Attorney Michael DeRiso successfully argued in criminal court that his client, fired Plum police officer Jeremy Cumberledge, did nothing wrong because the borough did not produce documentation that the officer violated policy when he accessed fellow officers' and other employees' computer files.
An employment lawyer said the same argument could haunt the borough if Cumberledge, 31, who had been a Plum officer for seven years, tries to get his job back.
“That is their (borough officials') problem,” attorney Sam Cordes said.
“They are going to have to show a policy was violated.”
Plum District Judge Linda Zucco on June 11 dismissed a charge of unlawful use of a computer filed by the Allegheny County District Attorney's Office against Cumberledge of Plum.
Mike Manko, a spokesman for the district attorney, said Monday that no decision has been made on whether to refile the charge.
“There was no policy, and no one said he couldn't do it,” DeRiso said in his closing argument.
Assistant District Attorney Jon Pittman argued that Cumberledge committed a crime — something more than a policy violation.
Pittman said Cumberledge was authorized to use the computers in the police department “for law enforcement only, official police business only. It would have been clear to the defendant that the information he had (accessed), looking at the chief's salary, other people's medical histories and (bank) routing information had nothing to do with law enforcement.”
Cumberledge did not return phone calls.
Plum police Chief Jeffrey Armstrong, who was promoted to the job in January, said the department has a computer-usage policy that was written by former Chief Robert Payne and issued to officers in 2004.
The policy includes a signature line that officers were to sign and date to reflect they understood and agreed to abide by the policy.
Armstrong said there are no signed computer-use policies in the police department's paper files.
“I can't prove everyone has this computer policy,” Armstrong said.
Payne left the department in 2006.
Cumberledge was hired in 2007.
Armstrong testified during the officer's preliminary hearing that it was “common sense” that Cumberledge should not have accessed the files.
“When you look at someone else's personal documents, one would know it is not appropriate,” Armstrong said.
He said the lack of documentation regarding the computer policy was a “shortcoming.”
Cumberledge has filed for arbitration over his firing that occurred by a council vote March 11. Cumberledge had been suspended with pay Jan. 11.
Cumberledge has filed for a hearing in an attempt to get his job back.
Fraternal Order of Police attorney Ron Koerner said a date for the arbitration has not been set.
“It is too early to tell what we are going to do,” Koerner said.
“We have to wait to see what happens (with the district attorney's office decision).”
Cordes said borough officials could have a difficult time winning in arbitration.
“If I were an arbitrator, I would have to find for them (Cumberledge) if there is not a procedure or policy,” Cordes said.