Administrative Rules of Montana
Department 23 - JUSTICE
Chapter 23.13 - PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING (POST)
Subchapter 23.13.7 - Revocation/Suspension of Certification
Rule 23.13.703 - PROCEDURE FOR MAKING AND RECEIVING ALLEGATIONS OF OFFICER MISCONDUCT AND FOR INFORMAL RESOLUTION OF THOSE ALLEGATIONS BY THE DIRECTOR

(1) The POST Council will create, maintain, and adopt in public meetings a policy and procedure for processing and responding to allegations. The policy and procedure will be posted on POST's web site and made publicly available. It will comply with these rules and offer the director further guidance regarding the specific steps that the director and POST staff will take when responding to allegations.

(2) Any allegation made against a public safety officer that states potential grounds for denial, sanction, suspension, or revocation of POST certification must initially be provided to the appointing authority of the officer in question for review and recommendation, unless the appointing authority is making the allegation. All allegations must be made in writing unless the director initiates the allegation. Anonymous allegations will not be considered unless the director determines that public safety may be threatened if POST takes no action on an anonymous allegation.

(3) Except as provided in this section, POST will not proceed with an allegation unless the individual making the allegation or POST staff has notified the appointing authority of the allegation. This requirement does not apply if the allegation has been made against the highest-ranking officer in the agency, who would otherwise constitute the appointing authority, or there is some reason to believe that the investigation or public safety would be put in danger by such a notification.

(4) Within 30 days of being notified of the allegation, or in making its own allegation of misconduct, the appointing authority must give POST a notice of the appointing authority's investigation, action, ruling, finding, or response to the allegation, in writing, which must include a description of any remedial or disciplinary action pending or already taken against the officer regarding the allegation in question, and which may contain a recommendation from the appointing authority regarding whether POST should impose a sanction. If the appointing authority recommends POST impose a sanction, the appointing authority must state what sanction the appointing authority deems reasonable. POST shall consider but is not bound by the recommendation of the appointing authority. If available, a copy of the initial allegation made to the appointing authority and the appointing authority's written response must be forwarded to the director. The appointing authority may make a written request to the director for additional time to respond. Such a request must provide good cause as to the reason more time is required. The director may grant or deny requests for additional time at the director's discretion.

(5) After the appointing authority has been notified and given the opportunity to act, the director or POST staff may accept an allegation to be presented to the case status committee. If an allegation is received from an appointing authority, the executive director may, if appropriate under the circumstances, send a "Letter 1" (as described in the POST Council's policy and procedure adopted under (1)) to the officer prior to consultation with the Case Status Committee, provided the director notify the committee of the Letter 1 as soon as practicable.

(6) The director may initiate an allegation, based on good cause and reliable information, and must follow the procedure set forth in this rule as if initiated by any other individual, including but not limited to submitting the complaint to the appointing authority.

(7) After an allegation has been received or has been initiated by the director, the director, in consultation with the Case Status Committee and contested case counsel for POST, will determine whether to dismiss the allegation, or open a preliminary investigation and correspond with the respondent in writing.

(8) After an allegation is made by or filed with the director, and upon a majority vote of the Case Status Committee, the director, contested case counsel for POST, or other POST staff or designees will conduct a preliminary investigation of the complaint.

(9) Following the review and preliminary investigation of an allegation, communication with the respondent, communication with the appointing authority, and consultation with counsel for POST, and based upon a majority vote of the Case Status Committee, the director may take any appropriate action, including but not limited to the following:

(10) If a review of the conduct of an officer is pending before any court, council, tribunal, or agency, the director may, as a matter of discretion, stay any proceedings for denial, sanction, suspension, or revocation pending before the council, no matter what stage or process they have reached, until the other investigation or proceeding is concluded. If the case has already been assigned to a hearing examiner, the hearing examiner must grant a stay based on an application by the director or counsel for POST. The director will notify the case status committee of the stay as soon as practicable.

(11) In all cases in which a written allegation is submitted which does not culminate in a MAPA contested case hearing, the director must file a written report in the officer's POST file setting forth the circumstances and resolution of the case. All written correspondence with the officer and the officer's appointing authority must also be maintained in the officer's POST file.