### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE March 28, 2001 Sessi

on CITY OF KNOXVILLE, ET AL 

### . v. ROBERT J. TAYLOR, ET AL 

### .

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Knox County No. 139330-3 Sharon Bell, Chancellor
FILED MAY 24, 2001

No. E2000-02329-COA-R3-CV

This is an appeal from

a judgment entered

in the Chancery Co

urt for Knox County

imposing certain punishmentas to two members of the Knoxville Police Force, Officer Rober t J. Taylor and his father, Sergeant Dick T aylor. The Administrative Hearing Officer at the initial hearing found no misconduct

on the part of

the Taylors which would justify any penalty. The Taylors appeal contending the Chancellor was in error and there was substantial and material evidence to support the Hearing Officer’s deter minatio n. As to Sergeant Taylor we reverse the Chancellor’s determination an

d as to Officer T

aylor we affirm

.

Tenn.R.App.P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Reversed in Part; Affirmed in Part

and Remand

H OUSTON M. G ODDARD , P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which H ERSCHEL P. F RANKS and D. M ICHAEL S WINEY , JJ., joined.
Douglas A. Trant, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Appellants, Robert J. Taylor and Dick I. Taylor
Ronald E. Mills, Senio

r City Attorney, Kno

xville, Tennesse

e, for the Appell

ee, City of Knoxvill

e
OPINION

These cases before us, which

were consolidat

ed, had their gen

esis in the service

of a domestic violence arrest warrant which resulted in injury to the party arrested.

After an internal investigation by the Knoxville Police Department, b oth Sergeant Dick I. Taylor and his son, Officer Robert J. Taylor, were terminated on February 2, 1998.

### -2-

BothTaylors appealed their dismissal and, after hearing proof for a number of days, the Administrative Hearing Officer overturned their termination and found that they were "e

ntitled to be reinstated to full rank at the time of their dismissal with back pay."

The City then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Knox County and the Chancellor, after a review of the transcript from the initial hearing--although not specifying in what particula

rs--found that the Taylors "knowingly failed to meet the obligation imposed on them by the Knoxville Police Department.”

She thereupon set asi

de the order ente

red by the Heari

ng Officer and t

h en ord ered the following:
[T]he Court hereby sets aside the decision of the Hearing Officer to reinstate the Appellees with back pay and no disciplinary action, and instead orders reinstatement

with full back pay to Officer Robert Taylor along with a documentedoral reprimand for his misconduct, dated as of the date of the original disciplinary action, to

be administered in

accordance w

ith the procedure

s set forth by the Knoxville Poli

ce Department.

Th e Court further ord

ers the reinstate

ment with back pay

of Sg t. Dic k Taylor for all but thirty (30) days, and that Sgt. Taylor besuspended for thirty (30) days without pay and re

primanded for his

misconduct. While

th e Cou rt orally ruledthat Sgt. Taylor

be given credit f

or his time

off work between termination and reinstatement , and forfeiting thirty (30) days pay, upon agreement of the parties Sgt . Taylor shall begin serving his suspension on August 19, 2000, and said suspension shall

not be stayedpending any appeal. The reprimand shall be dated as of the date of the original disciplinary action.

Both Defendants a

ppeal raising two i

ssues:
1. Whether the Chancery Court correctly applied the standard of review
on a Petition for Certiorari in reaching its conclusion that the Civil Service Meri t Board’s Hearing Officer abused her discretion in finding that the Petitioner failed to establish that

the Respondents should be subjected to termination or any other disciplinary acti

on by the Knoxville Po

lice Department

?

2. Whether substant

ial and material e

vidence supports

the decision of the Civil Service Merit Board’s Hearing Officer in ordering that the Respondents be reinstated to full rank together with back pay without any disciplinary action?

The Administrative Hearing Officer accurately detailed the facts necessary for disposition of this appeal:1 It is unclear whethe r this should be “C osby” or “C rosby” beca use we find it referen ced both ways in

the record. 

### -3- Mr. Phil E. Keith acting in his capacity as Chief of Police for the City of Knoxville terminated the em

ployment of Se

rgea nt Dick I. Taylor and his son, Robert J. Taylor as Knoxville police o fficer s on February 2, 1998 for various departmental code of conduct v iolations. The specific code of conduct violations
are cited in

detail in the Taylors’ Statements of Disciplinary Action, but involve allegations of untruthfuln e ss and neglect of duty which the City maintains occurred in connection

with the arrest of Jack Longmire on December 14, 1997 and subsequent Internal Affairs inves tigation. Upon joint motion, the cases of Dick and Robert Taylor

were con solidated and their terminations appealed for hearing in accordance with Articles 27 and 28 of the Rules and Regulations of the Ci vil Service Merit Board. Based on the arguments of the parties’ attorne ys , exhibits and testimony presented at trial, the administrative hearing officer finds that the City has failed

to establish

by a preponderance of the evidence that either Dick or Rob ert Taylor is guilty of mi sconduct which wo

uld justify their termination of employment and that they should be r einstated to full r ank with back pay.

The City of

Knoxville is

divided into East, Central and West geographic sectors for police coverage and assignmen t. On all relevant dates, Robert Taylor and Toby Wells were patr

ol officers assig

ned tothe West sector. Officers in the W est sector were super

vised by and reported directly to various sergeants including, Sergeants TomFox and Roger White who in turn reported to Lieutenants Sasscer and Roehl who reported to Captain Dan Davi s. Sergeant Dick T aylor was a supervisor

for the Central sector a

nd his chain of comm

and flowed to

Lieutenants Woolridge, Goinand Catlett who reported to Captain Ed Cummings. All sector captains reported directly to Deputy Chief Coker who in turn reported to the Chief of Police, Phil Keith, a

s did Sergean t Gordon Catlett, Sr. who was in charge of Internal Affai

rs. Shortlybefore noo n on December 14, 1997 Officers Robert Taylor and Toby Wells proceeded to Cosby 1 Avenue located w ithin the West sect

or to se rve a domestic violence warrant on a Mr. Jack Longmire which had been taken out by his wife, Kelli Longmire. When con f ronted in the parking lot by these officers Longmire refused arrest struggling with both officers. In the co urse of the struggle, Longmire grabbed at the gun of Officer Taylor causing Officer Taylor to hit his emergency call button for assistance. After a vigorous physica

l struggle in which capstun was used to subdue Mr. L ongmire, t hese officers u ltimately succeeded

in placing Mr. Longmire in handc uffs behind his bac

k and seating him
on the parking lot in the immediate vicinity of Ke lli Lon gmire’s and Officer

### -4-

Taylor’s v ehicles which were parked side by side. Subsequent thereto, Officer John Szczepanowski a

rrived on the sce

ne at which time

officer Taylor

and Wells left Longmire in Officer Szczepanow sk i’s custody and proceeded to Officer Wells[’] police car which was parked a distance of some 40 to 60 feet away up the sloped parking lot. Offic ers Taylor and W

ells went to the ca

r for the expres s purpose of washing capstun overspray from Officer Taylor ’s eyes and hands which he had receive

d in his s truggle with

Longmire and from which he was suffering the physically discomforting side effects typi cally associated with the same; namely, blurred, tearyburning eyes and skin. While at Officer Wells[’] car, bothOfficers Taylo

r and Wells hear

d a commotion in

the vicinity of the prisoner and upon returning found Longmire lying face down with blood flowing from the right side of his head.

There is no dispute that Sergeant Taylor was the first supervisory officer on the site in response to Officer Taylor’s emergency call, but within a matter of minutes of his arrival Sergeant Roger White also arrived on the scene. Although assigned to the Central sector. Sergeant Taylor responded to the e

mergency call be

cause he was monitoring the police radio as a favor for Sergeant White who was the West sector superviso

r on duty at the time of the arrest, but due to a conflicting churchcommitment had arranged for Sergeant Ta

ylor to cover his c

alls during his absence. The timing sequence as to officers responding to the scene is evidenced by the 911 emergency call transcript for the afternoon of December 14. On this tape the various officers are identified by car

number which rep

resents a specif

ic beat within the officer’s assig

ned sector. At the

time of Longmire’s arrest, Officer Robert Taylor was assigned car #73; Officer Toby Wells car #81; Sergeant Roger White to car #80; Officer Szczepanowski car #71; and, Sergeant Dick Taylor car #40. From the transcript, Car 73 (R. Taylor) and Car 81 (T. Wells) are in route to Cosby at approximately 11:55. At 12:06 hours 40 seconds Car 73 (R. Taylor) is apologizing for

having hit his emergency button to which dispatch responds at 12:07 hours 50 second that no apology is nece

ssary and that the

police wagon is in route to the scene. In the brief inte rim between these

two calls, Sergea

nt White (Car 80) at 12:07 hours 30 seconds announces that he is back o n the radio. At 12:08 hours 20 seconds Car 73 (R. Taylor) asks for a superv isor to which dispatch makes reference

to Car 80 (Sergeant White) and in response Car 73 (R. Taylor) notes he believes Car 80 is out of service and references Car 40 (Sergeant Taylor). Sergeant White testified that from his location at church when he got

back on the radio it would have taken him ten to fi fteen minutes to arrive at Cosby which would have placed him at the scene at approximately 12:22. The only other officer responding to

the emergency call at the scene was officer James Hellinger who from the 911 emergency transcript is apparently on the scene by 12:14 hours giving directions to the police wagon.

### -5-

Sergeant Taylor upon arriving at the scene discove red Longmire’s bloody face and was briefly advised by Officer Taylor th at Longmire had re

sisted arrest struggling with the off

icers. Sergeant Taylor immediately proceeded to render medical aid to Longmire by cleaning and treating his head wound at the rear of the police wagon to which Longmire had been removed. In doing so, Sergeant Taylor instructed an off-duty office r, Ryan Flores, who

apparently lived

at the same apartment complex andwho had appeared on the scene to wash Longmire’s blood from the asphalt. Sergeant Taylor briefed Sergeant White upon his arrival on the
scene and both Sergeants questioned Kelli Longmire who had been present and witnes sed por tions if not all of the arrest. Upon expressing concerns about the beating her husband

had received she was specifically advised by both Sergeants about procedures for

filing an abuse co

mplaint with

Internal Affairs as was her husband, Jack Longmire, when he w as int erviewed at the hospital by both Sergeants.

Prior to leaving the scene, Officer Robert Taylor confiscated various items from the Longmire’s apar

tment, including a camera. telephone and guns for which he ultimately

filled out a confiscation report. At the scene he filled out an ar r est report and later that afternoon completed a resisting arrest warrant for Longmire after being treated at the hospital for a sprained wrist he had

injured in his strugg

le with Lo ngmire. The next day on December 15 Robert Taylor filled out a han d written Use of Force Report which he turned in late aftern oon a t the end of his shiftto Sergeant White. On D ecember 16, 1997 Robert Taylor prepared a typewritten Use of Force Report upon the instruction of Captain Dan Davis

after being advised that

his handwritten report

was difficult to read. When the second type-written report was rejected due to spacing concerns, Officer Taylor

prepared yet a th ir d Use of Force Report by computer also on December 16. In all three Use of Fo rce report Officer Taylor consistently notes that he can’t advise about Longmire’s head injury because when he and Officer Wells left Longmir

e in Szczepanowski’s custody Longmire was not bleeding.
Upon review of Offic

er Taylor’s Use

of Fo rce R eport, Chief Keith instructed Sergeant Catlett of Internal Affai

rs to investigate the matter. On December 16 th
, Sergeant Rick Lyon of Internal Affairs contacted Jack Longmir e by telephone who declined to give a statement whereupon t he investigation was closed. Captain Dan Davis upon his

review of Offic

er Taylor’s Use

of Force Report f

elt that there may be a pr

oblem with Office

r Szczepanowsk

i and o n December 16 instructed Lieutenant Sassc er to investigate t

he report. Lieutenant

Sasscer came in on the afternoon of December 17, 1997 to talk to

Officer Szczepanowski, but at that point Szczepanowski was on medical leave dueto injuries he susta ined in connection with his arrest of teenager Mic

hael Birt earlier

than same day whe

rein he had broken the teen’s leg Lieutenant Sasscer made no effort to follow through wi th any investigation until Officer Szczepanowski returned to work in ear l y

### -6-

January which by that time Li e utenant Sasscer understood Internal Affairs was investigating the matter.
Sergeant White upon his revi

ew of Officer T

aylor’s Use of For

ce Report also fe

lt there might be a problem w i th Officer Szczepanowski and upon forwarding the Use of Force report to Internal Affairs attached to the report a handwritten note indicating that because of the statements in t he Use o f Force report he had left instructions for Officer Szc zepanowski to com

plete a statement

and turn it in ASAP. In concluding his note, Sergeant White noted that he had been f

illing in for a vacationing Sergean t Fox and th at he himself would now be off until December

19. Internal Aff

airs did not re-op en its investigation until after Sergeant Dick Taylor on January 8, 1998 expressed concerns regarding Officer John Szczepanowski to his supervisor, Lieutenant Gordon Catlett, Jr. who in turn reported the matter to his fa

ther, Sergeant G

ordon Catlett,

Sr. as head of

Internal Affairs.

There is no dispu te whatsoever th at the original Int

ernal Affairs i

nquiry (Case #97-2142) w as initiated in response to Officer Robert Taylor’s Use of Force Report and was subsequently reopened (Case #98-2147) in response to Sergeant Dick Taylor’s complaints about Szczepanowski. However, a f ter a series of interviews by Internal Affairs commencing on or about January 12, 1998 of the officers responding to

the Lon gmire arrest scene, Sergeant Dick Taylor and Officer Robert Taylor were terminated by Chief Keith at the recommendation of Captain Dan Davis

and Deputy

Chief Robert Coker with the support of Sergeant Gordon Catlett based on the Internal Affairs investigative file.

The standard of review for the Chancery Court a

nd this Court is

governed by the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act which, under T.C.A. 4-5-322(h), provides the following:
(h) T he court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case fo r further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if the rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced be c ause the administr ative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are:
(1) In violation of

constitutional or st

atutory provisions ; (2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) Made upon unlawful procedure; (4) Arbitrary or ca

pricious or char

acterized by ab

use of discretion

or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion; or (5) Unsupport ed by evidence which is both substantial and material in the light of the entire record.

### -7-

In determining the substantiality of evidence, the co urt shall take into account whatever in the record fairl y detract s from its weight, but the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact

. Although the Trial Judge did not articulate on what ground she found the judgment of the Administrative Hearing Officer was deficient, we conclude from a review of the record that

it was in part the false statement Robert J. Taylor made under oath in a re sistin g arrest warrant for the suspect which stated the following:
[O]n 12/14/97 at 1204 pm, the Defendant was in the parking lot of 4201 Crosby Rd. when officers approached him and advised him he had a warrant for his arrest. The De fendant stated the [sic] he was not going to jail and he began to fight officers vigorously. The De fendant began sl

inging his a

body[sic ] about and grabbed Officer Taylor[’s] handgun while it was still in the holster. The Defendant

was sprayed with Capst

un to subdue his aggr

ession but it

failed. The De f. slung o fficers onto a parked vehicle and the officers and Def. fell onto the pavement causing injury to Def’s face & head and Officer Taylor’s right hand. (Emphasis added.)

The Hearing Officer obviously accepted Officer Taylor’s explanation that his misstatement
was inadvertent and caused by the stress of the situation, including having be en sprayed with

a stun gun. It is interesting to n

ote in this connection that in a Use of Force Report made almost 30 hours after the incident,

Officer Taylor again misstated the fact that he injured his right arm when he and Officer Wells were grappling with the suspect attempting to get him handcuffed.

While we concede that the misstatement on the resisting arrest warrant was perhaps not hi

s final report on the incident and that the encounter was stressful to Officer Taylor, we cannot concede that either separat

ely or combined wo

uldbe suf

ficient for him to admit to causing injury to a prisoner in custody when in fact the injury occurred out of hi s presence, and most probably at the hands of another officer.

We accordingly conclude in light of these false statements that his defense is unsuppo r ted by substantial evidence and the Chancellor acted properly in imposing the penalty she did.

In reaching the foregoing determination we have not overlooked the proof in the record that Officer Taylor and the officer

who most

probably caused the injury to the suspect were not friends and that there was no

reason for Off

icer Taylor to ha

ve made the state

ment to prote

ct t his officer. However that may be, the statement emphasized above was false

and Officer Taylor’s explanation is, in our view, incredible and does not meet the test of substantial evidence.

We also note, in additi

on to the foregoing, th e rec ord discloses another misstatement by Officer Taylor where, in an internal affairs interview on January 12, 1998, he stated the following:

### -8-

Lyon: Okay, backing up just a minute, Rober t, I may have asked you but did, did you see Szczepanowski kick Longmire in the crotch?
Taylor: No, sir, I didn’t see that. When he
Lyon: Okay.
Taylor: When he initially got there, when he pulled up and he starte d to

exit his vehicle andhe was getting out andI started walking up the hill toward the back of Toby Wel ls’ car. Now Toby was at the fro ntend of my car still d own there but, but I

went up the hil l towardthe back of the car and I never saw him strike Longmire or anything. I never

saw him at, strike th

e guy at all.
However, on January 15, in another interview, he first repeated his denial as to the kicking, and then recanted:

Catlett: And you never saw Joh n, Officer Szcz

epanowski,or if I’m pronouncing his name right, kick this prisoner?
Taylor: I never saw him beat this man or kick him or anything.

. . . . Catlett: Robert, is there, is there anything else, I know you’ve had an

oppo rtunity

to think about it since January the 12 th , this bei n g January the 15 th , but have you t hought of anything else that occurred down there or you might’ve seen and that you forgot to tell us about the inc

ident?
Taylor: Yes, sir. I have.

Catlett: Okay, and what is that, sir?
Taylor: And, and I, and I’ve k ind a been searchi

ng myself but initial

ly when, when, when John had p ulled up there at the scene I was standing back there at the back of the car there. I, I, I, I did, I did observe the same thing that Officer Wells did.

Catlett: And what’s that?
Taylor: The, th e kick. The kick to the groin area. And at that point I, I

observed it. When, when I, when

I turned around, when

he got out

### -9- of the car, walked up there, and when I turned around I happened to, to look back, back across there and it, it appeared to be what I, what I appeared to be a, a

kick and, and, and Iwent up there and to, to the back of the c

ar there and, a

nd we came

up to, that’s when Toby came up there and Toby had mentioned to me th at, that he apparently

had seen the same thing and t hat ’s when were [sic] heard this ruckus going on. We went down there. We noticed that the guy had, had these injuries there, but I had, as far as, as far as act, actua lly it, n ow that I get to looki ng at things, that, th

at’s, that’s that’s what I, that’s what it had to be. (Emphasis added.)

With regard to Sergeant Taylor, it appears the prime complaint against him was having blood from the victim washed away rather than preserved. The overwhelming proof is that there was no question the blood was tha t of Mr. Longm ire and that there was no compelling reason that it be preserved. In this connection we concur in thefinding of the Hea ring Officer on t

his point wherein she said the following:

The City speculates that Sergeant Taylor instructed Officer Flores to wash down blood to cover for his son, believing his son might have inflicted Longmire’s head wound. No proof was presented which would support the City’s position except
once again for the testimony of Officer Wells who says Robert lied t o hi s dad. Havin g previously addressed Officer Wells problematic testimony which the hearing officer finds un

reliable, one is

left only with Sergeant Tay

lor’s plausible testimony on this point. Sergeant Taylor testified that he never believed his son ha d infli cted Longmire’s h ead wounds, but tha

t he was simply tryin

g to diffuse
a volatile situation. Other reside nts in the apartment were starting to come out into the parking lot following the strugg le . The wet blood on the pavement constituted a po tential hazard. The sight of his blood was contributing to Longmire’s agitation and upsetting his wife who according to Sergeant Taylor has askedhim to wash do wn the bl ood. Therefore, Sergeant White asked Officer Flores to wash it down belie ving it had no evide

ntiary value si

nce i t was undisputed that it was Longmire’s bloodand his wounds would be documented upon his treatment at the hospital. Further, Sergeant Taylor readily ackn ow ledged that h e instructed Flores

not to discuss the ma

tter. His instructi

ons were not, however, directed as any p art of a c over up or conspir acy, but were giv

en to
ca ution officer Flores from informally talking with the bystanders who wer e gathering at the scene.

We accordingly reverse the judgment of the Trial Court as to the p enalty met ed out to Sergeant Taylor and affirm the judgment of the Administrative Hearing Officer.

Before concluding, we do recognize that sometime

after the incide

nt Officer Taylo

r, as well as his father, were instrumental in seeing the investigation and ultimate punishment went forward

### -10-

as to the officer who in fact had injuredMr. Longmire. While we commend both for this, we do not believe this fact should alter our determination as to the misstatements made by Officer Taylor.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Trial Court is reversed in part andaffirmed in part and the cause remanded for such f urther proceedi ngs, if any, as may be necessary. Costs of appeal are adjudged one-half against Officer Taylor and one-half a gainst the City of Knoxville.

_________________________________________ HOUSTON M. GODDARD, PRESIDING JUDGE