NO DONATIONS NECESSARY **

Petition to Amend 18 Pa.C.S. §508 (Use of Force in Law Enforcement) for Presentation to State Representative Martina White

 

⸻

 

Opening Statement

 

By Frank Pavgouzas, Retired Philadelphia Police Officer

 

This proposed amendment is being presented by retired Philadelphia police officers Frank Pavgouzas, a 25-year veteran, and Peter klepesky a 33 year veteran of the Philadelphia police department and Walter brennen a 40 year veteran of the Philadelphia and cpl. Tony piluso 25 year veteran of the police department, who is working in coordination with the Office of State Representative Martina White to bring this critical issue before the Pennsylvania Legislature.

 

This proposal has also been presented to the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 5, which has indicated support for the proposed amendment. However, institutional support alone is not enough—we must also have the support of law enforcement officers across the Commonwealth, as well as the communities they serve.

 

This amendment is a matter of public importance and public safety. It seeks to ensure that the law governing police use of force is applied as it was intended by the legislature—under 18 Pa.C.S. §508, the statute specifically enacted for law enforcement officers.

 

Without this clarification, officers may and already have been subjected to prosecution under inapplicable legal standards, creating inconsistency, uncertainty, and risk not only for law enforcement, as seen in prosecutions of police officers Ryan pownall, mark dial and staff inspector Joseph bologna, but also for the safety of the public as a whole 

 

⸻

 

Call to Action

 

Please join this effort by signing this petition in support of the proposed amendment.

 

We also encourage you to share this petition with your family, friends, and colleagues, and to forward your support to Pennsylvania legislators—particularly those who have demonstrated support for law enforcement, including members endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police and other law enforcement organizations. (Listed below.)

 

This legislation will require bipartisan support to succeed. Your voice is essential to ensuring that Pennsylvania establishes clear, consistent, and lawful standards governing police use of force.

 

 

 

Thank you for your support.

 

 

 

I strongly support the proposed amendment to 18pacs 508 and request this proposed amendment be presented to the pa legislature for adoption 

PROPOSED HOUSE BILL Amendment to 18 Pa.C.S. §508 Section 1 Add Subchapter E — Principles of Justification §508(e.1) Scope and Purpose of Subchapter Purpose of subchapter §508(e.2) Definitions and Burden Official Capacity Burden and determination §508(e.3) Exclusive Statutory Framework Exclusive framework Applicability of §505 Lawfulness determined under §508 §508(e.4) Codification of Appellate Interpretation Codification of holdings in: Commonwealth v. French Commonwealth v. Pownall Commonwealth v. LaPorta §508(e.5) Scope of Official Duties Interpretation consistent with: Commonwealth v. Eshelman Commonwealth v. Hurst §508(e.6) Pre-Charge Determination of Applicability Mandatory determination Applicability determined before charges No discretion as to governing law Neutral determination Record requirement Immediate review Effect §508(e.7) Evidentiary and Instructional Requirements Duty of the Commonwealth Present all known justifications Present Act 120 evidence Mandatory Instruction Instruction where evidence supports official-capacity finding Prohibition on Inconsistent Theories Commonwealth prohibited from arguing inconsistent theories §508(e.8) Conclusive Effect Prior or subsequent determinations are conclusive Applicability Effect §508(e.9) Review of Prior Incidents Jurisdiction Independence from PCRA Eligibility Grounds for relief Presumption of prejudice Relief Retroactive application Exclusive remedy for statutory misapplication Construction Limited scope Statutory exemption Record-based determination §508(e.10) Training and Intent Evidence of Act 120 training admissible to evaluate reasonableness and intent Training alone cannot establish malice or specific intent §508(e.11) Legislative Findings and Intent Clarification of statutory framework Reduction of unnecessary litigation Promotion of fairness, transparency, and public confidence §508(e.12) Substantive Authority Clarification only Does not expand authority to use force Section 3 §508(e.13) Severability Invalidity of one provision does not affect remaining provisions Section 4 §508(e.14) Effective Date Effective in 60 days Applies to all covered cases Includes cases where judgment of sentence is already final One thing I would strongly consider before submitting this draft: place §508(e.8) Conclusive Effect and §508(e.9) Review of Prior Incidents at the end of the subchapter (after e.12). Structurally, most legislation follows: Purpose Definitions Governing rule Procedures Evidence/instructions Findings Remedies Retroactivity Severability Effective date ⚖️ 1. A defendant’s police training is NOT automatically a legal defense In Pennsylvania and in U.S. criminal law generally, a defendant’s background — even specialized training — does not change: * the elements of the offense * the burden of proof * the prosecutor’s duty to prove guilt A DA is not required to consider police training unless it is legally relevant, such as: * proving intent * disproving intent * explaining use of force * showing knowledge of procedures * establishing a heightened duty If the training does not directly affect an element of the crime, the DA can simply choose not to use it. ⸻ ⚖️ 2. Prosecutors have broad discretion in what evidence they emphasize This is the real reason it looks like they “ignore” the training. A DA can decide: * what narrative to present * which facts matter * which facts are irrelevant * have no flaws in the defendant’s conduct They are not required to present evidence that helps the defense unless it qualifies as Brady material (exculpatory evidence). Police training usually isn’t “exculpatory” by itself. ⸻ ⚖️ 3. When a DA must consider the defendant’s police training Training becomes legally relevant when it affects: Intent or knowledge If the charge requires proving the defendant knew something was illegal, police training may matter. Use of force Training is often central in cases involving: * self-defense * excessive force * firearms * arrest procedures Official oppression or misconduct If the defendant is charged with abusing authority, training may show: * what they were taught * what they knew was prohibited * whether the conduct was intentional Negligence or recklessness Training can show: * what a reasonable officer would do * whether the defendant deviated from standards ⸻ ⚖️ 4. When ignoring training becomes a legal or ethical problem A DA crosses a line if they ignore training in a way that hides exculpatory evidence. Examples: * Training manuals showing the defendant followed procedure * Use-of-force guidance supporting the defendant’s actions * Department policies contradicting the DA’s theory If such material exists, the DA must disclose it under Brady v. Maryland. Failing to do so can be: * prosecutorial misconduct * grounds for dismissal * grounds for appeal * grounds for discipline But simply choosing not to talk about the training is not misconduct. ⸻ ⚖️ 5. Why prosecutors often avoid mentioning police training There are practical reasons: A. It can make the defendant look more responsible Training implies: * higher standards * greater knowledge * more accountability B. It can strengthen a self-defense or reasonable-force argument Training often teaches: * threat assessment * de-escalation * lawful force This can help the defense. C. It can undermine the prosecution’s theory of intent If training supports the idea that the defendant acted reasonably, the DA may strategically avoid it. Any further questions please contact the email amendpasection508369@gmail.com