Armstrong v. Bd. Civil Service Com., City Newport
| Decision Date | 19 April 1932 |
| Citation | 243 Ky. 415 |
| Parties | Armstrong v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners of City of Newport. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
1. Municipal Corporations. — Evidence must be reasonably sufficient to sustain charges preferred against policeman before Court of Appeals can sustain findings resulting in policeman's discharge (Ky. Stats., sec. 3137 et seq., and sec. 3138-5).
2. Municipal Corporations. — Charges preferred against policeman resulting in his discharge must be definite and of such character as to establish inefficiency, misconduct, insubordination, or violation of law by accused officer (Ky. Stats., sec. 3137 et seq., and sec. 3138-5).
3. Evidence. — In proceedings against policeman charged with perjury, transcript of testimony in police court in another case held competent only to show policeman's testimony (Ky. Stats., sec. 3137 et seq., and sec. 3138-5).
4. Arrest. — Officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that offense is being committed before he is justified in arresting without warrant.
5. Municipal Corporations. — Evidence held insufficient to establish that policeman willfully failed to arrest person committing crime (Ky. Stats., sec. 3137 et seq., and sec. 3138-5).
6. Municipal Corporations. — Evidence in proceedings resulting in dismissal of policeman from service held insufficient to establish that policeman had committed perjury (Ky. Stats., sec. 3137 et seq., and sec. 3138-5).
Appeal from Campbell Circuit Court.
BLAINE McLAUGHLIN for appellant.
ARTHUR J. DALY for appellees.
Reversing.
John Armstrong was a member of the police department of the city of Newport. Charges were preferred against him by the chief of police, and he was given a trial before the board of civil service commissioners resulting in his dismissal from the service. He prosecuted an appeal to the circuit court, where the action of the board was sustained. The present appeal is from the judgment of the circuit court.
Newport is a city of the second class, and its police force is governed by section 3137 et seq., Ky. Stats., and ordinances pursuant thereto. Policemen may be suspended or dismissed only upon specific charges and after a fair hearing. They are given the right of appeal to the circuit court and then to this court. Section 3138-5, Ky. Stats. It is the practice of this court to repose confidence in the findings of the board of civil service commissioners, and of the circuit court, but the evidence must be reasonably sufficient to sustain the charges preferred. Williams v. City of Newport, 229 Ky. 810, 18 S.W. (2d) 283. The charges must be definite and certain and of such character as to establish inefficiency, misconduct, insubordination, or violation of law on the part of the accused officer. Bregel v. City of Newport, 208 Ky. 581, 271 S.W. 665. The statute was designed to enable the city to provide an efficient, law-abiding capable, and honest police force, and ample power is given to achieve the ends desired. But at the same time the individual officer is protected against the exercise of arbitrary power and unjust or unauthorized removals from office cannot be upheld. The question before us is whether the evidence in the present case supported the charges. The charges were, first, that the policeman had failed to make an arrest for offenses committed in his presence; and, second, that he had sworn falsely in an examining trial. The specification under the first charge was that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the crime of grand larceny was being committed in his presence, and he willfully refused to arrest the person committing the offense.
There was a further incidental charge that the officer had failed to arrest a man for flourishing a deadly weapon in his presence. The specification under the second charge was that on the preliminary trial of a person accused of grand larceny the officer had testified that one of the witnesses for the city had been drunk and staggering, and that the policeman had never seen him in a sober condition, although he had known him for about three months. The testimony tended to show that the policeman was agent for his brother, who owned a tenant house occupied by William Hudson, Frank Martin, and a housekeeper. The tenants were unsatisfactory, and Armstrong had taken steps to secure possession of the house. On November 5, 1930, Armstrong happened along when Martin and Hudson were engaged in a controversy. Hudson asserted that Martin, who was moving out of the house, was taking some of Hudson's personal property. Martin insisted that the property was his own. The officer was not on duty, was dressed in plain...
To continue reading
Request your trial