HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/17/72 Board of Public Works Special Meeting Minutes212
SPECIAL MEETING February, 17, 1972
A special meeting of the Board of Public Works and Safety convened
at 9:34 A.M. on Thursday, February 17, 1972. A11 members were present.
The meeting was called for the purpose of hearing charges brought
against Patrolman Maurice Van Woods by South Bend Police Chief Robert
Seals. Patrolman Woods was present at the meeting as was John J.
Roper, Attorney for the Defendent. Also present was Chief Deputy
City Attorney Robert M. Parker to represent the City of South Bend
in its charges against Patrolman �,Joods.
The Chairman of the Board stated for the record that he was in receipt
of a letter addressed to the Board from Attorney Roper entering his
appearance for Patrolman Woods and outlining the Defendant's requests.
Said letter was dated February 17, 1972. Also received .from -.Mr.. _
Roper by the Board is a copy of the Answer, Special Answer, and
motions in Response to the charges against Patrolman Maurice Van
Woods prepared by his attorney.
Mr. Parker presented the Chairman with a copy of the charges. He
stated that said charges had been duly served upon the defendant
along with notice of this hearing. This was acknowledged by Mr.
Roper.
The Chairman requested to waive the reading of Burns. Ind. Anno.
Stat. Section 48-6105 (Indiana Code 18-1-11-3) with outlines the
City's right to bring charges against Patrolman Woods. Attorney
Roper agreed to waive this reading.
The following letter was read by the Chairman:
February 17, 1972
Chairman
Board of Public
13th Floor
Works and Safety.
County City Building
South Bend, Indiana 46601
RE: Maurice Van foods
Dear Chairman:
On the 14th day of February, 1972, 1 was served with a copy of the
charges brought by the Chief of Police of the South Bend Police
Department against Maurice Van Woods. The charges were in four
counts. As a result thereof, it is respectfully requested that
you enter in your minutes my appearance as well as the enclosed
motions, answer and special answers thereto.
In addition, it is respectfully requested that Maurice Van Woods
be given a hearing on the 9th day of March, 1972 whereby he would
have the opportunity to fully and fairly rebut the charges.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court holding in State R. Richards,
180 N.E. 598, whereby they stated, "The hearing required by law
is a fair hearing, one conducted in good faith and dominated
solely by desire to determine the fitness of the person under
charges", the following is respectfully requested:
(a) That the Board of Public Works and safety
have present at the hearing a reporter who
shall be able to record the proceedings,
because Maurice Van Woods is temporarily
suspended and as a result thereof, does not
have the sufficient money, means, or property
to pay for the reporter.
1
1
1
2/17/72
213
(b) The Board of Public Works and Safety permit and
allow within a reasonable time prior to hearing,
Maurice Van Woods to subpeona witnesses to tes-
tify on his behalf by using the spbpeona power
of the Board of Public Works and Safety.
(c) Maurice Van Woods, by his attorney, have the
right to cross-examine each and every witness
testifying against him and an opportunity to
rebut their allegations by receiving within a
a reasonable time prior to the hearing a list of
the witnesses.to be used by the Chief of Police
in substantiating his charges.
(d) The Chief of Police, within a reasonable time,
prior to the hearing, produce to the attorney
for Maurice Van Woods a copy of any and all
documents which will be used against him.
(e) Maurice Van Woods be allowed any and all other
eft
procedural rights afforded to him by either the
T-I
Constitution of the State of Indiana or the
Constitution of the United States of America, or
by any laws, rules, or regulations; and
(f) The Board of Public Works and Safety, after
hearing, give to Maurice Van Woods a written
copy of findings of fact and conclusions of
law, including any and all action proposed to
be taken by the Board of Public Works and
Safety, if any
It is not the intention of this letter to threaten the Board of
Public Works and Safety in carrying out its assigned duties. We
are trying to clear up some of the ground rules prior to the
hearing.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
JJR:bak
enclosure
s/ John J. Roper
The Answer, Special Answer and Motions in Response to the charges
against Patrolman Maurice Van Woods were then read by the Chairman
as follows:
CITY OF SOUTH BEND ) TO THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS
,) SS: AND SAFETY OF THE CITY OF
STATE OF INDIANA ) SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
ANSWER, SPECIAL ANSWER AND
MOTIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE
CHARGES AGAINST PATROLMAN
MAURICE VAN WOODS.
1.
ANSWER
Comes now, John J. Roper, the attorney for Maurice Van Woods, and
for answer to charges against Maurice Van Woods, alleges and says:
1. Maurice Van Woods hereby denies each and every material
allegation contained in Count 1, County 11, County III, -and
Count 1V.
Wherefore, Maurice Van Woods prays that the Chief of the
South Bend Police Department take nothing by way of his charges,
and for any and all other proper relief.
s/ John J. Roper
.<214
2/17/72
11
MOTION TO OUASH
Comes now John J. Roper, the attorney for Mayrice Van Woods,
and by way of motion, alleges and says:
1. The Chief of Police, by way of his charges and four (4)
Counts, has failed to state a cause of action for which relief
can be granted pursuant to Section 48-6105, Burns Ind, Stat. Ann.;
more particularly, Maurice Van Woods, at the time of his offense,
was not performing his duties for the City of South Bend, but was
performing his duties as an employee of the S. S. Kresge Co.,
and further, the power and authority to act in the capacity in
which he acted was not pursuant to the laws, rules, or regulations
of the South Bend Police Department, but pursuant to Section 10-3042,
Burns. Ind. Stat. Ann,, which authorizes an employee of a mercantile
establishment, who has probably cause to believe that a specific
person has committed, or is committing, a theft, he may detain the
person to require such person to identify himself and to verify
such identification.
WHEREFORE, Maurice Van Woods prays that the charges against
him be dismissed.
s/' John J. Roper
111
MOTION TO QUASH
Comes now John 'I. Roper, attorney for Maurice Van Woods, and
by way of motion, alleges and says:
1. Maurice Van Woods incorporates for reference each
and every material allegation of Paragraph 11, rhetorical para-
graph one (1) as if they were specifically pleaded herein.
2. The Board of Public Works and Safety has no
jurisdiction over the person.
WHEREFORE, Maurice Van Woods prays that the charges against
him be dismissed.
s/ John J. Roper
I
SPECIAL ANSWER
Comes now, John J. Roper, Attorney for Maurice Van Woods, and
by way of special answer, alleges and says:
1. Maurice Van Woods incorporates for reference each and
every material allegation of Paragraph 11, rhetorical paragraph
one (1) as if they were specifically pleaded herein.
2. Maurice Van Woods, acting pursuant to Section 10-3042
Burns Ind. Stat. Ann., was within the scope of his employment and
was acting pursuant to the rules and regulations and laws of the
State of Indiana and his employer, S.S. Kresgo Company, and as a
result thereof, was not in violation -of the code, rules, or reg-
ulations of the South Bend Police Department or the City of South
Bend, and, therefore, there can be no breach of the same and
no "Cause" for removal.
WHEREFORE, Maurice Van Woods prays that the Chief of Police
take nothing by way of his charges, and for any and all other
proper relief.
s/ John J. Roper
2/17/72
I
SPECIAL ANSWER
Comes now John J. Rober, attorney for Maurice Van Woods, and
by way of special answer, alleges and says:
1. Maurice Van Woods incorporates for reference each and
every material allegation of Paragraph 11, rhetorical paragraph
one (1) as if they were specifically pleaded herein.
2. Maurice Van Woods, acting pursuant to Section 10-3042
Burns Ind. STAt. Anno., was within the scope of his employment
and was acting pursuant to the rules and regulations and laws
of the State of Indiana and his employer, S.S. Kresge Company,
and as a.result thereof, was not in violation of the code,
rules, or regulations of the South Bend Police Department or
the City of South Bend and, therefore, there can be no breach
of the same and no "cause" for removal.
WHEREFORE, Maurice Van Woods prays that the Chief of Police
404 take nothing by way of his charges, and for any and all other
proper relief.
1c.C�
G s/ John J. Roper
V
SPECIAL ANSWER
Comes now John J. Roper, attorney for Maurice Van Woods, and by way of special answer, alleges and says:
1. Maurice Van Woods incorporates for reference each and
every material allegation of Paragraph 11, rhetorical paragraph
one (])-as if they were specifically pleaded herein.
2. .The attempt to apply the code, rules and regulations
or to incorporate the same into the contract by and between
Maurice Van Woods and S.S. Kresge Company, constitutes an
unlawful and unconstitutional interference with Maurice Van Woods's
freedom of contract, protected by the United States Constitution,
Article 1, Section 10.
3. The filing and possible enforcement of the code, rules,
and regulations of the South Bend Police Department constitutes
a making of a new contract by and between Maurice Van Woods and
the S. S. Kresge Company, by either the Chief of Police or the
Board of Public Works and Safety, which are not privity to the
same.
WHEREFORE, Maurice Van Woods prays that the Chief of Police
take nothing by way of his charges, and for any and all other
proper relief.
s/ John J. Roper
Chapleau, Roper, Mclnerny
& Farabaugh
316 First Bank Building
South Bend, Indiana
Telephone: 233-5173
Attorney for Maurice Van Woods
The above docu ments were then filed with the Board.
216
2/17/72
The defendant's request for a hearing of the charges to be held on
the 9th day of March, 1972 was granted and the attorneys for both
the Plaintiff and the Defendant acknowledges that they would have
their respective cases prepared for hearing at that time.
The following requests were also granted to the defendant by the
Board:
That the Board would have present at the hearing a court
reporter who shall record the proceedings at the expense of the
city of South Bend;
That the Board would permit and allow within a reasonable`
time prior to the hearing the Defendant to subpeona witnesses
to testify in his behalf, by reason of the subpeona power of the
Board of Public Works and Safety;
That the Defendant, by his attorney, shall have the right
to cross-examine each witness testifying against him and that he
shall have the opportunity to rebut the allegations against him
by receiving within a reasonable time prior to the hearing a list
of the witnesses to be used by the Chief of Police.
That the attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Defendant would
confer, within a reasonable period of time prior to the hearing,
on the discovery of the charges against the Defendant, including
any and all actions proposed to be taken by the Board of Public
Works and Safety, if any.
These agreements having been made, and there being no further
business to come before the Board at this time, and after setting
9:30 A.M., Thursday, March 9, 1972 as the next hearing date, upon
motion made, seconded and unanimously carried, the meeting adjourned
at 9:47 A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
Charles A. Sweeney, J
William am ichardson
James V. Efarcome