Scribd Logo
Fazer o upload

Bem-vindo(a) ao Scribd!

  • Findings, Determination and Order of The City of Medford Police and Fire Commission September 3 2015

    Enviado por

    The Star News
    314 visualizações35 páginas
    Findings, Determination and Order of the City of Medford Police and Fire Commission September 3 2015.

    Título original

    Findings, Determination and Order of the City of Medford Police and Fire Commission September 3 2015

    Direitos autorais

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formatos disponíveis

    PDF ou leia online no Scribd

    Você considera este documento útil?

    Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

    Denunciar este documento
    Findings, Determination and Order of the City of Medford Police and Fire Commission September 3 2015.

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato PDF ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    314 visualizações35 páginas

    Findings, Determination and Order of The City of Medford Police and Fire Commission September 3 2015

    Enviado por

    The Star News
    Findings, Determination and Order of the City of Medford Police and Fire Commission September 3 2015.

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato PDF ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    de 35
    CITY OF MEDFORD BOARD OF POLICE AND FIRE COMMISSION In the Matter of Charges Filed Against OFFICER ROBERT STIEBER by CHIEF OF POLICE KEN COVER FINDINGS, DETERMINATION AND ORDER OF THE, CITY OF MEDFORD POLICE AND FIRE COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3. 2015 1. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ‘The Statement of Charges in this matter were filed by Chief of Police Ken Coyer with the Commission Chairman on Jane 24, 2018. The Charges were served by service of process on Officer Stieber on July 12, 2015. The Commission's Rules of Procedure for Discipline Hearings, adopted on June 23, 2015, were provided to the parties, Procedural matters were addressed in a pre-hearing conference eld on July 24, 2015 and memorialized hy correspondence dated July 28,2015. The Commission Chairman issued decisions denying @ prehearing Motion in Limine submited by (Chief Coyer and a Motion to Dismiss submited by Officer Stieber. Ofier Stieber also filed but svithdrew @ Motion for Discvery aftr exsiving the requested records. These Motions were rade following the filing of a prior Statement of Charges in April 2015 and prior 19 the withdrawal of those Charges on June 19, 2015, The procedural background of the prior Statement of Charges is addressed in the decision on the Motion to Dismiss The Commission Chairman set a date for hearing, and the hearing commenced on August, 6, 2015, which is a date “not less than 10 days nor more than 30 days following service of charges” on July 12, 2015 pursuant to Wis, Stat, Section 62.13(5)(d), The evidentiary hearing ‘continued for full days on August 7, August 17, August 19, and August 20, and the Commission received closing arguments on September 2, 2015 by counsel for boll parties. During the evidentiary hearing, the Commission heard and carefully considered testimonial evidence, the Statement of Charges, sixteen exhibits presented by Chief Coyer and twenty-two exhibits presented by Officer Stcbe. The Commission dliverated aftr the evidentiary hearing concluded on August 20,2015, again after receiving closing arguments on September 2, 2015, and completed deliberations on Sepletber 3, 2015. Inthe Commission's deliberations, they reviewed the Instruction to the City of Medord Police and Fire Commission Regarding Burden of Proof and the Instruction: Just Cause Under 62.13(5\em, Wis. Stats, thoroughly considering the record avilable, including \ateing video recordings 0” interviews, addressing whether the Charges ould be sustained in ‘whole or in part, applying the seven tests of just cause tothe extent applicable under Section 62.13(5)(em)1-7, and addressed whether a penalty was appropriate for the good ofthe service and if so what penalty. While the Commission has considered the exhibits, testimony relied ‘upon inthis decision, and weighing the credibility ofall witnesses it has not been practical to loceibe in detail how each sent ofthis decision reflects suc juin As the tier of fact, the Commission carefully serutinized the witnesses while testifying, Which does not appear on the face ofa cold transcript. The Commission was especially sensitive to the demeanor, conduct, anc appearance of the witnesses inthis matte, with respect to nuances of atitude, perspective, and interpretation of events, relationships and many details of witness ied agains OfcerHober Stieber by Che Caper Paez ars (Gay of Medford Pace & Fir Commision Deon to rh behavior sueh as voice volume, inflection, eye contact, hesitation, sympathy, and conviction, The Commissioners also considered a variety of factors including whether the witness has an interest or lack of interest in the result of the hearing, the opportunity the witness had for observing and for knowing the matters the witness testified about, the reasonableness of the ny, apparent inteligence ofthe wines, bias oF prejudice, possible motives for falsifying testimony, and any other facts and circumstances during the hearing which tend to support orto diseredit the testimony. For this reason, ony the four members ofthe Commission ‘who personally observed all he testimony of the witnesses participated in the deliberation and decison inthis ease The Commission has ultimately concluded that only five specific Charges are sustained, and ast those Charges the Seven Tess of Just Cause ave been met and the good ofthe service 4 to those Charges requires he suspension of Officer Robert Stieber for aft of seven shifts of employment from his employment with the City of Medford Police Department on days designated by the Chief of Paice. FINDINGS Before turning to the Seven Tests of Just Cause set forth in Wisconsin Statute Section 62.13(S¥empI-7, the Commission first determi 's whether the Charges are sustained under Section 62.13(5)(e). In doing so, the Commission used the substantial evidence standard found in Section 62.13(5)(eu)(3) Wis. Sus. und the Commission's Rules, ‘The burden of proof to be applied by Commissioners under Commission Rule 1.13 is “whether the charges are sustained by substantial evidence, that is a preponderance of the evidence,” which is the usual minimum civil burden of proof, but which i also significantly greater than the “substantial evidence” standard presently contained inthe statute. The Commission applied the “preponderance of the evidence” ity of Medford Poe & Fire Commision Deol Char led gant Ofer et Seer by Chik Cer Piso 35 standard in its rules adopted on June 23, 2015 and specifically Rule 1.13, concluding thatthe change in Wisconsin Statute Section 62.13 under 1993 Wisconsin Act S4 did not intend to lower the standard of proof fo something less than the “preponderance of the evidence.” Pursuant to Rule 1.12, the Commission eeeived evidence that was “televant, material and of probative value ‘of the charges at issue and es to application uf the standards under Wis, Stat. § 62.13(9)(em), Pursuant to Rule 1.12, the Commission “isnot bound by and will not require that the statutory oF ‘common lw rules of evidence be strtly followed in the hearing, but no factual conclusions may be based solely on hearsay evidence.” The Commission's asalysis and findings below are not intended to lst each and every factor piece of evidence ypen which the Commission relied in reaching its conclusions, The Commission carefully conscered and relied upon the entre record, ‘The following is merely even make the phone call to Me. Wernham at 10:34 p.m, and iy of Meard Pac & Fre Commision Decon In e Charges le gaint Offs Robert Scher by Cie Caper Paresh of35 6:30 am, despite the sound advee from Deputy Dassow. ‘The Commission is very concerned that Officer Stieber botheed his fellow law enforcement officers to discuss his personal relationship breakdown for extended periods of time from atleast 1 minutes to over an hour. The Commission is very concemed that Officer Stieber focused more on his personal cell phone ‘han performing proactive police work for more than one Now that Hight. The Commission 1 ‘ety concemed that Officer Stieber obsessed and researched Mr. Wernham on the internet for ‘over forty minutes hile on duty. The Commission does appreciate the significant explanation at {he heating of the relationship between Officer Sticher and Ms, Thompson, ‘This explanation of the relationship provides ccntext to Officer Sticher's ations, however, it does not justify his ‘iolation of rules or his lack of good judgment on his shi. The Commission aly considered several other factors, in addition to Otficer Stcber's record of service and seriousness ofthe offense to determine what penalty the good ofthe police service may require in this situation, First, Officer Stieber did not threaten Mr. Wernham. Second, Officer Stieber only used publicly available websites to conduct searches about Mr. ‘Wernham —he did not use cenfidental police department resources eventhough he had access them. Third, Officer Sticber followed the Chie directions during the investigation and did ‘what the Chief asked him todo, Fourth, Officer Stcber immediately ceased communication with Ms. Thompson and Me, Wernham, Fifh, Officer Stieber apologized to the Chief for some of his conduct dhving the investigtion intiview, Sinth, Officer Silber scknowledged during the investigation interview that spending time at Hemer's Puneral Home was a “bad—bad— decision” Seventh, Officer Stieber acknowledged that spending time and looking up Mr. Wemham on the Department computer was a “bad choice.” Eighth, Officer Stieber acknowledged during the investigation interview that his conduct was not in compliance with ‘cay or te Pate & Fre Commision Decision: are Charges id agaist Oe Raber Stier by Chef Coyer Pages o38 Department Policy or the Taylor County Information Technology Poliy. Ninth, and of serious concem tothe Commission and justifying fll to the Commission that a suspension is required under these circumstances was Officer Stcber's testimony atthe hearing acknowledging that the only bad decision was calling Mr, Wernham on March , 2015 after his sift ended, The Commission believes Offiosr Stcbsr oun recognive the wrongfil nature of this shortsighted line of thinking The Commission does not believe termination isthe appropriate penalty in consideration ofthe record of this ease, the seriousness ofthe offense, Ofer Stiber's record of service, and the good ofthe sevice. The concept of progressive discipline als faetors into the Commission's

    Você também pode gostar