Title: CITY OF HELENA v DISTRICT COURT
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12909
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: January 10, 1975

No. 12909 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1975 CITY OF HELENA, a municipal corporation, JACK WILLIAMS, Chief of Police of s a i d City of Helena, e t a l . , Applicants, T H E DISTRICT C O U R T O F T H E FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A , I N AND F O R T H E COUNTY O F LEWIS AND CLARK, and t h e H O N O R A B L E PETER G. MELOY, Presiding Judge, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record: For Applicants : C . W . Leaphart, Jr., argued, Helena, Montana For Respondents: Loble, P i c o t t e and Pauly, Helena, Montana Gene A. P i c o t t e argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: December 16, 1974 Decided : 2 0 ;s~s M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T . Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. T h i s i s a n o r i g i n a l proceeding. O n November 1 4 , 1974, a p p l i c a n t s p e t i t i o n e d t h i s Court f o r a w r i t of supervisory c o n t r o l o r o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e w r i t r e s t r a i n i n g respondent d i s t r i c t c o u r t from a c t i n g i n excess of its j u r i s d i c t i o n i n g r a n t i n g a j u r y t r i a l t o George Miskovich p l a i n t i f f i n Cause No. 38221 b e f o r e it. P l a i n t i f f , a Helena p o l i c e o f f i c e r , was accused of o f f i c i a l misconduct d u r i n g t h e a r r e s t s of s e v e r a l i n d i v i d u a l s a t v a r i o u s t i m e s i n 1973 and 1974. Proceedings were conducted b e f o r e t h e Helena P o l i c e Commission a s provided under Montana's Metropolitan P o l i c e Law, s e c t i o n s 11-1801 through 11-1837, R.C.M. 1947. A f t e r r e c e i v i n g both t e s t i m o n i a l and documentary evidence, t h e Commission was a b l e t o s u b s t a n t i a t e some of t h e charges a g a i n s t p l a i n t i f f and u l t i m a t e l y took d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n . There- a f t e r p l a i n t i f f i n s t i t u t e d Cause No. 38221 by f i l i n g a complaint i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Lewis and Clark County, pursuant t o t h e review p r o v i s i o n s of s u b s e c t i o n s (7) and ( 8 ) of s e c t i o n 11-1806, R.C.M. 1947. Contained i n t h e prayer f o r r e l i e f was a r e q u e s t f o r j u r y t r i a l . On November 1 4 , 1974, following a n ex p a r t e h e a r i n g , t h i s Court i s s u e d a n a l t e r n a t i v e w r i t o r d e r i n g respondent t o e i t h e r deny p l a i n t i f f ' s demand f o r a jury t r i a l o r t o show c a u s e why t h i s should n o t be done. A show cause h e a r i n g was set f o r and held on December 17, 1974, w i t h t h e p a r t i e s submitting b r i e f s and arguing o r a l l y . The s o l e i s s u e i s a l e g a l one: Does s e c t i o n 11-1806, R.C.M. 1947, e n t i t l e a p o l i c e o f f i c e r t o a j u r y t r i a l i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ? That s t a t u t e provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : " ( 7 ) When a charge a g a i n s t a member of t h e p o l i c e f o r c e is found proven by t h e board, and i s n o t vetoed by t h e mayor, t h e mayor must make an o r d e r e n f o r c i n g t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e board, o r i f modified by t h e mayor, t h e n such d e c i s i o n a s modified, and such d e c i s i o n o r o r d e r s h a l l be s u b j e c t t o review by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e proper county on a l l questions of f a c t and a l l questions of law. " ( 8 ) The d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e proper county s h a l l have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o review a l l questions of f a c t and a l l questions of law i n a s u i t brought by any o f f i c e r o r member of t h e p o l i c e force * * *." I n S t a t e ex r e l . Mueller v. D i s t r i c t Court, 87 Mont. 108, 113, 285 P. 928, t h i s Court outlined t h e nature and func- t i o n of t h e police commission: " * * * An accused o f f i c e r is guaranteed a t r i a l upon t h e charges a g a i n s t him before an independ- e n t , s p e c i a l l y created t r i b u n a l which has'exclu- s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e subject matter. I n o t h e r words, t h e p o l i c e commission is a s p e c i a l t r i b u n a l , created by s t a t u t e , having quasi-judi- cia1 powers t o hear and determine charges preferred a g a i n s t a member of t h e p o l i c e department. It i s a subordinate and administrative t r i b u n a l , vested with d i s c i p l i n a r y powers, and i s not limited by t h e provisions of t h e Constitution which apply t o c o u r t s . " Thus t h e question i s one of administrative l a w ; more s p e c i f i c a l l y , it concerns review of an administrative decision. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t has power under s e c t i o n 11-1806 t o review-- whatever t h a t e n t a i l s , but no more. W e agree with a p p l i c a n t s t h a t a review by a jury i s not t h e i n t e n t of t h e s t a t u t e . F i r s t , t h e t e r m "review" i t s e l f suggests something less than a f u l l - blown t r i a l . Black's Law Dictionary, Revised, 4th Edition, de- f i n e s "review": "To re-examine j u d i c i a l l y . A reconsideration; second view o r examination * * *". I n Sullivan v. Municipal Court of Roxbury D i s t . , 322 Mass. 566, 78 N.E.2d 618, 620, t h e Massachusetts c o u r t said: "'Review' i n d i c a t e s ' a reexamination of a proceed- ing, already concluded, f o r the purpose of preventing a r e s u l t which appears not t o be based upon t h e e x e r c i s e of an unbiased and reason- a b l e judgment.'" Second, it is s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e d i d not expressly provide f o r a new t r i a l i n t h e Montana P o l i c e Law. This could e a s i l y have been done, a s it was i n t h e s t a t u t e s r e l a t i n g t o appeals from j u s t i c e c o u r t s and c e r t a i n workmen's compensa- t i o n cases. Sections 95-2009 and 92-834, R.C.M. 1947. Respondent argues t h e words " t o review * * * a l l ques- t i o n s of f a c t and a l l questions of law" a r e simply another way of saying " t r i a l de novo". However, t o review the law i s t o a s c e r t a i n whether t h e . r u l i n g s thereon w e r e c o r r e c t ; t o review t h e f a c t s is t o determine whether t h e evidence supports t h e p o l i c e commission findings. This would be s i m i l a r t o t h e review See of law and f a c t a s i n an equity case. / s e c t i o n 93-216, R.C.M. 1947. That i s a l l p l a i n t i f f Miskovich i s e n t i t l e d t o . Authorities f o r o t h e r s t a t e s r e l a t i v e t o t h e review pro- vided c i t y employees, and s p e c i f i c a l l y p o l i c e o f f i c e r s , a f t e r a suspension, discharge, o r o t h e r d i s c i p l i n a r y proceeding a r e i n accord. N o case providing a jury t r i a l f o r such a review has been c a l l e d t o our a t t e n t i o n by counsel, nor has any been found by us. Here it should be noted t h a t Montana Rules of C i v i l Procedure, which implement t h e r i g h t t o jury t r i a l , expressly except such s t a t u t e s by Rule 81 (a) : " * * * s p e c i a l s t a t u t o r y proceedinqls] * * * a r e excepted from these r u l e s i n s o f a r as they a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t o r i n c o n f l i c t with t h e pro- cedure and p r a c t i c e provided by t h e s e r u l e s . " The inconsistency here i s r e a d i l y apparent, f o r t o t r y by jury what i s e s s e n t i a l l y an i n t e r n a l personnel dispute would be a t cross-purposes with t h e Montana Police Law. I n sum, t h e d i s t r i c t court sits as an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t . It i s not authorized t o determine p e n a l t i e s , sanctions, or d i s - c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n t h a t may be taken a g a i n s t a police o f f i c e r . I f a jury t r i a l were t o ensue, by way of a t r i a l de -- novo, a provision f o r p e n a l t i e s doubtless would be found i n t h e s t a t u t e . N o pro- v i s i o n t h e r e f o r i s contained i n t h e Montana Police Law. It does not follow t h a t s i n c e t h e p o l i c e commission is not by s t a t u t e required t o keep a record of its proceedings, the p l a i n t i f f is e n t i t l e d t o a jury t r i a l , a s contended by respondent. Good p r a c t i c e by t h e p o l i c e commission would have a stenographic record made, a s t h e commission d i d i n t h i s case. F a i l u r e t o do so, however, does not r e q u i r e a jury t r i a l s i n c e other means e x i s t t o prepare such record, f o r instance, a by- standers b i l l . I n any event, a s w e have s t a t e d , an a p p e l l a t e procedure is contemplated. Let a w r i t of supervisory c o n t r o l i s s u e . Chief J u s t i c e W e concur; J u s t i c e s