Opinion ID: 880451
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: citizens' complaints

Text: Turning then to the citizen's complaint lodged by Kathy Keating concerning the July 31, 1987, incident, the Commission finds that the credibility of the officers' version is again highly suspect. Mrs. Keating was returning from a church music festival at the lake when she encountered Damon and Gentry. She testified that she was not personally acquainted with either officer, and had to identify them from a department photograph during the investigation. She further testified that the officers' intoxicated condition caused her concern. Phil Keating, Kathy's husband, testified that she relayed the same version of the events to him immediately after the incident. He further testified that he had no grudge against the Helena Police Department. The officers, on the other hand, have a great deal to lose in this proceedings. They could be subject to discipline up to and including termination. While the officers' attempted cover up of their activities that evening, from their point of view, may be understandable, it is certainly not excusable. The Commission therefore finds that the testimony of Mrs. Keating is credible, and believes that Officer Gentry represented that he and Sgt. Damon were undercover during their conversation on the evening of July 31. The Commission further finds that such a statement, made by an intoxicated police officer, even though off-duty, certainly constitutes conduct such as to bring reproach upon the Helena Police Department. In regard to the second citizen's complaint concerning Patrolman Gentry confronting Mrs. Keating on August 9, 1987, and telling her that we could lose our jobs over her complaint  the Commission again finds that Mrs. Keating's version is the more credible version. This conduct on the part of Officer Gentry was again conduct such as to bring reproach upon the Helena Police Department. The findings of the Commission concerning the charges against Officer Gleich are as follows: The Commission finds that Officer Gleich, although guilty of covering up his fellow officers' misdeeds, is the least culpable of the three officers involved. Officer Gleich was not involved in the citizen's complaint, and at worst he merely went along with his fellow officers' version of the night's events. In doing so, however, Officer Gleich has not only misrepresented the facts to his superior officers, he has misrepresented them to the Commission while under oath. The Commission finds that such conduct cannot be condoned and therefore has determined that Officer Gleich be suspended from the Helena Police Department for 30 days without pay. The written report of the Helena Police Commission recited a number of other facts which supported its findings of fact foregoing. We do not set those out in this Opinion in full because it is unnecessary for our review and it would be painful to detail the day's progress of these three officers following their attendance at a luncheon in honor of a retiring police officer. The District Court noted that the standard of review of a decision of the Police Commission in the District Court is whether the findings of the Commission are supported by substantial evidence. Miskovich v. City of Helena (1976), 170 Mont. 138, 143, 551 P.2d 995-998; In the Matter of Raynes (1985), 215 Mont. 484, 493, 698 P.2d 856, 862. The findings of the Commission are final and conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. Bailey v. City of Helena (1910), 42 Mont. 216, 218, 112 P. 69, 70; Raynes, 698 P.2d at 862, 42 St.Rep. at 576. The District Court, sitting as an appellate court, is not authorized to determine penalties, sanctions or disciplinary measures that may be taken against a police officer. City of Helena v. District Court (1975), 166 Mont. 74, 77, 530 P.2d 464, 465-466. When the decision on review by a district court of proceedings before a Police Commission is conducted under § 7-32-4164, MCA, and the District Court decision is appealed to us, we adopt the standard of review set forth in the Montana Administrative Procedure Act, § 2-4-704(2)(e), MCA, to the effect that the administrative findings, inferences and conclusions and decisions will not be reversed or modified unless they are clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record. We determine that substantial evidence on the whole record does support the findings and conclusions of the Helena Police Commission, and the decision as modified by the City Manager. Aside from the substantial evidence issue, the officers raise other issues which they contend require a reversal. They are: (1) The Police Commission's findings of dishonesty cannot be supported as a matter of fact or law; (2) The testimony that Mrs. Keating had taken a polygraph examination was improperly admitted; (3) The Police Commission unduly prolonged the hearing by requiring the officers to begin their case in chief at 9:30 after the case had already been in progress for 11 1/2 hours; (4) The City Manager should not have testified before the Police Commission because of his veto authority over the actions of the Police Commission; and, (5) That the citizens' complaints should not have been considered because no citizen had signed any complaint against any officer. The officers also complained, without listing the subjects as issues, that Officer Gentry had not been advised prior to the formal filing of charges of any administrative or disciplinary proceedings against him; that the officers should not have been suspended in excess of 10 days; that the modification of findings made by the City Manager was not an order required by the statute; and that the punishment, that is the termination of employment of the officers, was disproportionate to the misconduct charged.