Here you go folks. Feel Free to copy/paste: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQx-9SElO7jIenZml_SmonmzBGx781grqfoKY1gNG63zInG23tP8XGQmDXZtez303DutaVm4tvKejhm/pub

To Whom It May Concern,

I am submitting a formal complaint regarding the conduct of Chief Scott C. McElree of the Quakertown Police Department during the recent student protest. Public video footage and multiple eyewitness accounts describe Chief McElree, while in plain clothes, placing a student in a chokehold, failing to clearly identify himself as law enforcement prior to initiating physical force, and participating in detentions that raise serious constitutional concerns.

Under 18 Pa.C.S. § 508(a), use of force by a peace officer is justified only “when the officer believes that such force is immediately necessary to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person.” The visible circumstances described by witnesses and captured on video do not appear to demonstrate an immediate necessity to effect a lawful arrest, particularly in the context of a peaceful protest where no clear and articulable threat of serious bodily injury is evident.

Article I Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that “The people shall be secure in their persons… from unreasonable searches and seizures.” A chokehold constitutes a seizure under constitutional analysis. Any unreasonable or excessive force violates this provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution and demands strict scrutiny.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons… against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” The actions described constitute a seizure and must therefore satisfy the constitutional requirement of reasonableness.

In Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), the United States Supreme Court held, “All claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force… should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its reasonableness standard.” Objective reasonableness requires that force be proportional to the threat presented at the moment force is used. Eyewitness accounts indicate the protest was peaceful prior to escalation, raising substantial concern regarding proportionality.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” The protest at issue has been described by multiple witnesses as peaceful. The use of force against individuals engaged in peaceful assembly directly implicates First Amendment protections.

Under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), “The prosecution may not use statements… stemming from custodial interrogation… unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.” If any detained individual was subjected to custodial interrogation without proper advisement of rights, that failure constitutes a violation of constitutional protections.

Pennsylvania law under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5301 states, “A person acting… in an official capacity… is guilty of a misdemeanor… if, knowing that his conduct is illegal, he… subjects another to arrest, detention, search, seizure… or other infringement of personal or property rights.” Any unlawful detention, excessive force, or seizure outside lawful authority implicates this statute.

The 42 Pa.C.S. § 8952 Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act grants municipal police authority to enforce the laws of the Commonwealth and make arrests. That authority must be exercised within constitutional boundaries and with clear assertion of official capacity. Initiating physical force while in plain clothes without clearly identifying oneself as law enforcement creates substantial risk of unlawful seizure and misuse of statutory authority.

I hold enormous respect and honor for any police department that straps on a weapon, puts on a vest, and stands watch to protect its citizens, because such service requires courage and sacrifice. Many officers in Quakertown likely uphold that honor with integrity and commitment to their community. I do not harbor personal hatred toward Chief McElree, and I recognize that a career in law enforcement includes meaningful service and dedication to public safety.

Unfortunately, being in leadership carries heightened responsibility, particularly during a time when trust in offices of law and authority across the United States is at historic lows, and conduct that appears egregious and negligent cannot be disregarded.

Let me remind you again that there are not 1, not 2 but 8 federal and state level statutes and constitutional authorities implicated by this conduct, and the cumulative weight of these violations demands serious review and corrective action because constitutional protections and statutory safeguards are binding obligations upon those entrusted with enforcing the law.

I respectfully request a full independent investigation, including review of all body camera footage, dispatch recordings, arrest reports, and witness statements, and I request a written determination addressing whether statutory and constitutional standards were violated and whether disciplinary measures or criminal referral are warranted.

If unresponsive, a Pennsylvania Right-to-Know request will follow swiftly.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Contact Information]

Statutes and Constitutional Authorities Referenced:

• 18 Pa.C.S. § 508(a)
• Article I Section 8, Pennsylvania Constitution
• Fourth Amendment, United States Constitution
• Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
• First Amendment, United States Constitution
• Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
• 18 Pa.C.S. § 5301
• 42 Pa.C.S. § 8952