ShareThis Page

Federal judge denies motion to reconsider Jefferson Hills K-9 suit

| Friday, Feb. 17, 2012

A U.S. District Court judge has denied a motion to reconsider a Jefferson Hills police officer's civil case against the borough, its council and former police chief.

The case in which Jefferson Hills officer Chris Gawlas challenged the behavior and motives of borough officials as they handled the elimination of his K-9 program was dismissed in January. A motion to reconsider was filed promptly by the officer's legal representation.

U.S. District Judge Terrence F. McVerry denied that motion Tuesday.

The plaintiff's counsel, Fred C. Jug Jr., who is handling the case along with fellow attorney Rob Bootay, declined to speak on matters involving ongoing litigation. Jug did not detail what legal avenues his client will take.

Gawlas has 30 days to appeal McVerry's denial of the motion to reconsider. As noted in the decision, McVerry's denial does not hinder Gawlas' ability to pursue claims in the state court system.

Jefferson Hills council president Chris King said borough officials are pleased with the U.S. District Court's decision for the third time in this case.

"Jug and Bootay are clearly out of their league going against Cipriani & Werner," King said. "They have not done their homework, prepared poor arguments and relied on information from unreliable sources. This is discouraging coming from the solicitor and former council member of our neighboring community of Pleasant Hills."

Gawlas' complaint alleged his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated in the events that unfolded when his K-9 program was dissolved in December 2010 with its exclusion from the 2011 budget.

Gawlas took issue with being the only borough officer subjected to a Corporate Security and Investigations Inc. study.

Council had approved the CSI study in response to the public's outcry in defense of Gawlas and his partner Fritz as a third-party investigation into the effectiveness of the borough's K-9 program.

When Jefferson Hills council approved the borough's 2011 budget, that spending plan removed the police department line item for the K-9 unit Gawlas had headed for nearly 15 years.

By January's meeting last year, dozens of borough residents donning "Save K-9 Fritz" T-shirts were approaching council demanding an explanation for the program's elimination and sharing their support for Gawlas and his partner pup.

In early 2011, council heard each month from Gawlas, family members and supporters who spoke of Fritz's work as invaluable to Jefferson Hills police and neighboring departments.

Gawlas claimed that then-acting police Chief Jack Maple set out to eliminate the program in September 2010 because of the officer's ties to unnamed council members and other appointed officials.

Gawlas also said he was humiliated by the CSI report following the study that he said included "false and malicious private employment information."

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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 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.