Attempts to involve Adams Township and its police department in a domestic dispute were characterized as “unduly annoying, embarrassing, burdensome and expensive” in a court filing.

Michael Gallagher, Adams Township's solicitor, requested in a May 18 filing that Butler County Common Pleas Judge William Robinson nullify a subpoena filed by a private attorney that would require an Adams Township officer to appear at a protection from abuse hearing scheduled before the judge. Gallagher further requested the township be awarded $1,190 for legal fees.

The protection from abuse order request was made by a man who brought the case against his wife, according to court documents. The man's lawyer, Jennifer Pullar, subpoenaed the Adams Township Police Department to request an officer testify at the hearing, which was scheduled for May 19.

In her subpoena, Pullar requested Adams Township Sgt. Edward Lenz to “attend and testify” at the hearing.

The Butler-based family attorney said she never encountered resistance for this type of request.

“We need the officer to establish the evidence,” Pullar said. “The incident report in itself is hearsay, and he needs to be there to authenticate it. Typically, police officers don't put the full details in the incident report, so there are many details left out that are crucial to the prosecution or defense of a PFA that are important.”

But Gallagher disagreed.

“The Butler County Court has for years made decisions in PFA cases without police testimony, and the police should not be the willy-nilly instruments of attorneys,” Gallagher writes in the court filing.

Gallagher went on to argue in his filing that scheduling police officers and their time off already is a difficult task for administrators without being compounded by subpoenas to appear in court.

“Calling officers into court willy-nilly for domestic relations matters, at the beck and call of attorneys, creates a gap in public safety,” Gallagher wrote. “Which far outweighs any purported need by an attorney to subpoena a police officer.”

In an interview with the Butler Eagle, Gallagher described the subpoena for a hearing like this to be rare.

Pullar said oral arguments on the matter were held May 18 before Robinson during a phone conference that included her, Gallagher and the judge. Pullar noted an evidentiary hearing will be held in the near future before the judge makes a final ruling about the subpoena request.

“They argued that I already have the incident report, but they have to authenticate it by going (to court),” Pullar said. “They argued that they will not come to court and testify about victims of domestic violence.”

Pullar said that in resisting the subpoena, the authorities were shirking their duties, adding that community members look to police officers to protect and serve the public.

“If they're unwilling to protect or serve by coming into court and assisting a victim of domestic violence, then it has a huge chilling effect that the victim would ever call the police going forward knowing they would not be there to protect them outside of that emergent response,” Pullar said. “There's no follow-through. Why would they report domestic violence if they know police won't follow through with it.”

Pullar further argued the case isn't just a private matter.

“It's not just a civil matter over husband and wife arguing over who stole the toaster. There's a much larger implication in this matter. It's not just civil. This could have a chilling effect on people reporting abuse,” Pullar said.

The court matter is to establish whether a permanent protection from abuse order is needed. Gallagher noted that if this was a violation of a protection from abuse order, it would make sense to have police testify.

Robinson ordered a hearing to decide if the subpoena should be removed.

Gallagher said it is “pretty rare” for a lawyer to subpoena an officer in a routine PFA hearing. More common, he said, would be for an officer to attend a violation hearing. He said that if that were the case, he wouldn't ask for the subpoena to be removed.

“Legislation for PFA made it very simplified — you don't need police officers to be there to testify. It's supposed to be a streamlined procedure,” he said.

In Gallagher's filing against the subpoena, he cites a 2006 Allegheny County case in which a Ross Township police officer was subpoenaed to testify at a custody hearing in his role as a police officer. He quotes the judge saying: “The police have important work to do in communities and should not be dragged willy-nilly into custody disputes.”

“The same standard should be applied to PFA cases (but not PFA violation cases),” Gallagher writes, adding that “The subpoena for Sergeant Lenz is annoying, oppressive, burdensome and places unreasonable expense upon the police and the taxpayers of Adams Township. Police officers cannot serve at the beck and call of lawyers for private matters.”

But Pullar countered that this type of situation is exactly what police officers are for.

“I understand there's an economic side to it, but you've taken an oath,” Pullar said. “It's a pretty routine request.”

Related Article: Man accused of fraud in roof job