Former Pittsburgh Chief Harper dropped from another lawsuit
Pittsburgh police had probable cause when they arrested a community activist four times between May 2008 and March 2009, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.
Adrienne Young, 56, of Garfield claimed in the lawsuit that police were harassing her by arresting and prosecuting her, but U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon said officers had reason to believe Young violated the law during incidents related to what Young admitted was a “tumultuous” relationship with a man.
Young, founder of the Tree of Hope Inc., originally sued in Common Pleas court in May 2011. The defendants, which include the city, former police Chief Nathan Harper, five police officers, the administrator of the county adult probation service and six county probation officers, moved the case to federal court because she was making civil rights claims.
Young said she plans to appeal the judge's decision. The charges against Young were dropped or dismissed except one in which she was convicted of passing in a no-passing zone.
Bissoon's order drops the city, Harper and the police officers from the lawsuit. The county has filed an answer denying Young's claims that the probation officers used false information to keep her in jail for 28 days and temporarily place her on home confinement with electronic monitoring after her fourth arrest.
Young's lawyer, Edward Olds, couldn't be reached for comment. The Tree of Hope supports families who lose members to violence.
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.