IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
CHAPPIE342
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-AD-2579
Petitioner
v.
RIDGEWAY STATE POLICE
Respondent
RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The Ridgeway State Police, by and through the Solicitor General’s Office of Ridgeway, hereby respectfully
moves this Court for judgment as a matter of law. The grounds and authorities supporting this motion are set
forth in the Motion for Summary Judgment.
INTRODUCTION
On March 17th, 2024, the Ridgeway State Police (hereinafter, “respondent”) generally discharged
chappie342 (hereinafter, “petitioner”) as a result of an administrative investigation conducted by the Agency’s
Internal Affairs body. The investigator, Sergeant officerjordan10, found the petitioner in violation of Ridgeway
State Police Department Policy 301-5.6(G)1 and 301-5.7(H)2 while he was on-duty as a representative of the
Ridgeway State Police on March 12th, 2024. The investigator recommended to generally discharge the
petitioner because of clause 502-123 of the Ridgeway State Police Department Policy Guide. Shortly after the
petitioner was discharged from the Ridgeway State Police, he filed an administrative claim against the
respondent.
3 RSPDP 502-12: “All employees of the Ridgeway State Police in (...) a Probationary Program shall be placed
under heavy scrutiny for a period at the discretion of Central Command or the Bureau Commander responsible for
their oversight. Misconduct (...) during this period of scrutiny shall result in the justification for the removal of the
employee from the Ridgeway State Police (...)”
2 RSPDP 301-5.7(H): “Any act on-duty or off-duty that brings discredit to the department”
1 RSPDP 301-5.6(G): “Engaging in political activities while on-duty, (...)”
ARGUMENT
I. Ridgeway State Police Department Policy 301-5.6(G) is clear and unambiguous
The regulatory language in which Policy 301-5.6(G) is written is clear and unambiguous, then “the
inquiry ends with the plain meaning4. Meeks, 216 F.3d at 1366” Roberto v. Department of Navy, 440 F.3d 1341,
1350 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Plainly, a political activity is understood as one that is relating to one's own political
ideas over the ideas of the agency (to enforce laws). The aforementioned is clear and not ambiguous, it states
that engaging in political activities while on-duty is a violation of the Department Policy Guide.
II. The political support statements by the petitioner were made during an election process
The petitioner openly supported a political candidate in an on-going election, which is an activity
directed to the success of a candidate for political office, while on-duty as a representative of the Ridgeway
State Police. Even though the petitioner might not have intended to break policy 301-5.6 and showed remorse in
his interview with the investigator assigned to the case, he indeed supported a political candidate during an
on-going election process.
III. The petitioner discredited the Ridgeway State Police
The investigation also concluded that the petitioner was in violation of Department Policy 301-5.7(H).
The petitioner’s political statements on March 12th, 2024, brought discredit to the Ridgeway State Police. All
Ridgeway State Police employees are expected to remain politically neutral while on-duty representing the
Agency. Additionally, RSP Dept. Policy 708-5 states that “(...) Ridgeway State Police employees may not wear
any part of the uniform (...) to do any of the following: Endorse, support, oppose or contradict any political
campaign or initiative. (...)”.
IV. The petitioner was on a Zero-Tolerance Policy (ZTP)
The petitioner was on a ZTP when the incident took place. Clause 502-12 of the Ridgeway State Police
Department Policy Guide states that employees on a Probation Program “shall be placed under heavy scrutiny”.
4 “Political Activity”: [an] activity directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for
partisan political office, or partisan political group. (Justice Management Division | Political Activities,
2023)
Considering that the petitioner was found in violation of TWO department policies, the investigator
recommended a punishment according to his probationary condition. The petitioner used the standard that the
punishment issued was not “so gross as to shock the general moral or common sense.” Crooks v. Harrelson, 282
U.S. 55, 60 (1930). This standard, in fact, favors the respondent due to the fact that the punishment was issued
as a result of a thorough investigation on the petitioner’s conduct in consideration of all pertinent factors. The
respondent firmly stands on the position that the petitioner did carry an activity directed towards the success of
a political candidate, and such activity brought discredit to the Ridgeway State Police.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Ridgeway State Police did not issue an arbitrary punishment and, therefore, this
Court should issue summary judgment.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Hecxtro
Deputy Attorney General
Ridgeway Department of Justice
RBN # 17169
Counsel of Record
/s/ natrix368
Assistant Solicitor General
Ridgeway Department of Justice
RBN # 12109
Dated: May 19th, 2024
