ShareThis Page
Former officer sues Washington County officials |

Former officer sues Washington County officials

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
| Monday, November 29, 2010 12:00 a.m

A former Burgettstown police officer claims in a federal civil rights lawsuit that borough and Washington County officials secretly taped her dressing and undressing at the police station and, along with the state police, maliciously prosecuted her.

Amber Price, who has been a defendant in several citizen lawsuits, says in the lawsuit filed Friday that former Burgettstown police Chief George Roberts and District Attorney Steve Toprani conspired to violate her civil rights.

She was suspended from the force in February 2009 when criminal charges were filed against her for allegedly lying on a police affidavit, and her career is effectively over, the lawsuit says. The borough disbanded its police department May 1.

The charges were initially dismissed by a district judge and then re-filed by state police. The district attorney withdrew the charges in September 2009.

Price claims that Roberts and Toprani had the camera installed to catch another officer having sex. Borough solicitor Robert Clarke said the district attorney had the camera installed for security reasons and it was placed to record people entering and leaving the police offices, which shared a hallway with the borough’s municipal offices.

Clarke said he hadn’t seen the lawsuit, but he’s confident there was no connection between the video camera and Price’s prosecution.

County and state police representatives couldn’t be reached for comment.

Categories: News
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.