Pennsylvania State Police shroud details about fatal shootings for years |

Pennsylvania State Police shroud details about fatal shootings for years

State Police cadets line up and check their gear before graduation ceremonies before the Pennsylvania State Police Academy 147th graduating class for 62 cadets at Bishop McDevitt High School in Harrisburg, Pa., Friday, Dec. 23, 2016.
Anthony Gallo

When a Pennsylvania State Police trooper shoots a suspect, the agency releases few, if any, details about the circumstances of the shooting and whether the use of deadly force was justified.

That’s what the family of Anthony Gallo, 34, is learning a month after a trooper fatally shot him multiple times as he held a knife inside a neighbor’s trailer home in Washington County.

“We just want justification,” said Robert Herring, Gallo’s cousin. “There was no reason to use deadly force. There was no reason to use live rounds right out of the gate.”

The Tribune-Review filed a Right-to-Know request for details about all state trooper-involved shootings that occurred from January 2014 through July in Allegheny, Westmoreland, Washington, Butler, Beaver, Cambria, Indiana, Somerset, Fayette, Greene, Armstrong, Lawrence and Mercer counties. Of the 10 shootings in that timeframe, the state police’s response noted the date, the troop where it occurred and whether the trooper fired in “self defense” or “to protect others.”

State police officials denied requests for data about whether the shooting was fatal, the names of the troopers involved, the name of the person shot, the outcome of the investigation and any related dash cam video footage.

In some cases, including the fatal shooting of Steven Ward, 20, in December in Washington County, the Washington County District Attorney and Allegheny County Medical Examiner publicly released those details and they have been widely reported, but state police did not include them in response to the Trib’s open records request.

State police and members of Gallo’s family who were at the Mark Avenue mobile home park give differing accounts of the incident on the afternoon of Oct. 1 that began when Gallo’s mother called for an ambulance to get mental health treatment for her son because he had been harassing neighbors.

The day of the incident, state police Capt. Joseph Ruggery said the officers arrived at the trailer park in uniform and in marked vehicles, announced themselves and ordered Gallo to drop the knife. He refused and broke into a trailer and police followed, afraid there might be others in the home.

Herring says police did not identify themselves. He was in the trailer with his cousin. He says he tried to tell the troopers that Gallo wouldn’t harm anyone. Police say they again ordered Gallo to drop the knife. He didn’t. At least one trooper opened fire.

After firing, Herring said police ordered Gallo to drop the knife. Then, he says, they shot him again.

“They shot a bunch more rounds off after that,” Herring said.

Police did not indicate in the aftermath of the shooting how many times Gallo was shot.

If the officers were wearing body cameras, it would shed light on what happened, but Pennsylvania state troopers do not have them.

State police have vehicle dash cams, but they declined to say whether there’s footage of the incident from outside the trailer because it is still under investigation.

Even after the investigation closes, though, state police do not release dash cam footage.

In Pennsylvania, getting access to video footage and details of trooper-involved shootings is nearly impossible outside of a court proceeding, even for family members of the person who was shot. A state law that went into effect in September exempts police dash and body cam footage from public disclosure laws, making it even harder.

Across Pennsylvania, state police routinely deny requests seeking basic information and footage, as there’s nothing that requires them to release it, said Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania News Media Association.

“I see it on a daily basis,” Melewsky said. “We have abysmal public access to law enforcement records in this state.”

In Florida, where laws providing access to public records are strong, the type of information Pennsylvania State Police declined to share would be released, including the dash cam footage, after the investigation is closed, said Lt. Thomas Pikul, a Florida Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles spokesman.

Direct family members of a person shot in Florida would have access to dash cam footage and documents before the investigation closes, Pikul said.

In Pennsylvania, state police spokesman Cpl. Adam Reed said he is unaware of that happening outside of court proceedings.

Herring, Gallo’s cousin, said police haven’t provided information to family members regarding the shooting.

“We get nowhere. They won’t answer any questions,” he said of investigators.

Pennsylvania isn’t the only state that withholds footage.

According to the Washington Post , of the 952 fatal police shootings nationwide last year, only about 6 percent were captured by body cameras. Of those, more than half declined to provide the footage to the Post.

Pennsylvania state trooper-involved shootings go through two investigations: A state police internal investigation to determine whether the trooper followed policy or whether discipline is needed, and another by the District Attorney’s Office to determine whether criminal charges are warranted.

State police do not publicly disclose when an investigation is closed, and they don’t say if investigators have determined whether a shooting was justified.

Theresa Clift and Megan Guza are Tribune-Review staff writers. Reach Clift at 412-380-5669, [email protected] or via Twitter @tclift. Reach Guza at 412-380-8519, [email protected] or via Twitter at @meganguzaTrib.

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.