City of Gary Police Civil Service Commission v. Raymond Robinson

FILED
Apr 17 2018, 8:00 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Rodney Pol, Jr. Russell W. Brown, Jr.
Assistant City Attorney Scott King Group
Gary, Indiana Merrillville, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
City of Gary Police Civil Service April 17, 2018
Commission, Court of Appeals Case No.
Appellant-Petitioner, 45A05-1706-PL-1414
Appeal from the Lake Superior
v. Court
The Honorable A. Leon Sarkisian,
Raymond Robinson, Judge Pro Tempore
Appellee-Respondent. The Honorable Diane Kavadias
Schneider, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
45D11-1503-PL-22
Najam, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[1] The City of Gary Police Civil Service Commission (“Commission”) appeals the
trial court’s entry of summary judgment for Raymond Robinson on his petition
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A05-1706-PL-1414 | April 17, 2018 Page 1 of 12
for judicial review from an adverse decision of the Commission. The
Commission raises three issues for our review, which we restate as follows:
1. Whether the trial court erred when it denied the
Commission’s motion to dismiss Robinson’s petition for judicial
review.
2. Whether the Commission preserved for appellate review
its claim that the trial court considered inadmissible evidence on
summary judgment.
3. Whether the trial court erred when it entered summary
judgment for Robinson.
[2] We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In September of 2012, agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”)
arrested Gary Police Department (“GPD”) Officer David Finley on charges of
corruption. The FBI’s investigation and ultimate arrest of Finley was based at
least in part on tips provided by a confidential informant (“CI”). Shortly after
Finley’s arrest, the CI “went into hiding out of a valid fear that Finley (or
associates) would harm” the CI. Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 61.
[4] On January 19, 2013, Robinson, also an officer with the GPD, used his GPD
credentials to conduct an unauthorized informational search of the National
Crime Information Center (“NCIC”) and the Indiana Data and
Communication System (“IDACS”), which are law enforcement databases that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A05-1706-PL-1414 | April 17, 2018 Page 2 of 12
contain information about individuals who have had contact with law
enforcement. Robinson searched those databases for the CI who had assisted
the FBI in Finley’s case. The CI’s information in those databases included the
CI’s phone number. Shortly after Robinson conducted that search, the CI
began receiving threatening phone calls.
[5] The CI informed the FBI of those calls, and FBI Special Agent Dan Cooley
investigated. In the course of that investigation, Special Agent Cooley learned
that Robinson had used the NCIC and IDACS databases to access the CI’s
information. Special Agent Cooley arranged to interview Robinson at a GPD
station in February. During that interview, Robinson admitted that he had
used his GPD credentials to conduct an unauthorized search for the CI and that
he had seen the CI’s information in those databases. But Robinson stated that
he had performed that search simply out of “curiosity.” Id. Later, Robinson
also admitted that he had falsely testified to Finley’s sentencing court that
Robinson had written a letter on Finley’s behalf when, in fact, Finley had
written that letter himself.
[6] On March 1, after learning of Robinson’s alleged unauthorized access to the
NCIC and IDACS databases, GPD Chief Wade Ingram ordered Robinson to
be transferred from the Bureau of Uniform Services Division to the
Administrative Services Division. About a month later, Chief Ingram ordered
Robinson to be transferred back to the Bureau of Uniform Services Division.
Meanwhile, the FBI continued to investigate Robinson’s access to the NCIC
and IDACS databases. On October 15, Indiana State Police Captain Mike
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A05-1706-PL-1414 | April 17, 2018 Page 3 of 12
White informed Chief Ingram that the FBI had substantiated to the State Police
that Robinson accessed the two databases without authorization, and, as a
result, the State Police had permanently revoked Robinson’s access to the
NCIC and IDACS databases.
[7] On January 23, 2014, the City of Gary (“the City”) filed a complaint against
Robinson with the Commission. The City alleged that Robinson’s
unauthorized access of the NCIC and IDACS databases was an “abuse of
privileges” and “prohibited by directives and law.” Id. at 50. The City further
alleged that, due to the State Police’s permanent revocation of Robinson’s
access to those databases, “Robinson’s current function as a police officer has
been permanently diminished . . . .” Id. at 51. Accordingly, the City requested
that the Commission terminate Robinson’s employment.
[8] Thereafter, a single hearing officer held a fact-finding hearing on the City’s
complaint. The hearing officer then recommended Robinson’s termination.
Robinson appealed to the Commission, but the Commission accepted the
hearing officer’s recommendation.
[9] Robinson filed a petition for judicial review in the trial court. After the court
had denied a motion to dismiss filed by the Commission, Robinson moved for
summary judgment. In his motion, Robinson argued that the designated
evidence showed that the GPD was aware of Robinson’s misconduct no later
than March 1, 2013, when Chief Ingram transferred Robinson between
divisions based on Robinson’s alleged unauthorized use of the NCIC and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A05-1706-PL-1414 | April 17, 2018 Page 4 of 12
IDACS databases. As such, Robinson continued, Commission Rule of
Procedure II(7)(A), which states that “disciplinary proceedings must be
commenced within one-hundred and twenty (120) days from the date the
alleged misconduct is discovered,” required the dismissal of the Commission’s
proceedings because the City’s complaint was filed 328 days after March 1,
2013. Id. at 79.
[10] The Commission did not object to Robinson’s designated evidence in support of
his motion for summary judgment. Indeed, the Commission informed the trial
court that Robinson had done a “great job of laying out the facts of the case.”
Tr. at 21. Rather than argue facts, the Commission argued that Rule II(7)(A)
did not begin to run until the investigation into Robinson’s alleged misconduct
had been completed. According to the Commission, that occurred here on
October 15, 2013, when State Police Captain White informed Chief Ingram
that Robinson’s access to the NCIC and IDACS databases was being
permanently revoked based on the FBI’s substantiation of Robinson’s alleged
misuse. As such, the Commission continued, the City timely filed its January
23, 2014, complaint with the Commission. The trial court agreed with
Robinson and entered summary judgment accordingly. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
Issue One: Motion to Dismiss
[11] On appeal, we first address the Commission’s argument that the trial court
erred when it denied the Commission’s motion to dismiss. But the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A05-1706-PL-1414 | April 17, 2018 Page 5 of 12
Commission’s argument on appeal has no relationship to the argument it made
in the trial court on its motion to dismiss. Compare Appellant’s Br. at 33-35 with
Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 6-7. As such, the Commission has not preserved its
argument on appeal for our review. E.g., Holleman v. Ind. Dep’t of Corr., 27
N.E.3d 293, 297 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
[12] Nonetheless, in its motion to dismiss, the Commission asserted that Robinson
bore the burden to file the Commission’s record in the trial court within thirty
days of the Commission’s decision, which he did not do. In support of that
position, the Commission relied on Indiana Code Section 4-21.5-5-13(a), a
provision within Indiana’s Administrative Orders and Procedures Act
(“AOPA”). But AOPA does not apply here. Rather, Indiana Code Chapter
36-8-3.5 applies. Indeed, aside from the plain text of the statutes within that
Chapter, the Commission’s own Rules of Procedure expressly state that that
Chapter applies in lieu of AOPA on judicial review. Appellant’s App. Vol. II at
97-98. And Indiana Code Section 36-8-3.5-18(b)(5) directs that the
Commission, not Robinson, bore the burden to file the Commission’s record in
the trial court on judicial review. Accordingly, we reject the argument the
Commission made to the trial court and affirm the trial court’s denial of the
motion to dismiss.
Issue Two: Evidence on Summary Judgment
[13] We next address the Commission’s argument that the trial court erroneously
considered evidence on summary judgment that was not before the
Commission. But we conclude that the Commission has also failed to preserve
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A05-1706-PL-1414 | April 17, 2018 Page 6 of 12
this issue for our review. It is well established that “[a] party that fails to make
a timely objection” to the admission of evidence in the trial court on summary
judgment “waives . . . the right on appeal to assert the admission of evidence as
erroneous.” Hay v. Hay, 885 N.E.2d 21, 23 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App 2008) (quotation
marks omitted). Here, not only did the Commission not object in the trial court
to Robinson’s designation of evidence on summary judgment, the Commission
affirmatively agreed with Robinson’s representation of facts to the trial court.1
Tr. at 15-22. We hold that this issue is not properly before us, and we do not
consider it.
Issue Three: Entry of Summary Judgment
[14] We thus turn to the Commission’s argument that the trial court erred when it
entered summary judgment for Robinson. We review summary judgment
applying the same standard as the trial court: “summary judgment is
appropriate ‘if the designated evidentiary matter shows that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law.’” Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756, 761 (Ind. 2009) (quoting
Ind. Trial Rule 56(C)). We limit our review to the materials designated at the
trial level. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 73 v. City of Evansville, 829 N.E.2d
1The Commission argues that its objection at a prior hearing in the trial court on the Commission’s motion
to dismiss preserved its argument on appeal with respect to the evidence designated on summary judgment.
We cannot agree. An objection must be contemporaneous to preserve an issue for appellate review. E.g.,
Jackson v. State, 735 N.E.2d 1146, 1152 (Ind. 2000). The Commission further asserts that much of the
complained-of evidence was not properly admitted before the Commission in Robinson’s appeal from the
single hearing officer’s recommendation. Appellant’s Br. at 21. Aside from a single online newspaper article,
however, the Commission’s reading of the record is incorrect. See Appellee’s App. Vol. 3 at 25.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A05-1706-PL-1414 | April 17, 2018 Page 7 of 12
494, 496 (Ind. 2005). Where the challenge to summary judgment raises a pure
question of law, such as the interpretation of a statute, we review that question
de novo. Ballard v. Lewis, 8 N.E.3d 190, 193 (Ind. 2014). Our goal in statutory
interpretation is to determine the legislature’s intent, which, if the statute is
unambiguous, we do by following the plain and ordinary meaning of the
statute. E.g., Jones v. State, 87 N.E.3d 450, 454 (Ind. 2017).
[15] As an initial matter, we note that the Commission has, it seems, abdicated the
position it took on summary judgment in the trial court. Again, in the trial
court, the Commission argued only that the 120-day timeframe in which to file
a complaint under Commission Rule of Procedure II(7)(A) did not begin to run
until after the State Police had informed Chief Ingram of the FBI’s
substantiation of Robinson’s misuse of the NCIC and IDACS databases. On
appeal, however, the Commission instead focuses on whether the facts before
the trial court on summary judgment were properly admitted and whether those
facts defeat judgment as a matter of law for Robinson.2 But, as explained
above, the Commission did not preserve a challenge to the facts for appellate
review, and instead the Commission expressly conceded to the trial court that
Robinson’s representation of the facts was “accurate.” Tr. at 21-22. As such,
the Commission’s argument on appeal that the trial court’s entry of summary
2
In its argument, the Commission not only cites but substantially relies on a not-for-publication
memorandum decision of this Court. We remind counsel for the Commission that such decisions “shall not
be cited to any court except by the parties to the case to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the
case.” Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A05-1706-PL-1414 | April 17, 2018 Page 8 of 12
judgment is erroneous based on the Commission’s newfound reading of the
record is without merit, and we do not consider it.
[16] Nonetheless, the argument the Commission made to the trial court deserves our
review, and Robinson cogently addresses that argument in his brief to this
Court. Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to review the merits of the trial
court’s judgment on that argument.
[17] This issue turns on the interpretation of Commission Rule of Procedure
II(7)(A). That Rule states:
Except as otherwise provided, disciplinary proceedings must be
commenced within one-hundred and twenty (120) days from the
date the alleged misconduct is discovered. Disciplinary proceedings
against a police officer are barred after the expiration of two (2)
years from the date of the occurrence of the alleged misconduct,
unless the misconduct would, if proved in a court of law,
constitute a felony or a Class A misdemeanor in which case the
disciplinary proceedings may be commenced at any time.
Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 79 (emphasis added). According to Robinson, the
120-day requirement began to run on March 1, 2013, when Chief Ingram
transferred Robinson to a different division of the GPD based on Robinson’s
alleged misuse of the NCIC and IDACS databases. According to the
Commission’s argument in the trial court, however, the 120-day requirement
began to run on October 15, 2013, when the State Police first informed Chief
Ingram that the FBI had substantiated the allegations against Robinson. In
agreeing with Robinson’s interpretation in its order on summary judgment, the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A05-1706-PL-1414 | April 17, 2018 Page 9 of 12
trial court applied reasoning from our medical malpractice case law to conclude
that the 120-day requirement began to run when “the City of Gary knew or
learned of facts that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have led [it]
to the discovery of the alleged misconduct.” Id. at 143-44 (discussing Jeffrey v.
Methodist Hosps., 956 N.E.2d 151, 159 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011)).
[18] We agree with the Commission’s argument in the trial court for two
independent reasons. First, while the trial court’s analogy to medical
malpractice cases might well have been persuasive in a vacuum, here we have
an agency’s interpretation of its own rules, which is entitled to “great weight.”
Andy Mohr West v. Off. of Ind. Sec’y of State, 54 N.E.3d 349, 353 (Ind. 2016).
Specifically, the Commission’s interpretation of Rule II(7)(A) provides that the
phrase “the date the alleged misconduct is discovered” refers to the date an
allegation is substantiated by an investigation. Further, the Commission’s
interpretation is reasonable and not inconsistent with the language of the Rule
itself. As such, the judiciary must “stop our analysis and need not move
forward with any other proposed interpretation.” Id.[19] Second, under Robinson’s reading of Rule II(7)(A), “discovered” means the
same date as the date of the allegation. That is, Robinson reads the Rule to say,
in effect, that a complaint must be filed within 120 days of the date “the alleged
misconduct is alleged.” Had the intent of the drafters of the Rule been to start
the 120-day clock on the date of an allegation, we think the Rule would have
more plainly stated as much. See, e.g., State v. Prater, 922 N.E.2d 746, 750 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2010) (“In interpreting a statute, we must consider not only what the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A05-1706-PL-1414 | April 17, 2018 Page 10 of 12
statute says but what it does not say.”) (alterations and quotation marks
omitted), trans. denied.
[20] Moreover, Robinson’s reading is simply not practical. As the Commission
argued in the trial court, it receives reports of “alleged misconduct all the time
on police officers. There has to be some type of investigation” before the City is
required to consider filing a complaint. Tr. at 30. And, here, that investigation
was not even an internal investigation; rather, the investigation was conducted
by the FBI and the State Police and outside the control of the City and the
GPD. As such, we agree with the Commission’s argument in the trial court
with respect to the proper interpretation of Rule II(7)(A) and hold that the 120-
day requirement began to run when the State Police first informed Chief
Ingram that the FBI had substantiated the allegations against Robinson. We
reverse the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for Robinson and remand
for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.3
Conclusion
[21] In sum, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the Commission’s motion to dismiss
and the court’s admission of evidence on summary judgment. However, we
reverse the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for Robinson, and we
remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
3
We note that the Commission’s argument on appeal is only that disputed facts preclude the entry of
summary judgment, not that the Commission is entitled to summary judgment. Accordingly, we do not
direct the entry of summary judgment for the Commission at this time.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A05-1706-PL-1414 | April 17, 2018 Page 11 of 12
[22] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Mathias, J., and Barnes, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A05-1706-PL-1414 | April 17, 2018 Page 12 of 12