Print
Comment
Rate
Decision on Litchfield may come any day
Thelma Grimes/San Pedro Valley News-Sun
Judge Jan Smith-Florez has yet to rule on the final aspect of former Benson Police Officer Darrell Litchfield's appeal regarding discipline levied against him during a six-month investigation initiated after a domestic violence incident at the officer's house.
A deal was reached allowing Litchfield to resign from the city after he had been fired. However, City Attorney Michael Massee and Litchfield's attorney Michael Storie of Tucson, could not reach an agreement on a 30-day suspension imposed on Litchfield for a domestic incident that occurred in January.
Storie has claimed the suspension is too severe for the events that actually transpired.
At his home in early January, Litchfield, the Benson K-9 officer for the last nine years, called 911, reporting that his wife had poured water on him while he was sleeping. Litchfield was intoxicated and asked by David Bunnell, of the Cochise County Sheriff's Office to leave the premises.
Judge Smith-Florez is expected to make her ruling any day now on if the punishment handed down by Interim Police Chief Paul Moncada, upheld through appeal by City Manager Glenn Nichols, was too severe.
Attorneys on both sides were allowed to submit final arguments in writing with opportunity for rebuttal.
In his closing argument, Massee said the evidence admitted during the hearing held at City Hall in late August supports a conclusion that the discipline imposed should be fully upheld.
"Acting Chief Moncada testified that he had consulted with Arizona POST (Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board) in determining the level of discipline that was proper," Massee said. "He learned from POST that had (Litchfield) been convicted of the domestic violence offense for which he was charged, a suspension of six months would be routine."
Litchfield was never charged with domestic violence. The charges were dismissed. During the hearing, Bunnell testified that the charges were dismissed when Sharon Litchfield refused to testify against her husband, who had allegedly struck her ribs when he went to kick a cup of water out of her hands on the night in question.
In the end, Massee said Litchfield "acted in a manner that brought disrepute to himself, his department and the City of Benson."
"The evidence supports the conclusion that in a drunken and angry state, kicking a glass of water out of your wife's hand and in the process striking her in the ribs, an officer tends to bring disrepute on the department and the city and commits misconduct for which discipline is appropriate," Massee continued.
However, Storie continues to argue that since the charges were dismissed, Litchfield never committed an act of domestic violence.
"The argument that this charge was dismissed because the victim was unwilling to cooperate, is without merit," Storie said. "This is not a case where only the wife could testify against a husband in a domestic violence incident. In this case, Sharon's son came forth with this information and he never expressed any unwillingness to cooperate in prosecuting this case."
Storie also argued that it was not Litchfield in the wrong that night, instead pointing the finger at his wife.
"Whatever motive prompted Sharon to take offense to his sleep, she chose to get a glass of water and slowly pour it on Darrell while he was laying in bed. There is absolutely no allegation that Darrell ever yelled at Sharon or lost his temper at any time. His action with his foot was directed at a glass of water that had soaked Darrell from the waist down."
Also a point of emphasis in the argument is how Litchfield allegedly acted once officers arrived on the scene.
Storie argued that Deputy Bunnell acted incorrectly when he asked Litchfield to leave the home instead of his wife.
"When Deputy Bunnell arrived at the Litchfield residence, he decided to ask Darrell to leave, even though Darrell was not the cause of the disruption. Moreover, it was irresponsible for Deputy Bunnell to send Darrell into public in this obviously intoxicated state," Storie said. "At no time did Darrell ever raise his voice or lose his temper. He merely continued to argue the point that he should not be ordered to leave the residence. If this behavior is viewed as a disgrace to the department, then it is certainly not worthy of a 30-day suspension with attendant loss of pay."
Massee has disagreed with Storie's argument, stating that Bunnell, along with Benson Police Sgt. Tim Behr, said Litchfield was belligerent at the scene.
"Even Sgt. Behr, the city's union representative, who accompanied (Litchfield) for his garrity interview, testified that (Litchfield's) conduct that night was a discredit to him and the department. He testified that to convince (Litchfield) to leave the house, he had to warn him that he was putting his career in jeopardy and finally that he would arrest him himself if he had to. Litchfield's stubborn refusal to comply with a directive from law enforcement officers responding to a domestic violence call is easily viewed as disreputable and misconduct."
In the conclusion of this argument, Massee said the purpose of the 30-day suspension was to bring an employee's attention to his behavior that night.
"Clearly (Litchfield's) behavior that night needed to be corrected," Massee said. "The senior law enforcement officials who know (Litchfield) best agree that a 30-day suspension was necessary to underscore the need for correction. This discipline should be upheld in its entirety."
Storie said while it is true that Litchfield pushed this thing "a little too far," he eventually did leave the residence as ordered.
"All of these officers know each other professionally as well as personally," Storie said. "They all have a history with each other and when push comes to shove, they all have their disagreements when it comes to police procedure. There is a wide area of discretion that is used in these cases, and when one is subject to the perceived wrong decisions of another officer, quite often there is a heated exchange. In no way did this bring disrespect or disrepute to the Benson Police Department. If anything, there were just hurt feelings at the end of the night and perhaps bruised egos. For this, Darrell does not deserve a 30-day suspension, and attendant loss in pay."
No matter what the outcome of this aspect of Litchfield's appeal, he is no longer a Benson police officer, and still faces an investigation through POST, which will decide if he can keep his badge.
POST is a state authority that enforces law enforcement codes and standards. The organization has the authority to suspend or revoke an officer's certification.
Lyle Mann, the POST executive director, has confirmed Litchfield's actions are under investigation.
Judge Jan Smith-Florez has yet to rule on the final aspect of former Benson Police Officer Darrell Litchfield's appeal regarding discipline levied against him during a six-month investigation initiated after a domestic violence incident at the officer's house.
A deal was reached allowing Litchfield to resign from the city after he had been fired. However, City Attorney Michael Massee and Litchfield's attorney Michael Storie of Tucson, could not reach an agreement on a 30-day suspension imposed on Litchfield for a domestic incident that occurred in January.
Storie has claimed the suspension is too severe for the events that actually transpired.
At his home in early January, Litchfield, the Benson K-9 officer for the last nine years, called 911, reporting that his wife had poured water on him while he was sleeping. Litchfield was intoxicated and asked by David Bunnell, of the Cochise County Sheriff's Office to leave the premises.
Judge Smith-Florez is expected to make her ruling any day now on if the punishment handed down by Interim Police Chief Paul Moncada, upheld through appeal by City Manager Glenn Nichols, was too severe.
Attorneys on both sides were allowed to submit final arguments in writing with opportunity for rebuttal.
In his closing argument, Massee said the evidence admitted during the hearing held at City Hall in late August supports a conclusion that the discipline imposed should be fully upheld.
"Acting Chief Moncada testified that he had consulted with Arizona POST (Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board) in determining the level of discipline that was proper," Massee said. "He learned from POST that had (Litchfield) been convicted of the domestic violence offense for which he was charged, a suspension of six months would be routine."
Litchfield was never charged with domestic violence. The charges were dismissed. During the hearing, Bunnell testified that the charges were dismissed when Sharon Litchfield refused to testify against her husband, who had allegedly struck her ribs when he went to kick a cup of water out of her hands on the night in question.
In the end, Massee said Litchfield "acted in a manner that brought disrepute to himself, his department and the City of Benson."
"The evidence supports the conclusion that in a drunken and angry state, kicking a glass of water out of your wife's hand and in the process striking her in the ribs, an officer tends to bring disrepute on the department and the city and commits misconduct for which discipline is appropriate," Massee continued.
However, Storie continues to argue that since the charges were dismissed, Litchfield never committed an act of domestic violence.
"The argument that this charge was dismissed because the victim was unwilling to cooperate, is without merit," Storie said. "This is not a case where only the wife could testify against a husband in a domestic violence incident. In this case, Sharon's son came forth with this information and he never expressed any unwillingness to cooperate in prosecuting this case."
Storie also argued that it was not Litchfield in the wrong that night, instead pointing the finger at his wife.
"Whatever motive prompted Sharon to take offense to his sleep, she chose to get a glass of water and slowly pour it on Darrell while he was laying in bed. There is absolutely no allegation that Darrell ever yelled at Sharon or lost his temper at any time. His action with his foot was directed at a glass of water that had soaked Darrell from the waist down."
Also a point of emphasis in the argument is how Litchfield allegedly acted once officers arrived on the scene.
Storie argued that Deputy Bunnell acted incorrectly when he asked Litchfield to leave the home instead of his wife.
"When Deputy Bunnell arrived at the Litchfield residence, he decided to ask Darrell to leave, even though Darrell was not the cause of the disruption. Moreover, it was irresponsible for Deputy Bunnell to send Darrell into public in this obviously intoxicated state," Storie said. "At no time did Darrell ever raise his voice or lose his temper. He merely continued to argue the point that he should not be ordered to leave the residence. If this behavior is viewed as a disgrace to the department, then it is certainly not worthy of a 30-day suspension with attendant loss of pay."
Massee has disagreed with Storie's argument, stating that Bunnell, along with Benson Police Sgt. Tim Behr, said Litchfield was belligerent at the scene.
"Even Sgt. Behr, the city's union representative, who accompanied (Litchfield) for his garrity interview, testified that (Litchfield's) conduct that night was a discredit to him and the department. He testified that to convince (Litchfield) to leave the house, he had to warn him that he was putting his career in jeopardy and finally that he would arrest him himself if he had to. Litchfield's stubborn refusal to comply with a directive from law enforcement officers responding to a domestic violence call is easily viewed as disreputable and misconduct."
In the conclusion of this argument, Massee said the purpose of the 30-day suspension was to bring an employee's attention to his behavior that night.
"Clearly (Litchfield's) behavior that night needed to be corrected," Massee said. "The senior law enforcement officials who know (Litchfield) best agree that a 30-day suspension was necessary to underscore the need for correction. This discipline should be upheld in its entirety."
Storie said while it is true that Litchfield pushed this thing "a little too far," he eventually did leave the residence as ordered.
"All of these officers know each other professionally as well as personally," Storie said. "They all have a history with each other and when push comes to shove, they all have their disagreements when it comes to police procedure. There is a wide area of discretion that is used in these cases, and when one is subject to the perceived wrong decisions of another officer, quite often there is a heated exchange. In no way did this bring disrespect or disrepute to the Benson Police Department. If anything, there were just hurt feelings at the end of the night and perhaps bruised egos. For this, Darrell does not deserve a 30-day suspension, and attendant loss in pay."
No matter what the outcome of this aspect of Litchfield's appeal, he is no longer a Benson police officer, and still faces an investigation through POST, which will decide if he can keep his badge.
POST is a state authority that enforces law enforcement codes and standards. The organization has the authority to suspend or revoke an officer's certification.
Lyle Mann, the POST executive director, has confirmed Litchfield's actions are under investigation.
 |
 |
|
| First-graders' program aim is to spread kindness | Code change may take longer |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of bensonnews-sun.com.
Frank Edward Blanchard wrote on Sep 23, 2009 11:09 AM:
And it leased I did find out one piece of information from this last article.
There was indeed an investigation
by the( Post)
As far as fairness, will just say . I have yet to see any fairness. The benevolent police force and deputies all come to a conclusion that night, they deliberately caused all of this.
Makes one wonder what is being hidden in the background.
There's always a reason for this kind of actions. Some kind of dirty business I would think.
They are trying to ruin this man's feature as a police officer, which seems to me"what they certainly intended to do. But none of the other officers had any blemishes in their lives" I doubt that seriously. Their only human.
Someone if they look hard enough could find fault with everyone in uniform today in the Benson department.
You spoke of damage egos my question is who they protect who they serve?, it looks a lot more like some kind of benevolent actions.
Nine years of service castaway, like it was nothing, I thought the police protected their own? I guess not in Benson.
If they cannot protect or take care of each other how can we trust them to take care of us?
And then they wonder why very little of the citizens respect our trust them with their problems.
I've had my own rotten experiences with the protection by the Benson police.
My experience left me wanting . Trust must be earned.
So far they have not demonstrated anything to regain any trust from me.
I Will maintain my own security and my future without any help from the Benson Police Department.
I feel safer that way. "