Bregel v. City of Newport

• Decision Date: 28 April 1925
• Citation: 208 Ky. 581
• Parties: Bregel v. City of Newport, et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

Page 581

208 Ky. 581

Bregel v. City of Newport, et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Decided April 28, 1925.

1. Municipal Corporations — Charges Against Chief of Police Not Acts or Omissions Held Insufficient. — Charges of "inefficiency and neglect in performance of duty" filed against chief of police, not setting out specific acts or omissions, were insufficient under Ky. Stats., section 3138-4.

2. Municipal Corporations — Evidence Tending to Show Gambling House, etc., were being run Held Insufficient to Support Charges Against Chief of Police. — Evidence tending to show that gambling houses, houses of ill fame, etc., were run after orders were issued to chief of police to close them, held insufficient to support charges of neglect and inefficiency against him, in absence of proof of specific violations or neglect of duty.

3. Municipal Corporations — Dependency on Subordinates and Legal Limitations on Authority Considered in Determining Charges Against Chief of Police. — In determining whether chief of police has been guilty of neglect of duty or inefficiency, fact that he is dependent to some extent on subordinates for execution of orders, and legal limitations on authority of police officers to arrest and search premises, must be considered.

Appeal from Campbell Circuit Court.

WILLIAM F. CLARK for appellant.

CHARLES M. CIARLO and LOUIS REUSCHER for appellees.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY COMMISSIONER HOBSON.

Reversing.

Frank Bregel was a member of the Newport police department for twenty-five years and for eight years of this term was chief of the police department. On February 8, 1924, charges were preferred against him before the board of city commissioners, and on the 11th of February a hearing was had upon which he was adjudged guilty of the charges and demoted to the rank of patrolman. The charges preferred against him before the board were: (1) that he was guilty of influencing votes at the 1923 election and, (2) inefficiency and neglect in the performance of his duties as chief of police in the years 1922, 1923 and 1924; both charges were sustained. He appealed from the finding of the board to the Campbell circuit court; the case was heard and on February 28, 1924, it was adjudged that he was guilty of inefficiency and neglect in the performance of his duty as chief of the police department in failing to properly carry out orders from his superiors and regulating the conduct of the police. From this judgment he has appealed to this court.

There was no evidence that appellant was guilty of influencing votes at the election and this charge was properly dismissed by the circuit court. As to the charge of inefficiency and neglect in the performance of his duty a more serious question arises. Section 3138, subsection 4, Kentucky Statutes, provides:

"No member or officer of the police force or fire department shall be removed from the force or fire department, reduced in grade or pay, upon any reason except inefficiency, misconduct, insubordination or violation of law or of the rules adopted by the commissioners. Any person may prefer charges against an officer or member of the police force or fire department, which must be filed in the office of the mayor, who shall thereupon communicate said charges without delay to the other members of the said board. Said charges must be written, signed by the person making said charges and must set out with clearness and distinctness each and every charge."

The charges filed before the board were in these words:

"Feb. 7, 1924. I, Joseph Hermann, commissioner of public works, do this day prefer charges against Frank Bregel, chief of police. That he did attempt to influence voters in the election of November 6, 1923, and in the primary of October 20, 1923. I also charge him with inefficiency and neglect in the performance of his duty in the year 1922 and 1923 and January, 1924.

                             "Signed: JOSEPH HERMANN
                                  Commissioner of Public Works."
                

This charge is not sufficient under the statute. It does not set out with clearness or distinctness any charge. There is a similar statute authorizing a lawyer to be disbarred for neglect or lack of moral character, but it is uniformily held that the specific charges must be made with sufficient distinctness to enable the person charged to know the acts which are charged against him. There is a similar statute in regard to physicians. The original act was held unconstitutional in Matthews v. Murphy, 63 S.W. 785, for uncertainty and the amended statute was...