Ala. Code
Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 11-43-230 (2026)

Predisciplinary Hearing Prior to Suspension or Termination; Procedures; Postdisciplinary Hearing.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Every municipality shall provide a predisciplinary hearing prior to the suspension or termination of its law enforcement officers, provided nothing herein shall preclude a municipality from placing a law enforcement officer on leave with pay until the person or body holding the hearing has made its decision in the matter.

(b) Every municipality shall establish written due process procedures applicable to the predisciplinary hearing. At a minimum, this due process shall consist of written notice to the officer of the reasons for the termination or suspension. This notice shall be issued by the person or persons with authority to suspend or terminate the law enforcement officer. The notice shall inform the officer that he or she has 10 days to request, in writing, a hearing before the person or persons with authority to suspend or terminate. If the officer fails to request the hearing within 10 days from receiving the notice, the right to any hearing shall be deemed waived.

(c) The hearing shall be conducted by an impartial officer or body with authority to suspend or terminate the law enforcement officer. If the hearing is before the municipal governing body, the hearing may be conducted in an executive session, provided that any vote for or against suspension or termination shall occur in an open session.

(d) The officer has the right to appear at this hearing in person or by representative and to address charges against him or her. If the officer has a representative, the officer shall also be present at the hearing.

(e) A municipality may also hold a separate postdisciplinary hearing on the suspension or termination of the law enforcement officer. If the municipality holds a separate postdisciplinary hearing on the matter, the officer may present evidence in his or her behalf and question witnesses who testified against him or her.

(f) Nothing shall prohibit a municipality from allowing due process which exceeds the requirements in this section.

(g) The rules of evidence and the rules of discovery shall not apply to either of the hearings held pursuant to this article.

(Act 2001-463, p. 617, §1.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2012–2025 · leading case: Woodard v. Town of Oakman, 885 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (N.D. Ala. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Woodard v. Town of Oakman, 885 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (N.D. Ala. 2012). · cites it 4× “Finally, Chief Woodard and Officer Phillips sue Mayor Todd and Oakman for terminating their employment as police officers “without a hearing under Ala.Code § 11-43-230.” (Doc. 57 ¶ 52.) Defendants do not move to dismiss Officer Phillips’ claim.”
Woodard v. Town of Oakman, 970 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (N.D. Ala. 2013). · cites it 2× “; as well as state law claims for malicious prosecution, 1 outrage, and violation of due process rights under Ala.Code § 11-43-230 (i.e., wrongful termination without a disciplinary hearing).”
Pinyan v. City of Oneonta, Alabama (N.D. Ala. 2025). · cites it 8× “” Ala. Code § 11-43-230 (a). The question is whether this is a duty imposed on Chief Clifton, as opposed to one required of the municipality – here, the City of Oneonta.”
Mitchell v. Town of Hayneville, Alabama (M.D. Ala. 2020). · cites it 7× “See Ala. Code § 11-43-230 . The complaint also states that he performed his duties as police chief and that the town, by firing him without process, failed to perform its side of the bargain.”
Mitchell v. Town of Hayneville, Alabama (M.D. Ala. 2023). · cites it 5× “”); see supra Ala. Code §§ 11-43-230 to -231. The court’s prior December 2020 opinion also addressed Hayneville’s other arguments, concluding (1) that an adequate post-deprivation remedy did not absolve 1.”
Hardy v. City Of Selma (S.D. Ala. 2024). · cites it 2× “I, § 13 and § 35, the “due process policy” afforded by City of Selma Personnel Rules and Ala. Code (1975) § 11-43-230. Doc. 1-1 at 561.”
Ala. Code § 11-43-230(a): 1 case
Pinyan v. City of Oneonta, Alabama (N.D. Ala. 2025). “” Ala. Code § 11-43-230 (a). The question is whether this is a duty imposed on Chief Clifton, as opposed to one required of the municipality – here, the City of Oneonta.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.