Opinion ID: 1470626
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Civilian Investigation

Text: Finally, plaintiffs argue that, even if we affirm the trial justice's findings and conclude that the PERA Ordinance does not offend the state constitution, the trial justice erred when he applied this Court's holding in McLaughlin, 593 A.2d at 1351. In McLaughlin, a civilian investigator conducted a preliminary investigation of police misconduct in the absence of LEOBOR protections. Id. at 1347, 1351. This Court rejected the contention that this investigation violated the provisions of LEOBOR. Id. at 1351. As a preliminary proceeding not resulting directly in disciplinary action, [a civilian-employee's] investigation did not have to meet the requirements of the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights. Id. In this case, the trial justice recognized that, in contrast to the informal ad hoc investigation conducted by the city's affirmative action officer in McLaughlin, the procedures outlined in the PERA Ordinance provide for a formal investigation that is transparent, governed by administrative rules, and conducted by individuals responsible for enforcing the ordinance. We agree with this finding and are satisfied that PERA can coexist with LEOBOR and that the PERA Ordinance and LEOBOR do not conflict. This Court has held, time and time again, that the procedural guarantees outlined in LEOBOR are confined to departmental investigations. See In re Denisewich, 643 A.2d 1194, 1197 (R.I.1994). We are satisfied that only when an investigation by a law enforcement agency could result in the imposition of a disciplinary [sanction]    to a permanently employed law enforcement officer, [would] such [an] officer [be] entitled to a hearing on any charge arising from the investigation before a `hearing committee' composed of three active Rhode Island law enforcement officers. Zincone, 523 A.2d at 1224. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the trial justice appropriately addressed the pronouncements of this Court and that his decision is well supported by the record in this case. We accord his decision the deference to which it is due, and we affirm.