Hearing for officer charged with assault postponed
If a Pittsburgh police officer accused of assaulting his girlfriend continues alcohol abuse treatment, the charges against him could be withdrawn, a district judge ruled Thursday.
Judge Blaise Larotonda postponed a preliminary hearing for Officer Michael J. Flynn, 35, of Westwood, and said the simple assault charge Dormont police filed against him could be withdrawn at a July hearing.
“He's going to keep it going,” Larotonda said, adding that if Flynn violates a no-violent contact order, the case will be waived to court.
Dormont police charged Flynn after his girlfriend told officers he pushed past her into her home at 3 a.m. March 17 and became angry, pulling her off her bed and throwing a decorative stone. She told police she did not want Flynn to be arrested. Pittsburgh police spokeswoman Diane Richard said Flynn was transferred to work in the department's warrant office while the incident is investigated.
His attorney, Chris Thomas, said Flynn has attended AA meetings daily.
“We are extremely pleased with the outcome of the hearing today,” Thomas said Thursday. “There is a procedure in place for this very reason, to afford the parties involved the opportunity to resolve the issues at hand.”
Flynn declined comment.
Margaret Harding is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-380-8519 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
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.