(1) Any officer or employee may be removed, suspended, laid-off, reduced in grade, or fined by the chief for any cause which will promote the efficiency of the service, but before any such action is taken by the chief against any officer or employee, the chief shall furnish the officer or employee concerned with a written statement of the reasons why the described action is taken. The officer or employee may be reduced, removed, suspended, laid-off or fined from the date when such written statement of reasons is served upon him. Each officer or employee removed, suspended, laid-off, reduced in grade, or fined, shall be allowed a period of ten (10) days within which he may file written answer to the charges and reasons which caused his suspension, removal, reduction or fine, which shall be made a part of the official records of the police department. No trial or examination of witnesses shall be required in any such case except in the discretion of the chief. The chief shall likewise furnish a copy of the written charges and reasons for his action to the board.
(2) Any citizen who makes written charges of misconduct, under oath, concerning the actions of any police officer hereunder shall present the charges to the chief of police, who shall investigate said charges. The chief of police shall determine what action, if any, shall be taken against the officer, subject to the limitations set out in this chapter. The citizen may appeal the determination of the chief of police to the board. Effective: June 17, 1978 History: Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 126, sec. 1, effective June 17, 1978. -- Amended 1970 Ky. Acts ch. 198, sec. 5. -- Created 1952 Ky. Acts ch. 141, sec. 4(1), effective March 4, 1952.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1967–2014 · leading case:
Redmon v. McDaniel, 540 S.W.2d 870 (Ky. 1976).
Redmon v. McDaniel, 540 S.W.2d 870 (Ky. 1976).
· cites it 2× “Redmon asserts upon this appeal that he was not afforded administrative and procedural due process in that his resignation of August 16 deprived him of a due process hearing before the Jefferson County Police Merit Board as required by KRS 78.445 and KRS 78.455. The hearing…”
Pearce v. Whitenack, 440 S.W.3d 392 (Ky. Ct. App. 2014).
“520, but both statutes set forth comprehensive administrative procedures by which public employees may contest disciplinary sanctions, including further review by means of an original action in circuit court, with an appeal to the court of appeals.”
Crouch v. Jefferson Cnty., Kentucky Police Merit Bd., 773 S.W.2d 461 (Ky. 1989).
“455 provides: In all cases provided for in KRS 78.445 and 78.450, the action of the chief or of the board shall be final except in the following cases: (1) Every action in the nature of a dismissal, suspension, reduction or fine made by the chief, shall be subject to review by…”
Brown v. Jefferson Cnty. Police Merit Bd., 751 S.W.2d 23 (Ky. 1988).
“The Court of Appeals held that, at least insofar as removal, regardless of her designation as a probationary appointment, Brown was a member of the County Police force and a covered employee included in the merit system and entitled to the statutory protections attending the…”
McDaniel v. Walp, 747 S.W.2d 613 (Ky. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “520(l)(a) Any complaint taken from any individual alleging misconduct on the part of any police officer, as defined herein, shall be taken under oath in the form of an affidavit, signed, and sworn to by the complainant and duly notarized; (emphasis added) We do not believe a…”
O'Bryant v. Theobald, 421 S.W.2d 571 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967).
· cites it 2× “Under KRS 78.445 a member of a county police force may be removed, suspended, laid off, reduced in grade, or fined by the chief, “for any cause which will promote the efficiency of the service.”
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 78.445(2): 1 case
McDaniel v. Walp, 747 S.W.2d 613 (Ky. Ct. App. 1987).
“520(l)(a) Any complaint taken from any individual alleging misconduct on the part of any police officer, as defined herein, shall be taken under oath in the form of an affidavit, signed, and sworn to by the complainant and duly notarized; (emphasis added) We do not believe a…”
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.