Case Name: ST. CHARLES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellant, v. Anthony TIPTON and The St. Charles Merit System Commission, Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-07-29
Citations: 138 S.W.3d 740
Docket Number: No. ED 81367
Parties: ST. CHARLES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellant, v. Anthony TIPTON and The St. Charles Merit System Commission, Respondents.
Judges: Before MARY R. RUSSELL, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS and BOOKER T. SHAW, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 138
Pages: 740–741

Head Matter:
ST. CHARLES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellant, v. Anthony TIPTON and The St. Charles Merit System Commission, Respondents.
No. ED 81367.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
July 29, 2003.
Beverly E. Temple, St. Charles, MO, for appellant.
Kimberly B. Landman, St. Peters, MO, for respondent.
Before MARY R. RUSSELL, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS and BOOKER T. SHAW, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
The St. Charles County Department of Corrections ("Appellant") appeals from the St. Charles Merit System Commission's (the "Commission") decision reversing Appellant's termination of employee Anthony Tipton ("Tipton"). Appellant argues on appeal that the Commission erred in: (1) concluding that an employee has a right to legal counsel before answering questions in an administrative investigation because the Commission misinterpreted Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 87 S.Ct. 616, 17 L.Ed.2d 562 (1967); (2) refusing its request that Alan Stahl be allowed inside the hearing room throughout the hearing because it violated its due process right to assist counsel in all phases and stages of litigation; and (3) finding, as a matter of fact, that Tipton was insubordinate, but failing to find, as a matter of law, that Appellant's actions were without just cause or in a manner not in conformity with the St. Charles County charter, personnel administration program or ordinances.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. The Commission's decision reversing Appellant's termination of Tipton is affirmed. No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. However, a memorandum has been provided to the parties, for their use only, setting forth the reasons for this order. We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).