By Liz Navratil and Rich Lord
The Allegheny County District
Attorney’s Office is investigating a Pittsburgh police employee who was
involved with the off-the-books account that imprisoned former chief Nate
Harper tapped.
District Attorney Stephen A.
Zappala Jr. said Friday that federal officials had recently referred to his
office a case involving Tamara Davis, 48, who is a civilian.
Ms. Davis, who was placed on
paid leave last year, was second in command in the personnel and finance office
during the time when officials said Harper and others diverted checks from the
bureau into secret bank accounts.
Mr. Zappala would not comment
further on Ms. Davis’ case, except to say it was the only one federal officials
referred to him. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to
comment.
“I really don’t know what this
is all about or what they’re doing,” said attorney Frank Rapp, who represents
Ms. Davis.
Federal prosecutors have said
that others in the police bureau worked with Harper to move checks meant to pay
for officer moonlighting into off-the-books accounts, including one titled
“I.P.F.”
Harper is serving a federal
prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy and failing
to file federal income tax returns.
When he pleaded guilty, federal
prosecutors released a document titled “summary of funds misapplied by Davis,”
indicating $7,165 in cash withdrawals “from diverted checks,” $929 in ATM
withdrawals and $1,197 in “questionable debit card expenses.” It listed $9,291
in “total misapplied funds.”
Ms. Davis’ name appeared on the
signature line of a $4,000 withdrawal slip from the I.P.F. account on Sept. 28,
2009, according to documents that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette obtained.
Last year federal investigators
asked to review files related to Ms. Davis’ residence in low-income public
housing in the Oak Hill section of the Hill District. Her salary was more than
$44,000 in 2012.
Harper was prosecuted under a
federal law that makes it a crime to steal more than $5,000 from any program
receiving more than $10,000 in federal money.
“It’s absolutely unusual to see
a deferral like this to state prosecutors,” especially in a matter in which the
federal government could opt to prosecute, said Bruce Antkowiak, a former
assistant U.S. attorney and now a law professor at Saint Vincent College in
Latrobe.
Mr. Antkowiak said federal
prosecutors could refer a matter to the district attorney if they were
concerned that the money amount didn’t reach statutory limits or if there
wasn’t a clear tie between the involved account and federal funds.
Federal agencies often kick
cases involving small quantities of drugs or low-dollar fraud to the locals, he
added. “In a case involving a public corruption matter, it’s a whole different
metric,” he noted.
“The flow is usually up to the
feds,” he said. It’s common for federal investigators to reach down and take on
a case involving funds taken from an agency with which the district attorney’s
office has ties, he said.
