St. Louis Police Officers' Ass'n v. Sayad, No. 48258

• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Writing for the Court: SMITH
• Citation: 685 S.W.2d 913
• Docket Number: No. 48258
• Decision Date: 26 December 1984
• Parties: ST. LOUIS POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION, a not for profit corporation, Donald Schnable, Paul Rea and James Conner, Appellants, v. Homer E. SAYAD, Charles Valier, Thomas W. Purcell, Robert F. Wintersmith, comprising the membership of the Board of Police, St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, Respondents.

Page 913

685 S.W.2d 913 ST. LOUIS POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION, a not for profit
corporation, Donald Schnable, Paul Rea and James
Conner, Appellants,
v.
Homer E. SAYAD, Charles Valier, Thomas W. Purcell, Robert F.
Wintersmith, comprising the membership of the
Board of Police, St. Louis Metropolitan
Police Department, Respondents. No. 48258. Missouri Court of Appeals,
Eastern District,
Division Four. Dec. 26, 1984.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to
Supreme Court Denied Feb. 13, 1985.

Page 915

C. John Pleban, St. Louis, for appellants.

F. William McCalpin, St. Louis, for respondents.

SMITH, Presiding Judge.

Appellants, the St. Louis Police Officers' Association and three individual police officers, appeal from the trial court's refusal to issue a peremptory writ of mandamus against the Board of Police Commissioners of the City of St. Louis. The St. Louis Police Officers' Association is a voluntary not-for-profit association whose membership includes a majority of the police officers employed by the Board. We affirm in part and reverse in part. Most of the pertinent facts are contained in a stipulation of the parties or are documentary in nature.

There exists within the police department a procedure for investigation of complaints made against police officers. In 1974 the then existing Board provided for a procedure for investigation of complaints made by citizens against officers, including certain appeal rights by citizens to the Board itself. One of the new rules enacted at that time was Rule 7.013. It provided:

"7.013 Classification-Complaint Investigation Reports--Each forwarded complaint investigative report shall specify the allegation(s) which are to be classified in one of the following four categories:

(a) Unfounded. The complaint was not based on facts, as shown by the investigation, or the incident complained of did not occur.

(b) Exonerated. The action complained of did occur, but the investigation disclosed that the actions were reasonable, lawful and proper.

(c) Not sustained. Insufficient evidence available to either prove or disprove the allegations in the complaint.

(d) Sustained. Investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to support the allegations in the complaint.

In any instance when a complaint is finally disposed of as 'Unfounded,' or 'Exonerated,' all records pertaining to the complaint and its disposition shall be expunged."

These categories pre-existed the rules change but no expungement was authorized.

The minutes of the Board meeting at which the new procedures were passed, including Rule 7.013, stated:

"Colonel McNeal directed the Board's attention to the new draft on the citizen complaint procedures. Following the discussion of this new draft, Mayor Poelker moved that the citizen complaint procedures be approved and adopted by the Board to take effect on October 1, 1974 and that incidents occurring and filed on and after that date would be covered by the new procedures. Incidents occurring prior to October 1, 1974 will be covered by the present procedures. Colonel Walsh seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved."

Page 916

In 1977 the Board amended Rule 7.013 to add a category of "Complaint Withdrawn" which category was added to those covered by the expungement provision.

Commencing on October 1, 1974 the Department began expunging from departmental records complaints and investigations thereof occurring on or after that date found to be "Unfounded" or "Exonerated." It did the same for "Complaint Withdrawn" dispositions occurring on or after the effective date of the 1977 amendment. No expungement was made from departmental records of complaints in any of the three categories which were disposed of prior to the effective date of the rules. As a result the records of officers having complaint dispositions in any of the three categories for which expungement is now provided still show such complaint dispositions occurring before the effective date of the rules. These records are utilized by the Board in assessing punishment for complaints "sustained" and in determining promotions.

The three individual plaintiffs are all long-time police officers and each has one or more of the now expunged complaint categories reflected in his service record for complaints pre-dating the 1974 and 1977 rules. These plaintiffs and the Association sought mandamus to compel the Board to expunge from all department records complaint dispositions of "unfounded" "exonerated" and "withdrawn" which pre-date the rules changes. They also sought to have all complaint dispositions in the "not sustained" category expunged on due process grounds.

The plaintiffs challenge the trial court's finding that the Association lacked standing to bring this...