A judge's decision on whether the Pittsburgh Citizen Police Review Board has the right to arrest reports and other matters from the G-20 summit could ultimately determine how much power the board has.

In November, the board requested reports from the Office of Municipal Investigations related to the arrests of 29 people during G-20 activities, as well as detailed information on how the police ran operations for the events.

When the request was denied, the board issued a formal subpoena to police Chief Nathan Harper. When he didn't comply, the review board filed an action in court, asking that he be forced to turn over the reports.

The city has refused, saying that the Citizen Police Review Board does not have that kind of oversight power, and instead is permitted to investigate only matters for which it has a formal, verified complaint of police misconduct.

"Here, we have no specific complaint," said assistant solicitor John F. Dougherty. "There is no specific policy at issue."

During a hearing on the matter on Monday, Common Pleas Judge R. Stanton Wettick Jr. focused on Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's interpretation of that language.

"The mayor, himself, has given you marching orders to come to court and challenge the constitutionality of a city ordinance?" Judge Wettick asked. "I just want to make sure this is the mayor's position."

"Yes," Mr. Dougherty answered.

The board's powers are enumerated in a city ordinance. In one section, it does clearly reference the need for a verified, individual complaint related to police misconduct. But in another section, it also says that the board was created for the "purpose of improving the relationship between the police department and the community."

In another, it authorizes the board to study broader issues and make recommendations regarding patterns of police misconduct, said attorney Hugh McGough, who represents the review board.

"In the absence of that authority, what has the board been doing for the last 10 years?" Mr. McGough asked, noting board reports on police pursuits, race relations, the use of Tasers, community oriented policing and education and training.

If the ordinance is read the way city attorneys interpret it, he said, the board would be left with only "anecdotal, arbitrary" information.

Judge Wettick seemed to agree.

"You've made it pretty meaningless, haven't you?"

Alan E. Johnson, who was hired to represent the city in this matter, later answered.

"The CPRB is authorized by charter, but it's not integral to the city. They weren't elected," Mr. Johnson said. "We've acknowledged they have a role to play. What they're trying to do in this case is grab more and more power."

"If this is what the citizens said they want, then why wouldn't the mayor just say 'OK?' " Judge Wettick asked.

Another attorney for the city, Paul Krepps, said part of the problem is with the type of documents requested.

"It's not this investigation they want to do," he said. "It gets wrapped up in national security. The federal government made a lot of decisions and imposed those on the city."

But Elizabeth Pittinger, the executive director of the review board, said using the guise of national security related to arrests in Oakland doesn't work.

"When you get beyond the [security] perimeter, it's local law enforcement's responsibility," she said. "They all operated under the color of the City of Pittsburgh."

Judge Wettick did not give any indication as to when he might make his decision.

Looking for more from the Post-Gazette? Join PG+, our members-only web site. You'll get exclusive sports content, opinion, financial information, discounts from retailers and restaurants, and more. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.