UKIAH PATROL OFFICER’S
TERMINATION IS OVERTURNED
Peter Hoyle worked as a police officer
for nearly 20 years at the time he was terminated by the City of Ukiah.
His work evaluations were excellent. His credentials unquestioned.
However, the local newspaper began
publishing critical comments about him after he was required to use his
sidearm to stop a drug suspect who was attacking his partner with a
broad sword. That action, along with his high activity level and work
with the Mendocino County drug task force drew the ire of the local
defense bar and further negative publicity.
In March 1995, after returning to patrol
duties, Hoyle was dispatched to a loud party call. While at the
apartment, the officer backing him up was threatened by one of the
occupants and forced to initiate an arrest.
After Hoyle helped handcuff the
subject all the occupants of the apartment, including the suspect's two
brothers, came out and challenged the officers. Hoyle turned his
attention to the crowd while the other officer attempted, without
success, to remove the arrestee from the scene.
The arrestee resisted and the other
officer was compelled to use his OC spray and take the subject to the
ground. The subject was injured in the takedown.
The following week, two of the people in
the apartment went to the police station and verbally complained about
the actions of the other officer. No complaint was made against Hoyle
and no action was taken by the department.
Four months later one of the individuals
sent a written complaint to the department. The complaint not only
alleged that the other officer used excessive force, but also alleged
for the first time that Hoyle struck her boyfriend with a baton. The
boyfriend said he did not remember the incident because he was too
drunk.
During the department's investigation a
number of witnesses contradicted the allegations. In October 1995, the
department issued its written decision that the complaint was unfounded.
The person arrested at the party
went to trial in December 1995. Hoyle testified during the trial that he
did not strike anyone with his baton. The arrestee was convicted of
violating Penal Code Section 148, but the conviction was set aside by
the court because the tape recording of the trial was defective.
Following the trial, the chief of police
was called by a newspaper reporter who claimed that Hoyle lied in his
testimony. The reporter's source of information was the woman that had
lodged the earlier complaints. The chief responded by placing Officer
Hoyle on administrative leave and by ordering another investigation.
The same witnesses were again interviewed
and again gave the same statements. However, the second time around, the
chief recommended Hoyle's termination for lying during the trial.
The chief's recommendation was accepted
by the city manager and Hoyle was terminated. No action was taken
against the other officer.
The termination was appealed to the
city's Civil Service Board. Following a three day hearing, the board
reversed the termination and directed Hoyle's reinstatement with full
back pay and benefits. The Commission deliberated less than 30 minutes
in reaching its unanimous decision that the allegations of
untruthfulness were not supported by the evidence.
Hoyle was represented in the
administrative investigation and at the appeal hearing by LDF panel
attorney John Shields of Santa Rosa.
LDF Home Page | News Article Index
