By MELINDA J. OVERSTREET
for Glasgow News 1
A former Glasgow police chief who later became an officer and then detective and was fired in August 2023 has lost another appeal to have that decision reversed.
Guy J. Turcotte had appealed Mayor Henry Royse’s decision to terminate his employment by filing a civil lawsuit against the City of Glasgow and the Glasgow Police Department in Barren Circuit Court, but Circuit Judge John T. Alexander ruled in favor of the city and GPD in March 2024.
From there, Turcotte filed an appeal with the Kentucky Court of Appeals, a three-judge panel from which on Friday released its ruling affirming Alexander’s decision. Turcotte now has until June 20 to petition for a rehearing with the panel or the full appellate court.
The termination of Turcotte’s employment stemmed from a complaint that he had behaved inappropriately toward an employee of a local business while he was a customer of that business, placing his hand on her upper thigh and pulling him toward her and saying and doing other things that led her to feel uncomfortable and afraid.
A one-year interpersonal protective order was issued against Turcotte to have him refrain from contact with the woman who filed the complaint. Separately, a misdemeanor criminal charge also was levied against him based on the same allegation, but he was eventually found not guilty.
In the interim, Royse had scheduled an administrative hearing with regard to whether Turcotte’s employment should be terminated based on internal charges that he violated codes of ethics and conduct for employees.
At the onset of the hearing, Turcotte’s attorney requested that it be delayed until the criminal matter was resolved, contending that it would prevent Turcotte from availing himself of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The attorney for the GPD argued that it would not violate his Fifth Amendment rights and cited a case precedent in support of the position. Royse denied the request to postpone the hearing, and it went forward.
On Aug. 10, 2023, the mayor issued in writing his findings and decision in the employment matter, which were that substantial evidence existed that Turcotte had violated both policies and his employment was immediately terminated.
As the Court of Appeals panel’s 21-page opinion states in summing up the analysis, “On appeal, Turcotte’s arguments focus solely on the denial of his motion for a continuance in the administrative proceeding and the circuit court’s affirmation of the administrative order. Turcotte argues, primarily, that both Mayor Royse and the circuit court failed to give adequate weight to his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination or to the overlapping evidence between the parallel proceedings.”
The analysis continues with key points, with the appellate court’s findings:
– The circuit court judge “did not err’ in its application of the case precedent, Maze v Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission, cited by the GPD’s attorney during the administrative hearing with regard to whether it should be postponed due to the overlapping criminal case and that Turcotte’s attorney argued was misapplied by the mayor.
– The overlapping evidence did not require a continuance of the administrative hearing, which pertained to more than just conduct alleged in the criminal complaint, e.g. at least one prior visit to that business during which Turcotte had behaved improperly with comments to the primary complainant as well as two others “in a manner that Royse found ‘to be chauvinistic and full of male bravado,’” the appellate panel wrote. Further, Royse found that Turcotte had visited the business during the fall of 2021 while off duty and flashed his gun and badge as he entered a restricted area saying that was OK because he was a cop.
“Moreover, as the City points out, [Turcotte’s attorney, Matt Baker] made no assertion that the misdemeanor case was scheduled for trial when originally moving for a continuance (of the administrative hearing). Only upon his appeal to the circuit court did Turcotte argue that his trial was scheduled for a date certain,” the appellate panel wrote. “A stay of a civil proceeding pending the outcome of parallel criminal proceedings must be entered only for a certain period of time and must not place the administrative timetable in limbo for years.”
– Turcotte’s acquittal in the misdemeanor case does not establish error by the circuit court. One of Turcotte’s appeals documents implied that Royse’s decision may have been different had it occurred after he was found not guilty by a jury. The appellate panel notes that Royse “explicitly considered” that as a hypothetical possibility in his written findings, stating that if he were to be ultimately acquitted, “[H]is conduct relative to this proceeding still warrants disciplinary action in terms of his continued employment as a sworn law enforcement officer with the GPD.”
The appellate panel notes that different standards of proof are required at an administrative hearing as opposed to a criminal trial, and Turcotte “has failed to establish how an acquittal would have been relevant. … Furthermore, long-standing precedent establishes that, rather than a proclamation of factual innocence, an acquittal in a criminal prosecution is ‘a negative finding that the Commonwealth did not sufficiently prove the commission of a crime.’”
The panel’s opinion notes that the circuit judge had found it significant that Turcotte had previously testified under oath at the hearing to determine whether the IPO should be issued. Royse had reviewed that testimony and the opinion and order granting the IPO in forming his own findings. Turcotte also unsuccessfully appealed the IPO, but there was no challenge from Turcotte’s attorney to that documentation being admitted in the disciplinary hearing or to the conclusions drawn from it, the panel noted.
“The very fact of Turcotte having an active IPO order against him and the restrictions this placed upon performing his duties as a detective, as well as to the issues related to public perception, were noted in [Royse’s] administrative order,” the panel wrote.
The panel also noted that a majority of the Court of Appeals affirmed the IPO, though there was a dissenting opinion, finding no error in the “conclusion that Turcotte’s actions toward [the complainant] were for the purpose of sexual gratification and that a sexual assault had occurred.”
The panel emphasized that while “reasonable persons” might come to different conclusions about Turcotte’s behavior in terms of criminal culpability, the question of whether he violated the policy imposed by the GPD on its officers is entirely different. The trio of judges pointed to how Royse’s administrative order firing Turcotte noted that GPD policy required “maintaining the highest standard of integrity by never violating the community’s trust,” which is far from being obligated merely to refrain from committing crimes.
“Turcotte asserts that neither party would have been prejudiced by staying the administrative hearing against Turcotte. However, the circuit court found that the administrative order had properly recognized the valid public interest ‘in bringing this administrative matter to a conclusion notwithstanding the pending criminal charges,’” the panel wrote, adding that was consistent with the Maze case precedent.
Ultimately, the panel said, “we cannot say the circuit court abused its discretion in affirming the administrative order terminating Turcotte’s employment. … Having addressed Turcotte’s arguments and finding no reversible error, we AFFIRM. ALL CONCUR.”
The panel consisted of Glenn Acree, Jacqueline Caldwell and James Lambert; Caldwell wrote the opinion.
Comments