84.610. Police personnel — right to public hearing. — Any police officer, policeman or employee adversely affected by any action taken by the chief which he is required to report to the board under the provisions of subdivision (1) of section 84.500 shall have the right to have such action of the chief of police reviewed by the police board upon filing with the secretary of the board within ten days after the effective date of such action a written request for review by said police board. Whereupon the police board shall grant a public hearing within fifteen days after the filing of such request. The board shall have the power to inquire into all the facts and circumstances pertaining to such action and may compel the attendance of witnesses by subpoena at the request of either the police officer, policeman or employee involved, the chief of police or any member of the board. The board shall have the power upon such hearing to affirm, modify or reverse such action of the chief and may make such other orders as the board may deem necessary. The board shall report all decisions in writing to the chief of police and to the officer or employee involved. Each decision of the police board in such cases shall be final and not subject to review by any court.
Notes of Decisions
Wheeler v. Bd. of Police Commissioners of Kansas City, 918 S.W.2d 800 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 23× “However, upon review, the Clay County Circuit Court reversed the Board’s decision and directed it to hold a public hearing on the issue of Wheeler’s termination as required by § 84.610. 1 The Board appeals. Wheeler objected to her termination, and by letter dated September 18,…”
Belton v. Bd. of Police Commissioners, 708 S.W.2d 131 (Mo. 1986).
· cites it 7× “On May 4,1982, appellant requested that the suspension assessed by Chief Caron be reviewed by respondent Board of Police Commissioners pursuant to § 84.610, RSMo 1978. That section provides: Any police officer, policeman or employee adversely affected by any action taken by the…”
Lagud v. Kansas City Bd. of Police Commissioners, 136 S.W.3d 786 (Mo. 2004).
· cites it 4× “On April 16, 2001, the Board held a hearing pursuant to section 84.610. 4 During the hearing Officer Lagud testified consistently with his prior statements.”
Vivona v. Zobrist, 290 S.W.3d 167 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 11× “The Board’s Authority to Delegate the Hearing In his first point on appeal, Mr. Vivona argues that the Board did not have authority to delegate the hearing of his disciplinary case to a hearing officer because he has a right to a public hearing before the Board.”
Spencer v. Zobrist, 323 S.W.3d 391 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 5× “]” In addition, although the police chief disciplines the officers, section 84.610, RSMo 2000, gives the Board on review of the chiefs decision “the power .”
State ex rel. Rogers v. Bd. of Police Commissioners, 995 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “On appeal, the police chief argued that “summary disposal of Wheeler’s case was permissible because neither § 84.610 nor Chapter 536 specifically precluded the Board from entering judgment as a matter of law.”
Schnell v. Zobrist, 323 S.W.3d 403 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 5× “]” In addition, although the police chief disciplines the officers, section 84.610, RSMo 2000, gives the Board on review of the chiefs decision “the power .”
Click v. Bd. of Police Commissioners, 609 F. Supp. 1199 (W.D. Mo. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Mo.Rev.Stat. § 84.610. There is no statutory procedure for review of suspensions of less than 15 days.”
Sowder v. Bd. of Police Commissioners, 553 S.W.2d 525 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 3× “In due course Sowder appealed the Police Chief suspension order to the Board under § 84.610 and so, as convened, the Board had for determination this review procedure, its own citation against Sowder and the complaint brought by the Neals.”
Kendrick v. Bd. of Police Commissioners, 945 S.W.2d 649 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “500; § 84.610. After a hearing on the matter, the Board may affirm, modify or reverse the Chief's action.”
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.