Take the stand

A court rightly upholds CPRB subpoenas

An Allegheny County common pleas judge has affirmed the authority, and importance, of Pittsburgh’s Citizen Police Review Board by ordering three city police officers to comply with the board’s subpoenas. That is a welcome development for anyone who cares about good policing and should end intransigence from the police union that threatens to undercut the board’s work.

The board subpoenaed Officers Matthew Gardner, Nicholas Papa and Christopher Rosato after a Lawrenceville resident filed a complaint alleging improper handling of a call involving a suicidal friend in March 2015. According to the complaint, Officer Gardner said the woman would be taken for psychiatric treatment, but she ended up at the Allegheny County Jail, charged with threatening the officers. The charges later were dropped or reduced in a plea deal in which she consented to mental health treatment.

The CPRB identified Officer Gardner as the subject of the complaint and Officers Papa and Rosato as witnesses. Subpoenas directed the three to appear at a hearing Jan 26. Officer Gardner, accused by the CPRB of violating policies pertaining to standards of conduct and the handling of calls involving mental illness, did not show up; his colleagues appeared but declined to testify. Citing language in its contract with the city, the police union said the officers didn’t have to cooperate with the CPRB.

The board won a similar battle over its subpoenas in 2003, but back to court it went, prevailing once again. In a May 23 ruling, Judge John McVay Jr. called the CPRB an independent entity unfettered by the police union’s contract, which says “no police officer shall be compelled by the city to be interviewed by and/or testify before the CPRB.” In other words, the city isn’t compelling the officers’ testimony; the independent CPRB is.

Judge McVay ordered the officers to appear at the next hearing to which the CPRB calls them, to take the witness stand and be sworn, and to answer each question that is posed. Refusal to do so, the judge warned, would be contempt of court. The only exception would be if the officers had a “valid legal basis” — such as the risk of self-incrimination — for declining to answer a given question.

The police union could appeal Judge McVay’s ruling to Commonwealth Court, but it shouldn’t. The optics would be embarrassing. Continued resistance to the CPRB — approved by the voters just as the police bureau underwent about five years of federal oversight for alleged civil rights violations — would give the impression that police officers are trying to get out from under the scrutiny the people of Pittsburgh want them to have.

Earlier this week, the CPRB returned to court to enforce a subpoena in an unrelated case involving a misconduct complaint against Officer Joseph Lippert.

The CPRB has accused Officer Lippert of unbecoming conduct, neglect of duty, incompetence and making false reports for mishandling the investigation of a traffic accident in August 2015. Among other missteps, the CPRB says, Officer Lippert failed to collect “vital witness information,” deemed one party at fault without a thorough investigation and failed to correct an inaccurate report after errors had been brought to his attention.

Officer Lippert was subpoenaed to testify at a March 27 hearing on the misconduct complaint. He appeared but declined to testify, with the police union citing its contract with the city, according to the CPRB’s court papers.

As we have said before, police officers should want to help another investigative agency resolve a complaint. Let Officers Gardner, Papa, Rosato and Lippert take the stand. Let’s hear why a woman ended up in jail instead of the psychiatric ward and how the investigation of a traffic accident unfolded in the manner it did.