This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.
Fiscal Note - SB 0936 - Peace Officers' Rights to a Hearing
L.R. NO. 3470-01
BILL NO. SB 936
SUBJECT: Police: Civil Rights
TYPE: Original
DATE: March 5, 1996
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
General Revenue (Unknown) (Unknown) (Unknown)
Total Estimated
Net Effect on All
State Funds $0 or (Unknown) $0 or (Unknown) $0 or (Unknown)
* depending on applicability of Article X, Section 21 of the Missouri
Constitution
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
None
Total Estimated
Net Effect on All
Federal Funds $0 $0 $0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
Local Government* $0 or
(Unknown) $0 or (Unknown) $0 or (Unknown)
* depending on applicability of Article X, Section 21 of the Missouri
Constitution
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
Officials of the Department of Public Safety - Missouri State Water Patrol,
Capitol Police, and Missouri Sheriff's Association assume that this proposal
would have no fiscal impact to their agencies.
Officials of the Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) stated that in 1995
there were approximately thirty-five officers who would have been entitled to
a hearing under this legislation. MSHP officials assumed that those
employees would want to exercise their right to hearing.
The average cost of a hearing would be $2,500, which would include the cost
of lodging, travel, meals, etc., for board members and other employees (i.e.,
court reporters) necessary to provide the hearing. MSHP would also request
two (2) Clerk Typists I's to process reports associated with hearings.
Oversight assumed for purposes of this fiscal note that it is unlikely that
every instance in which a hearing could be held would come to fruition.
Therefore, Oversight assumes for purposes of this fiscal note that any fiscal
impact resulting from this proposal could be absorbed with existing resources
by the Missouri State Highway Patrol. However, if as a direct result of
this proposal, a significant number of additional hearings occurred, MSHP
could pursue additional funding through the normal budgetary process.
In response to a similar proposal from the previous legislative session
officials of the Jefferson City and Kansas City Police Departments assumed
their agencies would not be fiscally impacted.
In response to a similar proposal officials of the St. Louis Police
Department assumed that officers, once appointed, shall not be removed
except with cause; and only after being provided a hearing of the charges
made against them. Officers who are charged with offenses for which they
could be suspended for a period greater than fifteen days have the privilege
of agreeing with that punishment by signing a waiver, or to face a summary
hearing within the department (for discipline of fifteen days or less), or to
submit to a Board hearing. There are specific instances, as shown in the
Police Manual, for which officers can be suspended, and when that occurs,
such suspensions are without pay.
Oversight assumes that this provision will have a cost impact on several
cities throughout the state that have regulations similar to those in St.
Louis, which do not allow for pay to be provided while an officer is
suspended. Depending on the amount of cost that would be borne by the cities
affected, the constitutional possibility for state reimbursement, under
Article X, Section 21 would exist.
FISCAL IMPACT - State Government FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
(10 Mo.)
GENERAL REVENUE FUND
Cost-Reimbursement to certain cities $0 $0 $0
or or or
(Unknown) (Unknown) (Unknown)
FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
(10 Mo.)
CITIES
Income-Reimbursement from state $0 $0 $0
or or or
Unknown Unknown Unknown
Cost-Certain Cities
Salary cost for suspended
officers (Unknown) (Unknown) (Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET IMPACT ON
CITIES $0 $0 $0
or or or
(Unknown) (Unknown) (Unknown)
DESCRIPTION
This proposal would provide specific rights to police officers who were the
subjects of disciplinary proceedings. It would provide the following
procedural rights to police officers: 1) charges must be brought within 90
days of an investigation; 2) the officer would have a right to notice of the
time of the action; 3) the officer would have a right to an attorney or other
representative; 4) the officer would have the right to view records in
support of the disciplinary action; 5) the officer would have a right to know
the names of witnesses testifying against him; 6) the officer would have a
right to a closed hearing; and 7) the officer would have a right to appeal
the hearing committee's determination. An officer could waive any of the
above rights.
The waiver would be required to be in writing and signed by the officer.
This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other
program and would not require additional capital improvements or rental
space.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Department of Public Safety
Missouri Sheriff's Association
Jefferson City Police Department
Kansas City Police Department
St. Louis Police Department
NOT RESPONDING - Missouri Police Chiefs Association