Ridgeway Unified Courts

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF RIDGEWAY

Searchable full text

3,786 characters extracted

—

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY Citation: In re chrinishu, RSC-AH970 DATE OF JUDGEMENT: Acht von Marsch, Zweitausend Dreiundzwanzig Palmer Police Department Applicant and chrinishu Respondent REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 1.3 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT I. Introduction [1] Sergeant Da_BeastlyMan applied for an administrative hearing under s. 1.3 of the Administrative Procedure Act on March 4th, 2023. [2] The application named chrinishu, an employee of the Palmer Police Department, as the respondent. [3] The application sought to dishonourably discharge chrinishu for having refused to comply with a search, in which the department has alleged he committed insubordination. He was originally set to be involuntarily discharged for failure to complete his activity quotas . [4] All factual allegations are assumed as true, having gone uncontested by the respondent, and are reproduced in Part II. II. Findings of Fact [5] Dishonourable discharge - officers are mainly given this type of discharge because of a policy violation or investigation [6] Insubordination - subject refused to comply to an order issued by a command member (SGT+) Officer failed to meet with internal affairs for a departmental search & tools collection. [7] Activity Policy - The department requires every employee x1 30 min log per week. They may take an LOA with a maximum of 2 weeks if it exceeds they must request an extension through their LT. (SGT+, IA and TD have different methods of showing activity.) Officer has failed to abide by activity following for three consecutive weeks, from 11/24/2022 to 01/31/2023. III. Findings of Law and Policy [8] It is considered a violation of the Palmer Police Department’s handbook to not submit at least one thirty minute log per week. The defendant is in violation of this act with his failure to submit any activity logs, as highlighted in Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C. The defendant had failed to request a leave of absence from his superiors, even when offered the opportunity to do as such as seen in Exhibit E. [9] The Palmer Police Department alleges that the respondent had contravened the insubordination policy by “disregarding the orders of superiors.” The basis of this claim is established in Exhibit D, in which we bear witness to a conversation between internal affairs lieutenant AhmadKapalot and patrol officer Chrinishu. The lieutenant had inquired whether or not the patrol officer was available for a search, while he responded to “go ahead and fire me” for it had been an extended duration of time. The response put forward by patrol officer Chrinishu does not count as insubordination, for a question was not directly posed towards himself. For a statement to be considered an order, it must possess a quality of being clear and unequivocal. Due to the fact that the statement made by the lieutenant was not clear in its nature, the respondents response is not considered insubordination. [10] The respondent, chrinishu is subject to the Palmer Police Department Handbook. [11] I find that the defendant had indeed violated the activity policy by failing to submit their log, and failure to submit a leave of absence when offered the opportunity to do as such by his superiors. The defendant however has not violated the insubordination policy due to the above stated reasons. IV. Recommendations [12] The applicant recommends termination of the respondent’s employment in the Palmer Police Department in the nature of a general discharge. [13] The applicant is entitled to take any action up to and including an involuntary, general discharge. Dated at the City of Palmer, in the State of Ridgeway this 8th day of March, 2023. Administrative Court Judge Jyoungbird

RULING_RSC-AH-970_BEHIND_THE_SCENES_EDITION_.pdf

Original document

Searchable full text

Document record