Case Title: Burlington Police Officers' Assoc. v. City of Burlington

Citation: 166 Vt 581, 689 A.2d 1071

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1996-10-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
Burlington Police Officers' Assoc. v. City of Burlington (94-665); 
166 Vt 581; 689 A.2d 1071

[Filed 14-Oct-1996]

                               ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 94-665

                             JANUARY TERM, 1996

Burlington Police Officers'          }     APPEALED FROM:
Association, et al.                  }
                                     }
     v.                              }     Chittenden Superior Court
                                     }
City of Burlington                   }
                                     }     DOCKET NO. S1137-94CnC

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Plaintiffs Theodore Everlof and the Burlington Police Officers'
  Association appeal a superior court order dismissing their complaint for
  injunctive relief.  We vacate and dismiss the claim because the suit is
  against the wrong party.

       In August 1994, Everlof, then a police officer employed by the
  Burlington Police Department and a member of the Burlington Police
  Officers' Association, was the subject of an internal investigation by the
  Department.  The Department charged him with violating its administrative
  rules by engaging in domestic abuse and, in accordance with procedure,
  ordered him to attend an interview and answer questions.  Everlof was told
  that he would lose his job if he refused to answer.

       On August 17, Everlof and the Burlington Police Officers' Association
  filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the Department's
  promise of use and derivative-use immunity was insufficient to protect him
  against self-incrimination under the Vermont Constitution.  The form used
  by the Department to notify officers about internal investigations states
  that "[n]o answers given nor any information gained by this administrative
  interview may be admissible against you in any proceeding."  Plaintiffs
  also sought to enjoin the Department from compelling Everlof to give
  evidence in an internal investigation without providing him transactional
  immunity, which would bar prosecution for conduct that is the subject of
  compelled testimony.

       Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking
  summary judgment and certification of a class including all patrol officers
  below the rank of sergeant.  The City of Burlington filed a motion to
  dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
  arguing that the Department's procedures complied with the state
  constitution and that plaintiff's claim was not ripe for adjudication.

       In September the Department modified its interview requirements for
  Everlof's case such that he would not be disciplined if he chose to invoke
  his privilege against self-incrimination. Everlof submitted to the
  interview but did not answer questions.  The Department pursued its
  investigation without his testimony.  The City then moved to dismiss on the
  ground that the case was moot.  The court denied defendant's motion,
  concluding that the issue was capable of repetition, but evaded review. 
  Ultimately, the trial court certified the class and granted summary
  judgment to the City.  This appeal followed.

 

       In essence, plaintiffs seek to have the form used to notify police
  officers about internal investigations modified to read that if an officer
  answers questions about conduct, the officer cannot be prosecuted for that
  conduct.  Plaintiffs base their claim to such a notice on Article I,
  Chapter 10 of the Vermont Constitution, because the self-incrimination
  clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution has been
  interpreted to require only use and derivative-use immunity.

       As is common, plaintiffs' state constitutional argument urges us to
  accept federal doctrine, except for the one matter in issue, and engraft
  onto it a more liberal state rule for that issue.  Although we have some
  precedents exploring the self-incrimination right in Chapter 10, the issues
  raised here are entirely those of first impression, and we should not
  blindly accept the federal scheme.

       The critical federal decisions are Garrity v. New Jersey,