West End Bridge in Pittsburgh
PITTSBURGH - Police officers who left an intoxicated woman alone and cold in the streets of Pittsburgh won't face liability for her death.
Federal judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on July 18 ruled for the officers in a case brought by the Estate of Faye McCoy, who was struck and killed by a car shortly after cops arrested her friend for driving while impaired.
Cops said they tried to get McCoy to come with them but she refused. Twelve minutes later, she was the victim of a hit-and-run.
"(T)he complaint alleges that the officers' act of impounding the vehicle 'rendered [Ms. McCoy} more vulnerable to danger," Wiegand wrote.
"The complaint, however, does not allege that Ms. McCoy was safer with the vehicle; instead, it states that the vehicle was already inoperable by the point the officers arrived and Ms. McCoy herself was intoxicated and thus unable to safely operate the vehicle."
McCoy was 44 years old on Jan. 26, 2024, when she joined friend Nakila Crawford-Creighton for a night at Art's Tavern. The two were visibly intoxicated by the time they left and were refused service at another bar before Crawford-Creighton crashed her car in the middle of a complicated intersection near the West End Bridge.
By now it was early on Jan. 27. Officers Zacariah Norman, Emily Shields and Michael Sokolowski arrived at the scene of the crash and arrested Crawford-Creighton, leaving McCoy alone at night in the intersection.
The ruling says she was intoxicated and "inappropriately dressed for the winter weather." After the officers left, she wandered into incoming traffic and was killed.
Michael Nahas, the administrator of her estate, and his lawyer Todd Hollis sued Pittsburgh, the officers and Art's Tavern in September. They alleged the cops in their individual and official capacities violated McCoy's due process rights by creating a danger, among other claims.
To prove that, Nahas needed to show the officers' action "shocks the conscience."
"While Ms. McCoy's death is both 'tragic and unsettling,' the officers' decision to leave her in the intersection did not increase the risk of harm to Ms. McCoy as the left her in the same position as she was in originally," Wiegand wrote.
A failure to do something, like make sure McCoy got home safely, can't be the basis for a state-created danger claim, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held.
As for claims in their official capacities, Wiegand wrote that Nahas never showed Pittsburgh had a policy or custom that caused the alleged due process violation. Plus, certain claims against Pittsburgh have been dropped, meaning the same allegations made toward the officers can't stand, she added, giving Hollis a chance to amend the argument.
The ruling leaves only state-law claims like Dram Shop liability and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Wiegand declined to exercise jurisdiction over them, considering no federal claims remain.
