LMPD Issues Statement on Penn Wynne Code Violation Investigation

The following was Lower Merion Police Superintendent Michael McGrath’s statement on the Investigation of the Penn Wynne Code Violation Incident (Jan, 27, 2015) at the Feb. 4, 2015, Police Committee meeting of the Township Board of Commissioners:

On Tuesday evening, January 27th, a posting was made on the social media site, Lower Merion Community Network about two police incidents witnessed earlier that day. The posting makes several allegations regarding the investigating officer’s conduct and the practices and policies of the Lower Merion Police Department. Specifically, the poster questions if the two stops were the result of racial profiling; if it is appropriate to have the “kids” sit in the snow while interrogated for prolonged periods of time while the officer ran checks on them; and if “anyone” shoveling snow required a Township permit. The post also questions if the officers would have stopped “white kids shoveling.” The reference to “kids” in the posting apparently caused the majority of the people who responded to the post to assume the subjects stopped by the officers were school aged children under the age of eighteen.

I immediately assigned the on-duty Commander, to review the day’s incident reports to determine the facts related to these incidents. We determined that two incidents related to Canvassing and Soliciting were located in the day’s incident records. It was not clear that these two incidents were the ones referred to in the post as the ages of the males, 40, 40, 34 in the first case; and 34 and 18 in the second case, along with a review of the mobile video recordings of the stops showed that the individuals stopped were clearly adults, not “kids.”

We then contacted the investigating officer by phone as the officer’s shift had ended. The officer confirmed that he observed numerous individuals and groups shoveling snow during the day, however he did not stop any juveniles for canvassing and soliciting, or for shoveling snow. The officer said that he had observed two groups of adult males going door to door and he stopped them for canvassing and soliciting and had investigated and documented both incidents. He further confirmed that no one was issued citations for any code violations.

Early Wednesday morning, January 28th, I assigned staff to conduct an investigation of the allegations contained in the social media posting. Throughout the day, Wednesday, numerous media outlets contacted the police department and Township requesting comments about the information provided in the posting. The information we had available at that time was provided to these various media outlets. As part of the investigation we made attempts throughout the day to contact the poster. We were unsuccessful as our calls went unreturned. We continued our attempts throughout Thursday, January 29th via phone and a visit to the residence. At 1:30 pm on Thursday, we reached the resident via phone.

It was learned that the resident had driven past the first stop and watched the second stop from her residence, and believed all the males were in their early teens.

During the course of our conversation, we informed her that the individuals she observed were in their 30’s and 40’s except for the one 18 year old, and that our department does not stop juveniles for shoveling snow, raking leaves or any other similar activity. She was also informed that the canvassing and soliciting code was established many years ago at the request of residents who felt uncomfortable and did not want strangers knocking at their doors and that the department had investigated 141 soliciting complaints in 2013.

The resident expressed surprise about the information provided and felt that the Township should do more to notify residents about this ordinance. In response to her inquiries about the regulation, she was informed that the police department hosted a well attended, televised community meeting in November 2013 which covered this issue and that all Township codes are available on the Township website. Her response was, “no one is saying you (LMPD) did anything wrong,” but we should address the “emotional undercurrent” of race relations in the Township. We concluded the conversation by asking her to feel comfortable and not hesitate to contact the police department in the future if she had any concerns about the department’s handling of any incident.

Upon review of this incident, the police department has determined the following:

• During the initial interview, both groups of men were allowed to stand on the sidewalk and move about freely, they were not handcuffed nor did any officer make any physical contact with them.
• During the first stop on Surrey Lane, the three males were asked to sit down when an active arrest warrant was discovered for one of the individuals.
• The entire incident on Surrey Lane lasted 20 minutes.
• The three males remained in a seated position for approximately ten (10) minutes until it was determined the issuing agency (Fairfax, VA) would not extradite.
• When the investigation concluded the three males approached the officer and shook his hand.
• During the second stop on Overbrook Parkway (the incident posted about) the officer had witnessed the men soliciting several properties before going to the poster’s property, and having seen that a transaction had taken place, waited until the clearing of the area appeared to be near the end before initiating the stop.
• The encounter lasted 23 minutes.
• The two males were asked to sit when a possible arrest warrant was discovered for the 34 year old subject.
• The two males remained seated for eight (8) minutes until it was determined that the subject did not fit the description of the wanted person.
• The males were told to finish their work before they left. No citation was issued.
• The officer spoke to a male resident of the property and explained the reason for the stop and the Township code.
• Having the males sit in these circumstance is an excepted method of restricting their movement while conducting further investigation and is much less intrusive than handcuffing or placing them in the back of a patrol car.

In reference to the enforcement of the ordinance on Canvassing and Soliciting, although it is not specifically listed as an exemption, it has been the policy and practice of the township to not require juveniles to obtain permits for such activities as yard work or shoveling snow. We also conducted a review of our records to determine the number of complaints received related to canvassing and soliciting and determined the following:

The investigation is concluded and it has been determined that the investigating officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of these five adult males for violation of a Township Code. During the officer’s investigations, it was within policy and practice to restrict the men’s movement after it was learned that one subject on both stops had possible outstanding arrest warrants.

As soon as the warrants were resolved on both stops, the officer told the men that they could stand. The Mobile Video recording showed that the officer’s demeanor was relaxed, non-threatening and respectful. Additionally, he provided a full explanation of his actions to the men he had stopped. The demeanor and conduct of the subjects stopped was also casual and non-threatening as well, including smoking cigarettes and talking about sports with the assisting officers. The officer also provided an explanation of his actions to the male resident of the home on Overbrook Parkway at the conclusion of his investigation.

Upon a thorough and comprehensive review of these incidents it is clear that the officer acted in a respectful, professional and appropriate manner during his interaction with these citizens. The tactics utilized and the professional manner in which the officer conducted the investigations conformed to all policies and training of this department.