IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
Palmer Police Department
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-0894
Plaintiff
v.
voxpaa
Defendant
MOTION TO VACATE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
TO THE HONORABLE COURT
COMES NOW the Defendant, Sergeant voxpaa, appearing pro se, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court
for an Order vacating the underlying Internal Affairs proceedings (PSD-26-013(B)) and dismissing all resultant
findings and disciplinary recommendations, including but not limited to the proposed dishonorable discharge. In
support thereof, Petitioner states as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter arises from Internal Affairs Investigation PSD-26-013(B), which culminated in sustained findings
on multiple policy violations and a recommended discharge from the Palmer Police Department. The underlying
investigation, however, was conducted in a manner that is procedurally defective, constitutionally deficient
under established administrative due process standards, and inconsistent with governing departmental policy
and prior Ridgeway precedent.
Accordingly, all subsequent disciplinary actions derived from that investigation are tainted and must be vacated.
II. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF
A. Improper Combination of Investigatory and Adjudicatory Functions
The Internal Affairs Division impermissibly combined an investigatory interview with a de facto
adjudicatory disciplinary hearing, thereby collapsing fact-finding and charge determination into a single
proceeding.
During the Subject Officer Interview, allegations were presented as pre-established conclusions rather
than subjects of neutral investigation. This structure effectively predetermined guilt prior to any
independent factual determination.
This procedure violates fundamental principles of administrative due process requiring that:
1. Facts be developed prior to disciplinary conclusions; and
2. The accused be afforded a meaningful opportunity to respond before findings are finalized.
The resulting process mirrors a prejudgment of liability rather than a neutral investigation.
B. Improper Application of §1.11 and Circumvention of Established Code Structure
The Department’s reliance on Section §1.11 (On-Duty Standards) was applied in a manner that
improperly circumvented the structured disciplinary framework of the Code of Conduct.
As established in JamesGardai v. Palmer Police Department (RSC-CV-0921), departmental disciplinary
actions may not be imposed in a manner that bypasses statutory or procedural safeguards governing how
conduct is charged and adjudicated.
Here, §1.11 was used as a broad “catch-all” provision to retroactively characterize conduct as
“unprofessional,” without establishing:
● Objective misconduct standards at the time of enforcement, or
● A defined nexus between conduct and prescribed disciplinary outcomes
This constitutes arbitrary and capricious application of departmental authority.
C. Unlawful Usurpation of Judicial Function
The Internal Affairs Division exceeded its administrative authority by making final determinations of
legal culpability under Ridgeway Criminal Code §5.09 (Unlawful Distribution of Government-Issued
Equipment), effectively adjudicating questions of criminal liability.
Such determinations are reserved to Article III judicial authority or properly constituted courts of
records, not internal administrative bodies.
By independently concluding criminal violation as a basis for administrative termination, the
Department unlawfully usurped a judicial function.
D. Failure of the Code of Conduct to Prescribe Dishonorable Discharge for the Alleged
Conduct
The governing disciplinary framework, as reflected in the Departmental Policy Index, provides that the
maximum applicable disposition for certain Level 2-3 violations is “Termination” which may include
involuntary discharges. At no point does the policy clearly prescribe “dishonorable discharge” as a
mandatory or automatic consequence for the alleged violations charged herein.
Accordingly, the recommended penalty exceeds the codified disciplinary authority and is therefore ultra
vires and unenforceable.
III. PREJUDICE AND TAINT
Because the investigative process was structurally flawed, all findings of “SUSTAINED” within
PSD-26-013(B) are legally unreliable. The procedural defects described above materially prejudiced the
Petitioner by:
● Predetermining outcomes prior to factual determination,
● Conflating investigative and adjudicative roles,
● And applying unauthorized penalty classifications.
As a result, the entire disciplinary record stemming from PSD-26-013(B) is irreparably tainted.
IV. RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:
1. Vacate in its entirety Internal Affairs Case PSD-26-013(B);
2. Dismiss all sustained findings and charges arising therefrom;
3. Strike the recommendation for discharge as procedurally and substantively invalid;
4. Order expungement of all references to PSD-26-013(B) from Petitioner’s personnel file; and
5. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/
voxpaa
Defendant, Pro Se
