Review board takes three officers to court

Case involves suicidal woman who was jailed

The Citizens Police Review Board has turned to the courts to force three Pittsburgh police officers to testify about an incident involving a suicidal woman who was taken to jail rather than to a hospital for treatment.

The CPRB, which was approved by voters in a May 1997 referendum to provide independent oversight and investigation of citizen complaints about police, subpoenaed the officers after a complaint filed by Rayden Sorock of Lawrenceville.

According to the complaint, Mr. Sorock called police on March 30, 2015, after a female friend experiencing “a psychiatric episode” threatened to hurt herself with a surgical scalpel. The officers who responded — Matthew Gardner, Nicholas Papa and Christopher Rosato — said the woman would be taken to either Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic of UPMC or to UPMC Mercy, Mr. Sorock said.

Instead, the complaint said, the woman was taken to the Allegheny County Jail, where she was held for threatening the officers. The complaint did not say how the matter was resolved.

In response to Mr. Sorock’s complaint, the CPRB subpoenaed the officers to a Jan. 26 public hearing. Officer Gardner refused to appear. Officers Papa

“According to the collective bargaining agreement with the city, they are not required to testify. An officer is free to testify if they choose to, but they cannot be compelled to. They have the right to make their own decision.” — Officer Robert Swartzwelder, president of Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 1

and Rosato appeared but refused to testify.

“The officers have that right,” said Officer Robert Swartzwelder, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 1. “According to the collective bargaining agreement with the city, they are not required to testify. An officer is free to testify if they choose to, but they cannot be compelled to. They have the right to make their own decision.”

But Beth Pittinger, CPRB executive director since January 1999, said police had refused to cooperate with the board in the past, and the courts have consistently come down on the side of the CPRB.

It has been more than 10 years, she said, since an officer refused.

“Why are they resisting?” Ms. Pittinger said. “Now all of a sudden they’re saying no. The precedent had been established in local and commonwealth courts. The board’s subpoena is real.

“Their attorney is claiming that the police contract with the city prohibits the city from requiring them to testify before the board. And that’s fine.

“We’re not asking the city to require them. The board is doing it, and like any subpoena, it’s making somebody do something they wouldn’t voluntarily choose to do. But the board needs to get the facts.”

In 2003, Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Gallo ruled that “it is undisputed that the CPRB has the authority to subpoena officers for the purpose of providing testimony at public hearings.”

Ms. Pittinger said the current case, which is set for a May 15 court hearing, is one of two in which officers are not complying. A complaint on the other one, she said, would be filed in court in the coming days.

Officer Swartzwelder said police are also subject to investigations by the Office of Municipal Investigations and the Office of Professional Standards, created by former police Chief Cameron McLay.

“Three different bodies,” he said, “so somebody can get angry and complain about police and then shop and get the result that they’re seeking. How many times do [officers] have to give their statement?”

The argument that the CPRB is not part of the city government is refuted, he said, because the board gets its budget from the city. Representatives of the city and the police bureau could not be reached for comment Monday night.