Allentown Disruptive Conduct Board Hearing, July 23, 2026
Allentown Disruptive Conduct Board Hearing, July 23, 2026
The meeting of the Allentown Disruptive Conduct Board of Appeals on July 23, 2026, was called to order by Chairwoman Vicky Kissler. The board heard three appeals of Disruptive Conduct Reports (DCRs) issued by city police officers, deliberated on each, and issued rulings on the validity of the violations.
Appeal 1: Sergey Seward v. Officer Connolly (Property at 201 S. 14th St.)
- Officer Connolly testified that on March 28, 2026, at approximately 3:47 a.m., he was dispatched to a report of a male and female fighting on the top floor of the residence. Upon arrival, he found no disturbance. He stated that the building tenant said a cat was making noise. The DCR was issued because police had responded to the address three times that month.
- Appellant Sergey Seward and his roommate Jessica Pluskis argued that the complaints were a retaliatory campaign by a second-floor neighbor who had weaponized police calls. They presented evidence of 12 calls to police, with officers repeatedly finding no noise or disturbances. They stated that the caller admitted to his goal of getting them evicted via DCR. Seward and Pluskis testified that they were not engaged in a romantic relationship and that no domestic violence had occurred.
- The board voted unanimously to grant the appeal, finding that the DCR was not supported because the reporting officer did not personally hear any noise or disturbance. The DCR was overturned.
Appeal 2: Rupert Blanco v. Officer Espinoza (Garage at 748-750 Cardin)
- Officer Espinoza testified that on March 31, 2026, at approximately 5:55 p.m., he was dispatched to the address for a report of a motorcycle doing burnouts. The complainant provided a video, but the officer could not identify the rider. He issued a DCR based on the complainant's statement that it was a continuous issue.
- Appellant Rupert Blanco testified that he does not own a motorcycle, does not ride one, and was working on a car in the garage at the time. His uncle and mother confirmed that the family had purchased a motorcycle only two weeks before the hearing. They argued the complaint was retaliatory because Blanco had refused to do a favor for the complainant.
- The board voted unanimously to grant the appeal, stating that there was no direct evidence linking Blanco to the motorcycle or the burnouts.
Appeal 3: Jaslin de Jesus and City Star Management v. Officer Dietrich (Property at 926 W. Liberty St.)
- Officer Dietrich testified that on June 5, 2026, at approximately 8:00 p.m., he heard loud music from a portable speaker while patrolling. He observed a juvenile playing the music on the porch. He issued a DCR, and noted that the address had 10 prior noise complaints, including five with documented loud music or gatherings.
- Appellant Jaslin de Jesus admitted the music occurred but stated she had since removed speakers and limited visitors. She argued she had been a good tenant since 2023 and felt targeted. Property manager Elizabeth Salib requested a continuance due to a pending Right-to-Know request for police reports, but the board proceeded.
- The board voted unanimously to deny the appeal, sustaining the DCR based on the pattern of prior complaints and the officer's firsthand observation.
Key Outcomes
- Appeal 1 (Seward): Granted. DCR overturned. Appellant will receive refund of appeal fee. Written decision to be provided within 10 days.
- Appeal 2 (Blanco): Granted. DCR overturned. Appellant will receive refund of appeal fee.
- Appeal 3 (de Jesus): Denied. DCR sustained as valid. Written decision to be provided within 10 days.
- All parties were informed of their right to appeal to the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas within 30 days of the filing of the board's decision.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening. On July 23rd, I, Vicky Kissler, Chairman of the Disruptive Conduct Board of Appeals call this hearing of the City of Allentown's disruptive conduct board to order. I will now ask the secretary to take the board's roll call. Carlin we have Kyle Palmar. Correct. Here. Mark Shada. Here. Vicky Kisler. Here. Diane Cody. Here. Let the records reflect that the board has quorum. Our case today is Sergey V. Seward is aggrieving the disruptive conduct violation issued to Property 201 South 14th Street on March 28th, 2026 by Allentown Police Officer Connolly. Disruptive conduct reports are reports of disruptive conduct submitted by City of Allentown police officers or public officers. The Allentown Administrative Code Section 455-11. Owners, operators, or occupants at residential rental units, shall not engage in disruptive conduct nor tolerate nor permit others on the property to engage in disruptive conduct. Police officers or public officers shall investigate the alleged incidence of disruptive conduct. If the police or public officer identifies a disruptive conduct, they shall complete a DCR disruptive conduct report for the property. The owner of a residential rental unit shall have 10 working days from the date of receipt of a disruptive conduct report to appeal the content of said disruptive conduct report. The appeal shall be made in writing and submitted to the Department of Community and Economic Development. The DCR appeals must be filed in writing with the appropriate fee within those 10 working days from the date of receipt of the disruptive conduct report or notice of revocation. Would the secretary please confirm that this appeal is correctly and timely filed? Yes. The board is here today to hear the appeal and decide where it has been alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the officer who submitted the DCR. The board may reverse or affirm wholly or partly, or may modify the order requirement, decision, or determination appealed, and may make such order a requirement, decision, or determination as justice would require, and to that end shall have all of the powers of the police officer or public officer. This is how the hearing, this is the outline of the procedure. The hearing today will proceed pursuant to the rules of Pennsylvania's local agency law and under local agency law, the rules of evidence are relaxed. Local agencies are not bound by technical rules of evidence at agency hearings, and all relevant evidence of reasonably probative value may be received. Reasonable examination and cross-examination is permitted. Pursuant to our bylaws, the reporting officer, Officer Connolly, will testify first and present all relevant evidence to the court. The applicant will then testify and present all relative evidence to the court. And finally, any third-party objector may provide testimony and offer evidence to the board. Once all witnesses have testified, we will accept any additional and relevant information or evidence that may be presented. For all evidence to be presented, I ask that you first show it to the opposing parties and then present it to the board for identification and introduction. All witnesses can be subject to cross-examination from the opposing party, objector, or the board. At this time, we'll swear in the witnesses. Will all witnesses who intend to testify today please stand and repeat after me? I do by swear. The searcher of all hearts. But I will tell the truth. The whole truth. And nothing but the truth. And then I shall answer to God on the last great day. Okay. You may have it. You may be seated. And at this point, we're going to ask the officer. Um to discuss this DCR.
openpublica.com