Members 0/ the Boord:

Dr. Emma Lucas-Darby

Chair

Mr. Thomas C. Waters

Vice Chair

Mr. Elwin Green

Ms. Karen McLellan *

Ms. Leshonda Roberts

Mr. Sheldon Williams*

": Law Enforcement

Professional

Solicitors:

Ms. Elizabeth Collura, Esq.

Ms. Amanda MacDanald, Esq.

Executive Director:

Ms. Elizabeth C. Pittinger

412.765.8023 Voice

412.765.8059 Facsimile

412.255-CPRB Tipline

cprb@pittsburghpa.gov

cprbpgh.org

Independent CITIZEN POLICE REVIEW BOARDCity of Pittsburgh

816 Fifth Avenue, Suite 400Pittsburgh PA 15219

USA

August 31,2015

The Honorable Bill PedutoMayor, City of Pittsburghs" Floor, City County Building414 Grant StreetPittsburgh PA 15219

Findings & Recommendations, CPRBCase# 282-13(Brown, Brown v. Vitalbo)

Dear Mayor Peduto:

Re:

Having deliberated on the testimony and evidence taken at a public hearingconducted pursuant to § 662.06 of the City Code and in accordance with its Rulesand Operating Procedures, the Citizen Police Review Board has issued Findings andRecommendations on the above captioned Citizen Complaint.

Enclosed is a copy of those Findings and Recommendations. The transcripthas been provided to Chief McLay and the video is available athttp://cprbpgh.org/2035. I am available to support any action initiated by you andthe Chief of Police that is consistent with the recommendations of the Board.

The City Code, § 662.09 Response to Board Recommendations, states:

"Within thirty (30) working days of submission of a recommendation foraction by the Board to the Mayor and the Chief of Police, they shall respondin writing regarding which recommendations are accepted, rejected, or willbe implemented with modifications. If the Board's recommendations arerejected or modified, the Mayor and/or Chief of Police shall include a writtenexplanation for their decision."

Accordingly, the Board anticipates a response from you and/or Chief McLayby 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~Executive Director

Enclosures (2)

Promoting responsible citizenship and professional law enforcement since 1997.

Members of the Board:

Dr. Emma Lucas-Darby

Chair

Mr. Thomas C. Waters

Vice Chair

Mr. Elwin Green

Ms. Karen McLellan *

Ms. Leshonda Roberts

Mr. Sheldon Williams*

*: Law Enforcement

Professional

Solicitors:

Ms. Elizabeth Collura, Esq.

Ms. Amanda MacDonald, Esq.

Executive Director:

Ms. Elizabeth C. Pittinger

412.76S.8023 Voice

412.76S.80S9 Facsimile

412.2SS-CPRB Tipline

cprb@pittsburghpa.gov

cprbpgh.org

Independent CITIZEN POLICE REVIEW BOARDCity of Pittsburgh

816 Fifth Avenue, Suite 400Pittsburgh PA 15219

USA

August 31,2015

Cameron S. McLay, ChiefPittsburgh Bureau of Police1203 Western AvenuePittsburgh PA 15233

Findings & Recommendations, CPRBCase # 282-13(Brown, Brown v. Vitalbo)

Dear Chief McLay:

Re:

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.

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

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

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

the Board.

The City Code, § 662.09 Response to Board Recommendations, states:

"Within thirty (30) working days of submission of a recommendation foraction by the Board to the Mayor and the Chief of Police, they shall respondin writing regarding which recommendations are accepted, rejected, or willbe implemented with modifications. If the Board's recommendations arerejected or modified, the Mayor and/or Chief of Police shall include a writtenexplanation for their decision."

Accordingly, the Board antiCipates a response from you and/or the Mayor byOctober 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,

~ t.~abeth C. Pittinger .-r--~-7.

Executive DirectorEnclosures (2)

Promoting responsible citizenship and professional law enforcement since 1997.

INDEPENDENT CITIZEN POLICE REVIEW BOARDCity of Pittsburgh

CITIZEN COMPLAINT OF MISCONDUCT

\\.,»Executive Director, Independent Citizen Police ~~Review Board, on behalf of: ~~

~??

!Ivs.

Case No.: CPRB# 282-13

Charges:

1Count: Conduct Unbecoming A Member

or Employee PBP 16-1 (3.6.3)

4 Counts: Conduct Toward the Public PBP16-1 (3.7.1}{3.7.3)

Pamela BrownTeresa Brown

Complainants,

Subject Officer3 Counts: Truthfulness PBP 16-1

(3.19.1}{3.19.2)

P.O. Elizabeth Vitalbo #4205

Findings& Recommendationsto 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 Codeand the Rules and Operating Procedures of the Citizen Police Review Board, as amended, a PublicHearing was conducted on December 18, 2014 in City Council Chambers, s" Floor, City CountyBuilding, 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. SpecialProsecutor Jeff Ruder, Esq. and Bryan Campbell, Esq. represented the parties.

The record was held open pending possible acquisition of additional evidence through the Bureau ofPolice. The Record was closed by the Hearing Officer on February 27, 2015 upon conclusion that nofurther 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 evidence related to the incident, a

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

available at cprbpgh.org.

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 anunobstructed 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 tothe 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 thearea 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 theUniversity 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 PBPGeneral Rules &Regulations: #16-1(3.6.3} Conduct Unbecoming a Member or Employee; #16-1(3.7.1)(3.7.7} ConductToward the Public; and #16-1, Truthfulness.

Testimony from the following parties was taken at a Public Hearing held on December 18, 2014:

TERESABROWN, ComplainantPAMELA BROWN, Co-ComplainantMONICA JACKSON,Complainant's daughterANTHONY GRACE,Complainant's friendOFFICERJUSTIN RECK,University of Pittsburgh PoliceOFFICERMATT RUSKIN,University of Pittsburgh PoliceSERGEANTBRADLEYKEEFER,University of Pittsburgh PoliceOFFICERELIZABETHVITALBO, Subject Officer, #4205, Pittsburgh Bureau of Police

Findings & Recommendations CPRB#282-13 Page2 of8

Brown, Brown v. Vitalbo #282-13 Findings & Recommendations

Findings

1. Alleged Violation of PBPGeneral Rules and Regulations #16-1 3.6.3 Conduct Unbecoming AMember or Employee: The Subject Officer engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of thePittsburgh Bureau of Police when she told the Complainants and Witnesses that they wereloud and that she wasn't leaving until they "shut up"; and when the Complainants statedthat they didn't do anything, the Subject Officer walked up onto the porch in an aggressiveand hostile manner causing the Complainants to experience fear and view the SubjectOfficer 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 thecivilian witnesses that the Subject Officer was disrespectful in tone and used vulgar languagewhen addressing the Complainants. The Subject Officer denied using vulgar language buttestified: "l absolutely raised my voice, when you have a group of five or six people who's yellingback 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 ofcritical thinking and experience that inform the officer's analysis of a situation. In this case, theSubject Officer engaged a group of people returning to their point of origin after breaking up apotential fight. The Subject Officer testified, "twas going to get back into my vehicle when /noticed that the group that was in the middle of the street originally was slowly dispersing butbeing extremely loud and so / asked them to be quiet and go back to their residences. / stood byfor about another minute or so, waiting to see if they would obey my orders. They did not. Theywere still being loud and slowly getting back to the residences, so / gave them a second order tobe quiet and go inside. II

The Subject Officer proceeded to describe the group's non-compliance to her orders to be quietand 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 obeyingtraffic 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 issuingthem citations. So once my backup arrived, / asked for -- / know / specifically got TeresaBrown's and Monica Jackson's and / believe someone else got Anthony Grace's. But / did geteveryone's information, and that's basically -- that was basically it, because / knew / would beissuing citations. II

The Subject Officer expressed frustration that the group of people was not "obeying" her orderto go inside a residence. The group was not the subject of the 911 call to which the SubjectOfficer 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 theSubject Officer's hostile response by identifying her status as a PA Constable. As a result, allparties became defensive and the Subject Officer reacted in a subjective manner and trumpedall by issuing citations for Disorderly Conduct.

A troubling comment made by University of Pittsburgh Police Officer Matt Ruskin provided someinsight 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 onthe porch were yelling at the police. I couldn't make out anything that was said. It wasn't properEnglish." When asked on cross-examination "What is proper English?" his response was "ProperEnglish? You say, you wasn't. We can understand it when one person says it here, but when itwas being yelled, grammar, things like that, pronunciation."

While out of the Panel's jurisdiction, we are concerned with the comment made by University ofPittsburgh Police Officer Ruskin and note that all of the parties on the porch were African-Americans who speak English as their primary language. The Oakland neighborhood is a diversecommunity and is also the home of the University of Pittsburgh. Through occasions of mutual aidto Pittsburgh Police (such as this incident), residents of Oakland may encounter University Policebecause the curtilage of their patrol area abuts Pittsburgh jurisdiction. P.O. Ruskin's commentpresented cause for the University to consider enhanced diversity and communication trainingas well as exercises to mitigate bias.

2. Alleged Violations of PBPGeneral Rules and Regulations #16-13.7 Conduct Toward thePublic (4 counts):

Count 1. The Subject Officer violated 16-1,3.7.1 when Complainant 2 informed theSubject Officer that she was a Constable and that they were on the same side. TheSubject Officer responded by saying, "I don't give a shit!" The Subject Officer acted inan 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 witnessesthat the Subject Officer conducted herself in a manner perceived by the Complainants andcivilian witnesses as impolite, unprofessional and uncivil. It appeared more likely than not thatthe Subject Officer disregarded Teresa Brown's status as a PAConstable and used harsh, coarse,profane and uncivil language when responding to Teresa Brown's attempt to identify herself as aPA Constable, an ally and a reliable informant about the original disturbance. The SubjectOfficer's testimony revealed frustration that the group disobeyed her and apparently withoutseeking to understand the group's purpose and reason for being in the street, decided to issuecitations 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 wasgoing to videotape the Subject Officer. The Subject Officer responded, "You are notdoing 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 SubjectOfficer Vitalbo told her (Monica) that she would be arrested if she recorded. All civilianwitnesses affirmed Monica Jackson's intention to record as the incident escalated and testifiedto 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 phonedown, 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 apolice encounter and no officer may inhibit a citizen's right to do so. Certainly exceptions to theexercise of said right may arise if the activity directly interferes with a police action or safetywould 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 anyperson, a member or employee will give his/her name and badge number in acourteous manner."

Count 4. The Subject Officer violated 16-1,3.7.3 when Witness 1 asked the SubjectOfficer 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 whenasked. Civilian testimony consistently reported that the Subject Officer did not disclose hername and instead said her name was "Smith".

3. Alleged Violations PBPGeneral Rules and Regulations Truthfulness #16-1, 3.19.1; 3.19.2 (3Counts):

Count 1. The Subject officer violated 16-1,3.19.1 when she told the Complainants andWitnesses that she was recording everything on her police radio microphone and onher 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. (Unanimous: Waters, McLellan, Green)

Findings & Recommendations CPRB#282-13 Page5 of8

Brown, Brown v. Vitalbo #282-13 Findings & Recommendations

Count 2. 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 toComplainant 2's home address. When in truth she was dispatched to anotheraddress.

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 SubjectOfficer's unsuccessful effort to achieve her goal of dispersing the Complainant's group despitetheir having no inciting role in the disturbance generating the 911 call to which the SubjectOfficer was responding. It is more likely than not that the Subject Officer did tell theComplainant that the call was for the Complainant's residence as a tactic to gain the complianceof the Complainant and her group of family and friends. The objective evidence of the dispatchrecord clearly indicates the call was for Oakland Court and not the Ward Street address of theComplainant.

Count 3. The Subject Officer violated 16-1,3.19.2 when she stated that her last namewas "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 whenasked. Civilian testimony consistently reported that the Subject Officer did not disclose hername 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 publicrespect and confidence in the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police. The Subject Officer's inattentive andcoercive approach to the Complainants and associates was gruff, harsh and hostile causing theencounter to escalate. The issuance of citations for Disorderly Conduct for excessive noise at8:00 on a Saturday evening in a college neighborhood demonstrates the Subject Officersspiteful mishandling of the situation bordering on a blatant abuse of power. In short, theSubject Officer's behavior left a damaging impression upon the Complainants and othersinvolved in this incident.

The conflict illustrated in this incident appears to be rooted in the Subject Officer's confidenceand competence. Repeatedly, the testimony described the Subject Officer resorting to coerciveefforts to gain control and compliance of a group of people that were simply attempting todiffuse a potentially dangerous neighborhood situation.

The Panel encourages honest dialogue between police officers and civilians as it is essential andis the most effective means to gaining cooperation and preserving safety. Any failure to bedirect, 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 theBureau's core values and policies related to professional interaction with the public.

2. The Subject Officer undergo remedial training to develop effective and respectfulinterpersonal 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 techniques.

Training recommendations 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 toyou, 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 arerejected or modified, the Mayor and/or Chief of Police shall include a written explanation fortheir decision.

By the Presiding Hearing Panel:

Panelists Signature

Mr. Thomas C.Waters, Chair r/~Ms. Karen M. McLellan CJI~Mr. Elwin Green 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