ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
State of Ridgeway
IN RE
dev_Typ
Petitioner
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM RESPONSE
CLAIM NO. RSC-AD-2306
ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM RESPONSE
CLAIM INFORMATION
Agency: Palmer Police Department
Type of Action Administrative Demerit §1.4
IA Reference No. B112
Responding Agent Ridgeway Solicitor General’s Office
MANDATORY DISCLOSURE
Internal Affairs Report: Report Link
Violations: §201.2 - Palmer Police Department Standard Operating Procedure
§1.02 - Palmer Police Department Code of Conduct
Criminal Referral: N/A (No Referral)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1) Senior Police Officer dev_Typ (“Petitioner”) is an employee of the Palmer Police
Department.
2) On, or around, February 9th 2024, the petitioner was on-duty as a Senior Police Officer of
the Palmer Police Department (which hereinafter shall be referred to as “patrolling”).
3) While patrolling, the petitioner decided to venture outside of his designated jurisdiction,
as prescribed by Incorporation of Ridgeway County Act §3.4(a); the parameters of said
designated jurisdiction are explicitly outlined to employees in §201.1 of the Palmer Police
Department Standard Operating Procedure (“PPD SOP”)
4) The petitioner claimed he had ventured outside of his jurisdiction as he was “picking
someone up”; this is not a recognised justified reason to venture outside of one’s
jurisdiction as a Palmer Police Department employee, see §201.2, PPD SOP and §3.4 of
the Incorporation of Ridgeway County Act.
5) The petitioner was confronted by two Ridgeway State Police employees, Senior Trooper
Arvantise and Sergeant Antxz_y, at which point he admitted to leaving his designated
jurisdiction, for the aforementioned reasons.
6) On, or around, the 10th of February, 2024, the petitioner was voluntary interviewed in
regard to his actions in the event by Palmer Police Department Officer AdamRuzekJr,
with Lieutenant AhmadKapalot and Sergeant smashpears present, all of who are
employed by the Palmer Police Department, Internal Affairs Division.
7) During this interview the petitioner claimed that he’d been out of his jurisdiction as he
was, allegedly, “looking for a recruit”, however he was unable to remember the specifics
surrounding the situation. This recruit was later uncovered in the petitioner’s
administrative claim as, allegedly being, LushThomasb123 (“the recruit”) , who was not
on the Palmer Police Department team at the time of the incident.
8) The petitioner claims that the recruit told him “he would be physically present
somewhere within the map in a few minutes” however, the recruit was unresponsive
thereafter; thus the petitioner “went to the shooting range inside the firearms store in
Sterling Heights [where he] did some shooting practice” (quoting the petitioner’s
administrative claim). After completing his shooting practice the petitioner claims to have
returned to his jurisdiction to do a different evaluation.
9) There is a log of the petitioner completing the evaluation of Recruit Officer Zovhen, on
or around this time, which Zovhen himself confirmed in an interview with Officer
AdamRuzekJr. It is immediately clear Zovhen could not have been the recruit in question,
who the petitioner was initially searching for, as Zovhen claims he was never separated
from the petitioner throughout his evaluation.
ARGUMENT
I. Administrative Standard of Review
Under state law, a public employee may request this tribunal to review an
unlawful employment practice. See 2 R. Stat. § 3301. As such, the Administrative Court
is vested “original jurisdiction over all civil claims involving administrative action, or
policy, or rules of a government agency” Id., at § 3305. Furthermore, this Court can
“grant equitable remedy as necessary to ensure proper enforcement of law” Id., at § 3307.
In order for the Palmer Police Department’s decision, to issue an administrative
demerit, to be eligible for review by this court one of three elements must be sufficed: (a)
there must be a clear and present factual error in the issuance of the demerit; or (b) the
demerit must be plainly and clearly arbitrary; or (c) its defined offense, the offense the
officer was punished under, must be ambiguous, see §1.4, Administrative Procedure Act.
II. Petitioner has clearly and plainly violated department policy
As mentioned prior in this response the petitioner is restrained to a designated jurisdiction
while, on duty and thus, acting in his capacity as a Senior Police Officer for the Palmer Police
Department. Palmer Police Department employees may only leave their jurisdiction in a few
select scenarios, which are clearly defined within departmental policy as I have already
mentioned in this response. The petitioner’s decision to leave his jurisdiction without one of
these select scenarios being in effect is in direct violation of departmental policy.
III. Petitioner cannot pick and choose his capacity
Within his administrative claim the petitioner alleges that he was not acting in his
capacity as a law enforcement officer. In order for the petitioner to be in violation of §201.2, he
must have deviated from his jurisdiction while acting in his official capacity. At the time of the
incident the petitioner was on-duty as a Palmer Police Department Senior Patrol Officer and,
subsequently, was on the Palmer Police Department team, and was attempting to locate a Recruit
Officer so he could begin a field training. From these facts alone it is abundantly clear that the
petitioner was acting in his official capacity when the events occurred, nothing more or less is
required for the petitioner to be in violation of departmental policy.
IV. Summary
It is glaringly obvious from the facts alleged within this response, and within the
administration claim itself, that the petitioner deviated from his jurisdiction without adequate
justification, and therefore was in violation of departmental policy. The punishment issued by the
Palmer Police Department was in accordance with State law, departmental policy and their
department’s Code of Conduct.
/s/ EffortlessBrit
Solicitor General
Department of Justice
Counsel for Respondent
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
A) Internal Affairs Report
B) Involved Persons Testimonies and Evidence
