Case Name: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Francis J. Clarke, Appellant, v. Theodore Roosevelt et al., Composing the Board of Police of the Police Department of the City of New York, Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-11-19
Citations: 168 N.Y. 488
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Francis J. Clarke, Appellant, v. Theodore Roosevelt et al., Composing the Board of Police of the Police Department of the City of New York, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 168
Pages: 488–494

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Francis J. Clarke, Appellant, v. Theodore Roosevelt et al., Composing the Board of Police of the Police Department of the City of New York, Respondents.
1. New Yobk City — Bulb fob Detebmihihg Guilt of Police Officeb oh Tbial of Chaeges. In determining the guilt of a police officer who is on trial for charges preferred against him, the police commissioners must act upon the evidence produced before them and not upon their own knowledge. But in inflicting the punishment they may take into consideration his record as well as the evidence.
2. YJheh Guilt of Officeb Peopebly Detebmihed. Notwithstanding that it appears from the return of the board of police commissioners of New York city to a writ of certiorari obtained by a police officer to review their determination removing him from office upon charges preferred against him, that the adjudication of guilt and the imposition of punishment both took place at the same meeting and were accomplished by the same resolution, if it is found from such decision, and all the papers and proceedings had before the board, and also returned by them, that the guilt of such officer was determined upon the proofs produced, and that his record was only considered in determining his punishment, the writ should be dismissed and the determination of the board confirmed.
People ex rel. Olarke v. Boosevelt, 4 App. Div. 611, affirmed.
(Argued June 4, 1901;
decided November 19, 1901.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 4, 1896, which confirmed, on certiorari, the proceedings of the defendants in dismissing the relator from the police force of the city of New York and dismissed the writ.
The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion.
Fd/m/tmd L. Mooney and Frederick A. Card for appellant.
There was no evidence warranting relator’s conviction on the charges made against him. (People ex rel. v. Martin, 142 N. Y. 352; People ex rel. v. French, 119 N. Y. 493; People ex rel. v. Bd. of Police Comrs., 155 N. Y. 40; People ex rel. v. Roosevelt, 22 App. Div. 626; People ex rel. v. Roosevelt, 7 App. Div. 610; People ex rel. v. Bd. of Police, 55 Hun, 445.) The consideration by the respondents of relator’s record on the question of guilt was vital error. (People ex rel. v. Roosevelt, 1 App. Div. 577; People ex rel. v. York, 50 App. Div. 359; People ex rel. v. York, 52 App. Div. 295.) The respondents erred in receiving and considering the certificates of the police surgeons. (People ex rel. v. Bd. of Police Comrs., 155 N. Y. 40; People ex rel. v. Roosevelt, 5 App. Div. 328; Parr v. Village of Greenbush, 72 N. Y. 463; People ex rel. v. Walsh, 87 N. Y. 481.)
Joh/n Whalen, Corporation Counsel (Theodore Gonnol/y and Terrence Fcvrley -of counsel), for respondents.
The petition or affidavit upon which a writ of certiorari issues serves the purposes of an assignment of errors, and no irregularities will be considered except such as are pointed out therein even if they be apparent of record. (4 Ency. of Pl. & Pr. 147, 149, 293; People ex rel. v. Scannell, 56 App. Div. 52; People ex rel. v. Roosevelt, 2 App. Div. 536.) The use made of relator’s record was a legal one. (People ex rel. v. Roosevelt, 2 App. Div. 526; People ex rel. v. Scannell, 53 App. Div. 637; People ex rel. v. Roosevelt, 5 App. Div. 329; People ex rel. v. Roosevelt, 17 App. Div. 301; People ex rel. v. York, 50 App. Div. 359; People ex rel. v. York, 52 App. Div. 295; People ex rel. v. Scannell, 56 App. Div. 53.) The respondents had jurisdiction to investigate the charges, and all the proceedings were regular. (People ex rel.v. McClave, 123 N. Y. 512.) The evidence abundantly establishes the truth of the charges upon which the relator was dismissed. (People ex rel. MacLean, 37 N. Y. S. R. 628; People v. Eastwood, 14 N. Y. 562; State v. Pike, 49 N. H. 399; Gahagan v. B. & L. R. R. Co., 1 Allen, 187; Piers v. State, 53 Ga. 365; Stanley v. State, 26 Ala. 26; People ex rel. v. French, 119 N. Y. 493; People ex rel. v. French, 110 N. Y. 494.)

Opinion:
Haight, J.
I adopt the rule sanctioned in the case of People ex rel. McAleer v. French (119 N. Y. 502) to the effect that " In determining the guilt of a police officer, who is on trial for charges preferred against him, the police commissioners cannot act upon their own knowledge. The charges must be tried upon evidence, and the guilt must be established by evidence produced before the commissioners upon the trial, -x- -x x p>a£ inflieting the punishment they may take into consideration the evidence, as well as their own knowledge of the police officer, and inflict such punishment, authorized by the rules and the statutes, as in their judgment the case, in view of all the circumstances, requires."
Has this rule been violated by the commissioners in the case under consideration ?
The respondents in their return to the writ of certiorari state that at the termination of said trial "the proceedings and the relator's record were duly considered by your respondents at a regular meeting of the hoard of police, held on the 9th day of August, 1895; and after due consideration thereof your respondents determined, after the exercise of their l?est judgment and discretion, that the relator was guilty as severally charged, and they thereupon passed resolutions declaring ordering and adjudging that the several charges were true and dismissing the relator from the police force of the city of Hew York." It thus is apparent that the adjudication of guilt and the imposition of punishment both took place at the same meeting and were accomplished by one resolution of the board. As we have seen, the board of police had the right to consider the relator's record in determining the character of the punishment that should be imposed, but not in determining the question of his guilt. The board, therefore, had the right to have the relator's record present at the meeting and to consider it in determining the punishment. Whether the commissioners did more is not clear from the return and in this respect it may be treated as ambiguous. To aid us in determining the true intent and meaning of the board in the return, to which we have alluded, we find that the commissioners have also returned all of the papers and proceedings had before the board, among which is the written decision of the commis sioners with the resolution passed by them, adjudging the relator guilty of the charges and removing him from the police force. In this decision it appears that the judgment as to the relator's guilt was based upon the proofs produced before them. I think this instrument, returned by the board as its final adjudication and determination in the case, makes clear the intent and meaning of the board in its return to which we have alluded, and that is that the guilt of the relator was determined upon the proofs produced before the board and that his record was only considered in determining the punishment.
The order should be affirmed, with costs.