Request By:
Mr. Robert E. Sturgill
Assistant Chief of Police
City of Falmouth Police Department
Falmouth, Kentucky 41040
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Walter C. Herdman, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
This is in answer to your letter of November 24 in which you initially raise the question as to whether or not the chief of police can suspend an officer over a dispute of departmental matters without first filing formal charges against him.
The police department in cities of the fourth class, to which Falmouth belongs, is controlled by the city legislative body pursuant to KRS 95.700. All police officers are appointed by the council for two-year terms which are automatically renewed up until the time of retirement unless they are removed for cause, which means legal cause. No hearing is required however to remove an officer as long as the city legislative body has sufficient evidence to support the removal. See
Wilson v. City of Jeffersontown, Ky., 511 S.W.2d 115 (1974). Of course, if the city has accepted and adopted the civil service provisions pursuant to KRS 95.761 to 95.784, then a hearing is required before any officer can be removed. The term "removal" includes the suspension of an officer without pay. See McQuillin, Mun. Corps., Vol. 4, § 12.252 to 12.253.
The chief of police has no authority to remove or suspend any member of the police department. This authority rests solely in the city legislative body. The chief of police may, of course, issue orders relating to the performance of the duties by members of the police department.
George v. City of Lebanon, Ky., 424 S.W.2d 588 (1968). However, as we previously said, only the legislative body would have the power to suspend or remove a police officer and this must be based on legal cause and would require formal charges to be placed against an officer by any aggrieved person, including the chief of police. Thus, we find no authority for the chief of police to suspend an officer without filing charges against him before the legislative body.
In response to your second question where the officer is suspended or removed but reinstated when the charges are found to be insufficient, he would be entitled to his back pay as held in the case of