Court Opinion

ID: 9544303
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:54:21.303146+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:39.764544
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Presiding Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Concerning Officer Hunt I agree with the majority that the Board's findings were simply inadequate to permit judicial review. They do not disclose what the Board found that Hunt did which would permit the con-elusion that he "committed misuse and waste of public property."
The problem concerning Officer Hixen-baugh is that although he followed proper procedure he did not receive a hearing before the Board for more than fourteen months after Superintendent Shettle demoted him and then another three months elapsed before the Board reached its decision.
Immediate disciplinary action is essential to maintain the integrity of our police force as well as the great trust placed in our police force requires immediate action against an officer who violates that trust. The delay between the action and the proper hearing that he is entitled to was beyond that permissible.
Contrary to the majority, I agree with the trial court that the findings and evidence against Hixenbaugh at the Board hearing, although minimal and not a model form, do sustain the determination that Hixenbaugh gave materially conflicting statements in the Hunt investigation and was therefore guilty of conveying false information to a fellow officer concerning official department business.
Accordingly, I believe the trial court was correct in affirming the Board's determination as of November 26, 1979 and ordering that Hixenbaugh be reimbursed his lost wages for the period from June 17, 1978 to November 26, 1979.
1 therefore concur in part and dissent in part.