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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT