Police Union Denied Copies of Evidence in Jim Rogers Case for Over a Year

The board found that the City did violate the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act, dismissed the exceptions, and upheld the hearing examiner's proposed orders to release the footage.

By Bobby Harr

The City of Pittsburgh refused to provide the police union with copies of evidence in the Jim Rogers case until forced by court order. According to documents, the City took over a year to release the requested information to the union.

Pittsburgh Police responded to reports of a stolen bike in October 2021 when they encountered Rogers in Bloomfield. One day later, after being tased multiple times by Pittsburgh Police Officer Keith Edmonds during an arrest, he died in the hospital.

Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1, requested evidence from the City on April 8, 2022. Union attorney Christopher Cimballa asked Wendy Kobee, City Associate Solicitor, for a copy of the entire file maintained by the City regarding the Rogers case. "This includes the Critical Incident Review Board investigation, all attachments and media {audio and video)." Cimballa wrote.

Kobee declined to release the footage when she determined that, in her opinion, a related grand jury investigation subjected the body-worn and in-car camera footage to legal confidentiality agreements with the County's District Attorney. The City deferred to the DA's office, which approved the release of the footage without any stipulations.

The City wanted the union to sign confidentiality agreements before handing over copies of the footage. Cimballa declined, and the City refused to produce the information without the agreement. In response, Cimballa filed an Unfair Labor Practice on May 13, 2022.

The complaint alleged that the City violated the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act when it failed to produce requested documents relating to the discipline of eight police officers.

The union was particularly interested in all video and audio evidence from body-worn cameras and in-car recordings, which the City offered to let them view at police headquarters instead of handing over copies. But the union pushed back, and the hearing examiner agreed.

"If the Union intends to have an (sic) use-of-force expert witness review the camera footage, it will need the footage for a lengthy amount of time and the Union does not believe it is proper for the City to have the ability to limit how long the camera footage can be used." said hearing examiner Stephen Helmerich.

"Forcing the Union's experts to travel to the Police Bureau Headquarters to view the body-worn camera footage is a considerable inconvenience."

Following the complaint, a first-day hearing occurred on October 28, 2022, with a second day on January 19. After both parties submitted a post-hearing brief, the hearing examiner agreed with the union and issued a Proposed Decision and Order for the City to provide the union with a copy of the body-worn camera footage, noting its obligation.

The City responded by filing exceptions to the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board. The board found that the City did violate the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act, dismissed the exceptions, and upheld the hearing examiner's proposed orders to release the footage. The City released the footage to the union on April 17, 2023.

Attorney Todd Hollis, who represents the Rogers family, hired David Wright, a retired Pittsburgh officer, as his use of force expert. Wright was highly critical of the police response that preceded Rogers's death and said that Officer Keith Edmonds created the conditions leading up to the use of force. He says that tasing was not appropriate for the situation.

Wright dated his report on May 11, 2022. Hollis released Wright's findings to the public through his website on Friday. Hollis settled a wrongful death lawsuit with the City of Pittsburgh for $8 million.

Police union president Bob Swartzwelder issued the following statement to Eyes on PGH:

“The FOP is disturbed by the amount of legal action it was required to take just to ensure basic due process rights for its members. In spite of the District Attorneys release of the information for litigation purposes, the City adamantly  refused the release of the evidence to the FOP. The only conclusion here is that the City colluded with the plaintiffs in this tragic incident while denying the involved officers basic due process to the same evidence. Fortunately, the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board saw things differently and the FOP, over a year later, obtained the necessary evidence to proceed with its defense of its members.”

Bobby Harr is the founder of Eyes on PGH, a citizen journalism project based in Pittsburgh, PA. Send story tips to bobbyharrpgh@gmail.com.