State ex rel. Pitkanen v. Zittel

Decision Date11 December 1969
Docket NumberNo. 40181,40181
CourtWashington Supreme Court
PartiesThe STATE of Washington on the Relation of Wilbert A. PITKANEN, Appellant, v. Charles B. ZITTEL, David D. Rowlands, and the City of Tacoma, Respondents.

Robert M. Reynolds, Tacoma, for appellant.

Marshall McCormick, City Atty., Tacoma, Robert R. Hamilton, Asst. City Atty., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Wilbert A. Pitkanen, was refused a license as a special policeman by the respondent Zittel, chief of police of the city of Tacoma, to whom the duty to pass upon the qualifications of applicants for such licenses had been delegated by the city manager, the respondent Rowlands. This action was brought to obtain a writ of mandamus directing the issuance of the license. The trial court dismissed the action at the close of the appellant's case.

It is contended on appeal that the trial court should have found that the chief of police acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the appellant's application. This contention is grounded on the appellant's theory that, because his police record showed three arrests but no convictions, there was no evidence before the police chief upon which he could base a finding that the appellant was not qualified to hold a license as special policeman. However, this theory is not supported by the facts. The evidence presented by the appellant showed that he had indeed committed at least one of the offenses with which he was charged. The appellant's admitted behavior on that occasion cast grave doubt on the question whether he should be trusted with the indicia of authority attached to the badge of a special policeman. His testimony also revealed other questionable aspects of his personality and character.

Furthermore, the chief of police testified that it was not the mere fact of the arrests which prompted his refusal of the application. He stated that he based his action on the information contained in the police reports concerning the incidents and the further fact that the appellant had lied to one of his prospective employers concerning his police record. Although the appellant submitted numerous interrogatories to the respondents, he did not ask for copies of these reports nor did he ask that the information contained in them be revealed to him. He does not now assert that they were untrustworthy or that they contained any falsehood concerning his character or conduct.

The appellant's contention...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • City of Seattle v. Bittner, 42080
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 11 Enero 1973
    ... ... licensing authority to inquire into the character of an applicant is State ex rel. Pitkanen v. Zittel, 77 Wash.2d 366, 462 P.2d 944 (1969). In that ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT