Firemen's and Policemen's Civil Service Com'n v. Brinkmeyer
| Decision Date | 04 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. C-2218,C-2218 |
| Citation | 662 S.W.2d 953 |
| Parties | FIREMEN'S AND POLICEMEN'S CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION et al., Petitioners, v. Charles R. BRINKMEYER, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
F.J. Coleman, City Atty., John E. Fisher, Asst. City Atty., Houston, for petitioners.
Adamo, Cobb & Cornelius, Richard H. Cobb, Houston, for respondent.
This is a substantial evidence case involving a police officer's appeal of an order by the Civil Service Commission upholding his indefinite suspension under TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 1269m, § 18. The trial court overturned the Commission's order and granted the officer reinstatement with all back pay and benefits. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court in an unpublished opinion. Tex.R.Civ.P. 452. We reverse and render judgment for the Commission.
On May 8, 1981, the Chief of Police of the City of Houston indefinitely suspended officer Charles Brinkmeyer pursuant to Article 1269m, § 16, TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. Brinkmeyer appealed to the Firemen's and Policemen's Civil Service Commission and, on May 26, 1981, a hearing was conducted and an order entered affirming the suspension. Brinkmeyer appealed to the district court, alleging that the Commission's decision was not supported by substantial evidence.
Brinkmeyer was working an extra job as a security guard at the Sears store on Main Street in Houston on January 29, 1981, when he became involved in a chase of a purse-snatching suspect. He lost sight of the suspect, a juvenile, near a fence adjacent to Prince's drive-in restaurant. Shortly thereafter, the suspect was apprehended outside the restaurant by an on-duty policeman, Officer Sheets. Sheets handcuffed the suspect and walked him to Brinkmeyer, who was standing on some lumber on the other side of the fence. Brinkmeyer then took custody of the prisoner by reaching over the five foot high fence and grabbing the front of the prisoner's shirt.
Up to this point, there is little disagreement on the facts. Three witnesses testified at the trial, each of whom had testified before the Commission. Brinkmeyer testified that when he took hold of the prisoner, the prisoner lifted up his head and spat in Brinkmeyer's face. To avoid being spat on again, Brinkmeyer said, he quickly shoved the prisoner's face aside and jumped over the fence to maintain control of the captive. Brinkmeyer and the prisoner then began to walk back towards Sears.
The other two witnesses claim that when the prisoner was brought to Brinkmeyer at the fence, he struck the prisoner on the head with a large, dark object, possibly a walkie-talkie. Witness Stewart was a waitress at the restaurant who was serving customers in automobiles at the time of the incident. She stated her distance to be some 50 or 60 feet from the altercation, possibly as close as 30 feet, although her testimony varied somewhat on this point. The incident occurred in the evening but the parking lot was well lit. Stewart testified she saw the handcuffed prisoner "dodging," and that Brinkmeyer struck him on the head with an object which looked like a walkie-talkie.
Witness Crutchfield was a customer at the restaurant, eating a meal with her husband in their automobile when the incident occurred. She heard Officer Sheets call Brinkmeyer by name, and heard Brinkmeyer shout back, apparently at the prisoner, "You son of a bitch." (Brinkmeyer testified his reply was "Officer Sheets.") Like Stewart, Crutchfield testified Brinkmeyer struck at the prisoner with a dark object, possibly a walkie-talkie. She got out of her automobile and called to the officer, telling him not to strike the prisoner again. Later, when the officers were leading the prisoner away, Crutchfield asked Brinkmeyer for his badge number and noticed his hands were shaking, apparently in anger. Stewart and Crutchfield testified they could not see whether the prisoner had spat at Brinkmeyer, and neither witness could deny that he had done so.
Although Section 18 of Article 1269m provides that a decision by the Civil Service Commission may be appealed for a trial de novo in district court, the case law has interpreted this to mean a review under the substantial evidence rule. In this context trial de novo means "a trial to determine only the issues of whether the agency's rule is free of the taint of any illegality and is reasonably supported by substantial evidence." Fire Department of City of Fort Worth v. City of Fort Worth, 141 Tex. 505, 217 S.W.2d 664, 666 (1949). The reviewing court must inquire whether the evidence introduced before it shows facts in existence at the time of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Sherman v. Henry
...S.W.2d 114, 116-17 (Tex.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1080, 109 S.Ct. 2100, 104 L.Ed.2d 662 (1989); Firemen's & Policemen's Civil Serv. Comm'n v. Brinkmeyer, 662 S.W.2d 953, 956 (Tex.1984). In this case, however, traditional substantial evidence analysis is not required because neither part......
-
Biestek v. Berryhill
...1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). Falsified evidence isn't substantial evidence. See, e.g ., Firemen's and Policemen's Civil Serv. Comm'n v. Brinkmeyer , 662 S.W.2d 953, 956 (Tex. 1984). Speculation isn't substantial evidence. See, e.g. , Cao He Lin v. Department of Justice , 428 F.3d 391, 400 ......
-
Wayne County v. Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Control Bd.
...Vocational School Dist. v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 386 Mass. 414, 436 N.E.2d 380, 384 (1982); Firemen's and Policemen's Civil Serv. Comm'n v. Brinkmeyer, 662 S.W.2d 953, 956 (Tex.1984). Thus, when conflicts in expert testimony arise, it is the agency's prerogative to resolve them, not the c......
-
Scally v. Texas State Bd. of Med. Examiners
...Id. at 452. Our ultimate concern is the reasonableness of the agency's order, not its correctness. Firemen's & Policemen's Civil Serv. Comm'n v. Brinkmeyer, 662 S.W.2d 953, 956 (Tex.1984). Whether the agency's order satisfies the substantial-evidence standard is a question of law. Id. Thus,......
-
Wages, Hours, and Overtime
...and it is the aim of the substantial evidence rule to protect that function.” Firemen’s and Policemen’s Civil Serv. Comm’n v. Brinkmeyer, 662 S.W.2d 953, 956 (Tex. 1984). “A reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for the [Commission] on controverted fact issues[.]” Blanchard v. Bra......
-
Table of cases
...Firefighters Local Union 1784 v. Stotts , 467 U.S. 561 (1984), §22:6.C.3 Firemen’s and Policemen’s Civil Serv. Comm’n v. Brinkmeyer , 662 S.W.2d 953, 956 (Tex. 1984), §9:5 First American CoreLogic, Inc. v. Fiserv, Inc. , Civil Action No. 2:10-CV-132-TJW, 2010 WL 4975566, at *3 (E.D. Tex. De......
-
Wages, Hours, and Overtime
...it is the aim of the substantial evidence rule to protect that function.” Firemen’s and Policemen’s Civil Serv. Comm’n v. Brinkmeyer , 662 S.W.2d 953, 956 (Tex. 1984). “A reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for the [Commission] on controverted fact issues[.]” Blanchard v. Brazos......
-
Table of cases
...Firefighters Local Union 1784 v. Stotts , 467 U.S. 561 (1984), §22:6.C.3 Firemen’s and Policemen’s Civil Serv. Comm’n v. Brinkmeyer , 662 S.W.2d 953, 956 (Tex. 1984), §9:5 First American CoreLogic, Inc. v. Fiserv, Inc. , Civil Action No. 2:10-CV-132-TJW, 2010 WL 4975566, at *3 (E.D. Tex. De......