ILNews

Police Merit Commission may discipline former assistant chief

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A former assistant police chief of the City of Greenwood who was demoted to lieutenant may be disciplined by the city’s Police Merit Commission, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday. The officer argued that based on ordinances and codes, only the mayor could discipline police chiefs or assistant chiefs.

David R. Mertz was assistant police chief of the Greenwood Police Department when he was lead investigator on a case looking into alleged misconduct by Officer Nicholas Dine. The mayor, who has the authority to appoint the police chief and assistant chief, terminated the police chief and demoted Mertz to the rank of lieutenant, which he held prior to serving as assistant chief.

A review board looked into Mertz’s conduct related to the investigation of the officer and the police chief filed three disciplinary charges against Mertz with the commission. Mertz argued the commission couldn’t pursue disciplinary charges because the conduct that the charges were based on happened when he was assistant police chief. Greenwood ordinance and municipal code say the commission may take disciplinary action against any officer except the chief or assistant chief. 

The commission ordered Mertz suspended without pay for 10 days after finding he committed actions to delay or manipulate the disciplinary proceedings against Dine.

The trial court denied Mertz’s petition for review, finding that once he was removed as assistant chief, the commission had the authority to consider disciplinary action against him.

In David R. Mertz v. City of Greenwood, Indiana, 41A01-1206-MI-286, the appellate judges held that while the police chief and assistant chief serve at the pleasure of the mayor, they remain police officers subject to the same professional standards as other officers.

“And, at the time of his disciplinary proceedings, Mertz was neither a chief nor assistant chief of police, and the Commission applied the statute, ordinances, and department rules and regulations that were in effect at the time of his conduct. Mertz proposes that we interpret the municipal code and ordinance to prohibit any discipline by the Commission for misconduct by a chief or assistant chief of police. But such an interpretation is untenable because it would undermine the entire command structure,” Judge Edward Najam wrote.

The judges also pointed out that the language in the code says the exception is for “the chief or assistant chief of police,” and makes no mention of former chiefs or assistant chiefs.

“Thus, we hold that the exception is not absolute but suspends the Commission’s authority to discipline an officer while he holds the appointment as chief or assistant chief. Once the mayor has terminated the appointment or the appointment otherwise ends, the purpose of the exception no longer exists, and the exception no longer applies,” he wrote.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Manipulation
    Demoting officer Mertz, then punishing him for what he did when he was acting chief is no different that ex post facto law. You cannot pass a law after the fact to make an already comitted act a crime. Therefore you cannot demote a man from a rank that no one but the mayor can discipline, so that someone else can mete out the punishment. The court of appeals needs to get their heads screwed on straight. You can't explain one law or one rule 10 different ways, so the result will be what you want it to be! If the law states that it is illegal to walk bacwards when crossing a highway, you can't say that same law makes it illegal to walk forward across the highway! They must pick names out of a hat to appoint judges to the court of appeals!

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT