Stallins v. City of Madisonville, No. 85-CA-1898-S

• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky
• Writing for the Court: DUNN
• Citation: 707 S.W.2d 349
• Parties: Douglas L. STALLINS, Appellant, v. CITY OF MADISONVILLE, O.L. Lantaff, George A. Moore, II; James "Buddy" Gill; Norman Suthard; D.W. Riley; Bob G. Simmons; and Rudy Stone, Appellees.
• Docket Number: No. 85-CA-1898-S
• Decision Date: 07 February 1986

Page 349

707 S.W.2d 349 Douglas L. STALLINS, Appellant,
v.
CITY OF MADISONVILLE, O.L. Lantaff, George A. Moore, II;
James "Buddy" Gill; Norman Suthard; D.W. Riley;
Bob G. Simmons; and Rudy Stone,
Appellees. No. 85-CA-1898-S Court of Appeals of Kentucky. Feb. 7, 1986.
Discretionary Review Denied and
Opinion Ordered Published by
Supreme Court April 22, 1986.

Page 350

Dick Adams, Madisonville, Stephen D. Wolnitzek, Covington, for appellant.

Byron L. Hobgood, W. Michael Troop, Madisonville, for appellees.

Before McDONALD, CLAYTON and DUNN, JJ.

DUNN, Judge.

Appellant, police officer Douglas L. Stallins, pursuant to KRS 15.520(2), brought an action in the Hopkins Circuit Court contesting the action of the City Council of the appellee, City of Madisonville, finding him guilty after a hearing of a violation of the General Rules and Regulations of that city's police department, and ordering his removal and dismissal on July 10, 1984. The action also contested the City Council's action on July 2, 1984, after hearing, disallowing his written grievance wherein he protested the police chief's failure to grant his requests for additional training and for promotion and for the chief's suspending and reprimanding him on several occasions.

The trial court pursuant to the statute and the dictates of Brady v. Pettit, Ky., 586 S.W.2d 29 (1979), afforded him a limited trial de novo in which it considered the transcript of each council hearing and the testimony of three additional witnesses Stallins provided.

On June 6, 1985, the trial court entered what it styled its Opinion and Judgment, but which in effect was its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment, affirming the City Council's action finding him guilty and ordering his removal and dismissal from the police department and, in view of that determination, further held that the question of Stallins' grievance was moot. On June 17, 1985, Stallins filed a motion and amended motion, ostensibly pursuant to CR 52.04, "for additional findings of fact and/or reconsideration." The trial court on July 1, 1985, entered its order overruling the motion. This appeal is from that judgment.

The function of the hearing body in instances of charges against police officers is to make two determinations: first, whether the officer has violated the rules and regulations of the department and if so, second, it must exercise its discretion in imposing a penalty. The first is subject to judicial review; the second is not. Sound public policy requires that the matter of punishment and discipline of a police officer be left to the city. City of Columbia v. Pendleton, Ky.App., 595 S.W.2d 718 (1980).

The procedure in the circuit court upon judicial review is that as designated in Brady v. Pettit, supra. The discharged employee is entitled to something less than a trial de novo--a quasi trial de novo as it were....