QUAKERTOWN, Pa. — The Bucks County District Attorney’s Office will not file additional criminal charges against any students or police officers involved in the February 20 student protest in Quakertown Borough, according to a final investigative report released Monday.
The 20-page memorandum details the events surrounding the protest, the confrontation between students and police and the decisions made afterward by prosecutors. While the investigation found no legal basis to prosecute Quakertown Police Chief Scott McElree or other officers, the report strongly criticized several decisions made during the police response.
The protest began after students at Quakertown Community High School planned to demonstrate against federal immigration enforcement actions. School officials initially expected the protest to take place near the school but canceled it after receiving a Safe2Say report alleging that someone had threatened to bring a gun to school because of the planned demonstration.
Some students continued with the protest despite the cancellation and warnings that they could face suspension for leaving the building.
According to the report, approximately 30 to 40 students eventually moved through portions of Quakertown Borough. Several counter-protesters in pickup trucks allegedly followed the group, honked their horns, revved their engines and shouted insults.
Police initially monitored the students as they moved through town. The situation escalated near Front and Juniper streets when officers attempted to take one of the juveniles into custody for allegedly entering the roadway and obstructing traffic.
Chief McElree, who was wearing plain clothes and did not have a visible badge or body-worn camera, entered the crowd during the attempted arrest. The report said video did not establish that McElree clearly identified himself as a police officer before becoming involved in the confrontation.
Several students then struck McElree, who was knocked to the ground and suffered serious injuries, including facial trauma and a concussion. At least four students and three police officers reported injuries following the confrontation.
Five Juvenile Cases Diverted Toward Expungement
Quakertown Police arrested five juveniles that day and recommended aggravated assault and related charges in connection with the assault on McElree.
After reviewing the evidence, juvenile prosecutors determined that some of the felony charges recommended by police were not supported by the facts. The District Attorney’s Office ultimately diverted all five juvenile cases toward having their records expunged.
The report also revealed that Quakertown Police later requested permission to prosecute additional juveniles who were allegedly involved in assaulting McElree but were not arrested on February 20.
The District Attorney’s Office denied that request and will not authorize any additional juvenile arrests or prosecutions related to the confrontation.
The investigation included 22 interviews with civilian witnesses, six interviews with members of law enforcement and a review of numerous videos recorded by witnesses. Investigators said the process was complicated because several senior Quakertown officers were not wearing body cameras and much of the available footage had originally been posted online in edited, shortened or low-quality formats.
Investigators obtained what they described as the final distinct video angle on July 9 and completed the final juvenile interview on July 27.
No Criminal Case Against Police Chief
The District Attorney’s Office focused much of its investigation on whether McElree used more force than legally permitted when he placed his arm around the neck of one juvenile during the struggle.
Video reviewed by investigators showed McElree’s arm around the juvenile’s neck for approximately eight to nine seconds as the two fell and struggled on the ground.
Attorneys representing juveniles described the maneuver as an illegal chokehold. However, the DA’s Office said the available evidence would not support charges of strangulation, assault or another criminal offense.
An outside use-of-force expert, Steve Nolan, reviewed the evidence and concluded that McElree’s actions remained within the legal limits governing police use of force during an arrest.
The report acknowledged that investigators could not determine exactly why McElree attempted to restrain that particular juvenile by the neck instead of the hands or wrists. Prosecutors also questioned whether McElree correctly identified which students had assaulted him during the chaotic confrontation.
Despite those uncertainties, the District Attorney’s Office concluded that it could not disprove McElree’s claim that he believed the juvenile had assaulted him or was interfering with an arrest. Prosecutors therefore found no basis to bring criminal charges against him.
The investigation also reviewed allegations that McElree acted as a counter-protester, attempted to suppress the students’ political speech or intentionally provided inaccurate information in police reports. Prosecutors said the evidence did not support criminal charges under any of those theories.
However, the DA’s Office noted that police reports contained significant mistakes, including allegations against one juvenile whom prosecutors determined had not assaulted anyone. Investigators said they did not find evidence that McElree or another officer intentionally attempted to mislead prosecutors.
Report Criticizes McElree’s Decisions
Although the investigation cleared McElree of criminal wrongdoing, the report did not endorse the way he handled the situation.
The DA’s Office identified three major errors: McElree was not clearly identifiable as a police officer when he entered the crowd, he did not allow a uniformed arrest team to handle the arrests and he was not wearing a body camera or deferring to officers who were recording.
The report said uniformed officers wearing body cameras were available and that there was no reason for the chief to personally enter an uncontrolled and emotionally charged crowd of high school students without a uniform or recording device.
Prosecutors described McElree’s decision to enter the crowd without waiting for uniformed officers or clearly communicating his intentions as a “calamitous decision” that disrupted the protest and contributed to confusion, violence and trauma within the community.
The report concluded that McElree had the legal authority to use force but that his decision to become personally involved served as the incident that triggered the violence outside Sunday’s Deli.
Use-of-Force Reforms Recommended
The report also raised concerns about the Quakertown Police Department’s use-of-force policies.
According to the memorandum, Quakertown was among the few Bucks County police departments that had not formally adopted policies limiting techniques that restrict a person’s oxygen intake, despite countywide recommendations issued following policing reforms announced in 2020.
The DA’s Office called on McElree to immediately provide a timeline for fully implementing the use-of-force reforms already adopted by most Bucks County police departments.
The District Attorney’s Office does not control disciplinary, employment or personnel decisions within the Quakertown Police Department or borough government. Its investigation was limited to determining whether criminal charges were warranted.
The office said it now intends to work with Quakertown Police and members of the community to rebuild trust, promote healing and strengthen relationships following months of division surrounding the protest.
No additional criminal prosecutions are expected in connection with the February 20 incident.
https://crimewatch.net/sites/default/files/29567/post/2026/08/Memorandum%208.3.26.pdf
