal of the lawsuit, but in late June of this year, U.S. District Judge Stephanie L. Haines in Johnstown let all of the charges stand except one count of malicious prosecution.

Haines ruled that officers facing an emergency do not violate Fourth Amendment protections by entering a home without a search warrant, but she noted no such "exigent circumstances" were apparent in the Orndorf case.

Police had been called to the area by a neighbor due to a loud domestic argument.

However, Haines explained, there was no report of violence, weapons or illegal substances, and as it was later determined, Bloom was wanted only for unpaid fines and costs.

The officers, Haines stated, had no reason to believe a dangerous or violent situation was at hand.

The judge also concluded that Orndorf in asking for a search warrant was engaging in protected activity and she let stand a state charge of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The Clearfield officers late last week, through Pittsburgh attorneys Bernard P. Matthews Jr. and Alexander W. Brown, answered the lawsuit, raising several points in their defense.

The officers denied they used "force" to gain entry into the home.

Their response stated, "The officers' entrance into the (Orndorf) home was lawful regardless of the lack of (her)) consent and lack of a search warrant."

When officers Fye and Miller responded to the domestic call in separate cruisers, the defendants' answer stated Fye indicated he observed Bloom yelling and that when Orndorf approached him to state, "Everything was fine," Fye observed she was "upset, disheveled and had a ripped shirt following her interaction with Bloom."

Bloom left the Orndorf home while Fye and Miller spoke to Orndorf, and when the officers discovered Bloom had left the area, Fye "Insisted on speaking with Mr. Bloom."

The response to the lawsuit stated, Fye was "not required to believe Orndorf's assertion that 'Everything was fine.'"

Fye insists in the defense filing, he "needed" to fully investigate the alleged domestic incident to ensure both Bloom and Orndorf were safe.

The officers then began to search for Bloom and eventually determined he had returned to the Orndorf home.

The Clearfield officers and Clark approached the home once again.

Orndorf accused them of "pounding."

Miller and Clark, at the front door, claimed they "merely knocked."

Orndorf opened the door slightly, but then tried to slam it shut. Clark's foot got caught between the door and the jamb.

At that point Clark and Orndorf engaged in a pushing match, at which point the officers were able to enter the home.

The defense in its answer to the lawsuit contends that the officers were permitted to enter the home because they were in "hot pursuit" of Bloom and that Bloom had left the home before they were able to complete the investigation into the domestic disturbance call.

The defense summed up its argument by stating, "Corporal Fye's and Officer Miller's conduct pertinent to (Orndorf's) allegations must be judged based upon how a law enforcement officer at the scene, as events unfolded and without complete information, would react as opposed to viewing this matter with the benefit of hindsight."

On Wednesday, Haines scheduled a case management conference for Aug. 15 to discuss discovery, the extent of provable damage, the possibility of settlement and the possible designation of the Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution process.

Clark, through his Pittsburgh attorneys Charles H. Saul and Kyle T. McGee, already filed his answer to the Orndorf lawsuit.