Court says Zappala erred in ignoring criminal complaints on gun legislation

Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court on Tuesday ruled that Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. did not follow the law when he dismissed private criminal complaints submitted against Pittsburgh’s former mayor and city council over gun control legislation they approved three years ago.

Zappala should have investigated the complaints, the court said.

That gun control legislation, passed in response to the October 2018 mass shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Squirrel Hill, was deemed by the same court last month to be unconstitutional. The regulations prohibited the use of large-capacity magazines and assault weapons in public places.

The city has said it will appeal that decision, which found that municipalities in Pennsylvania are preempted from enacting gun regulation based on the state Uniform Firearms Act.

The case decided by the Commonwealth Court on Tuesday was a companion case to the one deemed unconstitutional.

Zappala said in a statement that the case will be remanded to Common Pleas Court and handled appropriately.

“This matter involves a City of Pittsburgh ordinance that never came into existence. It still does not exist,” he said. “You cannot enforce an individual’s grievances against a law that does not exist.”

Three days after city council passed its gun regulation in April 2019, a group of private citizens went to the district attorney’s office and tried to file private criminal complaints against then-Mayor Bill Peduto and six city council members alleging official oppression.

Zappala refused to accept the complaints. His office said that until the city of Pittsburgh cited someone for violating the gun legislation, he could not consider a private criminal complaint.

The citizens appealed to Common Pleas Court, but Judge Joseph James agreed with the DA’s office. He said Zappala was not required to pursue the private complaints.

But in its decision on Tuesday, the Commonwealth Court reversed, finding that Zappala failed to follow the state rules of criminal procedure.

Those rules, the three-judge panel said, require the district attorney to review and investigate the allegations of the private complaint. Then, if the complaint is denied, the DA must state the reasons for doing so in writing.

“Appellee failed to comply with these obligations,” the court wrote.

Instead, it continued, Zappala gave the people seeking the private criminal complaints a previously drafted press release in which he said he would not review “anything connected with any alleged violations of the illegal ordinances that the mayor and the city has passed.”

The Commonwealth Court said that was a violation of Zappala’s duty and sent the case back to Common Pleas Court for further action.

Attorney Lane Turturice, who represents the private citizens in the case, said that Zappala abdicated his responsibility.

“They simply cannot dismiss it out of hand,” he said. “It would send a very poor message to district attorneys across the state that they can loosely decide what complaints they investigate and what they don’t.”

Turturice called the court’s decision significant.

“It leaves a pathway to citizens to pursue action on their own when they feel law enforcement isn’t listening to them,” he said.