Independent CITIZEN POLICE REVIEW BOARD

City of Pittsburgh
816 Fifth Avenue, Suite 400
Pittsburgh PA 15219
USA

August 31,2015

Members

0/ the

The Honorable Bill Peduto

Mayor, City of Pittsburgh
Floor, City County Building
414 Grant Street
Pittsburgh PA 15219

s"

Boord:

Dr. Emma Lucas-Darby

Chair

Re:
Mr. Thomas C. Waters

Findings & Recommendations, CPRBCase # 282-13

(Brown, Brown v. Vitalbo)

Vice Chair

Dear Mayor Peduto:

Mr. Elwin Green
Ms. Karen McLellan

Having deliberated on the testimony and evidence taken at a public hearing

conducted pursuant to 662.06 of the City Code and in accordance with its Rules
and Operating Procedures, the Citizen Police Review Board has issued Findings and
Recommendations on the above captioned Citizen Complaint.

Ms. Leshonda Roberts

Mr. Sheldon Williams*

Enclosed is a copy of those Findings and Recommendations. The transcript

has been provided to Chief McLay and the video is available at
http://cprbpgh.org/2035.
I am available to support any action initiated by you and
the Chief of Police that is consistent with the recommendations of the Board.

": Law Enforcement

Professional

The City Code, 662.09 Response to Board Recommendations,

states:

Solicitors:
Ms. Elizabeth Collura, Esq.
Ms. Amanda

MacDanald,

Executive Director:
Ms. Elizabeth C. Pittinger

412.765.8023

Voice

412.765.8059

Facsimile

412.255-CPRB

Tipline

Esq.

"Within thirty (30) working days of submission of a recommendation for

action by the Board to the Mayor and the Chief of Police, they shall respond
in writing regarding which recommendations are accepted, rejected, or will
be implemented with modifications. If the Board's recommendations are
rejected or modified, the Mayor and/or Chief of Police shall include a written
explanation for their decision."
Accordingly, the Board anticipates a response from you and/or Chief McLay
by October 13, 2015 indicating which of the recommendations are accepted,
rejected, or will be implemented with modification.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely yours,

~tt~

cprb@pittsburghpa.gov
cprbpgh.org

Executive Director
Enclosures (2)

Promoting responsible citizenship and professional law enforcement

since 1997.

Independent CITIZEN POLICE REVIEW BOARD

City of Pittsburgh
816 Fifth Avenue, Suite 400
Pittsburgh PA 15219
USA

August 31,2015
Cameron S. McLay, Chief
Pittsburgh Bureau of Police
1203 Western Avenue
Pittsburgh PA 15233

Members of the Board:

Dr. Emma Lucas-Darby

Re:

Chair

Findings & Recommendations,

(Brown, Brown v. Vitalbo)

CPRBCase # 282-13

Mr. Thomas C. Waters

Vice Chair

Dear Chief McLay:

Having deliberated on the testimony and evidence taken at a public hearing

Mr. Elwin Green

conducted pursuant to 662.06 of the City Code and in accordance with its Rules
Ms. Karen McLellan

and Operating Procedures, the Citizen Police Review Board has issued Findings and
Recommendations

Ms. Leshonda Roberts

on the above captioned Citizen Complaint.

Enclosed is a copy of those Findings and Recommendations.

Mr. Sheldon Williams*

enclosed and the video is available at http://cprbpgh.org/2035.

*: Law Enforcement

The transcript is

I am available to

support any action initiated by you that is consistent with the recommendations

Professional

of

the Board.
The City Code, 662.09 Response to Board Recommendations,

Solicitors:
Ms. Elizabeth Collura, Esq.
Ms. Amanda

MacDonald,

Executive Director:
Ms. Elizabeth C. Pittinger

Esq.

"Within thirty (30) working days of submission of a recommendation for

action by the Board to the Mayor and the Chief of Police, they shall respond
in writing regarding which recommendations are accepted, rejected, or will
be implemented with modifications. If the Board's recommendations are
rejected or modified, the Mayor and/or Chief of Police shall include a written
explanation for their decision."
Accordingly, the Board antiCipates a response from you and/or the Mayor by
October 13, 2015 indicating which of the recommendations
or will be implemented

412.76S.8023 Voice
412.76S.80S9

Facsimile

412.2SS-CPRB

Tipline

states:

are accepted, rejected,

with modification.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely yours,

t.~

abeth C. Pittinger

cprb@pittsburghpa.gov

Executive Director

cprbpgh.org

Enclosures (2)

Promoting responsible citizenship and professional law enforcement

since 1997.

.-r--~-7.

INDEPENDENT CITIZEN POLICE REVIEW BOARD

City of Pittsburgh

CITIZEN COMPLAINT OF MISCONDUCT

\\.,

Executive Director, Independent Citizen Police ~~ Case No.: CPRB# 282-13

Review Board, on behalf of:
Pamela Brown
Teresa Brown
Complainants,

~~ Charges:
1Count: Conduct Unbecoming A Member
~

??

4 Counts: Conduct Toward the Public PBP

vs.
P.O. Elizabeth Vitalbo #4205
Subject Officer

or Employee PBP 16-1 (3.6.3)

!I

16-1 (3.7.1}{3.7.3)
3 Counts: Truthfulness PBP 16-1
(3.19.1}{3.19.2)

Findings & Recommendations

to the Chief of Police and the Mayor
of the City of Pittsburgh
#282-13
Pursuant to Article 2, 228 - 230 of the Home Rule Charter and Article VI of the Pittsburgh City Code
and the Rules and Operating Procedures of the Citizen Police Review Board, as amended, a Public
Hearing was conducted on December 18, 2014 in City Council Chambers,
Floor, City County
Building, 414 Grant Street, Pittsburgh PA 15219. The presiding panel was comprised of Mr. Waters,
Panel Chair, Mr. Green and Ms. McLellan. The Hearing Officer was Atty. Elizabeth F. Collura. Special
Prosecutor Jeff Ruder, Esq. and Bryan Campbell, Esq. represented the parties.

s"

The record was held open pending possible acquisition of additional evidence through the Bureau of
Police. The Record was closed by the Hearing Officer on February 27, 2015 upon conclusion that no
further probative evidence was available. The parties were notified of the ruling on March 2, 2015.

Ms. Teresa Brown and her daughter Pamela Brown filed a Citizen Complaint on October 21,2013
alleging misconduct during an incident on September 28,2013 involving P.O. Elizabeth Vitalbo,
#4205. The complaint alleges Officer Vitalbo engaged in unbecoming conduct and untruthfulness.
The public hearing panel received testimony and documentary
transcription

evidence related to the incident, a

of the hearing was prepared by a court reporter and an audio/video

available at cprbpgh.org.

recording is

Brown, Brown v. Vitalbo #282-13

Findings & Recommendations

Background
On 9/28/13, a resident of Oakland Court placed a 911 call for police assistance due to a large fight in
the street involving 10-20 people between Ward Street and Dawson Court. Oakland Court is
essentially a paper street that has a sidewalk and grass running south to north from Ward St. to a
merge into Dawson Ct. and upon which several homes front. Access to the area is provided by
several shallow steps from Ward St.
The Complainant in this case resides on Ward St. opposite the steps to Oakland Ct. with an
unobstructed

view of the area in which the disturbance was reported to be occurring. The

Complainant was entertaining

her daughters and friends on her front porch when the Complainant's

daughter informed the Complainant that several young men appeared to be posturing for a fight.
The Complainant (a PA Constable) and her guests left the porch and intervened with the young men,
scattering them from the area. Upon reaching the northern end of the area between Oakland Ct.
and into Dawson Ct., the young men reconvened and surrounded a young man in a threatening
manner. The Complainant and her guests again intervened and broke up the impending fight.
As the Complainant's party was returning to the Complainant's front porch, the Subject Officer
arrived at the scene. The Complainant described the situation and directed the Subject Officer to
the area where the young men fled. The Complainant proceeded to join her daughters and friends.
The Subject Officer returned to her patrol unit near the Complainant's residence after surveying the
area for the young men. The Subject Officer initiated contact with the Complainant and her guests,
directing them to quiet down. That encounter escalated verbally and the Subject Officer
broadcasted a Code 1call for additional police assistance. Three marked police units from the
University of Pittsburgh Police were also on-scene. It is at this point that the dispute about the
Subject Officer's conduct and truthfulness

begins.

The Citizen Complaint alleges that the Subject Officer violated the following PBP General Rules &
Regulations: #16-1(3.6.3} Conduct Unbecoming a Member or Employee; #16-1(3.7.1)(3.7.7}

Conduct

Toward the Public; and #16-1, Truthfulness.

Testimony from the following parties was taken at a Public Hearing held on December 18, 2014:
TERESABROWN, Complainant
PAMELA BROWN, Co-Complainant
MONICA JACKSON,Complainant's daughter
ANTHONY GRACE,Complainant's friend
OFFICERJUSTIN RECK,University of Pittsburgh Police
OFFICERMATT RUSKIN, University of Pittsburgh Police
SERGEANTBRADLEYKEEFER,University of Pittsburgh Police
OFFICERELIZABETHVITALBO, Subject Officer, #4205, Pittsburgh Bureau of Police

Findings & Recommendations CPRB#282-13

Page2 of8

Findings & Recommendations

Brown, Brown v. Vitalbo #282-13

Findings
1. Alleged Violation

of PBP General Rules and Regulations #16-1 3.6.3 Conduct Unbecoming A

Member or Employee: The Subject Officer engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the
Pittsburgh Bureau of Police when she told the Complainants and Witnesses that they were
loud and that she wasn't leaving until they "shut up"; and when the Complainants stated
that they didn't do anything, the Subject Officer walked up onto the porch in an aggressive
and hostile manner causing the Complainants to experience fear and view the Subject
Officer as acting unprofessionally.

Based upon a preponderance of the evidence presented, the hearing panel finds the allegation:
~

Sustained as ~

De Minimis

misconduct.

(Panel was Unanimous: Waters, McLellan, Green)

The Hearing Panel received consistent reporting in the testimony of the Complainants and the
civilian witnesses that the Subject Officer was disrespectful in tone and used vulgar language
when addressing the Complainants. The Subject Officer denied using vulgar language but
testified: "l absolutely raised my voice, when you have a group of five or six people who's yelling

back at you, / am 5'2",120 pounds. / was by myselffor a short amount of time. A lot of times,
the only way that / can get people to listen to me and to take me seriously is to raise my voice.
But there is no need for me to tell anyone to shut up.
II

Mastery of "Command & Control" language and method of its delivery requires a degree of
critical thinking and experience that inform the officer's analysis of a situation. In this case, the
Subject Officer engaged a group of people returning to their point of origin after breaking up a
potential fight. The Subject Officer testified, "t was going to get back into my vehicle when /

noticed that the group that was in the middle of the street originally was slowly dispersing but
being extremely loud and so / asked them to be quiet and go back to their residences. / stood by
for about another minute or so, waiting to see if they would obey my orders. They did not. They
were still being loud and slowly getting back to the residences, so / gave them a second order to
be quiet and go inside.
II

The Subject Officer proceeded to describe the group's non-compliance to her orders to be quiet
and go inside the residence. Fearing the situation would escalate, the Subject Officer called for a
"Code 1" backup. Code 1 signifies a request that police units respond when they can but obeying
traffic controls, speed and no lights or sirens. The Subject Officer testified, "At that point when /
had backup, / attempted to get three individual's identification, because / knew / would be issuing

them citations. So once my backup arrived, / asked for -/ know / specifically got Teresa
Brown's and Monica Jackson's and / believe someone else got Anthony Grace's. But / did get
everyone's information, and that's basically -that was basically it, because / knew / would be
issuing citations.
II

The Subject Officer expressed frustration that the group of people was not "obeying" her order
to go inside a residence. The group was not the subject of the 911 call to which the Subject
Officer responded. The Subject Officer disregarded the Complainant's explanation of the
Findings & Recommendations

CPRB#282-13

Page3 of8

Brown, Brown v. Vitalbo #282-13

Findings & Recommendations

developing fight that the group broke-up, as well as the Complainant's effort to diffuse the
Subject Officer's hostile response by identifying her status as a PA Constable. As a result, all
parties became defensive and the Subject Officer reacted in a subjective manner and trumped
all by issuing citations for Disorderly Conduct.
A troubling comment made by University of Pittsburgh Police Officer Matt Ruskin provided some
insight to the atmosphere of the incident. P.O. Ruskin testified that upon his arrival on scene,
the Subject Officer was in front of, but off the porch, and that he observed 'The individuals on
the porch were yelling at the police. I couldn't make out anything that was said. It wasn't proper
English." When asked on cross-examination "What is proper English?" his response was "Proper
English? You say, you wasn't. We can understand it when one person says it here, but when it
was being yelled, grammar, things like that, pronunciation."
While out of the Panel's jurisdiction, we are concerned with the comment made by University of
Pittsburgh Police Officer Ruskin and note that all of the parties on the porch were AfricanAmericans who speak English as their primary language. The Oakland neighborhood is a diverse
community and is also the home of the University of Pittsburgh. Through occasions of mutual aid
to Pittsburgh Police (such as this incident), residents of Oakland may encounter University Police
because the curtilage of their patrol area abuts Pittsburgh jurisdiction. P.O. Ruskin's comment
presented cause for the University to consider enhanced diversity and communication training
as well as exercises to mitigate bias.

2. Alleged Violations of PBP General Rules and Regulations #16-13.7 Conduct Toward the
Public (4 counts):
Count 1.
The Subject Officer violated 16-1,3.7.1 when Complainant 2 informed the
Subject Officer that she was a Constable and that they were on the same side. The
Subject Officer responded by saying, "I don't give a shit!" The Subject Officer acted in
an unprofessional manner.
Based upon a preponderance of the evidence presented, the hearing panel finds the allegation:
~

Sustained as ~

De Minimis

misconduct.

(Panel was Unanimous: Waters, McLellan, Green)

The Hearing Panel received consistent testimony from the Complainants and civilian witnesses
that the Subject Officer conducted herself in a manner perceived by the Complainants and
civilian witnesses as impolite, unprofessional and uncivil. It appeared more likely than not that
the Subject Officer disregarded Teresa Brown's status as a PA Constable and used harsh, coarse,
profane and uncivil language when responding to Teresa Brown's attempt to identify herself as a
PA Constable, an ally and a reliable informant about the original disturbance. The Subject
Officer's testimony revealed frustration that the group disobeyed her and apparently without
seeking to understand the group's purpose and reason for being in the street, decided to issue
citations for Disorderly Conduct.

Findings & Recommendations

CPRB#282-13

Page 4 of8

Brown, Brown v. Vitalbo #282-13

Findings & Recommendations

Count 2.
The Subject Officer violated 16-1,3.7.1 when Witness 1 stated that she was
going to videotape the Subject Officer. The Subject Officer responded, "You are not
doing shit!'

Based upon a preponderance of the evidence presented, the hearing panel finds the allegation:

I:8J Sustained

as

I:8J Serious

misconduct. (Unanimous: Waters, McLellan, Green)

Monica Jackson testified that when she picked up her cell phone to record the encounter Subject
Officer Vitalbo told her (Monica) that she would be arrested if she recorded. All civilian
witnesses affirmed Monica Jackson's intention to record as the incident escalated and testified
to the obstructive reaction of the Subject Officer.
The Subject Officer testified "! definitely didn't say that. If at any time / told her to put her phone
down, it's because she was about two inches from my face. / did not tell her she couldn't record.
/ told her to get out of my personal space, because that is a threat to us as officers."
The Panel emphasizes that a civilian has the protected right to capture video and audio of a
police encounter and no officer may inhibit a citizen's right to do so. Certainly exceptions to the
exercise of said right may arise if the activity directly interferes with a police action or safety
would be compromised however, no such exception was established in this encounter.
Count 3.
The Subject Officer violated 16-1,3.7.3 which states, "When requested by any
person, a member or employee will give his/her name and badge number in a
courteous manner."
Count 4.
The Subject Officer violated 16-1,3.7.3 when Witness 1 asked the Subject
Officer for her name and the Subject Officer stated that her last name was "Smith."

Based upon a preponderance of the evidence presented, the hearing panel finds the allegations:

I:8J Sustained

as

I:8J De Minimis

misconduct. (Unanimous: Waters, McLellan, Green)

The Subject Officer is required to provide name & badge number in a courteous manner when
asked. Civilian testimony consistently reported that the Subject Officer did not disclose her
name and instead said her name was "Smith".

3. Alleged Violations PBP General Rules and Regulations Truthfulness #16-1, 3.19.1; 3.19.2 (3
Counts):
Count 1.
The Subject officer violated 16-1,3.19.1 when she told the Complainants and
Witnesses that she was recording everything on her police radio microphone and on
her car camera when she actually wasn't.

Based upon a preponderance of the evidence presented, the hearing panel finds:

I:8J Insufficient

evidence exists to sustain the allegation.

Findings & Recommendations

CPRB#282-13

(Unanimous: Waters, McLellan, Green)

Page5 of8

Brown, Brown v. Vitalbo #282-13

Count 2.

Findings & Recommendations

The Subject Officer violated 16-1,3.19.2:

The Subject Officer violated 16-

1,3.19.2 when she told the Complainants and Witnesses that she was dispatched to
Complainant 2's home address. When in truth she was dispatched to another
address.

Based upon a preponderance of the evidence presented, the hearing panel finds the allegation:

C8J Sustained as C8J

De Minimis misconduct. (Unanimous: Waters, Mclellan, Green)

The Panel was impressed by testimony that the situation escalated as a result of the Subject
Officer's unsuccessful effort to achieve her goal of dispersing the Complainant's group despite
their having no inciting role in the disturbance generating the 911 call to which the Subject
Officer was responding. It is more likely than not that the Subject Officer did tell the
Complainant that the call was for the Complainant's residence as a tactic to gain the compliance
of the Complainant and her group of family and friends. The objective evidence of the dispatch
record clearly indicates the call was for Oakland Court and not the Ward Street address of the
Complainant.

Count 3.

The Subject Officer violated 16-1,3.19.2 when she stated that her last name
was "Smith" when asked by Witness 1.

Based upon a preponderance of the evidence presented, the hearing panel finds the allegation:
C8J Sustained as C8J De Minimis misconduct. (Unanimous: Waters, Mclellan, Green)
The Subject Officer is required to provide name & badge number in a courteous manner when
asked. Civilian testimony consistently reported that the Subject Officer did not disclose her
name and instead said her name was "Smith".

Findings & Recommendations CPRB#282-13

Page6of8

Brown, Brown v. Vitalbo #282-13

Findings & Recommendations

Recommendations
The Hearing Panel found that the Subject Officer engaged in conduct that diminished public
respect and confidence in the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police. The Subject Officer's inattentive and
coercive approach to the Complainants and associates was gruff, harsh and hostile causing the
encounter to escalate. The issuance of citations for Disorderly Conduct for excessive noise at
8:00 on a Saturday evening in a college neighborhood demonstrates the Subject Officers
spiteful mishandling of the situation bordering on a blatant abuse of power. In short, the
Subject Officer's behavior left a damaging impression upon the Complainants and others
involved in this incident.
The conflict illustrated in this incident appears to be rooted in the Subject Officer's confidence
and competence. Repeatedly, the testimony described the Subject Officer resorting to coercive
efforts to gain control and compliance of a group of people that were simply attempting to
diffuse a potentially dangerous neighborhood situation.
The Panel encourages honest dialogue between police officers and civilians as it is essential and
is the most effective means to gaining cooperation and preserving safety. Any failure to be
direct, courteous and honest can lead to a situation escalating, as is seen in this incident.
Accordingly, the hearing panel recommends:

1. The Subject Officer's superiors should review with and remind the Subject Officer of the
Bureau's core values and policies related to professional interaction with the public.

2. The Subject Officer undergo remedial training to develop effective and respectful
interpersonal

communication

and active listening skills.

3. The Subject Officers self-confidence would benefit from competency-based training in:
a. Dispute resolution;
b. De-escalation techniques;
c. Non-coercive intervention
Training recommendations

techniques.

are not punitive.

Findings & Recommendations CPRB#282-13

Page 7of8

Brown, Brown v. Vitalbo #282-13

Findings & Recommendations

Notice to the Chief of Police and the Mayor:

The Pittsburgh City Code, Title Six, Article VI, 662.09 Response To Board Recommendations,
requires that within thirty (30) working days of the Board's submission of recommendations to
you, you must respond in writing to the Board regarding which recommendations are accepted,
rejected, or will be implemented with modifications. If the Board's recommendations are
rejected or modified, the Mayor and/or Chief of Police shall include a written explanation for
their decision.
By the Presiding Hearing Panel:
Panelists
Mr. Thomas C. Waters, Chair
Ms. Karen M. McLellan
Mr. Elwin Green

Signature

r/~
CJI~
Unavailable

Date submitted to Mayor and Chief of Police: August 31, 2015

Response due from the Mayor and/or the Chief of Police: On or before October 13, 2015

#282-13 Public Hearing Video: http://cprbpgh.org/2035

Findings & Recommendations

CPRB #282-13

Page 8of8