During the past few months, I’ve come to learn that many in the community do not understand the police disciplinary process and the requirements imposed on police departments and city governments by state law that directs the process.

Being a second class city, we must follow two sections of the Kentucky Revised Statutes in connection with investigating alleged misconduct by police officers. One section, KRS 95.450, directs how the discipline of police officers in second class cities must be approached by the legislative body. The second section, KRS 15.520, sets forth the requirements for handling complaints made by citizens against police officers. This is commonly referred to as the “Police Officer Bill of Rights”.

While the two sections have some overlap, each has its own unique requirements that must be followed.

Let’s first look at KRS 95.450, which dictates how second class cities must proceed in the disciplinary process.

First, the statute clearly states that no member of the police department shall be reprimanded, dismissed, suspended or reduced in grade or pay for any reason except inefficiency, misconduct, insubordination or violation of law or of the rules adopted by the legislative body. Charges must be preferred in writing and clearly set out the charges made. Naturally, prior to this occurring, there must have been a thorough internal investigation to determine the validity and credibility of the allegations made against the officer.

Once the charges are filed with the city clerk, the legislative body must conduct a hearing within three days. Naturally, the accused officer can waive the three-day requirement in an agreement with the city attorney or his designee and the hearing would be conducted at a later date suitable to both parties.

For an officer to be suspended prior to the hearing date, the appointing authority (the city commission in our case) or the police chief must have probable cause to believe that the officer has been guilty of conduct justifying dismissal or punishment. This is similar to the standard that officers must meet before they arrest someone for a crime — probable cause. The suspension can be with or without pay pending an administrative hearing. If the officer is found guilty of misconduct, the city commission can set any penalty up to a maximum of a six months suspension or dismissal.

The “Police Officer Bill of Rights” (KRS 15.520) is more directly related to citizen complaints against police officers. Its stated intent is to provide administrative due process rights for police officers while at the same time providing a means for redress by citizens for wrongs allegedly done to them by police officers.

Under this section, the complainant must file a sworn affidavit setting out the misconduct of the officer, unless it is criminal conduct. Criminal conduct does not require a sworn affidavit. If the complainant declines to provide a sworn affidavit, then no charges can be pursued unless the internal investigation can independently establish misconduct absent the sworn affidavit of the complainant.

Just like under KRS 95.450, an officer can be suspended from duty with or without pay pending the completion of the internal investigation and the administrative hearing. If an officer is suspended, a hearing must be conducted within 60 days of the charges being filed. Of course, this may be waived by the officer in agreement with the city government.

A major difference under the “Police Officer Bill of Rights” is that before an officer can be questioned regarding a matter of alleged misconduct filed by a citizen, the officer must be given a 48-hour notice of the intent to interrogate. In addition, the officer must be on duty at the time the interview is conducted.

Another restriction under the “Police Officer Bill of Rights” is that once administrative charges are filed against an officer, no public statements can be made concerning the alleged violation by the local unit of government, meaning any public employee of the city.

Much like a criminal case, both the accused officer and the city government can subpoena witnesses to appear at the administrative hearing and the officer is not required to testify. The officer also has the option of having legal counsel during the hearing.

If an officer is found guilty of misconduct at an administrative hearing, the officer has the right to appeal the finding to the circuit court for review.

I often have people tell me that I should immediately fire an officer for certain alleged acts of misconduct. Hopefully, this column illuminates the fact that I could not do so even if that was my desire. As a person who has worked for city and federal governments and operated in the criminal justice system for over 30 years, I believe in due process. Police officers should enjoy the same due process rights as anyone else. Complaints against them should be fairly investigated to determine their validity and they should have a right to a hearing by an impartial body to determine if they have violated any rules or regulations established by the city or the police department.

It goes without saying that police officers should be held accountable for their actions, just like we hold citizens accountable for their actions.