Victim of former Pittsburgh police officer sues city, police hierarchy
Pittsburgh police knew in 2005 that Adam Skweres failed his psychological exam and shouldn't have been allowed onto the force, one of the former officer's victims says in a federal lawsuit filed Monday.
The woman is suing the city, former police Chief Nathan Harper, Zone 3 Commander Catherine McNeilly and an unnamed Zone 3 captain. She claims the department should have removed Skweres after two women filed sex assault complaints in 2008, which would have prevented him from assaulting her in 2011.
City solicitor Dan Regan said the city hasn't reviewed the lawsuit yet.
The woman claims that Skweres, in December 2011, came to her house and offered to help her get her fiance's bail reduced in return for sexual favors, the lawsuit says. When she refused, he forced her to partially disrobe before he would leave her home, the lawsuit says.
The Tribune-Review does not name the victims of sexual assaults.
Police charged Skweres with trying to solicit sexual favors from five women. The incident described in the lawsuit fits one of the five incidents in the criminal case. The woman's attorney couldn't be reached for comment.
Skweres, 36, of Lincoln Place pleaded guilty in March to state charges of attempted rape, indecent assault, false imprisonment, bribery, official oppression and criminal coercion. He serving a sentence of 3 1⁄2 to 8 years in prison followed by 10 years of probation.
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.