ACLU argues against Pittsburgh’s denial of information about police military technology, tactics |

ACLU argues against Pittsburgh’s denial of information about police military technology, tactics

The city of Pittsburgh provided an overbroad, “boilerplate” denial to the American Civil Liberties Union’s request for information about its police’s military technology and tactics without even searching for the information, a lawyer representing the ACLU said in court Monday.

Not only did the city fail to look for the records, it did not state a reason for denying the March 2013 request, Andrew Stanton, a lawyer with K&L Gates, told a panel of Commonwealth Court judges hearing the ACLU’s appeal of the city’s denial.

The city’s response “doesn’t say which exemptions or why they apply,” Stanton said. “It doesn’t even say the records exist.”

Assistant City Solicitor Matthew S. McHale acknowledged that the city didn’t search for the records, despite a law that says it must make a “good faith” effort.

He argued to Judges Anne E. Covey, Bernard L. McGinley and Rochelle S. Friedman that the ACLU’s appeal should be dismissed because its response to the city’s denial was overly broad.

McHale said the city’s response “meets the terms of the statute.” The purpose of the state’s Right-to-Know Law isn’t “to answer questions about how the world works,” he added.

The ACLU sought several records related to the city’s SWAT team, including the number of times it has been deployed, the type of weapons and training materials it uses, funding sources and the number of injuries to civilians during deployments since January 2011.

The organization also sought information about GPS tracking devices, the use of drones and military weaponry and vehicles obtained through federal agencies such as the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.

The request was part of a national effort.

The judges set no timetable for when they will render their opinion.

Adam Brandolph is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-391-0927 or [email protected].

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.