NO CONTACT
WITHOUT EVIDENCE

2024 — East Whiteland PD Case #EW-24-05701

Carla Mudry files report — claims Miller contacted her directly

Reporting party claimed Miller communicated with her directly. No witness statement obtained. No sworn affidavit of the allegation. No evidence reviewed. Officer George Popp received the call.

East Whiteland PD — Officer George Popp

No-contact directive issued — “not to have any contact with RP in any way or form”

Officer Popp contacted Miller and stated under color of his authority that Miller was not to have any contact with the reporting party in any way or form. No sworn magistrate order. No probable cause affidavit. No evidence of a crime. The directive was a request under color of law — which carries the implicit force of official authority.

Recorded encounter — Officer Popp

Popp acknowledges on recording — no harassment, no crime

In a recorded conversation, Officer Popp stated directly: “I’m not saying you did anything, any kind of harassment or anything.” The officer who issued the directive acknowledged the absence of the conduct the directive was presumably based upon.

Recorded conversation — Lieutenant Kopacz · East Whiteland PD

Kopacz confirms EWPD holds witness intimidation documents — no one has requested them

In a recorded conversation, Lt. Kopacz confirmed that EWPD possessed letters related to witness intimidation involving Anthony Falgiatore. No law enforcement agency or DA had contacted EWPD to request those documents. Kopacz stated: “We have some letters… no one has contacted us… we told them if they want them they can have them.” If Detective Juisti had shown up, they would have been produced. He never came.

August 30, 2024

Miller hand-delivers document to EWPD — retrieved by Officer Gresko

Miller personally delivered a document to East Whiteland PD addressed to Popp. Officer Gresko retrieved it. Documented in report #EW-24-05701 page 3. No response received from Popp.

2024 — East Whiteland Police Department lobby

Miller visits EWPD — encounters Lieutenant Kopacz

Miller arrived to seek clarification on Popp’s directive. Lieutenant Kopacz acknowledged agreeing to generate a supplemental report addressing the concerns. Kopacz agreed to include the exception for legal action purposes and to confirm investigation status. The supplemental report that followed addressed neither item substantively.

September 7, 2024 — Incident #EW-24-05701

Kopacz supplemental received — “nothing further”

The supplemental complaint made no mention of obtaining a witness statement. No mention of obtaining evidence from the reporting party. No confirmation of investigation. Ended with the statement “nothing further.” Non-responsive to the law and to the rights of the citizen who requested it.

Post-encounter

RTK submitted to EWPD — agency claims no records exist

A Right-to-Know request was submitted to East Whiteland Police Department. The agency’s response claimed no records exist. Miller is in possession of the police report and hand-service documentation confirming delivery. The agency’s claim of non-existence conflicts with documents in the requester’s own possession.

Chester County Court of Common Pleas

RTK matter reaches Chester County Common Pleas

The RTK denial dispute reached Chester County Court of Common Pleas. The agency’s claim that no records exist — when the requester holds the police report documenting the very encounter — was placed before a judicial body. The record continues to grow regardless of outcome.

August 11, 2026 — Chester County Court of Common Pleas

Order issued — procedural question resolved, substantive response still owed

The Court granted East Whiteland Township Police Department’s Petition for Review of the Office of Open Records’ Final Determination. The Court held that under the Right-to-Know Law, an agency’s obligation is to send a timely extension notice within the statutory five-business-day period — not necessarily that the notice be received by the requester. Rather than ending the matter, the Court restored the parties to the procedural posture that would have existed had the appeal not been filed, and ordered the Department to provide, within thirty (30) days, the same substantive response it originally intended to provide to the underlying Right-to-Know request — if that response had not already been provided.