Court Finds in Favor of Board of Fire & Police Commissioners in Discharge Dispute
In Scatchell v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners for the Village of Melrose Park, et al., an Illinois Appellate Court upheld the decision of a local Board of Fire and Police Commission ("BFPC") to terminate the employment of a police officer based on several charges of misconduct.
In
late 2017, a police officer took paid sick leave to recuperate from an
on-duty injury. While on sick leave, the police department learned that the officer was reported
to be out hunting when—based on doctor’s orders and department policy—he should
have been resting at home. The department reached out to a
branch of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources to request that
conservation officers be on the lookout for the officer. A conservation
officer eventually did spot the officer hunting with several others, including a former police officer who was also a convicted
felon and was not permitted to possess or use a weapon. When confronted by the conservation officer, the officer claimed he “could not say” whether his companion had fired a
shotgun while they were out hunting.
The department then investigated whether the officer abused his sick
leave and whether he violated any department policies in his interaction with the conservation officer. During the investigation, the investigator
issued the injured officer a Garrity warning,
advising him that he was immune from criminal prosecution for any statements
made during the investigation but could face discipline or discharge for
refusing to answer questions. The injured officer acknowledged and signed the
immunity notification.
During
the BFPC's disciplinary hearing about these incidents, the officer refused to
testify, invoking his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself. The
department renewed the injured officer’s Garrity
immunity, reminding him that he could be disciplined for insubordination
for not answering the questions presented during the disciplinary hearing. When
he still refused to testify, the department added an insubordination charge. The
BFPC decided to discharge the officer based on eight counts of disciplinary charges,
including refusal to obey his superior’s direct order to testify during the
hearing. The officer appealed, and the case made its way to the Illinois
Appellate Court.
One of the issues that was discussed at length in the opinion was the nature of the Garrity immunity, which protects government employees from being
prosecuted for statements they make during an internal investigation, so the government employee is not forced to choose between being fired and incriminating
themselves. Once the immunity attaches, however, and the employee faces no
possible criminal charges, he or she may be discharged for insubordination for
refusing to answer questions related to potential misconduct.
Because
the injured officer had been issued a Garrity
warning, which remained intact throughout the investigation into his
misconduct and the BFPC hearing, the Court decided the BFPC was justified
in terminating the officer for insubordination (among several of the other
disciplinary charges filed against him).
While
the decision of the Court was quite detailed and lengthy, it is worth reading
for an understanding of Garrity immunity
and the Illinois Administrative Review Law.
Post Authored by Erin
Monforti & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink
0 comments:
Post a Comment