Back in 2011, as discussed below the Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled that the Police Officers' Bill of Rights, KRS 15.520, did not apply to disciplinary actions initiated by internal departmental complaints. That ruling was overturned by the Kentucky Supreme Court on December 18, 2014, in Pearce v. University of Louisville, see Police Officers Bill of Rights Applies to All Complaints, Internal and Citizen, Kentucky Supreme Court Rules. So the bottom line regarding the Police Officers' Bill of Rights: it applies to all complaints, whether initiated from inside the department or outside.
* * * * *
The Police Officers' Bill of Rights, KRS 15.520, does not apply to disciplinary actions initiated by internal departmental complaints and investigations the Kentucky Court of Appeals recently ruled in Pearce v. University of Louisville, No. 2009-CA-001813 (November 18, 2011). This marked the first time that the court had squarely and directly ruled on the question in a published opinion.
Pearce was employed by the University of Louisville Police Department. Following an internal departmental investigation, Pearce was notified by University police chief Wayne Hall that his employment was to be terminated based on (1) failing to complete a required fire alarm incident report; and, (2) driving the wrong way on a one-way street. A pre-termination hearing was scheduled in which Pearce declined to participate. Following his termination, a four-day administrative hearing was conducted, and the hearing officer affirmed the dismissal.
Pearson filed suit in Jefferson Circuit Court claiming that his rights under the Police Officers' Bill of Rights, KRS 15.520, had been violated, and that the hearing officer's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Jefferson Circuit Court, Hon. Irv Maze, ruled that the Police Officers' Bill of Rights was inapplicable because the University's investigation and termination was not initiated by any citizen complaint.
The Court of Appeals and a 2-1 decision by Senior Judge Joseph Lambert and Judge Thomas Wine ruled that the Police Officers' Bill of Rights does not apply to internal departmental investigations and complaints. The basis for the court's ruling was statutory language indicating that it was intended to "provide procedural due process to police officers who are accused of wrongdoing by citizens."
Judge Thomas Caperton dissented and stated that he would "find that KRS 15.520 applies to all proceedings against police officers."
The ruling that the Police Officers' Bill of Rights does not apply in absence of a citizen complaint appears to be somewhat in conflict with prior decisions by the Court of Appeals, as the majority itself acknowledged. For instance, in Howard v. City of Independence, 199 S.W.3d 741 (Ky. App. 2005), it does not appear from the opinion that charges were initiated by a citizen complaint, yet the court held that the officer "was entitled to the due process protections provided by KRS 15.520 in his disciplinary proceeding. In another case, some 18 years earlier, McDaniel v. Walp, 747 S.W.2d 613 (Ky. App. 1987), the court indicated its belief that "a fair reading of KRS 78.445 and 15.520 requires that disciplinary proceedings must necessarily emanate from a citizens sworn complaint." This history combined with the state-wide implications of the decision surely weigh in favor of the Kentucky Supreme Court taking the case for further review.
Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com
