Hearing held for Springdale Borough policeman accused of having sex on duty
A Springdale Borough police officer had a hearing Monday on his suspension stemming from allegations he had sex in a police car while on duty.
Several juveniles said they saw Officer David E. Walton with a woman in his unmarked borough police car on Sherosky Way off Butler Street and near the Allegheny River. Walton was the only officer on duty at the time.
The hearing, which was not open to the public, was conducted by Craig Alexander, the borough's labor attorney, said Councilman John Molnar. Molnar said he did not attend the proceeding, known as a “Loudermill hearing.”
A Loudermill hearing is part of the “due process” requirement for a government employee prior to possible disciplinary action or removal.
At the hearing, the charges and evidence against Walton were spelled out, and Walton was given the opportunity to speak to them and defend himself, Molnar said.
Reached later, Walton's wife declined comment on the couple's behalf.
Molnar said council can act on Walton's employment at its next regular meeting on Nov. 20.
Walton is suspended without pay, Molnar said.
Previously a part-time officer, Walton was hired full-time in January. His pay is $21.50 per hour.
Brian C. Rittmeyer is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-226-4701 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
More Valley News Dispatch
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.