The Pittsburgh Citizen Police Review Board is still embroiled in a legal fight for disclosure of… The Pittsburgh Citizen Police Review Board is still embroiled in a legal fight for disclosure of police records from last year’s G-20 Summit.

The CPRB, an investigative entity formed in 1997 by a voter referendum, was established to advise the mayor and the chief of police on police conduct and to hear and investigate individual complaints pertaining to police behavior.

A recent court decision denied the board access to full police records from the Summit. Beth Pittinger, the board’s executive director, said these records are necessary for a thorough investigation of police conduct.

Some of the documents the board seeks — like arrest reports —  are normally considered public records.

“Absent the police reports, we can’t conduct a thorough investigation,” Pittinger said.

The city has maintained in court documents that Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act, which prevents disclosure of information about suspects and criminal records to non-criminal-justice agencies, is a reasonable justification for refusing disclosure of police conduct records.

Though the Citizen Police Review Board is considered by the law a non-criminal-justice agency, its members are appealing to the state Commonwealth Court to force disclosure.

Ken Hirsch, a law professor at Duquesne University, said the city’s argument for restricting access to the records is “interesting.” He said that their attempt to use the Criminal History Record Information Act to control public dissemination information pertaining to police conduct — as opposed to sensitive information about investigations — isn’t necessarily in the normal spirit of the law.

Joanna Doven, a spokeswoman for Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, did not respond to multiple calls requesting comment.

Pittsburgh police spokeswoman Diane Richard directed all questions about the legal battle to the Pittsburgh Law Department. Associate city solicitor John Doherty referred back to the Criminal History Record Information Act, saying he believes the law prohibits the city from releasing the documents.

After receiving 14 complaints of police misconduct during the G-20 Summit, the CPRB opened up a general investigation into police conduct during the Summit. The inquiry drew about 88 separate comments expressing concern about police conduct during the Summit, Pittinger said.

In March of this year, an initial court decision ordered the city to disclose some police records. The city then supplied 300 documents, some of them heavily redacted.

According to court documents, the board asked a judge to consider the police department and specifically Police Chief Nathan Harper for contempt of court because the documents were heavily redacted.

Outside of the courtroom, the board has had other issues with its investigation.

The board’s two solicitors, Hugh McGough and William Ward, resigned after the city’s law department tried to add a series of provisions to their contracts. One provision mandated an increase in malpractice insurance coverage and another stipulated that the city could fire attorneys without consulting the board, according to Pittinger.

“The City Law Department is interfering with the board’s right to hire a solicitor,” Pittinger said.

Currently the board has no lawyers.

In June of this year, the mayor moved to replace five members of the board — a move that drew criticism and suspicion that the Ravenstahl administration might be attempting to interfere with the investigation.

The issue might soon be moot, as information obtained by a series of lawsuits by individuals against the city could exceed what the board has requested.

Two lawsuits in particular, Seeds of Peace Collective, et al v. City of Pittsburgh and Armstrong v. City of Pittsburgh, both represented by the Pittsburgh American Civil Liberties Union, are now in the discovery phase of the litigation process, during which lawyers gather the material necessary to argue their cases.

Vic Walczak, the legal director for the Pittsburgh ACLU, said that the board’s efforts toward public disclosure don’t really affect the lawsuits because of the power of subpoena that lawyers have during discovery.

“The discovery tools available are more robust than what the board has access to,” Walczak said. “We can get any document or interview under oath that could reasonably be considered as evidence.”