City fighting to keep G-20 cop reports
By Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
It has been five months since an Allegheny County judge ordered the Pittsburgh Police Bureau to turn over arrest reports from the G-20 Summit to the Citizen Police Review Board.
Since then, the city first provided reports that were redacted so heavily the board found them to be useless and then challenged the court's order by refusing to provide the information.
During a hearing on Thursday, the city had a new argument against turning the records over -- a Pennsylvania statute, the Criminal History Record Information Act.
Attorneys for the city told Judge R. Stanton Wettick Jr. that the state law prohibited them from turning over arrest reports to anything other than a criminal justice agency.
Therefore, the city cannot provide the reports to the CPRB, which in November filed subpoenas so it could do a general investigation into the way the police department handled the G-20 summit.
"We are complying with the law," said associate city solicitor John F. Doherty.
But CPRB attorney Hugh McGough said the Criminal History Record Information Act did not apply in this instance because Pittsburgh operates under a home rule charter.
Under that charter, he said, the municipality has the authority to regulate personnel and administrative matters as long as they are not in an area of "substantive statewide concern."
Investigating potential police misconduct, Mr. McGough said, clearly falls under personnel and administrative matters.
For the CPRB to do a through, comprehensive inquiry into the way the G-20 Summit was handled, said CPRB executive director Elizabeth Pittinger, the board must be able to know who the arrestees were, their accounts of what happened and witnesses who may have been involved.
"The information is essentially blotter information," Ms. Pittinger said.
Further, she said, any information provided to the board would be kept confidential -- as is the group's practice.
"The only information ever made public is what happens in public hearings," Ms. Pittinger said. "Any investigative report has never been disclosed to any individual."
But attorney Paul Krepps, who represents the city of Pittsburgh's insurance carrier, said the home rule charter did not supersede state law.
"I think it's significant that act nowhere says a court of common pleas can override it," he said.
As for the timing of the city's newest defense, Mr. Doherty said the issue was raised in a court brief filed in June.
But Mr. McGough had a different take on why the state law wasn't cited earlier.
"They're out of good arguments," he said.
The judge is expected to issue a ruling at a later date.
It has been five months since an Allegheny County judge ordered the Pittsburgh Police Bureau to turn over arrest reports from the G-20 Summit to the Citizen Police Review Board.
Since then, the city first provided reports that were redacted so heavily the board found them to be useless and then challenged the court's order by refusing to provide the information.
During a hearing on Thursday, the city had a new argument against turning the records over -- a Pennsylvania statute, the Criminal History Record Information Act.
Attorneys for the city told Judge R. Stanton Wettick Jr. that the state law prohibited them from turning over arrest reports to anything other than a criminal justice agency.
Therefore, the city cannot provide the reports to the CPRB, which in November filed subpoenas so it could do a general investigation into the way the police department handled the G-20 summit.
"We are complying with the law," said associate city solicitor John F. Doherty.
But CPRB attorney Hugh McGough said the Criminal History Record Information Act did not apply in this instance because Pittsburgh operates under a home rule charter.
Under that charter, he said, the municipality has the authority to regulate personnel and administrative matters as long as they are not in an area of "substantive statewide concern."
Investigating potential police misconduct, Mr. McGough said, clearly falls under personnel and administrative matters.
For the CPRB to do a through, comprehensive inquiry into the way the G-20 Summit was handled, said CPRB executive director Elizabeth Pittinger, the board must be able to know who the arrestees were, their accounts of what happened and witnesses who may have been involved.
"The information is essentially blotter information," Ms. Pittinger said.
Further, she said, any information provided to the board would be kept confidential -- as is the group's practice.
"The only information ever made public is what happens in public hearings," Ms. Pittinger said. "Any investigative report has never been disclosed to any individual."
But attorney Paul Krepps, who represents the city of Pittsburgh's insurance carrier, said the home rule charter did not supersede state law.
"I think it's significant that act nowhere says a court of common pleas can override it," he said.
As for the timing of the city's newest defense, Mr. Doherty said the issue was raised in a court brief filed in June.
But Mr. McGough had a different take on why the state law wasn't cited earlier.
"They're out of good arguments," he said.
The judge is expected to issue a ruling at a later date.
