Bucks County DA Closes Quakertown Protest Investigation, Clears Police Of Criminal Liability While Highlighting Failures
Jack Calloway | DelawareValleyNews.com
DOYLESTOWN, PA — The Bucks County District Attorney’s Office has concluded its months long investigation into the Quakertown Borough Police Department’s response to the February 20, 2026 student ICE protest, finding no basis for criminal charges against Police Chief Scott McElree or any other police officer while issuing a detailed critique of tactical decisions that investigators concluded contributed to the violence.
The twenty page memorandum closes one of the most closely watched law enforcement investigations in Bucks County this year. Prosecutors determined that although Chief McElree’s decisions can be questioned, the evidence does not support criminal prosecution under Pennsylvania law.
The findings largely mirror an earlier independent administrative review conducted by a four member select panel of the Bucks County Police Chiefs’ Association, which also concluded officers acted lawfully and within department policy. However, the District Attorney’s investigation expands considerably on the tactical shortcomings that preceded the confrontation.
Both reports agree that the protest, which began as a planned demonstration over Immigration and Customs Enforcement policies, evolved into an unlawful event after protesters repeatedly entered roadways, obstructed traffic, confronted motorists, damaged vehicles and ignored repeated police warnings to remain on the sidewalks.
Both investigations also concluded Lt. Josh Mallery made repeated efforts to de-escalate the situation before attempting to arrest a protester for alleged disorderly conduct and obstructing a highway. Likewise, both reports found that McElree became the victim of a sustained assault by multiple protesters, suffering a concussion, three broken ribs, a collapsed lung and a lacerated ear.
Where the reports diverge is in their assessment of McElree’s tactical decisions.
The Police Chiefs’ Association praised the department’s planning, supervision and restraint, concluding officers acted professionally throughout the rapidly evolving incident. The review found that while officers could have lawfully used a higher level of force, including chemical agents or Tasers, they instead exercised restraint. The panel ultimately concluded McElree’s actions were justified and within department policy.
The District Attorney’s Office reached the same legal conclusion but offered a far more critical assessment of how the confrontation unfolded.
Investigators questioned McElree’s decision to personally enter an agitated crowd while dressed in plain clothes without a visible badge, body-worn camera or handcuffs. The memorandum concludes that many protesters and even bystanders did not realize he was a police officer, instead believing he was a civilian or counter protester entering the confrontation.
According to prosecutors, that confusion immediately escalated tensions and created what investigators described as a “fog of war,” complicating the actions of everyone involved.
One of the most scrutinized issues involved allegations that McElree used an illegal chokehold on a juvenile protester. After reviewing extensive video evidence and obtaining an independent opinion from an outside police use-of-force expert, the District Attorney concluded there was insufficient evidence to support criminal charges. The Police Chiefs’ Association had previously reached a similar conclusion, determining the restraint shown in widely circulated images did not constitute an attempted chokehold.
The District Attorney’s review, however, was significantly broader in scope than the earlier administrative review. Prosecutors conducted twenty-two civilian interviews, interviewed six law enforcement officers, obtained additional video evidence not available during the Chiefs’ review, interviewed nearly all of the juveniles after their court cases concluded, and retained an independent use-of-force expert with no connection to Bucks County law enforcement.
That expanded investigation also resulted in prosecutors dismissing the most serious charges against several juveniles after determining some aggravated assault allegations could not be proven and that several juveniles may not have known McElree was a police officer during the confrontation because he was not clearly identifiable. Prosecutors also declined later requests by Quakertown police to charge additional juveniles.
The memorandum further examined allegations that McElree acted as a political counter protester, targeted demonstrators because of their viewpoints or race, or knowingly provided false information to investigators. Prosecutors found insufficient evidence to support criminal charges under any of those theories.
Despite the differing tone of the two reports, both ultimately arrive at the same central conclusion: the officers’ actions did not warrant criminal prosecution.
Taken together, the reports paint a more nuanced picture of the events of February 20, 2026. Both conclude that the protest became unlawful, officers had legal authority to intervene, and McElree was seriously assaulted while attempting to make an arrest. Where they differ is in evaluating leadership decisions. The Police Chiefs’ Association viewed the incident primarily as a justified police response that included several opportunities for procedural improvement. The District Attorney agreed no crimes were committed by officers but concluded the chief’s tactical decisions particularly entering the crowd without being clearly identifiable as law enforcement were significant factors that contributed to the confusion and violence that followed.
View copies of both investigative reports: