City Manager Overturns Discipline in Use of Force Case

It is not always the degree of penalty, but the nature of the charges that damage one’s career. Too often departments feel that they can impose a relatively light penalty with relatively serious charges and it is no big deal. Officers who take their career seriously should be vigilant in protecting their reputation from unwarranted attack.

Such was the case of Detective Matthew Eaton with the Montclair Police Department recently.

After a use of force complaint was filed against Eaton, the department administration went into typical panic mode. Eaton was placed on paid administrative leave. The case went to the District Attorney’s office. A parallel Internal Affairs investigation was launched and, by God, they were going to bring some kind of charges against this long-term, highly-regarded officer.

Well, the District Attorney wouldn’t touch it. That alone is a tell-tale sign of the weakness of the allegations. The evidence simply could not support the allegations the department wanted to bring. So, in a pattern seen over and over for many years, the department had to charge Eaton with something. After all, he had been paid to not work for many weeks, the department had a District Attorney case rejection, and the Internal Affairs people had worked very hard on this. With all that in mind, charges were brought alleging unnecessary/excessive force under the department’s rules and regulations. It is not important for the purposes of this article to get into the gory details of what did and did not occur to make our point. Simply put, Eaton didn’t do anything wrong.

Early on Eaton had requested LDF coverage, which was immediately granted. Attorney Bob Krause, of Castle & Krause, in Temecula, California, who has represented the Montclair Police Officers’ Association for over 15 years, was assigned to give legal assistance. The District Attorney was not allowed an interview notwithstanding Eaton’s early feelings that he should. Krause was with Eaton through all of the administrative interviews and conducted the “Skelly” hearing with the chief of police. The chief upheld the three-day suspension. Krause appealed to the city manager.

After a hearing before the city manager, he totally exonerated Eaton, ordered the matter out of Eaton’s file and had Eaton reimbursed for the 30-hours loss of pay he had suffered.

Krause had commented in the city manager hearing, among other things, that this was a classic case of overreaction by the police administration and that it was his experience that in cases like this the department will bring a charge . . . facts be damned.

The moral to this story is to not roll over simply because the worst-case scenario (termination/criminal filing) didn’t happen this time. Stay with the facts and evidence. If the facts and evidence do not support discipline of any kind then use the resources available through LDF and fight back. Don’t become a “progressive discipline” victim out of fear of making waves.