Hanebrink v. Parker

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: WEIER; SIMEONE, Acting P.J., and KELLY
• Citation: Hanebrink v. Parker, 506 S.W.2d 455 (Mo. App. 1974)
• Decision Date: 22 January 1974
• Docket Number: No. 35036,35036
• Parties: Lawrence HANEBRINK, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Norman C. PARKER et al., Defendants-Appellants. . Louis District, Division One

Page 455

506 S.W.2d 455

Lawrence HANEBRINK, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Norman C. PARKER et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 35036.

Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District, Division One.

Jan. 22, 1974.

Motion for Modification or Rehearing or for Transfer Denied

Feb. 11, 1974.

Application to Transfer Denied April 8, 1974.

Ronald O. Heier, Asst. County Counselor, Clayton, for defendants-appellants.

London & Greenberg, Lawrence J. Fleming, St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.

WEIER, Judge.

After an evidentiary hearing, the Board of Police Commissioners of St. Louis County determined Patrolman Lawrence F. Hanebrink had violated certain provisions of the Code of Discipline and Ethics of the St. Louis County Police Departmental Rules and Regulations. The Commission affirmed the order of the Superintendent of Police that plaintiff Hanebrink forfeit sixteen hours accumulated compensatory time and that a copy of the Superintendent's memorandum of reprimand be placed in plaintiff's personnel file. On appeal to the circuit court, the court ordered the determination of the Board of Police Commissioners reversed for the reason that it was unsupported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record. We have reviewed the evidence adduced first before the Board and then submitted to the court upon the record, and find that the Board's determination was supported by competent and substantial evidence. The judgment of the circuit court is therefore reversed and remanded.

From the evidence submitted to the Board of Police Commissioners at two sessions, the Board could have found and inferred that on the evening of September 25, 1970, plaintiff Hanebrink issued a parking summons to a Mr. John J. Rizzello. At the time Hanebrink was employed by householders living on Castle Drive in St. Louis County to enforce a no-parking ordinance during certain evening hours along that drive. According to the testimony of Rizzello and his passenger, he dorve into Castle Drive looking for a place to park his car. Finding one, he parked the automobile, but notice that plaintiff was writing tickets for other cars parked nearby. Rizzello thereupon left his automobile, approached Officer Hanebrink, and asked him if he could park where his car was located. Hanebrink thereupon asked Rizzello for his driver's license and proceeded to give Rizzello a summons. Upon investigation of the incident by two detectives of the St. Louis County Police Department, Hanebrink was asked why he issued a summons rather than have Rizzello move his vehicle. The detectives testified Hanebrink replied that the residents of the immediate area were observing the incident at the time, and he felt he should issue a summons since they were the people who were paying for his part time employment. Officer, Wurth, a companion officer who was working with Hanebrink at the time and witnesses part of the incident, and several other members of the Police Department testified to a different version of the facts. This conflict of evidence was presented to the Board and the Board resolved the factual issues against the plaintiff.

The Board of Police Commissioners on appeal contends that the circuit court, by finding the Board's order unsupported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record, merely substituted its own judgment for that of the Board. Officer Hanebrink, on the other hand, contends that the circuit court may review the evidence, and, upon consideration of the independent evidence supporting Hannebrink's version of the incident and the evidence to the contrary, thereupon reverse the decision of the Board.

Standards for judicial review of an action of an administrative agency are set out in: Missouri Constitution, Article 5, § 22, V.A.M.S.; Rule 100.07(b), V.A.M.R.; § 536.140(2), RSMo...