(a) If the investigation or interrogation of a law enforcement officer results in the
recommendation of some action, such as demotion, transfer, dismissal, loss of pay,
reassignment, or similar action which would be considered a punitive measure, then,
before taking such action, the law enforcement agency shall give notice to the law
enforcement officer that the officer is entitled to a hearing on the issues by a hearing
committee. The law enforcement officer may be relieved of duty subject to § 42-28.6-13, and shall receive all ordinary pay and benefits as the officer would have if the
officer were not charged.
Disciplinary action for violation(s) of departmental rules and/or regulations shall
not be instituted against an accused law enforcement officer under this chapter more
than three (3) years after such incident, except where such incident involves a potential
criminal offense, in which case disciplinary action under this chapter may be instituted
at any time within the statutory period of limitations for such offense.
(b) Notice under this section shall be in writing and shall inform the law enforcement
officer of the following:
(i) The nature of the charge(s) against them and, if known, the date(s) of the alleged
offense(s);
(ii) The recommended penalty;
(iii) The fact that the accused law enforcement officer has five (5) days from receipt of
the notice within which to submit a written request for a hearing; and
(iv) The name and address of the officer to whom a written request for a hearing (and other
related written communications) should be addressed.
(c) The accused law enforcement officer shall, within five (5) days of their receipt of
notice given pursuant to subsection (b) herein, file a written request for hearing
with the officer designated in accordance with subsection (b)(iv) of this section.
Failure to file a written request for a hearing shall constitute a waiver of their
right to a hearing under this chapter; provided, however, that the presiding justice
of the superior court, upon petition and for good cause shown, may permit the filing
of an untimely request for hearing.
(d) Upon receipt of the notice requesting a hearing pursuant to the provisions of subsection
(c) of this section, the police chief or highest ranking officer in the law enforcement
agency shall, within five (5) days, notify the chief justice of the Rhode Island supreme
court requesting that a retired justice or judge be assigned to serve as chairperson
of the hearing committee defined in § 42-28.6-1. Within five (5) days of receipt of the request, the chief justice shall assign a
retired justice or judge to serve as chairperson of the committee and an attorney
to serve on the hearing committee consistent with the requirements set out in § 42-28.6-1.3.
(e) The chairperson of the hearing committee shall, within five (5) days of appointment:
(1) Request the Rhode Island police officers commission on standards and training to randomly
select three (3) officers from the certified officer pool.
(f) The chairperson of the hearing committee shall convene an initial meeting or hearing
of the committee within thirty (30) days of the chair’s appointment pursuant to the
provisions of this chapter.
(g) Law enforcement officers selected to serve on a hearing committee under this chapter
shall be relieved of duty for each day of actual hearing and shall be compensated
by their respective agencies at their ordinary daily rate of pay for each day actually
spent in the conduct of the hearing hereunder.
(h) Whenever a law enforcement officer faces disciplinary action as a result of criminal
charges, the provisions of subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f) shall be suspended pending
the adjudication of said criminal charges.
Notes of Decisions
Int'l Bhd. of Police Officers, Local 569 v. City of East Providence, 989 A.2d 106 (R.I. 2010).
· cites it 8× “” Ten days later, the union filed a complaint seeking declaratory relief in Superi- or Court, alleging that the department violated Sullivan’s due process rights when it discharged Sullivan without a hearing as mandated by the LEOBOR, G.L.1956 § 42-28.6-4. The department filed…”
City of Pawtucket v. Nichalas Laprade, 94 A.3d 503 (R.I. 2014).
· cites it 12× “In accordance with § 42-28.6-4, a three-person hearing committee was then selected; it was composed of Patrolman Richard Ramirez (Ramirez)—a Providence police officer selected by Laprade—and Major Bruce Moreau (Moreau) from the Pawtucket Police Department, who was chosen by the…”
Lynch v. King, 391 A.2d 117 (R.I. 1978).
· cites it 3× “Bardsley, after notification of the dismissal, was afforded a hearing pursuant to §42-28.6-4. Hearings were held on July 26, 28, and August 3, 1976.”
Zincone v. Mancuso, 523 A.2d 1222 (R.I. 1987).
· cites it 8× “Section 42-28.6-4. The hearing committee is to consist of three members, with the chief or the highest-ranking officer of the department or organization bringing the charge selecting one member of the committee, the aggrieved officer choosing another, and the two selectees…”
McGee v. Stone, 522 A.2d 211 (R.I. 1987).
· cites it 3× “Section 42-28.6-4 provides that a law enforcement officer is entitled to a hearing regarding any charge against him that may result in any punitive action being taken.”
Morgan v. City of Warwick, 510 A.2d 1297 (R.I. 1986).
· cites it 6× “Alleging, inter alia, that the transfer was punitive in nature and thus within the hearing requirement of § 42-28.6-4, plaintiff, seeking to compel defendants to conduct such a proceeding, petitioned for a writ of mandamus.”
In Re Denisewich, 643 A.2d 1194 (R.I. 1994).
· cites it 2× “1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 42-28.6-4, exercised his right to appear before a Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights hearing committee.”
Ims v. Town of Portsmouth, 32 A.3d 914 (R.I. 2011).
· cites it 2× “See G.L.1956 § 42-28.6-4. The LEOBOR hearing board ruled that Officer W.”
Culhane v. Denisewich, 689 A.2d 1062 (R.I. 1997).
· cites it 3× “This case comes before us on a petition for certiorari filed by the Superintendent of the Rhode Island State Police and by the State of Rhode Island, seeking review of an amended decision of a hearing committee convened pursuant to the Law Enforcement Officers’ BiU of Rights,…”
City of East Providence v. McLaughlin, 593 A.2d 1345 (R.I. 1991).
“See § 42-28.6-4. Thereafter McLaughlin exercised his right to a hearing, and Lemont’s decision was stayed pending the outcome.”
In Re Sabetta, 661 A.2d 80 (R.I. 1995).
“6-11 provides in pertinent part: “(a) The hearing committee shall be empowered to sustain, modify in whole or in part, or reverse the complaint or charges of the investigating authority, as provided in § 42-28.6-4.” The language of § 42-28.6 does not give the hearing committee…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-28.6-4(a) — 2 cases
Int'l Bhd. of Police Officers, Local 569 v. City of East Providence, 989 A.2d 106 (R.I. 2010).
“” Ten days later, the union filed a complaint seeking declaratory relief in Superi- or Court, alleging that the department violated Sullivan’s due process rights when it discharged Sullivan without a hearing as mandated by the LEOBOR, G.L.1956 § 42-28.6-4. The department filed…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-28.6-4(b) — 2 cases
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-28.6-4(c) — 1 case
City of Pawtucket v. Nichalas Laprade, 94 A.3d 503 (R.I. 2014).
“In accordance with § 42-28.6-4, a three-person hearing committee was then selected; it was composed of Patrolman Richard Ramirez (Ramirez)—a Providence police officer selected by Laprade—and Major Bruce Moreau (Moreau) from the Pawtucket Police Department, who was chosen by the…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-28.6-4(f) — 1 case
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.