### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE ATJAC KSON O ct obe r 28, 200 9 S es sio n
WILLIAMMITC HELL

v. MADISO N C OUN TY SHERIFF 'S D EP ARTME NT and THE MADISO N COU NTYCIV IL SER

VIC E C OMM ISSIONFO R MAD ISONCO UN TY SHE RIFF'S DEPARTMENT

A p p ea l f

ro m th e C h a n ce ry C o u rt fo r M a d ison C o u n ty N o. 64109 A l l en W
. W al l ace, Judge

N o. W 2009- 00099- C O A

- R 3- C V - F i l ed M arch 31, 2010

T hi s appea l i nvol ves t he t er m i nat i on of a s her i ff’ s depart m ent empl oy ee. T he empl oy ee w as t er m i nat ed and a ppeal ed t he t er m i nati o n to the countyci vi l s er vi ce c om m i s s i on. T he t er m i nat i on w as uphel d byt he comm i s s i on, bas ed s ol el yon expertt es t i m ony
. T he empl oy ee t hen soughtj udi ci al r evi ew
. T he mot i on fors um m aryj udgm entfi l ed byt he empl oy er s her i ff’ s depart m entw as gr ant ed, and the empl oy ee’ s pet i t i on w as di s m i s s ed. T he empl oy ee n o w a p p e a ls. W e f

in d th a t th e e x p e r t te s tim o n yo n w h ich th e c o m m iss io n re lied is i ncongruentw i t h t he undi s put ed fa ct s i n t he r ecor d. T her efor e, w e conc l ude thatt he
co m m issi o n ’s de cisi o n is n o t su p p o rt ed b y su b stan ti al a n d m aterial ev iden ce an d is arbit rary and ca pr i ci ous
. W e r ever s e t he gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof t he empl oy erand
re m a n d f o r e n tr yo f

ju d g m e n t in f

a v o r o f th e e m p lo y e e
.
T enn. R
. A pp. P
. 3 A ppeal as of R i ght ; Judgm ent of

t he C hancery C ourt R ever s ed and R em anded

H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f th e Cou r t , i n whi ch A L AN E. H I GHERS , P .J ., W

. S

. , and J. S TEV EN S TAFF ORD , J

. , j oi ned.

B a rc lay M . R o b e rts, M e m p h is, T e n n e ss e e , fo r th e a p p e llan t, W ill iam M itch e ll

B r a n d o n O

. G i b s o n , J a c k s o n , T e n n e s s e e , f o rt h e a p p e l l e e s , M a d i s o n C o u n t y S h e r i f f 's D e p a rtm e n t an d T h e M a d iso n C o u n tyC iv il S e rv ice C o m m iss io n f o r M a d iso n C o u n ty Sher i ff' s D epart m entThe postmark date on the p hotoco py of the postcard contain ed in the record is illeg ible. H owe v er, in the 1 petition for judicial rev iew, Mitchell states th at the postmark is d ated in

the last w eek

of June 2005

. The postcard read s: 2

D avid

and Iare h avin gagre at

ti m e. L as t year our tr ip to S eatt le w as g oo d but thi s is aw es ome. H e to ld

m e he w as d iv or ci ngy ou L as t y ear, b ut

h e di dn ’t

. N owh e say s he is ag ai n. I r e a l l y L o v e h i m an d a l l h e d o e s f o r m e
. M ay

b e th i s w i l l h e l p y o um ak e up h is
mind.
So rry itha s to be th i s way.

L i s aBa l d e rr ama

-2-

OP I NI ON

F AC T S AN D P ROCEEDI NGS B E L OW
A ft ers er vi ng as a pol i ce of fi ceri n D al l as , T exas and M emphi s , T ennes s ee, Pet i t i oner/A ppel l antW i l l i am M i t chel l ( “M it ch ell ”) joine d the R esp o n d ent/A ppel l ee M adi s on C ount ySher i ff’ s D epa rtme nt( “Sher i ff’ s D epart m ent ”) i n 1985. M i t chel l r ece i ved numer ous pr om ot i ons overhi s near l y t w enty - y ear car eer w i t h t he S her i ff’ s D epart m ent

. A tt he t i m e of his t erm i nati on , M i t chell w as an A ssi st ant C hief, ser ving as the D i rect or of Jai l O perat i on s, a n d w a s f

o u rth in c o m m a n d o f

th e S h e rif

f ’s D e p a r tm e n t, se rv in g u n d e r M a d iso n C o u n ty S h eriff D av id L

. W o o lfo rk (“ S h eriff W o o lfo rk” ).

In Ju n e 2 0 0 5 , S h e rif

f W o o lf o rk a tten d e d th e N a tio n a l S h e rif f ’s A ss o c iatio n c o n f

e re n c e in L o u isvil le, K e n tu c k y . A lso a tt en d ing the c o n fe ren ce w ere A ssist an t C h ief D an P arr ( “A s s i s t antC hi ef Parr ” or“Par r ”) , Ser geantL i s a B al derr ama ( “Ser geantB al derr ama ” or “B al derr ama”) , Ser geant A nnet t e M ar t i n ( “Ser geantM ar t i n”) , C hi ef Tom m yC unni ngham ( “C hi ef Cunni ngham”) , and C hi ef Cunni ngham’s w i fe.

W h e n Sh e r i f

f W o o l f o r k r e tu r n e d h o me f

r o m th e Lo u i s v i l l e , Ken tu c k y c o n f e r e n c e on J une 29, 2005, he r etr i eved t he m ai l at hi s hous e and di s cover ed a pos t car d addr es s ed t o hi s w i fe. T he pos t car d w as pos t m ar ked i n t he l as tw eek of J une 2005 i n L oui s vi l l e, K entuckyand w as

1 purpor t edl yfr om Ser geantB al derr ama. T he handw r i t t en not e on t he pos t car d i ns i nuat ed that Ser geantB al derr ama had t r avel ed t o K entuckyw i t h Sher i ff W ool for k as par t of an ongoi ng ex tr am arit al af

fa ir

. 2Pr e s umabl y, Ro be rt s onas kedto se e handwr i t i ng e xe mpl ar s o f e mp l oye e s who att e nd e d the K e ntuc ky 3 conferen ce b ecause the postcard w as mailed fro m

Kentuck y duringthe c on f

erence, and

asked to see hand wri ti nge xe m

pl ar s fr om

e m pl oy ee s w ith ac ce ss to p er so nn elf il es b ec au se th ey would

h av e ac ce ss to Sh e r i f f Wo ol f ork’s ho me ad dr e s s an d s ampl e s of Se r geantBa l de rr ama’ s handwr i t i ng. Altho ugh Chie f Cunningham and Chie f Cunningham ’s wife attended the conferen ce in Kentuck y , A ssistant 4 Chie f Parr did not fax sam ples o f their hand

writingto Rob ertson. -3- A l ar m ed byt he pos t car d, Sher i ff W ool for k i m m edi at el ys how ed i tt o Ser geantB al derr ama, w ho t ol d Sher i ff W ool for k t hatt he handw r i t i ng on t he pos t car d w as nother s
. Sher i ff W o o lfo rk c o n tacted A ssist an t C h ief P arr. S h eriff W o o lfo rk a n d A s s is ta n t C h ief P arr co m p are d the s ign ature o n the p o stcard w ith a spe cim en o f S erg ea n t B alde rram a’s sign ature and obs er ved t hat t he si gnatur es l ooked si m i l ar
. Sher i ff W ool for k, how ever , di d notbel i eve t hatSer geantB al derr ama had anym ot i ve t o s end s uch a not e.
A s s i s t antC hi ef Parrt hen off er ed t o cont acta que s t i oned documentexami neri n C ant on, O h io , w ith w h o m h e w a s a c q u a in ted , M ich a e l R o b e rtso n (“ R o b e r ts o n ” ) , to a sk h im to ex am ine th e h an d w ritin g o n the p o stcard

. P ri o r t o joining the M ad ison C o u n tyS h eriff ’s D epart m ent, A ssi st ant C hief P arr had ow ned and op erat ed a securi t ygu ard providerbu si ness i n O hi o. R ober t s on opera t es hi s ow n pr i vat e i nves t i gat i on bus i nes s i n C ant on, O hi o. A ssist an t C h ief P arr m et R o b ertson in th e co u rse o f o p era ti n g h is O h io se cu ri tyg u ard bus i nes s and had mai nt ai ned cont actw i t h hi m
. Sher i ff W o ol for k agr eed w i t h A s s i s t antC hi ef Par r ’ s s ugges t i on and t ol d hi m t o cont actR ober t s on.
A s di r ect ed, A s s i s t antC hi ef Parrcont act ed R o b erts on. R ober t s on agr eed t o exami ne the pos t car d

. O n Ju ly 2 , 2005, A s s i s t antC hi ef Parrfaxe d copi es of t he pos t car d, as w el l as exempl ar s of Ser geantB al derr ama’ s handw r i t i ng, t o R ober t s on. A ft erexami ni ng t hes e, R ober t s on t ol d A s s i s t antC hi ef Par r t hat , i n hi s opi ni on, t he handw r i t i ng on t he pos t car d w as notdone bySer geantB al derr ama.
R o b ertson then ag ree d to ex am ine e x em p la rs o f th e h an d w ri ti n g o f o ther S h eriff ’s D epart m entempl oy ees t o det er m i ne w hetheranyo f them m ayhave w r i t t en the pos t car d. R o ber t s on as ked A s s i s t antC hi ef Parrt o pr ovi de hi m w i t h handw r i t i ng s ampl es fr om em p loy ee s w h o eit h er a tt en d ed the c o n fe ren ce in K en tuck yo r ha d ac c ess to the S h eriff ’s D epart m entper s onnel fi l es
. A s pert he r eques t , on J ul y4, 2005, A s s i s t antC hi ef Parrfaxe d 3 R ober t s on handw r i t i ng s peci m ens fr om t he fol l ow i ng per sons: Ser geantM ar t i n, w ho had at t ended t he confe r ence i n K entucky ; A m y C r ow der , a for m er Sher i ff’ s D ep artment em p loy ee an d a k n o w n asso ciate o f S e rg e an t B alde rram a; Jo n B roc , a f o rm er S h eriff ’s D epart m ent empl oy ee w ho had been t er m i nat ed; M i t chel l , and Parrhi m s el f, bot h of w hom had had access atsom e po i nt t o S heri ff’s D epart m ent per sonn el fi l es. 4Assistant C hief P arr had family liv ingin Ohio

. 5
The record

contains an undated

signed statem ent b y

Se rg eant Murphy

statingon ly

that she receiv ed th e 6 postcard on June 28 , 2 005. The statem ent d oes not indicate why Serg eant Murphy

reported it or whether she ha d be co m e aw ar e of

the f ir st p os tc ar d. S erg eant

Murp hy ’s s tate m ent d oe s no t a dd re ss whe th er

s he wro te the p ostcard.
L ike th e fi rs t po st card , the po stm ark dat e on th e ph ot oc op y

o f th e se co nd

p os tc ar d co nt ai ne d inth e re co rd 7 is illeg ible. In the petition for j udicial rev iew, Mitchell states that both postcard s are postmarked in the last week in June 2005

. -4- T he nextday , on J ul y5, 2005, aft err evi ew ing the spec i m ens pr ovi ded vi a fa cs i m i l e, R ober t s on t ent at i vel yi dent i fi ed M i t chel l as t he per s on w hos e handw r i t i ng w as on t he p o stc a rd . T o v e rif

yth is te n tativ e id e n tific a tio n , R o b e rtso n a sk e d A ss ista n t C h ief P a rr to pr ovi de hi m w i t h or i gi nal document s cont ai ni ng M i t chel l ’ s handw r i t i ng. C ons equent l y , on Ju ly7 , 2 0 0 5 , A ss ista n t C h ief P a rr d r o v e to O h io to d e liv e r th e p o stc a rd a n d d o c u m e n ts to R ober t s on. R ober t s on phot ogr aphed them and ga ve t hem bac k t o A s s i s t antC hi ef Parr , w ho return ed to T en n esse e thre e d ay s lat er. 5

O n J ul y13, 2005, Sher i ff W ool fork t ol d A s s i s t antC hi ef Parrt hathe had l earned t hat Ser geantN ei na M urphy( “Ser geantM urphy ”) r ece i ved a s i m i l arpos t car d on J une 28, 2005. 6 L i ke the fi r s t pos t car d, t he s econd pos t car d w as pos t m ar ked i n t he l as tw eek of J une 2005 7 i n L oui s vi l l e, K entuckyand w as purpor t edl y fr om Ser geantB al derr ama. I tr ead: “W i s h y ou w er e her e! M ym an and I ar e par t y i ng dow n! t hi s pl ace i s ni ce! ” A s s i s t ant C hi ef Par rfaxe d a copyof t he s econd pos t car d t o R ober t s on and mai l ed the or i gi nal t o hi m
. T he r ecor d does not r efl ect anys t eps t hatw er e t aken i n t he i nt ernal i nves t i gat i on bey ond havi ng R ober t s on exam i ne the po st cards and sel ect ed h and w ri t i ng exem plar s.
A fter ex am ining the p h o tog rap h s o f the o ri g inal d o cu m en ts d eli v ere d b y A ssist an t C h ief P arr a s w e ll as th e se c o n d p o stc a rd , R o b e rtso n w ro te a p re lim in a ryre p o rt c o n cl ud in g th a t M itch e ll
w r ot e both pos t car ds

. O n J ul y 19, 2005, A s s i s t ant C hi ef Par r r ece i ved R ober t s on’ s w r i t t en re p o rt , a n d f

o rw a rd e d th e re p o rt to C h ie f C u n n in g h a m
. A ft err ece i vi ng R obert s on ’s rep o rto n the p o stcard s, C h ief C u n n ing h am appar ent l yconcl uded th a t n o f u rth e r i n v e stig a tio n w a s n e c e ss a ry
. A t th a t p o in t, h e d e liv e re d a n d re a d to M itch e ll
a S tate m e n t o f

C h a rg e s (“ S tate m e n t”) , n o tify in g M itch e ll th a t h e w a s b e in g c h a rg e d w ith vi ol at i ng t he Sher i ff’ s D epart m entO per at i ng Pr ocedur es
. T he s t at ement s ai d:

N ot i ce i s her ebygi ven tha t y o u ar e cha r ged w i t h vi ol at i on( s ) of pol i cyas s h o wn b e l o w:M i t c h e l l a p p ar e nt l y r e c o r d e d

th e e nt i r e c o nve r s at i o nwh e nC h i e f C unn i n gh am r e a d

th e St at e me ntt o h i m; 8 h o w e ve r th e r e c o r d

d o e s n o tc o nt a i natr an s c r i p to f th e r e c o r d i n g. T h e r e c o r d o n l y c o nt a i n s ani nt e rn a l memo of the Sh eriff’s D epartm ent rec ountin gthe exchang e. -5- M ad i son C ou n ty S h eri ff’s D ep t. O p erati n g P roced u res: S ect i on II I, G eneral R ules and R egu l at i on s: C

. Pr ofes s i onal C onductand R es pons i bi l i t i es 1. St andar d of C onduct : M ember s s hal l notengage in anyconduct
w h i c h c o n s t i tu t e s c o n d u c tu n b e c o m i n g a n o f f i c e ro rn e g l e c to f

d u t y. 2. L oy al t y : M ember s s hal l m aintain a l oy al t yt o t he D epart m entand t hei ras s oci at es as i s cons i s t entw i t h t he l aw and D epart m ent al rul es and regul at i on s. 11. C r i t i ci s m : M ember s s hal l notpubl i cl ycr i t i cize orr i di cul e the depart m ent , i t s pol i ci es orot herempl o y ee s byt al ki ng, w r i t i ng, or expr es s i ng i n anyot herm annerw her e s uch t al ki ng, w r it ing , orot her expr es s i on t ends t o i m pai roper at i on of t he D epart m entbyi nt er fer i ng w ith its e f

f icie n c y ; i n ter f

e rin g w ith th e a b ili tyo f su p e rv iso rs to
m ai nt ai n di s ci pl i ne: orhavi ng b een m ade w i t h r eckl es s di s r egar d for t ru t h o rf a l s i t y.
D at e of c om pl ai nt : J ul y20, 2005

T he fi ndi ng of t he above i nves t i gat i on i ndi cat es t hat y ou w r ot e a pos tcar d t hat
w as ad d resse d t o and mai l ed t o t he home of [Sher i ff W ool for k’ s w i fe] and anot herpos tcar d t hat w as addr es s ed t o and mai l ed t o t he home of Sgt

. N ei na M urphy , forgi ng t he si gn ature of S gt. L i sa B al derr am a on bo t h cards.

T he St at ement al s o advi s ed M i t chel l t hathe had a r i ghtt o a hea r i ng, to b e assi s t ed by
c o u n s e l , t o h a v e a p e r s o n o f h i s c h o o s i n g a s a wi t n e s s , a n d t o p r e s e n te v i d e n c e o n h i s o wn b e h a lf

. M it ch el l had bee n unaw ar e of e i t hert he pos t car ds ort he i nves t i gat i on unt i l C hi ef C unni ngham re ad the S t at ement t o hi m
. M i t chel l vehement l y deni ed t he al l egat i ons i n t he S tate m e n t an d re p e a ted lyo f f e re d to tak e a p o ly g ra p h tes t to p ro v e h is in n o c e n c e . H e to ld C hi ef Cunni ngham t o “gett he pol y gr aph r eady ” and thathe “w oul dn’ tt ake a pol y gr aph for
a n y th in g b u t, so m ethin g li k e this. ” C h ief C u n n ing h am sim p lyac k n o w ledg ed M it ch ell ’s 8
r eques tt o t ake a pol y gr aph and a dvi s ed M i t chel l t hat he w as s us pended w i t houtpaypendi ng t he out come of t he i nt ernal i nves t i gat i on. M i t chel l w as gi ven no fur t her i nfor m at i on on t he under l y i ng fac t s oral l egat i ons ; he w as nots how n t he pos t car ds and w as noti nfor m ed t hat t he Sher i ff’ s D epart m enthad cons ul t ed w i t h a ques t i oned d ocument exami ner
. A tt heMitchell’s pe rsonne l file ap parentlyc on tained one com plaint made in 19 73 by

a m otorist who did n ot 9 apprec iate Mitchell’s ton e of v oice when he iss ued a traffic citation. Mitch ell’s pers onne l file also inclu ded appro xim ately twenty com m endatio ns. Fifteen y ears prior to the po st- termination hearing , Mitch ell receiv ed a de m otion for reas ons not c lear in the rec ord.
-6- concl us i on of hi s m eet i ng w i t h C hi ef C unni ngham, M i t chel l ’ s des k w as empt i ed and he w as esc o rt ed to h is car.

M i t chel l ’ s pr e- t er m i nat i on L ou derm ill h e a ri n g w a s h e ld o n J u ly 2 7 , 2 0 0 5

. Se e Cle v e land B d . o f E d u c . v. L o u de rm ill , 47 0 U

. S

. 53 2 ( 19 85 ). P res ent at t he heari ng w e re M itch e ll, Ch i e f Cu n n i n g h a m, M i t c h e l l ’ s a t t o r n e y , a n d t h e a t t o r n e y f o r t h e S h e r i f

f ’ s De p a r t me n t

. At t h e h e a r i n g , M i t c h e l l wa s a g a i n r e a d t h e c h a r g e s i n t he S t a t e me n t ; h e a g a i n d e n i e d t h e m. D ur i ng t he hear i ng, for t he fi r s tt i m e, t he Sher i ff’ s D epart m entpr ovi ded M i t chel l copi es of bo t h p ost cards. M i t chell w as not i nfo rm ed o f any otherevidence sup po rt i ng t he ch arges, i ncl udi ng R ober t s on ’s re p o rti dent i fy i ng hi m as t he per s on w hos e handw r i t i ng w as on t he pos t car ds

. R evi ew i ng t he pos t car ds , M i t chel l s t at ed thathe had n ev er been t o L oui s vi l l e, K entuckyand had no f

ami l yorfr i ends i n L oui s vi l l e. M i t chel l r epea t ed h is o ff er to t ake a p o ly g ra p h tes t.

T h e n ex t day , M it ch ell ’s att o rne ysen t th e S h eriff ’s D ep artm en t a let ter ex p ressing co n ce rn that t he L o u de rm ill

he a r i ng di d n ots a t i s fydu e pr oc e s s orba s i c no t i on s of fai rness
. M i t chel l ’ s at t or neynot ed thatM i t chel l w as neverques t i on ed dur i ng t he i nves t i gat i on and t hat he w as s how n t he pos t car ds fort he fi r s tt i m e att he L o u de rm ill hear i ng. T he att or ney r ecomm ended thata handw r i t i ng expertbe r et ai ned t o r evi ew exempl ar s and t o expr es s an opi ni on on w hethert he handw r i t i ng on t he pos t car ds w as M i t chel l ’ s handw r i t i ng.
A ft er M i t chell ’s L o u de rm ill h ea ri n g , C h ief C u n n ing h am rec o m m en d ed to S h eriff W o o lfo rk t hatM i t chel l be t er m i nat ed. A ft er r evi ew i ng M i t chel l ’ s per s onnel fi l e and the i nves t i gat i on 9
r e p o r t , S h e r i f

f W o o l f o r k c o n c u r r e d i n C h i e f C u n n i n g h a m ’ s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n
. A c c o r d i n g l y, o n A u g u st 1 , 2 0 0 5 , S h e rif f W o o lf o rk se n t M itch e ll a le tter b yc e rtifie d m a il i n f o rm in g h im t h a th i s e m p l o ym e n tw i t h t h e S h e r i f f ’ s D e p a r t m e n tw a s t e r m i n a t e d e f f e c t i v e i m m e d i a t e l y. T he l et t eradvi s ed M i t chel l t hathe had the ri ghtt o appea l t he t er m i nat i on t o t he R e sp o n d e n t/A p p e llee T h e M a d iso n C o u n tyC iv il S e rv ice C o m m iss io n f o r M a d iso n C o u n ty S h e rif f ’s D e p a rtm e n t (“ C o m m iss io n ” ). M itch e ll file d h is a p p e a l.

I n pr epar ati o n fo r t he pos t

- t er m i nat i on hear i ng befor e the C om m i s s i on, M i t chel l hi r ed a forensi c do cum ent exam in er, T ho m as V ast ri ck (“V ast ri ck”), t o revi ew t he p ost cards. M i t chel l al s o s oughtdi s covery , arg u ing t hathi s appea l pr ocee di ngs w er e governed byt he cont es t edc a s e p r o v i s i o n s o f th e Uni for m A dm i ni s t r at i ve Pr ocedur es A ct( “U A PA ”) , and thusM i t c he l l asserted that Tennessee Cod e Annotate d § 27

- 9- 114(a)(1) called for the ap plication of the 10 conteste d ca se p rov isions of the UAP A. S ection 27- 9- 114(a)(1) pro v ides a s follow s:
Contested case hearing s by civ il serv ice board s of a county or m unicipa lity whic h affect the em pl oy m ent s tatu s of a ci v ils erv ic e em pl oy ee s ha llb e co nd

uc te d inc on fo rmity

w ith co nt es te d ca se pr oc ed

ur es un de r th e Uni fo rm

A dmin is tr at iv e P ro ce dure s A ct , c om pi le d in title 4, cha

pter 5 , p art 3.
T.C

. A

. § 2 7- 9- 11 4( a) (1 ) (2 00 0)

. Und er th e co nt es te d ca se p ro v is ion s of the UA P A , a s pr ovid ed f or in Tennessee Cod e Annotated § 4- 5- 311(a), Mitche ll claim ed th at the Com mission was em

pow ered to “issu e su bp oe na s, e ff

ec t dis co v er

y , and is sue p ro te ct iv e or de rs , in a cc or danc e w ith th e Tenne ss ee R ul es o f C iv il Pr oc e dur e ” atth e re qu e s tof a p arty. The She riff’s D epartm ent argued that section 27- 9- 114(a)(1) was not applicab le as the C om mission was 11 not a “civ il serv ice bo ard ‘o f a county .’ ” Instead, the Sheriff’s Dep artm ent argued, the prov is i ons of the Priv ate A ct that created the C om mission applied

. The Priv ate A ct pro v ides a s follow s:
In any inve stig ation condu cted by the Co m mission, the Com

mission shall h av e the pow er t o s ub po e naan d re qu i r e the att e nd anc e of wi tne s s e s andth e pr oduc t i onby th e m of bo oks and papers pertinent to the inv estig ation and to administer o aths to suc h w itnesses.
Cha pter 5 4, Priv ate A cts of 1983 , S ection 9.
-7- t hat he s houl d be per m i t t ed t o conduct di s covery i n acc or dance w i t h t he T ennes s ee R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. 10

Pur s uantt o t hi s ar gum ent , M i t chel l fi l ed a m ot i on t o depos e Sher i ff W ool for k, and al s o s ent t he S heri ff’s D epart m ent a r eq u e st f o r pr od ucti on of n um erous do cum ents

. H i s r equ est inclu d ed the C o u n ty ’s inv esti g ati v e fil e; the fa ctua l b asis o f t h e all eg ati o n s; the S h eriff ’s D epart m ent pol i ci es ; D epart m ent fi l es per t ai ni ng t o M i t chel l , C hi ef Cunni ngham, Ser geant M urphy , and Ser geantB al derr ama; r ecor ds r efl ect i ng t he w her eabout s and act ivi t i es of Sher i ff W ool for k, C hi ef Cunni ng ham, Ser geantB al derr ama, and M i t chel l fort he mont hs of Ju n e a n d J u l y2 0 0 5 ; c e l l p h o n e r e c o r d s p e r t a i n i n g t o Sh e r i f f W o o l f o r k , Se r geant B al derr ama, C hi ef Cunni ngham and M i t chel l fort he m ont hs of J une and J ul yof 2005; and
r ecor ds r efl ect i ng tr avel expendi tur es byShe ri ff W ool for k, C hi ef Cunni ngham, Ser geant B al derr ama, and Ser geantM urphyi n J une and J ul yof 2005.

T he Sher i ff’ s D epart m entas s er t ed t hat M i t chel l ’ s appea l pr ocee di ngs w er e governed byt he pr ovi s i ons of t he Pr i vat e A ct es t abl i s hi ng t he C om m i s s i on, w hi ch l i m i t ed di s covery , r ather t han the cont es t ed ca s e provi s i ons of t he U A PA

. C ons equent l y , t he Sher i ff’ s D epart m ent 11 oppos ed the mot i on t o depos e Sher i ff W ool for k and r efus ed t o pr oduce the r eques t ed do cum ents

.Mitchell’s O pen Reco rds Act request inadv ertently cited Tennessee Cod e Annotate d § 50

- 7- 501, et seq

. , 12 whic h is part of the Tennesse e E m ploym ent S ecurity

Law, instea d o f Tennessee C ode Ann otated § 1 0- 7- 501, et seq

. , p ertainingto public records.
A sked a bo ut th e fa ct th at Mi tc he llw as n ot

inte rv ie w ed in th e co ur se o f th e inv es ti g at io n, S he ri ff Wo ol fo rk 13 respon ded that a “person

is n ot co m

pelled to be a witnes s ag ainst them selv es.” This was puz z ling , s ince th e constitutio nal Fifth Am endment right ag ainst self- incrimination does not, of course, app ly to em ploym ent disciplinary

pro ceeding s, and wou ld no t hav e pre v e nt e d S h eriff Woolfo rk

or Assistant C hief P arr from asking M i t c he l l ab outth e po s t c ar ds , e venif Mi t c he l l ha d r e f

us e d t o t a l k.
-8- M itch e ll th e n re q u e ste d th e sa m e d o c u m e n ts p u rsu a n t to th e T e n n e ss e e O p e n R e c o rd s A c t. 12 T he S her i ff’ s D epart m ent di d notpr oduce the document s i n r es pons e t o t he O pen R ecor ds A c tr e q u e s t

. M i t c h e l l a l s o f i l e d a m o t i o n w i t h t h e C o m m i s s i o n t o c o m p e l d i s c o v e r y.
I n cons i der i ng M i t chel l ’ s di s coveryr eques t s , t he C om m i s s i on agr eed w i t h t he pos i t i on of t he Sher i ff’ s D epart m entand hel d that M i t chel l ’ s abi l i t yt o conductdi s coveryw as l i m i t ed. C ons equent l y , t he C om m i s s i on found t hati tw as author i zed onl yt o or dert he pr oduct i on of document s , and notaut hor i zed t o compel depos i t i ons
. T he C om m i s s i on or der ed t he S h eriff ’s D ep artm en t t o p rod u ce the C o u n ty ’s i n v esti g ati v e fil e; inf o rm ati o n in the C o u n ty ’s po sses si on rel at i ng t o the fact ual basi s of the al l egati on s; t he S heri ff’s D epartm ent pol i ci es; and document s t he C ount yi nt ended t o i nt r oduce at t he hea r i ng. M i t chel l ’ s ot herdocument
r eques t s w er e r ej ect ed.

T he C om m i s s i on hear i ng on M i t chel l ’ s appea l w as hel d on J une 14, 2006. T he C om m i s s i on h e a r d t e s t i mon yf

r o m Sh e r i f

f W ool for k, A s s i s t antC hi ef Parr , M i t chel l , Ser geantB al derr ama, S erg e a n t M u rph y , an d the e x p ert w itn esse s, R o b ertson an d V astri ck

. S ev en ex h ibit s w ere e n ter e d in to e v id e n c e , inc lu d in g b o th p o stc a rd s, th e in ter n a l in v e stig a tio n re p o rt, ap p a re n tly in c lu d in g R o b e rtso n ’s r e p o rt, an d V a stric k ’s r e p o rt.
Sher i ff W ool for k t es t i fi ed att he out s et o f t he C om m i s s i on pr ocee di ngs
. H e s ai d t hathe found t he fi r s tpos t car d i n hi s m ai l box athis h o m e as soon as he r etur ned fr om t he
co n fe ren ce in L o u isvil le, K en tu c k y , an d that h e g av e the p o stcard to A ssist an t C h ief P arr. A ft erdoi ng s o, Sher i ff W ool for k s ai d, he had “no di r ect i nvol vement ” i n t he i nves t i gat i on bey o n d “ s o me mi n o rc o n v e r s a t i o n s ” wi t h Rob e r t s o n a f t e rAs s i s t a n tChi e f

Pa r rc o n t a ct ed R o b e rtso n . S h e rif

f W o o lf o rk c o n c e d e d th a t th e in v e stig a tio n in to th e p o stc a rd s w a s “ a lit tle d if f e re n t th a n th e n o rm a l in v e stig a tio n ” b e c a u se h e w a s th e c o m p lain a n t. H e sta ted th a t, 13
or di nar i l y , L i eut enan tB l ackw el l conduct ed s uch i nt ernal i nves t i gat i ons
. I n t hi s cas e, h o w ever , Sher i ff W ool for k deci ded t o as s i gn t he i nves t i gat i on t o A s s i s t antC hi ef Par r beca us e Parrknew expertR ober t s on.-9-

S h e r i f f Wo o l f o r k t e s t i f i e d t h a t i t wa s h i s d e c i s i o n t o t e r mi n a t e M i t c h e l l ’ s e mp l o y me n t

. He
s ai d t hatR ober t s on’ s r epor t , i n w hi ch he concl uded t hat t he handw r i t i ng on t he pos t car ds w as M it ch ell ’s ha n d w ri ti n g , w as the “m ajor p art” o f the d ec isi o n to term inate. S h eriff W o o lfo rk
s ai d t h at he di d nothave “ anyi dea” w hatM i t chel l ’ s m ot i ve w oul d be fors endi ng t he pos t car ds

. Sher i ff W ool for k conce ded thathe di d notat t end M i t chel l ’ s pr e-term inat i on L o u de rm ill

hear i ng.
O n cr os s - exami nat i on, M i t chel l ’ s at t or neybegan ask ing Sher i ff W ool for k w hetherhe had t r avel ed t o ot herconfe r ence s w it h S erg eantB al derr ama, w hyhe w oul d choos e t o have a low er-leve l em p loy ee su ch as S erg ea n t B alde rram a a tte n d a c o n fe ren ce instead o f a m o re hi ghl y - r anked e m pl oy ee, and otherques t i ons appar ent l ydes i gned to d eterm i ne w het her Sher i ff W ool for k had i n fac tbeen i nvol ved i n an i nappr opr i at e r el at i ons hi p w i t h Ser geant B al derr ama. T he at t or ney for t he Sher i ff’ s D epart m ent i m m edi at el y obj ect ed on r el evanc y gr ounds

. A l t hough M i t chel l ’ s at t or ney expl ai ned t hat the ques t i ons w er e des i gned t o s how t hat empl oy ees ot her t han M i t chel l had r eas on t o s end s uch pos t car ds , the C o m m is s i on s us t ai ned the obj ect i on and w oul d notper m i tt he l i ne of que s t i oni ng. M it ch el l ’ s at t or ney t hen s t at ed fort he recor d t hat , had he be en perm i t t ed t o cont i nue, he coul d have s how n an i nappr opr i at e r el at i ons hi p betw een Sher i ff W ool for k and S er geantB al derr ama. L i kew i s e, M i t chel l ’ s at t or ney s ought t o pl ace i nt o evi dence an audi tbyt he St at e C om pt r ol l erfi ndi ng expr es s l yt hatt he us e of Sher i ff’ s D epart m ent cr edi t car ds and expe ns e ac count s forSer geant B a ld e rra m a to a tten d th e L o u isv ill e , K e n tu c k y c o n f e re n c e h a d b e e n f

o u n d b yth e a u d ito rs to be contr ary t o pol i cy , beca us e s he at t ended t he confe r ence for“per s onal r eas ons ” and ha d no bus i nes s t her e. T he Sher i ff’ s D epart m en t att or neyagai n obj ect ed, and the C om m i s s i on e x c lu d e d th e e v id e n c e , fin d in g th a t itw a s n o t re lev a n t.
A ss ista n t C h ief

P a rr te stif

ied n e x t. H e sa id th a t, e v e n th o u g h L ieu ten a n t B lac k w e ll n o rm a lly
con du ct ed int ernal i nv est i gati on s, S heri ff W oo l fork co ntact ed h i m w hen he recei ved t he fir st pos t car d. A s s i s t antC hi ef Parri m m edi at el ym ent i oned t o Sher i ff W ool for k t hathe knew exper tR ober t s on, and Sher i ff W ool for k t ol d hi m t o cont actR ober t s on and obt ai n an opi ni on fr om hi m on w hether t he handw r i t i ng on t he pos t car d w as by Ser geantB al derr ama. W hen R ober t s on concl uded t hatSer geantB al derr ama di d notw r i t e the pos t card , P arrs ai d, he d iscu ssed the c ir cu m stan ce s su rrou n d ing the f ir st po stcard w ith R o b ertson

. A fter tha t, P arr s ai d, R o b ertson began “l eadi ng t he i nves t i gat i on, ” t el l i ng Par rt o s end hi m handw r i t i ng sam ples from persons w ho had at t end ed the K entucky con ference and persons w i t h acce ss t o per s onnel fi l es
. Par rw as ques t i oned atl ength aboutt he depth of hi s i nves t i gat i on: Q : A l l r i ght

. I t hi nk y ou al s o t es t i fi ed thathe [Rober t s on] s ugges t ed
a n yb o d y . . . tha t m ig h t h a v e h a d a c c e ss to p e rso n n e l f iles ; is th a t rig h t? A

. R ig h t. Q : I n f

a c t , t h e p e r s o n n e l f

i l e s a r e k e p ti n yo u ro f

f i c e , a r e n ’ tt h e y?-10-

A : R ig h t. Q : A n d , in f

a c t, C h ief M itch e ll h a s n o t b e e n a ro u n d th e p e rso n n e l f iles in
w e ll o v e r a y e a r; is th a t rig h t? A : C o rre c t. * * * Q : D i d i teveroccurt o y ou t o go out s i de of M r
. R ober t s on i n i nves t i gat i ng t hes e cha r ges , I m ean, t o l ook to otherfac t or s bes i des s i m pl yt he h a n d w riting e x p e rt? A :
. . . [T]o a ns w ery ourques t i on, no. Q :
. . . [T]he s her i ff ha d m ade some s ugges t i on t hat M r
. R ober t s on w as t he one that

. . . s etoutt he s cope of t he i nvesti g ati o n , buty ourt es t i m ony is th a t y o u w e re in c h a rg e ; is th a t rig h t? A : W el l , I ’ d go w i t h M r
. R ober t s on. I m ean, t hi s j us t hap

- - - unfol ded as i tcame al ong. * * * Q : Y ou neveri nt er vi ew ed C hi ef M i t chel l , di d y ou? A : N o. Q : D id y o u e v e r ch e c k a n y a tten d a n c e re c o rd s to s e e w h e re C h ief M itch e ll
w as i n t he l as tw eek of

J une? A : N o. Q : W o u ld it su rp rise y o u if y o u f o u n d o u t th a t, i n f

a c t, h e w a s a t th e jail
w or ki ng? A : N o. Q : D i d y ou evercons i dert he fa ctt hatC hi ef M i t chel l w oul d have [ had] no o p p o r tu n i t y t o m a i l p o s t c a r d s f r o m L o u i s v i l l e , K e n tu c k y? A : N o . I d id n ’t tak e th a t in to c o n sid e ra tio n w h e th e r he m a iled th e m o r n o t. Q : A nd w h y d id y ou t hi nk t hati tw as s om eone i ns i de the d e p a rtm e n t as o p p o se d to so m e b o d yo u tsid e th e d e p a rtm e n t? A: I j us t wen tb ys o me b o d yt h a tmi g h t , y o u k n o w, h a v e a c c e s s o ri ns i de know l edge. Q : O kay

. W as t hatbeca us e M r. R ober t s on w as t he one thats ugges t ed th a t? A : Y es. Q : D i d y ou evert r yt o t ake a l ook at w hat ki nd of m ot i ve s om ebodym i ght hav e had for sending t hese po st cards? A : N o.
T hus , A s s i s t antC hi ef Parracknow l edged thatR ober t s on, i n O hi o, w as i n eff ectdr i vi ng t he in v e stig a tio n , an d d ire c ted P a rr to f o rw a rd h im h a n d w riting sa m p les f ro m e m p lo y e e s w ith
acc es s t o t he per s onnel fi l es
. M i t chel l ’ s s ampl e w as i ncl uded eve n t hough M i t chel l had notMitchell’s attorn ey did not o bject to the tender of Robertso n as an expert, but rem arked: “Y our Hon or, I 14 th ink th at whe n Ip ut m

y - - o ur e xp ert o n th at

y ou ’l l s ee th at , in

f ac t, Mr

. Rob erts on

is n ot aq ua li fi ed e xp ert on questio ned docum ent ex amination. ”
-11- had ac ces s t o the per s onnel fi l es forovera y ear
. Pr es um abl yPar rdi d notexpand the in v e stig a tio n b e c a u se R o b e rtso n d id n o t tell h im to d o so . P a rr d id n o t in ter v iew M itch e ll, d id n o t ch e c k M itch e ll’s a tten d a n c e re c o rd s, d id n o t co n sid e r w h e th e r M itch e ll w a s a t th e jail
w or ki ng t he day the pos t car ds w er e mai l ed, and di d notcons i derw hetherM i t chel l i n fac t
m ai l ed the pos t car ds

. A s s i s t antC hi ef Parral s o s ai d he never l ooked i nt o m ot i ves s om eone m ayhave ha d fors endi ng s uch pos t car ds

. T hat concl uded t he t es t i m onyof A s s i s t antC hi ef P arr.
A s t he fi nal w i t nes s i n i t s cas e i n chi ef, t he Sher i ff’ s D epart m entcal l ed R ober t s on as an e x p e rt w itn e ss . A t th e o u tse t o f h is tes tim o n y , R o b e rtso n w a s q u e stio n e d a t len g th a b o u t h is qual i fi cat i ons
. R ober t s on des cr i bed hi m s el f as a ques t i oned documentexami nerand a f r aud i nv e s t i ga t or
. H e s a i d tha the w or ke d f ors e ve nt e e n y e a r s a s a Spe c i a l A gen t i n t he U

. S. S ec ret S erv ice a n d rec eive d in-h o u se t raining w ith the S ec ret S erv ice a n d the U

. S

. T rea su ry D e p a rtm e n t. T h e S e c re t S e rv ice in -h o u se tra in in g , h e sa id , w a s a f o u r-w e e k c o u rse . R o b e rts s ai d t hatques t i oned documentexaminat i on encompas s es handw r i t i ng anal y s i s as w el l as e x a m in a tio n o f

“ o th e r a re a s s u c h a s . . . p a p e r f o ld s, sta p le h o le s in p a p e r , . . . w o rk w ith comput erpr oces s i ng and t he l i ke” t o det er m i ne the authent i ci t yof a doc um ent

. A ft erl eavi ng the S ecretS ervi ce, R ob ert son sai d, he co nti nu ed to w ork i n p ri vate pr act i ce fo r near ly ei ght een y ear s
. R ober t s on w as fami l i arw i t h and r el i ed on l eadi ng t extbooks i n t he fi el d of for ens i c documentexami nat i on, but admi t t ed t hat he w as nota mem berof anypr ofes s i onal
o rga n izati o n in th e field. R o b ertson m aintaine d that h e ha d b ee n q u ali fied as a n e x p ert
w i t nes s i n ques t i oned d o cum entexami nat i on on num er ous occa s i ons
. T he C om m i s s i on al l ow ed R ob ert son to t est i fyas an ex pertw i t ness. 14

T her eaf t er , R ober t s on offe r ed hi s opi ni on on t he i dent i t yof t he per s on w hos e handw r i t i ng w as on t he post car ds

. R ober t s on s ai d t hathe fi r s tl ooked ata fa x copyof t he pos t car d and a fax copyof Ser geantB al derr ama’ s s i gnatur e and c oncl uded thatt he pos t car d s i gnatur e w as n o t g e n u in e a n d lo o k e d “ lab o rio u s” o r e v e n tr a c e d . H e th e n a sk e d A ss ista n t C h ief P a rr to sen d h im h an d w ri ti n g sam p les fro m p erso n s w h o w o u ld h av e h ad the in fo rm ati o n n ec essa ry to send t he pos t car ds , namel y , Sher i ff W ool for k’ s hom e addr es s , know l edge thathe and S erg ea n t B alde rram a a tt en d ed the K en tuck yc o n f ere n ce , ac ce ss to S erg ea n t B alde rram a’s
s i gnatur e, and al s o per s o n s w h o at t ended the K entuckyconfe r ence
. A ft err ece i vi ng t he copi es of t he handw r i t i ng exempl ar s fr om Par r , R ober t s on compar ed them t o t he copi es of t he pos t car ds

. R ober t s on fi r s texpl ai ned the l et t er - by

- l et t erm anneri n w hi ch he ha d exami ned the pos t car ds and the know n exempl ar s
. H e obs er ved that ther e w er e many sim il arit ies an d m an yd iffe ren ce s b etw ee n the h an d w ri ti n g o n the p o stcard s an d M it ch ell ’sRob ertson later reda cted th e languag e pe rtainingto “inv estig ativ e factors” from the preliminary

report and 15 in fo rmed th e S he ri ff

’s D ep artm ent that i t w as h is f in alr ep ort. -12- e x e mpl a r s
. Howev e r , b a s e d o n t h e c o n t e n to f t h e p o s t c a r d s , Rob e r t s o n s u r mi s e d t h a tt he per s on w ho w r ot e t he post car ds had an i nt entt o di s gui s e. O n t hatbas i s , R ober t s on s ai d, he att ri b u ted th e d iffe ren ce s b etw ee n the p o stcard s an d M it ch ell ’s ha n d w ri ti n g as th e w ri ter’s at t empt t o di s gui s e: Q :
. . . [ I] t s o u n d e d to m e th a t w h e n y o u w e re p o in tin g o u t s im ila ri tie s , . .

. t he di ffe r ence s y ou w r ot e off as di s gui s e; i s t hat corr ect ? T her e ar e a l o tmo r e d i f

f e r e n c e s t h a n t h e r e a r e s i mi l a r i t i e s i n t h e s e s a mp l e s t h a twe lo o k e d a t? A : Y es. Q : So y ou’ r e w r i t i ng a l otof t hi s off a s bei ng di s gui s e? A : I’m w ri ti n g o ff

– I’m w ri ti n g o ff

q u it e a b ita s d is g u is e , b u t .

. . . I’m
s ay i ng t hateven though t her e w as a l ot of di s gui s e, t hatt her e ar e a l ot of identi fy i ng charact eri st i cs.
R ober t s on’ s opi ni on , to a r eas onabl e degr ee of cert ai nt y , w as t hatt he handw r i t i ng on t he p o stc a rd s in q u e stio n w a s b yM itch e ll.

R ober t s on not ed thathi s r epor tt o A s s i stan tC hi ef Parrw as a “pr el i m i nary ” r epor tt hat
a n ticip a ted d o in g a f

in a l re p o rt th a t w o u ld “ in c lu d e in v e s tig a tiv e f a c to rs th a t su p p o rt th is document exami nat i on opi ni on. ” T he “i nves t i gat i ve fac t or s ” w oul d i ncl ude i nfor m at i on t hat
w as im p o rt an t, su ch as th e d ates o f th e K en tuck yco n fe ren ce an d the like; h o w ev er, R ober t s on w as never fur ni s hed any fur t heri nfor m at i on and cons equent l yneveri s s ued a f i nal
re p o rt

. R o b e rt s o n ’s te s tim o n yc o n c lu d e d th e c a s e in c h ie f b yth e S h e ri f

f ’s D e p a rt m e n t. 15

M i t chel l t hen t es t i fi ed on hi s ow n behal f. A ft err ei t er at i ng t hathe had not hi ng t o do w i t h t he pos t car ds , M i t chel l des cr i bed the eve nt s l eadi ng up t o hi s t er m i nat i on. H e fi r s tl earned of the pos t car ds , he s ai d, w hen C hi ef Cunni ngham came t o hi s offi ce, t ol d hi m he w as s us pended pendi ng an i nves t i gat i on, and r ead the St at ement of C har ges t o hi m
. A tt hatt i m e, he di d not
a c tu a ll y se e th e p o stc a rd s. M itch e ll sa id th a t C h ief C u n n in g h a m w o u ld n o t an sw e r h is ques t i ons , noteven t o fur ni s h t he dat es on w hi ch the pos t car ds w er e s ent ; he s i m pl yempt i ed
o u t M itch e ll’s de sk a n d w a lk e d h im to h is c a r. M itch e ll o f f e re d to tak e a p o ly g ra p h tes t to al l evi at e anys us pi ci on t hathe w as i nvol ved w i t h t he pos t car ds ; how ever , he w as nevergi ven a pol y gr aph. M i t chel l m ai nt ai ned thathe w as neveri nt er vi ew ed dur i ng the co u rse of t he
e n tire in v e stig a tio n . H e w a s n e v e r e v e n sh o w n c o p ies o f th e p o stc a rd s o r g iv e n a n yd e tails abo ut them , he sai d, un t i l his L o u de rm ill pr e- t er m i nat i on hear i ng att he off i ce of t he att or ney f o r th e S h e rif

f ’s D e p a rtm e n t.As to any issue s Mitchell had with Sheriff Woolf or k, M itchell sa id that he could recall o ne o ccasion on 16 whic h h e joking ly

ans wered the telepho ne, “She riff Mitchell,” and he and Sheriff Woolfork had a humorous co nv er sati on

in whi chSh erif

f Wo ol fo rk

lau ghe d an d sa id , “[O ]h , y ou are r unni ngf or s he ri ff ” an d Mit ch el l sa idh e w a s n o t

. Ab o uttw o y e ar s p r i o r t o h i s t e rmi n at i o n , M i t c h e l l s a i d , a f t e r anau d i t , h e s u g g e s t e d

to Sheriff Woolfork

that he c onside r chang es to trav el and credit card policies.
-13- M it ch el l t es t i fi ed that , forabouta y earbefor e hi s t er m i nat i on, he had be en the D i r ect orof J ai l O per at i ons
. A s s uch, hi s offi ce w as i n a s epar at e compl ex fr om Sher i ff W ool for k, and h e sa w S h e rif

f W o o lf o rk o n lyo c c a sio n a lly , w h e n S h e rif f W o o lf o rk c a m e to th e jail. M i t chel l t es t i fi ed:

A :
. . . I [ve] neverbeen t o L oui s vi l l e, K entucky

. I don’ thave a nyfr i ends i n L oui s vi l l e, K entucky

. I don’ thave a nyr el at i ves i n L o ui s vi l l e, K e n tu c k y. T h e re ’s a b so lu telyn o re a so n th a t y o u w o u ld f in d m e in L o u is v ille , K e n tu c k y
. . . . Q :
. . . [Y ] ou di dn’ tat t end the [Loui s vi l l e, K entucky ] confe r ence ? A : I’ ve n ever at t end ed an ycon ferences. Q : W her e w er e y ou t he l as tw eek of J une 2005? A :
. . . I w as w o rkin g at m yassig n m en t atthe c ri m inal justi ce ce n ter. Q : D id y o u k n o w th a t S h e r if f W o o lf o rk w a s a t th e c o n f

e re n c e in L oui s vi l l e? A : N o, s i r
. I ’ d had no w ayof – I ’ d had no w ayof k n o w ing t hat

. I had b ee n [a ]w ayfro m p o st, if y o u w il l, assig n ed to the jai l fo r alm o st a y ea r.
M i t chell m ai ntai ned t hat he had no t hing t o do w i t h either w ri t i ng or m ai l i ng t he p ost cards. 16 O n cr os s - exami nat i on, M i t chel l conce ded thathe di d notm ake a r r angement s t o t ake a nd pay fora pol y gr aph t es thi m s el f, i n or dert o exoner at e hi m s el f.

M i t chel l cal l ed S er geant B al derr ama t o t es t i fy

. Ser geantB al derr ama des cr i bed herpos i t i on w i t h t he Sher i ff’ s D epart m entas a ser geant i n cour ts ecur i t y
. She acknow l edged a t t endi ng t he K entuckyconfe r ence , and s ai d t hat s he di d nots ee M i t chel l w hen s he w as t her e. A s s oon as t heyr etur ned fr om t he conf er ence , s he s ai d, Sher i ff W ool for k s how ed her t he pos t car d and asked h er i f she h ad w ri t t en it

. S he tol d h i m no
. S ergeant B al derr am a sai d thatno on e el se i nterview ed h er abou tt he p ost cards.

M i t chel l ’ s at t or ney s ought t o ques t i on Ser geant B al derr ama about ot her confe r ence s s he had at t ended w i t h Sher i ff W ool for k, i ncl udi ng a confer ence i n Seat t l e r efe r ence d on one of the pos t car ds , and al s o t o ques t i on herover al l aboutherr el at i ons hi p w i t h Sher i ff W ool for k andMitchell’s attorn ey stated for the rec ord that, had he be a l l ow e d t o c ontinue, h e w ould hav e sh own that 17 Se r geantBa l de rr ama att e nd e d aco nf e r e nc e inLa s V e gas wi th S he r i f f Wo ol f ork.
-14- h e r m o tiv a tio n to w rite th e p o stc a rd s. T h e a tto rn e yf o r th e S h e rif

f ’s D e p a rtm e n t ag a in obj ect ed on gr ounds of r el evanc y , and the C om m i s s i on s us t ai ned the obj ect i on. 17

M i t chel l cal l ed Ser geantM urphy , w ho r ece i ved t he s econd pos t car d fr om K entuckyi n t he
m ai l on J une 28, 2005. W hen s he r ece i ved the pos t car d, Ser geantM urphys ai d, s he di d not t el l Sher i ff W ool for k abouti t , buti ns t ead t ol d Ser geantM ar t i n. Ser geantM urphyw as as ked
a b o u t o th e r e v e n ts o n th e sa m e d a ysh e re c e iv e d th e p o stc a rd : Q : A nd t hat ’ s t he day [J une 28, 2005] t hatul t i m at el yC hi ef M i t chel l t r i ed to d isc ip lin e y o u f

o r d isa p p e a rin g o f

f th e p re m ise s w ith o u t tellin g h im
a n d n o t su b m itt in g to a d ru g tes t a n d n o t c o n f e ss in g to a n a c c id e n t; i s th a t co rre c t? A : I d o n ’t re c a ll. * * * A : I do r emem ber bei ng i n t he ca r– caracc i dent , butt he others t at ement y o u m en ti o n ed , I do n ’trem em b er. Q : D o y o u rem ember t he chi ef [ M i t chel l ] l at eracc us i ng y ou of not– of l e a v i n g wi t h o u tt e l l i n g h i m? A: No tv e rb a t i m. * * * Q :
. . . S o there ’s no co rrelat ion to the fa ct t h at y o u fo u n d this .

. . p o stcard in y o u r p o st o f

f ice b o x th e sa m e d a y a s y o u g o t in so m e tro u b le w ith [M i t chel l ] ? A nd t hat ’ s j us ta coi nci dence ? A : I d o n ’t re c a ll. * * * Q : In f

a c t, .

. . C h ief

M itch e ll’s w ritten y o u u p se v e r a l tim e s in th e p a st, has n’ the? A : Y eah. Q : So y ou di dn’ tm ake a nyphone ca l l s t o t he s her i ff w hen y ou r ecei ved t he – t hi s pos t car d? A : I do r emem berSer geantM ar t i n.
Ser geantM urphyacknow l edged, t hen, t hat on t he day s he s ai d t hats he r ece i ved the pos t car d,
s he w as i n a ca racc i dentand M i t chel l admoni s hed her for l eavi ng w i t hout t el l i ng hi m , and t hatM i t chel l had pr evi ous l y di s ci pl i ned her on s ever al occa s i ons
. She admi t t ed t hatw hen she l earned thatM i t chell had been suspend ed, she l aug hed and shou t ed, “I w on , I w on ” so
m uch thats he w as s enthom e fr om w or k.Expe rtRo be rt s onwa s no tfurni s he d asampl e of Se r geantMur

phy’s handwr i t i ng. 18
The s tate m ent si gne d by S erg eant Murp hy sa id on ly th at sh e re ce iv ed th e po st card on Jun e 28 , 20 05

. It did 19
no t a dd re ss whe th er

s he wro te e ithe r po st card , o r any p os sibl e re as on

why th e po st card

w as s ent t o he r. -15- Ser geant M urphy t es t i fi ed t hats he w as neveras ked t o s ubm i ta handw r i t i ng s ampl e. She 18 onl y s ubm i t t ed a s t at ement t o L i eut enantB l ackw el l

. Ser geantM urphyacknow l edged that 19
s he w as not as k ed t o at t end t he Loui s vi l l e, K entuckyconfe r ence w i t h Sher i ff W ool for k. W hen M i t chel l ’ s at t or ney as ked her about at t endi ng a confer ence i n L as V egas w i t h Sher i ff W o o lf o rk , the C o m m iss io n a g a in p re c lu d e d M itch e ll’s a tto rn e yf ro m in q u irin g a b o u t it

. A s h is f in a l w itn e ss , M itch e ll c a lled f o re n sic d o c u m e n t ex a m in e r T h o m a s V a stric k . In h is t es t i m ony , V as t r i ck demonstr at ed i n det ai l hi s m ethodol ogyand the l et t er - by

- l et t er compar ison he had c onduct ed, compar i ng t he pos t car ds w i t h M i t chel l ’ s handw r i t i ng exempl ar s
. V as t r i ck obs er ved t hatt her e w er e manys i m i l ar i t i es and manydi ffe r ence s b e tw e e n th e tw o , an d f o u n d b o th th e sim ilaritie s a n d th e d if f e r e n c e s to b e sig n if

ica n t. V as t r i ck opi ned, “I cannoti dent i fyM r
. M i t che ll as havi ng w r i t t en the pr i nt i ng on t he p o stcard s, b u t neither c an I eli m inate h im , ” e x p lai n ing that the p o stcard s an d M itc h e ll’s exempl ar s s i m pl ydi d notpr ovi de a ba s i s fori dent i fy i ng or el i m i nat i ng M i t chel l as t he per s on w ho w r ot e th e p o s t c a r d s
. Vas t r i c k s a i d t h a ta p e r s o n ’ s h a n d wr i t i n g c a n b e a f f e c t e d by
e x t e r n a l f

a c t o r s s u c h a s d ru g s o rme n t a l u p s e t

. He c o mm e n t e d t h a tp e r s o n s h a v e b e e n k n o wn to “ tra c e ” th e ir o w n sig n a tu re , w ith th e in ten t to late r d isc laim h a v in g sig n e d th e d o c u m e n t. H e expl ai ned: “The onl y w ay t hat y ou can el i m i nat e s om eone i s y ou have t o be abl e t o s ay

. . . , t her e i s no w ayunderanyci r cumst ance s t he per s on coul d have done t hi s
. . . . W e’ r e not goi ng t o ful l yel i m i nat e peopl e veryoft en. I tveryr ar el yhappens

. ” V as t r i ck w as as ked about R o b ertson ’s op inion , att ri b u ti n g the d iffe ren ce s b etw ee n the h an d w ri ti n g in M itch ell ’s exempl ar s and t he handw r i t i ng on t he pos t car ds t o i nt entt o di s gui s e:
A : I cr i nged w hen I hear d t hat

. F o r one thi ng t her e w as – t her e w as no p h y sical ev iden ce o f d isgu ise.

. . . T h is w as no t a disg u ise. T h ese are differ ences. * * * Y o u cannott el l i nt entof t he w r i t i ng.
. . . W e’ r e l ooki ng atphy s i cal evi dence

. Y ou cannott el l t hati nt entfr om handw r i t i ng.
T he part i es puton no fur t herw i t nes s es , and the C om m i s s i on t ook t he mat t erunder
a d v ise m e n t.
O n J une 21, 2006, t he C om m i s s i on s ent a l et t ert o t he part i es aff i r m i ng t he t er m i nat i on of M i t chel l ’ s empl oy m ent

. I n t he l et t er , t he C om m i s s i on comm ent ed: “C er t ai nl y , t he dec i s i onT he re c or d d oe s no tco nt a i n an ans we r fi l e d b y th e Co un ty. 20
-16- . . . m us tbe det er m i ned byt he t es t i m onyof t he oppos i ng handw r i t i ng expert s
. ” The l et t er t hen sum m ari zed the exp ert s’ t est i m on yas fol l ow s:
M r
. R ober t s on, t he handw r i t i ng expert t es t i fy i ng for Sher i ff W ool for k, s t at ed
u n eq u ivo ca ll y that M r. M it ch ell is, in fa ct, the au tho r of b o th p o stcard s. M r. V as t r i ck, t es t i fy i ng for M r
. M i t chel l , s t at ed thatt her e w er e manys i m i l ar i t i es and m any di ffe r ence s betw een t he handw r i t i ng s ampl e of M r
. M i t chel l and the handw r i t i ng found on bot h pos t car ds

. M r
. V as t r i ck w ento n t o t es t i fyt hat t h e r e w a s s i m p l y n o te n o u g h e v i d e n c e t o m a k e a d e t e r m i n a t i o n e i t h e rw a y.
T he C om m issi o n t hen af fi r m ed the t er m i nat i on of M i t chel l ’ s empl oy m ent“[a ] ft er cons i der at i on of t he pr oof i n t hi s cas e and a r evi ew of t he Sher i ff’ s D epart m entO per at i ng P ro c e d u re s M a n u a l.”

O n A ugus t18, 2006, M i t chel l fi l ed a pet i t i on for w r i t of cert i or ar i , or , i n t he al t ernat i ve, for j udi ci al r evi ew of t he C om m i s s i on’ s deci s i on, i n t he M adi s on C ount yC hance r yC our t( “tr i al
cour t ”)

. T he pet i t i on named as r es pondent s t he Sher i ff’ s D epart m entand the C om m i s s i on ( col l ect i vel y , “C ount y ”)

. I n t he pet i t i on, M i t chel l as s er t ed thatthe C om m i s s i on’ s deci s i on cons t i tuted an abus e of di s cr et i on, w as uns uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al and mat er i al evi dence , and w as arbi t r ary , capr i ci ous , i l l egal , i n exce s s of t he C om m i s s i on’ s author i t y , and m ade on unl aw ful pr ocedur e.
T h e C o u n tythen fil ed a m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t. A fter a h ea ri n g , th e tri al co u rt 20
e n ter e d a n o rd e r g ra n tin g th e C o u n ty ’s m o tio n a n d d ism iss in g M itch e ll’s p e tit io n . M itch e ll
no w app eal s.
I SS UE S ON A PPE AL AN D S T AN DA RD OF R EVIE W
M itch e ll rais e s th e f

o llo w in g iss u e s o n a p p e a l: 1) W hethert he C om m i s s i on’ s deci s i on w as i n vi ol at i on of C ons t i tut i onal and
s t atut or ypr ovi s i ons and/ or w as m ade upon unl aw ful pr ocedur e by hol di ng t hat M itch e ll’s p re -te rm in a tio n h e a rin g w a s a “m e a n in g f u l h e a rin g ” th a t co m p o rts
w i t h hi s C ons t i tut i onal due pr oces s guar ant ees , byfai l i ng t o acti n acc or dance
w i t h t he cont es t ed cas e provi s i ons of t he U A PA or t he di s cl os ur e pr ovi s i ons of t he T ennes s ee O pen R ecor ds A ct , and bycr edi t i ng R ober t s on’ s t es t i m ony a s a h a n d w riting e x p e rt;-17-

2) W hethert he C om m i s s i on’ s deci s i on w as arbit rar y , capr i ci ous , and/ or c h a ra c ter ize d b y a n a b u se o f d isc re tio n , b yig n o rin g sig n if ica n t d e f icie n c ies in th e w a y th a t th e in v e stig a tio n a g a in st M itch e ll w a s c o n d u c ted , b y re f u sin g to con si der evi den ce t hat exon erat es M i tch el l or sugge st s the g uil tof o t hers, and/ orbym i s - char act er i zi ng t he t es t i m onyof t he expe r t s ; and 3) W hethert he C om m i s s i on’s deci s i on w as uns uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al and
m at er i al evi dence byuphol di ng M i t chel l ’ s di s char ge s ol el yon t he bas i s of R o b e r t s o n ’ s t e s t i m o n y.
O n appea l , w e ut i l i ze the s ame st andar d of r evi ew us ed byt he tr i al cour ti n r evi ew i ng t he C o m m is s io n ’s d e c is io n
. S e e P e n ny v . City o f Me mp h is , 2 7 6 S .W .3 d 4 1 0 , 4 1 7 (T e n n . C t. A pp. 2008) ( ci t i ng C

F In d u s. v. T

en n . P u b
. S erv . Co m m ’n , 5 9 9 S

. W

. 2d 536, 540 ( T enn. 1980) )

. U nder T ennes s ee C ode A nnot at ed § 27- 9- 114( b) ( 1) , “[j ] udi ci al r evi ew of dec i s i ons byci vi l s er vi ce boa r ds of a c ount yorm uni ci pal i t yw hi ch aff ect s t he empl oy m ents t atus of a countyorci t yci vi l s er vi ce e m pl oy ee s hal l be i n conform i t yw i t h t he j udi ci al r evi ew s ta n d a rd s u n d e r t h e U n i f o r m A d m in is tr a tiv e P ro c e d u re s A c t, § 4 -5 -3 2 2 .” T .C .A . § 2 7 -9 -1 1 4 (b )(1 ) (2 0 0 0 ); a cc o rd D a vis v . S h elby Co u n ty Sh eriff’s D ep ’t , 278 S. W

. 3d 256, 2 6 2 -6 3 (T e n n . 2 0 0 9 ); Ci t y ofMe mphi

s v . Ci v il Se r v . Com m ’ n. , 216 S. W

. 3d 311, 315 ( T enn. 20 07 ). S ect i on 4-5-322 (h) , i n tur n, st at es:
T he courtm ayaff

i r m t he dec i s i on of t he agency or r emand t he cas e forfur t her pr ocee di ngs
. T he cour t m ay r ever s e orm odi fyt he dec i s i on i f t he r i ght s of t he pet i t i on e rha ve be e n p r e j ud i c e d b e c a us e t he a dmi ni s t r a t i ve fi nd i ng s, i nfer ence s , concl us i ons ordeci s i ons ar e: (1) In vi olat i on of co nst i tuti on al or st atutor yprovis i on s; ( 2 ) I n e x c e s s o f

t h e s t a tu t o r y a u t h o r i t y o f t h e a g e n c y; ( 3) M ade upon unl aw ful pr ocedur e; ( 4) A rbi t r ar yorcapr i ci ous orchar act er i zed byabus e of d iscret i on or cl ear l yunw ar r ant ed exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on; or (5 )(A ) U n su p p o rte d b y e v id e n c e th a t is bo th su b sta n tial a n d m a ter ial in t he l i ghtof t he ent i r e r ecor d.

T .C .A . § 4 -5 -3 2 2 (h ) (2 0 0 5 ); a c c o rdD a v is , 2 7 8 S .W .3 d at 26 2

. T h e statute c au ti o n s: “In det er m i ni ng t he s ubs t ant i al i t yof evi dence , t he court s hal l t ake i nt o acc ount w hat ever i n t he
r ecor d fai r l ydetr act s fr om i t s w ei ght , but t he courts hal l nots ubs t i tut e i t s j udgm entfort hat
o f th e a g e n c ya s to th e w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e o n q u e s tio n s o f f a c t

. ” T

. C

. A . § 4 -5-3 2 2 (h)(5 )(B ) (20 0 5 ).-18- A N A LY S IS
W e cons i derfi r s tw hethert h e C o m m issi on’ s deci s i on i s arbi t r aryand ca pr i ci ous under T ennes s ee Code A nnot at ed § 4- 5- 322( h) ( 4)

. M i t chel l ar gues t hatt he C om m i s s i on’ s dec i s i on i s arbitraryand capri ci ou s for s everal reas on s. F irst, he co ntends t hat hi s L o u de rm ill pr et er m i nat i on hear i ng w as per funct or y and gave hi m l i t t l e i nfor m at i on aboutt he bas i s fort he
c h a rg e s a g a in st h im . H e a lso a rg u e s th a t h e w a s n o t p e rm itt e d b a sic d isc o v e ry n e c e ss a ryto
m ounta def

ens e. A tt he C om m i s s i on hear i ng i t s el f, M i t chel l ar gues , he w as pr ecl uded fr om intr o d u cing ex cu lpato ryev iden ce , fo r ex am p le, ev iden ce p o inti n g to the m o ti v es o f o thers to se n d the p o stcard s in q u esti o n
. M it ch ell q u esti o n s R o b ertson ’s qu ali fica ti o n s as a n ex p ert and ar gues t hatt he C om m i s s i on s houl d not have cons i der ed hi s t es t i m ony
. H e m ai nt ai ns t hat th e in v e stig a tio n o n w h ich th e c h a rg e s w e re b a se d w a s f a tallyd e f

icie n t. F in a ll y, M itch e ll cont ends t hatt he C om m i s s i on fai l ed t o cons i dert he exc ul pat or yevi dence he w as per m i t t ed t o i nt r oduce, i ncl udi ng hi s ow n l ack of acc es s t o t he p erso n n el fi l es and the mot i vat i on of other s such as S ergeant B al derr am a or Sergean tM urphyt o send t he p ost cards.

I n r e s p o n s e , t h e Sh e r i f f ’ s Dep a r t me n ta r g u e s t h a tRob e r t s o n ’ s e x p e r tt e s t i mon y , d eemed
cr edi bl e byt he C om m i s s i on, cons t i tut es s ubs t an t i al and mat er i al evi dence t o s uppor tt he C om m i ssion ’s dec i s i on. I tar gues t hatM i t chel l di d notobj ecti n t he C om m i s s i on p ro c e e d in g s to R o b e rtso n ’s te stim o n ya s a n e x p e rt, an d th u s c a n n o t ra ise th e iss u e o n a p p e a l.

A d ec isi o n that is no t sup p o rt ed b ysu b stan ti al an d m aterial ev iden ce is ne ce ssaril yarb itrary a n d c a p ri c io u s
. Mil

ler v. Civil Se rv. Co m m ’n , 271 S. W

. 3d 659, 665 ( T enn. C t

. A pp. 2008) ( ci t i ng Cit

y o f Memp h is v. Civil Se rv. Co m m ’n , 216 S. W

. 3d 311, 316 ( T enn. 2007) )

. O ur Supr eme C our thas expl ai ned: “A n arbi t r ary [or capr i ci ous ] deci s i on i s one t hat i s notbas ed on anycour s e of r eas oni ng orexer ci s e of j udgm ent , orone thatd isr eg ard s the fa ct s or ci r cumst ance s of t he ca s e w i t houts om e bas i s thatw oul d l ead a r eas onabl e per s on t o r eac h t he s ame concl us i on. ” City o f Me mp h is , 216 S. W

. 3d at316 ( quot i ng Ja c ks on Mob ile pho ne Co . , In c. v. T

en n . P u b
. S erv . Co m m ’n , 876 S. W

. 2d 106, 110- 11 ( T enn. C t

. A p p
. 1 9 9 3 )) ( br acke t s added i n City o f Me mp h is ). W e c o n side r, then , w h ethe r t h e C o m m is s ion ’s deci s i on i n t hi s cas e w as s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al and mat er i al evi dence , and thus w het her i tw as arbitraryor capri ci ou s.
O n a p p e a l , t h e “ s u b s t a n t i a l a n d m a t e r i a l e v i d e n c e ” t e s ti s n o tt o b e a p p l i e d m e c h a n i c a l l y:

I n i t s br oades ts ense, the st andar d r equi r es t he courtt o det er m i ne w h e th e r t h e a d m in is tr a tiv e a g e n c yh a s m a d e a c le a r e rr o r i n ju d g m e n t.. . .

. . . [T]he cour ts houl d r evi ew t he r ecor d car eful l y t o det er m i ne w hether t he admi ni s t r at i ve age ncy ’ s deci s i on i s s uppor t ed by “s uch r el evantevi dence
as a r at i onal m i nd m i ghtacc eptt o s uppor ta r at ion al c o n clus i on. ” .

. . T he-19-

evi dence w i l l be s uffi ci ent i f i t fur ni s hes a r eas onabl ys ound fac tual bas i s for t he dec i s i on bei ng r evi ew ed.

I d. at316- 17 ( quot i ng Jacks on Mobil phone C o. , I

nc. , 8 7 6 S

. W

. 2 d at 110- 11)

. A s s t at ed pl ai nl yi n t he s t atut e, “i n det er m i ni ng t he ‘ s ubs t ant i al i t y ’ of t he evi dence , t hi s C our tm ay c o n sid e r e v id e n c e in th e re c o r d th a t f a irlyd e tra c ts f

ro m its w e ig h t, bu t w e a re n o t to s u b s tit u t e o u r j u d g m e n t f o r t h a t o f

th e a g e n c yc o n c e rn in g th e w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e .” Penny , 2 7 6 S .W .3 d a t 4 1 8 (c iti n g T .C .A . § 4 -5 -3 2 2 (h )(5 )(B ); P ace v. G ar bage D is pos al D ist. , 3 9 0 S .W .2 d 4 6 1 , 4 6 3 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 1 9 6 5 )). T h e re f o re , w e c o n sid e r th e e v id e n c e in t he admi ni s t r at i ve r ecor d i n l i ghtof t hi s s t andar d.

T h e S h e ri f

f’s D ep artm en t argu es th at M it ch ell fa il ed to o b ject t o the C o m m issi o n ’s
acc ept ance of R ober t s on as an expe r t , and i s , t here for e, pr ecl uded fr om r ai s i ng t hi s as an is s u e o n a p p e a l. W e a g re e
. See Far verv. Car penter , N o. E 1999- 01840- C O A

- R 3- C V , 2000 W L 8 1 6 8 2 0 , a t * 3 (T e n n . C t. A p p . J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 0 0 ), p er m
. app. deni ed J an. 8, 2001 ( ci t i ng State v. K

il libr ew , 7 6 0 S .W .2 d 2 2 8 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ); B o w m a n v . S ta te , 598 S. W

. 2d 8 0 9 (T en n
. C ri m
. A p p
. 1 9 8 0 )).

T h e S h eriff ’s D ep artm en t al so n o tes t h a t the C o m m issi o n cre d it ed R o b ertson ’s ex p ert t es t i m ony , and ar gues t hatt hi s C our ton appeal is requi r ed t o gi ve gr eatdefe r ence t o t he C o m m iss io n ’s d e ter m in a tio n o f th e c re d ib ili ty o f th e w itn e ss e s. W e a g re e w ith th is
c o n ten tio n a s w e ll. Ci t

y of Me mphi s v . Ci v il Se r v . Com m ’ n. , 239 S. W

. 3d 202, 208 ( T enn. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); Cit

y o f Memp h is v. Civil Se rv. Co m m ’n , 2 3 8 S .W .3 d 2 3 8 , 2 4 3 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); Pruitt v. City o f Me mp h is , N o
. W 2 0 0 4 -01 7 7 1 -C O A -R 3 -C V , 2005 W L 2043542, at *7 (T en n
. C t. A p p
. A u g
. 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 ).

H ow , t hen , i s t he subst anti al and m at eri al evidence tes tapp l i ed u nd er these ci rcum st ances? T he Sher i ff’ s D epart m entcont ends , i n es s ence , t hatonce thi s C o u rt rec o g ni zes t hatt he C om m i s s i on cr edi t ed R ober t s on’ s t es t i m onyoverV as t r i ck’ s t es t i m ony , and fi n d s t hat R o b e rtso n ’s te stim o n yis s u b sta n tial a n d m a ter ial, it n e e d g o n o f u r th e r
. W e re sp e c tf

u lly di s agr ee. Such an appr oach w oul d be cl ear l ycont rary to the pl ai n l anguage i n t he s t atut e, w hi ch di r ect s t he C our t t o cons i der t he evi dence i n “the ent i r e r ecor d, ” i ncl udi ng “w hat ever in the re c o rd fa ir lyd etracts fro m it s w eigh t. ” T

. C

. A

. § 4 -5-3 2 2 (h)(5 )(A ), (B ) (20 0 5 ). H ow ever , w e ar e notper m i t t ed t o r ever s e an a dm i ni s t r at i ve dec i s i on t hat is su p p o rt ed by
s ubs t ant i al and mat er i al evi dence “s ol el ybeca us e the evi dence coul d al s o s uppor tanot her
r es ul t

. ” Martin v. S i

zem ore , 78 S. W

. 3d 249, 276 ( T enn. C t

. A pp. 2001) ( ci t i ng Hughes v
. B d. of Com m ’rs , 3 1 9 S .W .2 d 4 8 1 , 4 8 4 (T e n n . 1 9 5 8 ); Me tro . G o v ’t v . T e n n . S o lid

W a ste D is pos al Contr ol B d. , 8 3 2 S

. W

. 2 d 5 5 9 , 5 6 1 (T en n
. C t. A p p .1 9 9 1 )). T h e C o m m issi o n ’s f a c tu a l f i n d i n g s ma yb e r e

j e c t e d “ o n l yi f

a r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n wou l d n e c e s s a r i l yd r a w aFor reasons that are n ot ap parent in the reco rd, Rob ertson’s preliminary report of July 19, 2005 , c ontainin g 21 the q uoted languag e, is no t in the ap pellate re cord. Rather, the rec ord contain s a July 25 , 2 005 v ersion of Rob ertson’s report that o mits the quoted languag e. H owe v er, in the he a r i ng be f or e the Com

mission, Mitchell’s attorn ey

qu estioned

Robertso n ab out th e J uly 19, 2005 report, specifically quotingthis languag e, (continu ed.. .)
-20- di ffe r entconcl us i on fr om t he r ecor d. ” Id

. ( ci t i ng Jo ne s v . G r e e ne , 94 6 S

. W

. 2d 817, 828 (T en n
. C t. A p p
. 1 9 9 6 )).

In m a k in g th e f

a c tu a l f in d in g th a t M itch e ll w a s in f a c t re sp o n sib le f

o r th e p o stc a rd s s e n t to Sher i ff W ool for k’ s w i fe a nd t o Ser geantM urphy , t he C om m i s s i on r el i ed expr es s l yupon R ober t s on’ s expertt es t i m ony
. N o ot herevi dence w as s peci fi cal l ym ent i oned in the l et t er r el ay i ng t he C om m i s s i on’ s deci s i on. W e l ook, t hen, at t he bas i s forR ober t s on’ s t es t i m ony and att he otherevi dence i n t he r ecor d.

F or r easons t hat ar e no tm ade exp l i ci t i n t he recor d, t he invest i gati on of the po st card offe nse w as handl ed i n an atypi cal m anner
. I ns t ead of cas t i ng a w i de neti ni t i al l yt o cons i derany per s ons , empl oy ee orot herw i s e, w ho m igh t h av e r eas on t o s end s uch pos t car ds , and conduct i ng i nt er vi ew s and ot her i nves t i gat i on t o det er m i ne bot h m ot i ve and opportuni t y , t he in v e stig a tio n w a s a ss ig n e d to A ss ista n t C h ief P a rr, w h o im m e d iate lyh a n d e d it o v e r to R ober t s on, i n O h io. B yal l acc ount s , aft erR ober t s on opi ned thatt he pos t car ds w er e not sig n e d b yS e rg e a n t B a ld e rra m a , R o b e rtso n su g g e ste d th a t A ss ista n t C h ie f P a rr o b tain handw r i t i ng s ampl es fr om empl oy ees w ho w oul d have had s om e oppor tuni t y t o ei t hers end th e p o s tc a rd s f

ro m L o u is v ille , K e n tu c k yo r o b ta in th e in f o rm a tio n o n th e p o s tc a rd s , i

. e. , B a l d e r r a m a ’ s s i g n a tu r e a n d t h e h o m e a d d r e s s e s o f S h e r i f f W o o l f o r k a n d S e r g e a n tM u rp h y. T he s ampl es R ober t s on w as gi ven w er e i ncompl et e and, i ndeed Rober t s on w as gi ven exempl ar s fr om s om e per s ons w ho fi ti n t o n ei t hercat egory
. Forexampl e, C hi ef Cunni ngham and hi s w i fe a t t ended the K entuckyconfe r ence , buts ampl es of t hei rhandw r i t i ng w er e not in c lu d e d . M itch e ll d id n o t atte n d th e K e n tu c k yc o n f e re n c e a n d h a d n o t h a d a c c e ss to S h e rif f ’s D e p a rtm e n t p e rso n n e l f iles f o r ov e r a y e a r, a n d y e t h is e x e m p lar w a s f o rw a rd e d to R o b e rtso n . In e x p lica b ly , n o e x e m p la r o f S e rg e a n t M u rp h y ’s h a n d w riting w a s s e n t to R ober t s on forcompar i s on, des pi t e the fa ctt hats he s ai d t hats he r ece i ved a pos t car d and
os t ens i bl yr epor t ed r ece i vi ng i tt o Serge an t M art i n, w ho had att ended the K entucky confe r ence
. O n th e b a sis o f th e in f

o rm a tio n f

u rn ish e d to h im , R o b e rtso n iss u e d a “ p re lim in a ry ” re p o rt, iden ti fy ing M it ch ell as t h e pe rson w h o se ha n d w ri ti n g w as on the po stc a rd . R o b e rt so n ’s pr el i m i naryr epor ti ndi cat es t hat , att he t i m e i tw as w r i t t en, h e ant i ci pat ed i s s ui ng a fi nal
r epor tt hatw oul d “i ncl ude i nvesti gat i ve fa ct or s t hats uppor t[hi s ] document exami nat i on o p in io n .” 21(... continu ed) 21 and Rob ertson ack

now ledg ed in

his answ er that the prior v ersion of the repo rt contained the q uoted languag e.
We cannot k

nowfrom the record whe ther A ssistant Chie f Parr refrained from suc h inv estig ation becau se 22 i t wou l d h ave r e qu i r e d i nqui r i e s of a p e r s on a l natur e re l at e d t o h i s supe rvis or , S he r i f f Wo ol f ork. Serg eant B alderrama’ s t e s t i m ony indic ates o nly

that she was asked b y

Sh eriff Woolfo rk , o n the day he 23 receiv ed th e po stcard, whether she wrote it, whic h she denied. There is no indication that Assistant C hief P arr o r anyo n e e l s e q

u e s t i o n e d Se r ge antBa l d e rr amao r

a s ke d h e r wh o w o u l d

h ave r e a s o nt o s i gnh e r

n ame to su ch p ostcards

. -21- I n t hi s cas e, how ever , t her e w er e no ot her “i nves t i gat i ve fact or s
. ” I ndeed, t he r ecor d does noteven i ndi cat e any ot her i nves t i gat i on. A s s i s t ant C hi ef Par r , di s cl ai m i ng r es pons i bi l i t yfor t he i nves t i gat i on, does not i ndi cat e t hathe i nt er vi ew ed anyone ; notSer geantB al derr ama, 22 23 notSer geantM urphy , and ce r t ai n l yn o tM i t chel l

. H e admi t t ed noteven i nves t i gat i ng w het her M i t c h e l l was o n d u t y i n t h e j a i l c o mpl e x o n t h e d a t e t h e p o s t c a r d s wer e m ai l ed fr om K e n tu c k y , a n d p ro f

e ss e d u n c o n c e rn w h e n in f o rm e d in th e C o m m iss io n h e a rin g th a t M itch e ll
w as att he jai l t hat day

. T here w as no i nv est i gati on i nto m oti ve for s end i ng such p ost cards,
s uch as w h e t h e rSh e r i f f W o o l f o r k i n f a c th a d a n i n a p p r o p r i a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p wi t h Se r g e a nt B al derram a, S erg eantM urphy , oranyot herper s on, empl oy ee ornot

. M i t chel l w as f o re c lo se d f

ro m p ro b in g in to su c h m a tters , d e sp ite the o b v io u s re lev a n c e to a n o f f e n se o f th is
n a tu re . T h u s, th e “ in v e stig a tiv e f a c to rs” th a t w o u ld h a v e p e rm it te d R o b e r tso n to p u t in to co n text h is preli m inaryiden ti fica ti o n o f M it ch ell as t h e pe rson w h o w rote the p o stcard s w ere neverfur ni s hed t o R ober t s on.
W e l ook, t hen, atR ober t s on’ s expertt es t i m ony i n l i ghtof t he r ecor d as a w hol e, t o det er m i ne w h ethe r t h e C o m m issi o n ’s de cisi o n is sup p o rt ed b ysu b sta n ti al an d m aterial ev iden ce
. In ad d it ion to R o b ertson ’s pre li m inaryiden ti fica ti o n , the u n d is p u ted e v iden ce in the rec o rd sh o w s th a t ( 1 ) M itch e ll d id n o t a tten d th e L o u isv ill e , K e n tu c k yc o n f e re n c e , an d w a s o n d u ty a tt h e M a d i s o n C o u n t y j a i l c o m p l e x o n t h e d a y t h e p o s t c a r d s w e r e m a i l e d f r o m K e n t u c k y; ( 2) M i t chel l di d notknow any one i n L oui s vi l l e, K entucky ; ( 3) M i t chel l had notbeen i n a pos i t i on t o have a cce s s t o t he S her i ff’ s D epart m entper s onnel fi l es foral m os ta y ear ; and ( 4) M i t che l l ’ s o f

f i c e was i n a s e p a r a t e c o mpl e x f r o m S h e r i f

f W o o l f o r k a n d h e d i d n o tknow S h eriff W o o lfo rk’s c o m ing s an d g o ing s, an d sp ec ifi ca ll yd id n o t kn o w that S h eriff W o o lfo rk had at t ended the K entuckyconfe r ence
. M or eover , bot h Sher i ff W ool for k and A s s i s t ant C h ief P a rr te s ti f

ied th a t th e yh a d “ n o id e a ” o f w h yM itch e ll w o u ld m a il su c h p o stc a rd s to M r s
. W o o l f

o r k a n d t o S e r g e a n tM u rp h y.
T her efor e, for t he C om m i s s i on t o m ake a fac tual fi ndi ng t hatM i t chel l caus ed the pos t car ds t o be s entt o M r s
. W ool for k and Ser geantM u rph y , i tw oul d have t o have c oncl uded t hat M i t chel l obt ai ned t he nec es s ar yper s onal i nfor m at i on ( t he ho m e ad dr es s es of Ser geant-22-

M u rph yand Sher i ff W ool for k, a copyof Ser geantB al derr ama’ s s i gnatur e) a y earear l i er, a sc e rta in e d su rre p tit io u sly in a d v a n c e th a t S h e rif f W o o lf o rk w o u ld a tten d th e c o n f e re n c e in L o uis vil l e, K entuckyw i t h S ergeant B al derr am a, befri end ed an un kn ow n p ers on in L oui s vi l l e, K entucky , w r ot e both pos t car ds and for ged Ser geantB al derr ama’ s s i gnatur e on t hem i n advanc e, s ent t he post car ds t o t he unnamed confe der at e i n L oui s vi l l e, K entucky , and had t he acc om pli ce m ai l t hem from K entucky , w hil e t he co nference w as und erw ay , t o M rs
. W ool for k and t o Ser geantM urphy , w hom he had r epea t edl ydi s ci pl i ned forw or k- r el at ed i nfr act i ons
. W e fi nd t hatt hes e undi s put ed fact s i n the r ecor d “fa i r l ydetr act ” fr om t he w ei ght
a c c o r d e d b yt h e Co mmi s s i o n t o Ro b e r t s o n ’ s o p i n i o n t e s t i mo n y
. T. C. A. § 4

- 5

- 3 2 2 ( h ) ( 5 ) ( B) (20 0 5 ).

In lig h t o f th e o v e ra ll ev id e n c e , w e m u st f in d th a t “a re a so n a b le p e rso n w o u ld n e c e ss a rily dr aw a di ffe r ent concl us i on fr om t he r ecor d. ” Ma rtin , 78 S. W

. 3d at276 ( ci t i ng Jones , 946 S

. W. 2 d a t8 2 8 )

. I n s h o r t , “ i ti s o u rc o n c l u s i o n t h a te v e n u n d e r a l i mi t e d s c o p e o f r e v i e w, t hes e fa ct s w arr anta r es ul tcont r aryt o t hatof t h e C o m m iss i on. ” City o f Me mp h is , 216 S

. W

. 3d at317 ( ci t i ng Ma rtin , 78 S. W

. 3d at276)

. T hus , w e hol d t hatt he C om m issi o n ’s fac tual fi ndi ng t hatM i t chel l w as r es po n sible fo rt he pos t car ds ati s s ue i s nots uppor t ed by
s u b s t a n t i a l a n d ma t e r i a l e v i d e n c e
. Con s e q u e n t l y , t h e Commi s s i o n ’ s a f f i r ma t i o n of t he t erm i nati on of M i t chell ’s em ploym ent m ust be deem ed arbitrary and c a p rici ou s. A ccor di ngl y , w e mustr ever s e t he t r i al co u rt ’s g r antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof t he Sher i ff’ s D epart m ent and re m and t he cas e t o t he t r i al court w i t h di r ect i ons t o ent erj udgm ent in f a v o r o f M itch e ll.

T h is h o ld in g p re ter m its a ll o th e r iss u e s ra ise d o n a p p e a l.

C ONC L US I ON
T h e d ec isi o n o f t h e tri al c o u rt is rev erse d , an d the ca se is rem an d ed to the C h an ce ry C o u rt o f M a d iso n C o u n ty fo r e n try o f ju d g m e n t in fa v o r of A p p e llan t W ill iam M itch e ll. T h e c o sts of t hi s appea l ar e t axed t o t he A ppel l ees M adi s on C ount y Sher i f f ’ s D epar t m ent an d t he M a d iso n C o u n ty C iv il S e rv ice C o m m iss io n fo r th e M a d iso n C o u n ty S h e riff’s D e p a rtm e n t, for w hi ch exe cut i on m ay i s s ue i f nece s s ar y.

_________________________________

HOL L Y M

. KI RB Y, J UDGE