Judge blocks reinstatement of Pittsburgh cop fired in Jim Rogers Taser death

The Pittsburgh police officer fired for repeatedly using his Taser on a homeless man who died the next day cannot get his job back.

A judge on Wednesday granted an appeal by the City of Pittsburgh of an arbitrator’s award earlier this year that reinstated Keith Edmonds to his position as a patrol officer.

Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Alan Hertzberg ruled that the evidence of Edmonds’ wrongdoing was “overwhelming.”

Mayor Ed Gainey praised the decision.

“We’re thankful the court decision will allow the City of Pittsburgh to hold city employees responsible for their actions and ensure that every resident is treated with dignity and respect,” Gainey said in a statement.

Robert Swartzwelder, the police union president, said the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge. No. 1 will appeal the decision to Commonwealth Court — and, if necessary, up to the state Supreme Court.

“The FOP is highly disappointed that Judge Hertzberg deviated from the narrow standard of review,” Swartzwelder said

Fatal encounter

Edmonds was terminated on March 24, 2022, five months after he used his Taser to shock Jim Rogers, a homeless man, 10 times in just over three minutes and 15 seconds.

Edmonds was dispatched to Harriet Street in Bloomfield on Oct. 13, 2021, for a report of a possible stolen bike.

He encountered Rogers, questioned him and patted him down.

Rogers became upset when Edmonds removed his wallet, and Edmonds reacted with force.

Edmonds shouted at Rogers, forced him to the ground, and within a minute had deployed his Taser. The entire incident was captured by Edmonds’ body camera.

Several other officers responded to the scene, and Rogers was handcuffed and taken into custody.

Despite his cries for medical help, Rogers remained in the back of a police patrol car before officers took him to UPMC Mercy. When they arrived, Rogers was unresponsive.

He died the next day.

The city settled a wrongful death lawsuit with Rogers’ family for $8 million.

Nine police officers were disciplined for their actions that day, including four who were fired but later reinstated.

2-1 decision

A three-member arbitration panel heard Edmonds’ case. The panel consisted of a neutral member, one from the city and the third from the police union.

In a March 8 decision, the panel voted 2-1 to reinstate Edmonds, with the neutral arbitrator siding with the union.

The neutral arbitrator found that the evidence presented by the city was not sufficient to justify the termination.

In the decision, the arbitrator wrote: [t]he majority of the panel of arbitrators have concluded that although the grievant may not have followed each and every policy, rule and regulation for which he was charged by the strict letter or strictest interpretation of that policy, rule or regulation, the grievant did not violate them either.”

The neutral arbitrator then went on to find that “it was the failure of adequate training for the particular circumstance occurring not the grievant’s conduct.”

The city appealed the reinstatement to court.

But Swartzwelder, the union president, said there are only four circumstances in which a court can overturn an arbitration decision: if arbitrators exceed their authority; if they exceed their jurisdiction; if there was irregularity in the proceedings; or in the case of a constitutional violation.

In Edmonds’ case, Swartzwelder said, none of those occurred.

However, Judge Hertzberg found that there were constitutional due process violations and that the neutral arbitrator exceeded his authority.

Hertzberg said the neutral and union arbitrators deprived the city of its due process rights “by dishonestly finding” that Edmonds did not violate city policies, “when he admitted that he did and when the evidence of violations was overwhelming.”

The judge also found that the two arbitrators exceeded their authority in telling the city how to manage its police officers and in finding that Edmonds had not been trained properly when no evidence of that was presented by the union.

Systemic issues

The Alliance for Police Accountability, NAACP Pittsburgh branch and Black Political Empowerment Project said in a statement that the court’s order finding on how the arbitration process played out underscores the need to address systemic issues with how police misconduct is handled.

“This decision today represents an essential step forward and must be recognized as only the beginning of a broader movement for justice,” the statement said. “Now is the time to act with courage and conviction, to forge a system that is fair, just, and accountable to the people, ensuring it can no longer be used to shield officers from accountability.”

Todd Hollis, the attorney who represented the Rogers’ family in their suit against the city, praised Hertzberg’s decision.

“When I originally took on this case, I always believed accountability was just as important as the money,” Hollis said. “And I still believe that to this day.”