Redstone officer involved in fatal shooting placed on leave
The Redstone Township police officer involved in last month’s fatal shooting has been put on administrative leave, the township has revealed following an open records request, but no other details were released in its response.
Earlier this month, the Herald-Standard asked for the records through the state’s Right-to-Know Law for any paid or unpaid leave for officers in the township’s police department, and the roster of officers. The request came following the Jan. 28 incident in which police were dispatched to 132 Lyndale Road in Grindstone to perform a wellness check on 27-year-old Christopher Hackney, who was fatally shot by a responding officer. No other details have been released.
On Thursday, Redstone Township Supervisor and designated RTK officer George Matis confirmed that one officer has been placed on administrative leave in connection with the shooting.
“At this time, we have one officer on administrative leave,” the emailed response reads. “His salary is $46,841.60. He has been employed by the Redstone Township Police Department since April 1, 2017. His name is not being released at this time in accordance with RTK 708(b)(16) and 708(b)(17). There is no employment contract. Please consider this RTK complete.”
Other questions filed as part of the request, including the officer’s name, were unanswered and essentially denied. The Herald-Standard is considering appealing that portion to the Office of Open Records.
Melissa Melewsky, media law attorney for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, said that while there are provisions that allow agencies to withhold information during the investigation, the township’s decision to not disclose the officer’s name is grounds for an appeal.
“I don’t think (the two provisions they cited) is a basis to withhold the name of a public employee,” she said. “The fact that there’s an investigation doesn’t change the fact that (the officer) is a public employee. I do not think it provides a basis for denial of the officer’s name.”
It’s the police agency’s burden to prove that exemption applies and given the statues cited, it appears a ground for an appeal is a viable option, she said.
Melesky also said that the township has a legal obligation to include additional information when it decides to refuse an RTK request.
“When a denial is issued the RTK law requires certain information to be part of it. … Not only do they have to tell you the legal reason why they’re denying you, they have to tell you how to file an appeal, they have to provide a timeframe in which you can file the appeal, they are required to provide a number of different pieces of information,” she said. “And it does not appear they have done that.”