Riley v. Board of Police Com'rs of City of Norwalk

• Decision Date: 08 January 1960
• Citation: 147 Conn. 113,157 A.2d 590
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Alfred RILEY v. BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF the CITY OF NORWALK (two cases). Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 590

157 A.2d 590

147 Conn. 113

Alfred RILEY v. BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF the CITY OF NORWALK (two cases).

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Jan. 8, 1960.

Sidney Vogel, Norwalk, with whom was Robert B. Seidman, Norwalk, for the appellant (plaintiff) in each case.

Stephen Tate, Norwalk, with whom, on the brief, was Dale Van Winkle, Norwalk, for the appellee (defendant) in each case.

Before BALDWIN, C. J., and KING, MURPHY, MELLITZ and SHEA, JJ.

SHEA, Associate Justice.

In the first case, the plaintiff has appealed from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas sustaining the action of the defendant in dismissing him from the Norwalk police department. In the second case, the plaintiff seeks an injunction ordering the defendant to reinstate him as a sergeant in the police department as of January 18, 1956, the date he was demoted to the rank of top-grade patrolman. He also seeks damages for the loss in pay resulting from his demotion. On a previous occasion the plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court from the order of demotion, but his appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Upon appeal to this court, the action of the Superior Court was affirmed. Riley v. Board of Police Commissioners, 145 Conn. 1, 137 A.2d 759. Thereafter, he brought the present action in equity, and from a judgment for the defendant he has appealed. His right to seek relief in the form requested in the second case has not been challenged, and we shall treat the case as it was treated in the trial court. Anselmo v. Cox, 135 Conn. 78, 79, 60 A.2d 767; New Haven Trolley & Bus Employees Credit Union v. Hill, 145 Conn. 332, 335, 142 A.2d 730.

In August, 1955, the plaintiff held the rank of sergeant in the police department. He was then forty years old, married and living with his wife. During the summer of 1955 he was often seen in the company of a sixteen-year-old girl who was living with her parents. When the parents became aware of the association, they reported the plaintiff's conduct to officials of the police department. In compliance with a written direction from the chief of police, the plaintiff appeared before the defendant board on August 11, 1955, to discuss his relationship with the girl. On the following day, the board, by written order, directed the plaintiff to refrain from seeing, talking to, or associating with the girl, and warned him that failure to heed the order would be considered insubordination. During the month of September, the plaintiff, in talking with the parents of the girl, admitted that he had been seeing her for about eight months and that he was in love with her and desired to obtain a divorce from his wife. He promised, however, that he would not see the girl again until after he had obtained the divorce. A short time after this meeting, the girl moved out of her parents' home. In October, she and the plaintiff were seen together on different occasions. At one time, they were seen kissing and embracing in the plaintiff's car.

On January 3, 1956, the plaintiff, with his attorney, appeared at a hearing before the board to answer charges which included insubordination. Evidence was offered to show that he had failed to obey the board's order of August 12, 1955, and he was found guilty of insubordination. On January 18, 1956, the board notified the plaintiff of its findings in writing and demoted him from sergeant to top-grade patrolman effective that day. On July 16, 1958, after again hearing charges against the plaintiff, the board found upon evidence presented before it that he had continued his association with the girl and that he had been seen in her company at various times by different people. The board found him guilty of insubordination by reason of his failure to obey the order of August 12, 1955, and further decided that he was guilty of conduct unbecoming a police officer, that his conduct was detrimental to the effectiveness of the department because of its reflection on the standards of the department and its officers, and that his conduct impaired the standards of discipline essential to the maintenance of a well-ordered and effective police force. The plaintiff was dismissed from the department

The Norwalk police board was established in 1935 by special law. 22 Spec. Laws 291, No. 455. After providing that the board should have control, management and supervision of the policemen of the city, the law (§ 1) empowered the board 'to appoint, remove, suspend, discipline and punish * * * all officers and members * * * of [the] police department, and * * * to make rules and regulations as it may deem necessary * * * for the regulation and government of said department.' The law (§ 2) also provided that the board should not remove, expel or reduce in rank any officer or member of the department except for cause found after hearing. The board as constituted is an administrative agency. Wilson v. Town of West Haven, 142 Conn. 646, 653, 116 A.2d 420.

The question to be determined is whether the board acted arbitrarily or illegally or so unreasonably as to abuse its discretion. Sullivan v. Martin, 81 Conn. 585, 591, 71 A. 783; Chouinard v. Zoning Commission, 139 Conn. 728, 731, 97 A.2d 562. The burden was on the plaintiff to show that the board acted improperly. Longo v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 143 Conn. 395, 399, 122 A.2d 784. A board which has authority to enact regulatory measures is vested with a large measure of discretion, and the burden of showing arbitrary action rests upon the one who asserts it. Mallory v. Town of West Hartford, 138 Conn. 497, 505, 86 A.2d 668; Pierce's Appeal, 78 Conn. 666, 669, 63 A. 161.

The plaintiff contends that the order issued by the board on August 12, 1955, was illegal and void because the conduct prohibited was not reasonably related to the powers vested in the board and therefore that he could not be guilty of insubordination because of refusal to obey the order. He also claims that the evidence presented before the board at the hearing of July 9, 1958, was insufficient to justify his discharge from the department.

While the language of the order of August 12, 1955, is rather broad and general in its terms, the direction to refrain from associating with the young girl was clear and comprehensible. 'To associate with' means to keep company with, to unite in company. Webster, New International Dictionary (2d Ed.). In view of the fact that the order was made after...