By Stephana Ocneanu
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
PITTSBURGH — A legal battle over the use-of-force policy at the Allegheny County Jail is moving to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court after the union representing corrections officers challenged a 2021 referendum approved by county voters.
The referendum banned solitary confinement and the use of restraint chairs, leg shackles and chemical agents such as pepper spray in the jail. Officials from the Allegheny County Prison Employees Independent Union argue that the policy changes affect workplace safety and should be subject to bargaining under state labor law.
Court justices agreed last week to take on the appeal and will decide on whether the jail’s policy is “inherently managerial” and therefore not subject to bargaining.
The court also will address what impact, if any, the policy getting enacted through a voter referendum will have on that decision.
“The Union’s position is that officers’ concern for their safety in their workplace, including the use of time-tested methods of inmate care, custody and control, outweighs the County’s interest in an unfettered prerogative to draft such policies without bargaining with the Union,” Ronald Retsch, the union’s attorney, told the Post-Gazette via email.
The county and jail officials declined to comment on the ongoing legal matter.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the union, Mr. Retsch said the county could reinstate the use of shackles, restraint chairs and pepper spray as “methods of inmate care, custody and control at the Allegheny County Jail .”
The appeal is the latest effort in a yearslong dispute over the use of leg shackles.
At a monthly meeting of the jail oversight board in 2021, around the time of the policy change, former jail Warden Orlando Harper said, “In my professional opinion, the prohibition against chemical agents will result in more injuries, more confrontations, more safety issues, and that those instances will continue to escalate.”
He continued: “Our correctional staff are already working in extraordinary circumstances, but the lack of tools and resources will put their safety and well‐being in jeopardy. When de‐escalation tactics and diversionary tactics are unsuccessful and the inmate remains noncompliant, a forced, hands‐on cell extraction becomes necessary.”
Since the referendum passed, the debate over the issue has continued at public meetings. Some community members believe reinstating the use of shackles would violate the will of voters, while others have argued that the language of the referendum was unclear outside of the solitary confinement question.
“What voters saw on that ballot, there was no mention of the three tools, no mention at all,” John Kenstowicz, a Pittsburgh social worker and frequent attendee of jail board meetings, told the Post-Gazette in June.
In October, Allegheny County Executive Sara Innamorato announced during a jail board meeting that an agreement was reached with hospital partners — shifting the responsibility of applying leg shackles on incarcerated people attending medical appointments onto hospital security staff. Ms. Innamorato said the agreement provided an “immediate solution” to concerns of safety when people from the jail are going to appointments.
But Bethany Hallam, a county councilwoman and a member of the jail’s oversight board, said she didn’t understand what solution the move was providing, given that jail guards would still be responsible for supervising the restrained, incarcerated people. She said there hasn’t been data of increased escape attempts to support these concerns.
“We have data that is reported to the state from the jail of escape attempts, and there has been no greater escape attempts. Actually, there’s been fewer escape attempts in some years since the referendum has been implemented,” Ms. Hallam said during the October meeting.
Mr. Retsch, the union’s attorney, said that in the coming months, parties will file their respective briefs and a reproduced record, followed by oral arguments before the court.
“The Union is very honored that the Honorable Pennsylvania Supreme Court has accepted our appeal for adjudication, and we look forward to arguing our position before the Court,” he said. “We believe that the issues before the Court on this appeal are of great importance for the safety of the Allegheny County corrections officers, and could have further implications for the bargaining of use of force policies and related terms and conditions of employment for law enforcement-related bargaining units.”
—
© 2025 the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Visit www.post-gazette.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
