City misses deadline to appeal in police officer road rage case
A Pittsburgh police officer who was acquitted in an alleged off- duty road rage incident could return to his beat after the city missed a deadline while trying to appeal the case.
A 10- page memorandum opinion filed Tuesday by state Commonwealth Court explains that the city waived the issues it was appealing by making a filing two days after the cutoff date issued by the lower court.
A jury on Sept. 8, 2018, found officer Robert Kramer not guilty of any criminal charges after he was accused of pointing a gun at an SUV driver in 2017. That incident led to Mr. Kramer’s firing.
Tim McNulty, the spokesperson for Mayor Bill Peduto, wrote in an email Wednesday: “The city remains in ongoing litigation with Mr. Kramer. He has been off the job since 2017, does not currently have the Act 120 certification to be reinstated, and it is not expected this court decision will change his employment status at this time.”
Following Mr. Kramer’s acquittal, a three- person arbitration panel found that he would be able to return to his former job. The city filed an appeal, arguing the arbitration panel “exceeded its authority, violated due process and held irregular proceedings,” the Commonwealth Court memorandum opinion reads.
On Aug. 9, 2019, the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas upheld the panel’s ruling that Mr. Kramer should be reinstated to the police force.
The next month, the city filed a notice of appeal, and the trial court told the city to file a statement within 21 days, giving the city until Oct. 2, 2019, to make a timely filing.
But the city’s filing was timestamped two days late, and was hand- delivered to the trial court and the Fraternal Order of Police on Oct. 4, 2019.
The city did not ask for an extension of time or make an argument that it had good cause for the late filing, the Commonwealth Court found. And since the city’s statement was hand- served, the city couldn’t argue that the documents were incorrectly timestamped due to a mailing error.
“Ultimately, because the City filed an untimely [ statement], well- settled precedent dictates that the City waived all of the issues that it raises in this appeal,” Judge Patricia A. McCullough wrote in the memorandum opinion.