Pennsylvania Supreme Court nixes residency requirement for Pittsburgh police

Pittsburgh police officers can live in the suburbs, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled on Monday.

Justices upheld an arbitration panel's 2014 decision permitting officers to live within 25 air miles of the City-County Building, Downtown.

Officers have battled the city for years over a century-old requirement that Pittsburgh employees must live within city boundaries, commonly known as the residency requirement.

"It's a great victory for the police officers of the city of Pittsburgh," said Robert Swartzwelder, president of Fraternal Order of Police Fort Pitt Lodge 1. "I also think it's a great victory for the citizens, because now you'll be able to hire police officers within a 25-mile air radius of the City-County Building."

Mayor Bill Peduto released a statement noting that Pittsburgh residents overwhelmingly approved a referendum in 2014 making the residency requirement part of the city's Home Rule Charter.

The city appealed the arbitrator's ruling to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, which sided with the panel, and later to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, which overturned the county court decision. The FOP appealed to the Supreme Court.

"The people of Pittsburgh expressed overwhelming support for the residency requirement and we want our police officers to continue to live in the neighborhoods and communities that they serve," Peduto said. "We defended the will of the residents of Pittsburgh, all the way to the Supreme Court, believing that the law that allowed Pittsburgh to become a Home Rule Charter city should have taken precedence."

The city is talking with the Law Department about a possible appeal, according to Peduto spokeswoman Katie O'Malley.

The Supreme Court, in an 18-page opinion, ruled that a 2012 change in state law permitted the FOP to negotiate for an end to the residency requirement and that the state law superseded the amendment to Pittsburgh's charter.

"... Our case law has clarified that residency is a mandatory subject of bargaining," Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy wrote in the opinion. "Accordingly, the home rule charter provision requiring residency is at odds with an act of statewide application."

Justices Thomas G. Saylor, Max Baer, Christine Donohue, Kevin M. Dougherty and David N. Wecht agreed.

Swartzwelder said police officers would likely move out of the city, but not in a mass exodus.

"You're going to get a steady exodus," he said. "I'm not moving. I like where I live."

Bob Bauder is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 412-765-2312, bbauder@tribweb.com or @bobbauder.