Court Opinion

ID: 9795580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:31:53.432173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:30:19.337447
License: Public Domain

Malone, J.,
dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I have no difficulty concluding that Officer Gary F. Jones’ actions constituted gross misconduct sufficient to support his termination as a police officer.
*327After stopping Gretchen Esping, Jones determined from the dispatcher that Esping was driving on a suspended license. This is a serious offense. It does not matter that the citation was ultimately-dismissed. At the time, Jones believed he was dealing with someone illegally driving an automobile.
Jones committed two serious violations of police department policy. First, he intentionally turned off the video camera before the police stop was terminated. He also failed to log the recording on the log sheet in an attempt to prevent it from being located. The majority refers to this as a “technical violation” of police department policy.
The purpose of the recording system is to ensure reliable documentation of police stops, benefitting both the police and the public. In this case, a few days after the stop, Esping filed a complaint about Jones’ conduct during and after the traffic stop. Esping complained that Jones threatened and harassed her about whether she could continue to drive. By turning off the recording device, Jones destroyed evidence and unnecessarily exposed the department to charges of police misconduct.
Jones admitted that he violated the policy in order to hide the fact he was going to allow Esping to drive in further violation of the law. I do not consider this to be a “caring gesture.” Imagine the liability of Kansas State University (KSU) if Esping had injured someone with her vehicle after Jones “looked the other way” and allowed her to drive.
Next, Jones filed a false police report. The report was false because it indicated that Esping’s vehicle was legally parked when in fact it was illegally parked. This was not “a meaningless . . . detail.” Jones placed this information into his report to explain why he left the vehicle at the scene without assuring it was properly moved. Considering the rest of Jones’ actions, it is hard to believe this was an unintentional misstatement of fact.
More importantly, the report was false because of what it failed to mention. The report failed to state that Jones turned off the security camera and told Esping that she could drive home. The report left the impression that Esping would have a friend drive *328the vehicle to her apartment when in fact Esping later admitted that she drove home.
Filing a false report is a particularly serious offense for a police officer. As witnesses testified before the KSU Classified Employee Peer Review Committee, prosecutors regularly inquire if there are any credibility or integrity problems with an officer because prosecutors do not want to discover these matters from defense attorneys during a trial. Evidence was presented that Jones’ credibility as a police officer had been compromised to the extent it affected his performance of duties. After this incident, the Manhattan city attorney’s office informed Jones’ superior that Jones’ credibility was an issue in that court. In his testimony before the Civil Service Board, Jones admitted that the Riley County Police Department informed KSU police that, because of Jones’ credibility problems, he was not permitted to go off campus to assist with an arrest.
The district court found that Jones was terminated because of a question of trust. The court was correct to focus on this reason. The district court’s finding was certainly supported by substantial evidence, and its legal conclusion was sound.
In this case, Jones committed “misconduct striking at the very essence of law enforcement.” I agree with the Director of the KSU Police Department, the KSU Director of Human Resources, the unanimous Peer Review Committee, the unanimous Civil Service Board, and the district court in finding that Jones’ actions constituted gross misconduct sufficient to support his termination as a police officer.