City releases police-arbitration opinions
The city released a second batch of police-arbitration opinions Monday, further revealing the previously hidden struggles between the department's discipline and the police union's advocacy.
The city released a second batch of police-arbitration opinions Monday, further revealing the previously hidden struggles between the department's discipline and the police union's advocacy.
The city is releasing the opinions in batches after a judge's order to make public about 200 arbitration awards. The city released 42 on Christmas Eve and 36 on Monday.
The first group showed how some police officers suspended or fired for major violations were reinstated in the absence of a criminal conviction.
In one instance, an officer charged with attempted rape and assault was dismissed in 2002. In 2005, his criminal case was "withdrawn" by prosecutors after 12 postponements. The officer was then ordered reinstated in 2006, with full back pay, because he had not been found guilty.
The latest batch of decisions includes an officer who was reinstated after being fired for allegedly slamming an orally abusive accused shoplifter into prison-cell bars.
The arbitrator ruled that it was not clear that the officer had deliberately pushed the suspect into the bars, and no other officers said they saw the altercation.
In another instance, however, an arbitrator upheld the firing of an officer who refused to arrest her boyfriend after he attacked a handcuffed suspect. Other officers had arrested the suspect on charges of stealing the boyfriend's ATV.
In perhaps the most compelling case, an arbitrator overturned the five-day suspension of an officer suspected of running a license plate at the behest of the Hells Angels motorcycle gang. The plate belonged to an undercover state police vehicle that had been used two days earlier in surveillance of a Hells Angels clubhouse.
The officer was not asked about her actions until 21/2 years later, after an investigation failed to link her to Hells Angels. The arbitrator called this a "major flaw" in the city's case and overturned the suspension.
Judge Paul P. Panepinto ordered about 200 arbitration awards be made public after a lengthy legal battle by the Philadelphia Daily News. The Daily News and The Inquirer are seeking them under Pennsylvania's Right to Know Act.
The release of the cases was opposed by the Fraternal Order of Police, which argued that they included "highly inflammatory and scandalous allegations" that would damage the officers' reputations.
Arbitration hearings are courtlike sessions in which both sides - the city and lawyers for the union - can call witnesses. Arbitrators, who are lawyers, are chosen by both sides to settle workplace issues and contract disputes. Typically, it takes years to reach a final decision.
The judge's order pertained only to the arbitration awards - a list of who won and lost. The city chose to release the opinions, which explain the cases in more detail.