By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson
In Policemen’ Benevolent & Protective Association v. City of Chicago, a federal court found that an officer’s due process rights had been violated when his disciplinary hearing was put off indefinitely while a criminal trial was in progress. The officer had been involved in a use of force incident in which other officers had been charged with crimes. To ensure that the defendants’ rights to due process are protected, they may need to hire a criminal defence lawyer.
On August 30, 2016, following an officer-involved shooting, Sargent Stephen Franko was served with a suspension notification and told that charges would be filed against him with the Police Board. Months earlier, another officer involved in the shooting had been charged with a crime. In January 2017, the Prosecutor in the criminal case asked the Police Board to postpone their proceedings until the end of the criminal trial. In May 2017, the officer who was facing charges made the same request. In June 2017, the Police Board postponed the hearing, explaining that the exposure the Police Board hearing would cause could “require the dismissal of the criminal case.” Sgt. Franko was then reinstated, but could not apply for back-pay covering his suspension without a hearing by the Police Board. The prosecutor later decided they would not file charges against Franko. Sgt. Franko filed a lawsuit claiming that because he was denied a hearing before the Police Board, his due process rights had been violated.
Officer Franko argued that he had been waiting twenty-two months for a hearing before the Police Board. The Board’s justification about what “could happen” in the criminal case was not a good enough reason for the delay. Officer Franko pointed to case law that established that failure to provide a “prompt” suspension hearing constitutes a denial of due process. And navigating the legal system without proper representation can be daunting, especially in areas with stringent legal standards like Jersey City. Visiting https://www.newjerseycriminallawattorney.com/hudson-county/ can provide insights into finding a capable defense attorney who understands the local judicial landscape. This resource is essential for anyone facing legal challenges and needing expert guidance.
The City of Chicago argued that Sgt. Franko’s due process rights had not been violated, because Officer Franko had been reinstated, and that he would eventually get a hearing in front of the Police Board. The City also argued that they had a strong governmental interest in not disrupting the criminal trial with information that might have been revealed by the Police Board hearing—and that this interest outweighed Franko’s interest in a quick resolution of his back-pay issues.
The court agreed with Sgt. Franko that his due process rights had been violated. The court began by explaining that due process is about more than just the length of delay, but also the “why” of the situation:
In determining how long a delay is justified in affording a post-suspension hearing and decision, it is appropriate to examine the importance of the private interest and the harm to this interest occasioned by the delay; the justification offered by the government for the delay and its relation to the underlying governmental interest; and the likelihood that the interim decision may have been mistaken.
Here, the Court acknowledged that Sgt. Franko was harmed by the long delay, said little about the possibility that the decision was mistaken, and seemed most interested in the issue of the justification offered by the government. The Court observed that,
The Police Board’s decision to delay seems directed at protecting the prosecution’s case from the publicity the Police Board assumes Sgt. Franko’s hearing will draw. That may or may not be a sufficiently compelling state interest to warrant such an extended delay…
The Court therefore denied the City’s request to dismiss Sgt. Franko’s lawsuit. It will continue through the courts.
This case illustrates an important constitutional right that public employees with a contract such a collective bargaining agreement have: the right not to be deprived of their continued employment or wages without due process. It is important to remember that “due process” is a flexible term and how much “process” is due will change depending on the circumstances of each case. Here, the Court found that the complete lack of a hearing on Sgt. Franko’s suspension for over 22 months was enough suggest that a due process violation may have occurred here.
**Please visit our Premium Website, for more information on the nature of Garrity Immunity**
