Facebook Twitter eEdition Your News Business Directory List Business Classifieds Subscribe NEMisJobs NEMissPreps NEMSHomes NEMSDeals

On the Beat



State rejects Hall’s certification bid
by Emily Le Coz/NEMS Daily Journal
17 months ago | 1758 views | 15 15 comments | 6 6 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Robert Hall
Robert Hall
slideshow
TUPELO – Deputy Police Chief Robert Hall’s certification request has been denied, and the city must now appeal if it wants to pursue the matter.

The state Board on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Training sent an email to its members during the weekend informing them of the decision, said board chairman and Amory Police Chief Ronnie Bowen.

Bowen said the email was sent by board director Robert Davis, whose office had made the decision, and that it had verbally notified the Tupelo Police Department.

On Monday, police Chief Tony Carleton said he still hadn’t received the denial letter and therefore had no comment.

Davis was out of the office and unavailable for comment.

Hall’s application had been sent last week Tuesday, nearly six months after Tupelo rehired the deputy chief. He previously had held the position, but resigned in 2007 after pleading guilty to misdemeanor charges relating to his release of a hit-and-run suspect a year earlier.

Hall relinquished his state law-enforcement certification at the time and must reapply to get it back. Without it, Hall cannot make arrests.

City Council members have repeatedly urged Carleton to seek Hall’s recertification after the chief initially said it wasn’t necessary; Hall’s job is mainly administrative.

Because the certification was denied, the city must now appeal that decision to the board, which meets again on Sept. 9, Bowen said.

The city will have an opportunity to present evidence, and Hall can testify at the hearing.

“We have given certifications back in the past,” said Bowen, now in his second term on the board. “Each case ought to rest on its own merits.”

If Hall’s request is denied by board, the city can appeal to the Lee County Chancery Court.

Contact Emily Le Coz at (662) 678-1588 or emily.lecoz@djournal.com.

Click here for link to previous story and comments.

Comments
(15)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
txmom56
|
September 08, 2010
to msjennybuggs -

I take it from your statements that it wasn't your child that was hit by the underage drunk driver and injured for life or you might feel differently. Bottom line - Robert broke the law and then agreed to a plea bargain to reduce his charges from felonies to misdeamors. Let me repeat that in case you missed it the first time - he broke the law. Teachers and other licensed professionals can be stripped of their "licenses or certificates" for the same reasons. When that happens, they can appeal, however, IF they BROKE THE LAW, their state granted license to practice that profession is revoked and they are no longer allowed to practice that profession...due to lack of certification. No certificate or license - no job. The end.
msjennybuggs@yahoo.com
|
September 02, 2010
ENOUGH ALREADY...I have been listening to Robert bashing for a while now. The chief is right. All chiefs do not need to be certified. all officers do not need to be certified. Most of them arent.

Take a walk down the steets of Tupelo. Make note of the fact that you are in a growing city where even the "bad" parts of town are still safe. Then ask yourself...That would be because of programs and ideas brought to the table during the McCullough and Otis administrations when Robert was the assistant chief and the captain the SOG team. When you finish thinking about that go to Haven Acres, Green Street, Lawndale, they are safe now, but they weren't before SOG, Me, city officers and bike patrols put our heads together. Robert is an honest cop who has done a lot to Tupelo safer. Say thank you and leave him to do his job. He one of the main reasons you get to not worry about being shot on thre street.
MuddyWaters
|
August 31, 2010
I absolutely do not feel sorry for the Chief...it is my understanding from someone I trust that this was one of the questions ask by the mayor upon interviewing Carleton....regarding rehiring Robert Hall...apparently the mayor got the answer he wanted and Carleton was appointed chief. There was a blatant disregard for the law by both parites..the mayor and the chief...not to mention the kid who was injured from the hit and run. The truth be known..anyone and I mean anyone who did what Hall did, should and likely would be behind bars. I hope the family of the child pursues legal action and subpoenas are sent to every member of the city council, the mayor, the chief and Hall. I'm embarrassed and disgusted with this dog and pony show. I have debated whether this was stupidity or arrogance...no one with an IQ over 60 could be this stupid..thus imo, it is raw arrogance. I hope voters will remember this with it comes time to cast a vote. Cutting pay of our city employees during tough economic times but approving this sham....along with a dog park and other expenditures that I will not discuss at this time.
nutcase
|
August 31, 2010
i dont think carlton had a choice in who was picked for the job. I think Reed dictated to Carlton that Hall would be hired. that is the only reason i feel sorry for him....BUT I could be wrong, it happens.
LogicalLeo
|
August 31, 2010
Hall = bad for dept. morale; just ask any patrol officer.

Reed = bad for the dept. that is bad for morale

I have talked with several and none of every one of them have been unhappy and seem down about the whole deal. Not a single one that I've spoken with seems to have any respect for Hall.
TupBB
|
August 31, 2010
Nutcase, you said: "I actually feel sorry for the chief in this situation. This ordeal is making him look like a big dummy in the law enforcement community through out the state!"

But why feel sorry for Carlton? Coming in as Reed's hand picked man, 1st thing he did was enthusiastically put Hall back to 2nd in charge. Right where he was before they moved him BEFORE his trial and plea bargain. It appears he and Reed are now reaping what they have sown(SP?).

Fireman17
|
August 31, 2010
Looks like Mr Reed is trying to buy him some time to get hall in office still.. Them denying that hall has been deny cert just shows how bad the mayor and TPD offices are today.. Best thing for Mr Reed and Hall could do is both resign from office!!
nutcase
|
August 31, 2010
I love how the chief says he has not gotten "written" notification of the denial. All he is doing is buying time so Reed can tell him what to say and for them to figure out their next move before having to answer to the public.

I actually feel sorry for the chief in this situation. This ordeal is making him look like a big dummy in the law enforcement community through out the state!
straightsense
|
August 31, 2010
Tupelo City and PD leadership claiming a proactive posture could retain Hall to head up a Task Force defense against the spreading invasion of bedbugs. Several larger areas have been invaded. With Tupelo's status, I am sure they are a priority target of the bedbugs.

Whats the saying ? Politicians make strange bedfellows. If thats true, they are all already at the future crime scene.
concern4city
|
August 31, 2010
It is my understanding that if rejected by the Board that the appeal is made in Chancery but not in Lee County. And it is also my understanding that Robert appeals, not the city. Tupelo really needs to step back away from this mess.
oldsoutherner
|
August 31, 2010
Looks to me like the powers to be in JAX have seen the light that Tupelo PD and Reed have turned a blind eye to - Get rid of Robert Hall and hire a real Police Officer. If we send the message to the criminals that Tupelo hires convicted criminals for its police force than what will they try to get away with next? I hear the Mofia is looking to expand to warmer climates.
retiredcop
|
August 31, 2010
The Mayor should be held accountable by the voters for appointing Mr. Hall as Deputy Chief of Police. Mr. Hall violated his Sworn Oath and lost his professinal certification. The Mayor should read his own Oath and abide by it. This move has brought into question the integrity of the Tupelo Police Department's Administration. Every Offficer must choose to uphold his/her oath with integrity. Mr. Hall did not and lost his certification and should not be able to regain it.
WTFDude
|
August 31, 2010
MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972

As Amended

SEC. 45-6-11. Law enforcement officer qualifications; recertification after leaving law enforcement; certification; reprimand, suspension or revocation of certification.

(1) Law enforcement officers already serving under permanent appointment on July 1, 1981, and personnel of the division of community services under Section 47-7-9, Mississippi Code of 1972, serving on July 1, 1994, shall not be required to meet any requirement of subsections (3) and (4) of this section as a condition of continued employment; nor shall failure of any such law enforcement officer to fulfill such requirements make that person ineligible for any promotional examination for which that person is otherwise eligible. Provided, however, if any law enforcement officer certified under the provisions of this chapter leaves his employment as such and does not become employed as a law enforcement officer within two (2) years from the date of termination of his prior employment, he shall be required to comply with board policy as to rehiring standards in order to be employed as a law enforcement officer; except, that, if any law enforcement officer certified under this chapter leaves his employment as such to serve as a sheriff, he may be employed as a law enforcement officer after he has completed his service as a sheriff without being required to comply with board policy as to rehiring standards. Part-time law enforcement officers serving on or before July 1, 1998, shall have until July 1, 2001, to obtain certification as a part-time officer.

(2) Any person who has twenty (20) years of law enforcement experience and who is eligible to be certified under this section shall be eligible for recertification after leaving law enforcement on the same basis as someone who has taken the basic training course. Application to the board to qualify under this subsection shall be made no later than June 30, 1993.

(3) (a) No person shall be appointed or employed as a law enforcement officer or a part-time law enforcement officer unless that person has been certified as being qualified under the provisions of subsection (4) of this section.

(b) No person shall be appointed or employed as a law enforcement trainee by any law enforcement unit for a period to exceed two (2) years. The prohibition against the appointment or employment of a law enforcement trainee for a period not to exceed two (2) years may not be nullified by terminating the appointment or employment of such a person before the expiration of the time period and then rehiring the person for another period. Any person, who, due to illness or other events beyond his control, could not attend the required school or training as scheduled, may serve with full pay and benefits in such a capacity until he can attend the required school or training.

(c) No person shall serve as a law enforcement officer in any full-time, part-time, reserve or auxiliary capacity during a period when that person's certification has been suspended, cancelled or recalled pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.

(4) In addition to the requirements of subsections (3), (7) and (8) of this section, the board, by rules and regulations consistent with other provisions of law, shall fix other qualifications for the employment of law enforcement officers, including minimum age, education, physical and mental standards, citizenship, good moral character, experience and such other matters as relate to the competence and reliability of persons to assume and discharge the responsibilities of law enforcement officers, and the board shall prescribe the means for presenting evidence of fulfillment of these requirements. Additionally, the board shall fix qualifications for the appointment or employment of part-time law enforcement officers to essentially the same standards and requirements as law enforcement officers. The board shall develop and implement a part-time law enforcement officer training program that meets the same performance objectives and has essentially the same or similar content as the programs approved by the board for full-time law enforcement officers and the board shall provide that such training shall be available locally and held at times convenient to the persons required to receive such training.

(5) Any elected sheriff, constable, deputy or chief of police may apply for certification. Such certification shall be granted at the request of the elected official after providing evidence of satisfaction of the requirements of subsections (3) and (4) of this section. Certification granted to such elected officials shall be granted under the same standards and conditions as established by law enforcement officers and shall be subject to recall as in subsection (7) of this section.

(6) The board shall issue a certificate evidencing satisfaction of the requirements of subsections (3) and (4) of this section to any applicant who presents such evidence as may be required by its rules and regulations of satisfactory completion of a program or course of instruction in another jurisdiction equivalent in content and quality to that required by the board for approved law enforcement officer education and training programs in this state, and has satisfactorily passed any and all diagnostic testing and evaluation as required by the board to ensure competency.

(7) Professional certificates remain the property of the board, and the board reserves the right to either reprimand the holder of a certificate, suspend a certificate upon conditions imposed by the board, or cancel and recall any certificate when:

(a) The certificate was issued by administrative error;

(b) The certificate was obtained through misrepresentation or fraud;

(c) The holder has been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude;

(d) The holder has been convicted of a felony; or

(e) Other due cause as determined by the board.

(8) When the board believes there is a reasonable basis for either the reprimand, suspension, cancellation of, or recalling the certification of a law enforcement officer or a part-time law enforcement officer, notice and opportunity for a hearing shall be provided in accordance with law prior to such reprimand, suspension or revocation.

(9) Any full- or part-time law enforcement officer aggrieved by the findings and order of the board may file an appeal with the chancery court of the county in which such person is employed from the final order of the board. Such appeals must be filed within thirty (30) days of the final order of the board.

(10) Any full- or part-time law enforcement officer whose certification has been cancelled pursuant to this chapter may reapply for certification, but not sooner than two (2) years after the date on which the order of the board cancelling such certification becomes final.

(11) Any temporary deputy sheriffs appointed as provided in Section 19-25-21 shall be exempt from the requirements of this section.

SOURCES: Laws, 1981, ch. 474, § 6; Laws, 1990, ch. 434, § 3; Laws, 1992, ch. 415, § 1; Laws, 1993, ch. 584, § 1; Laws, 1994, ch. 516, § 2; Laws, 1998, ch. 394, § 3; Laws, 1999, ch. 506, § 1, HB 581, eff from and after July 1, 1999.

WTFDude
|
August 31, 2010
BTW, I challenge the idiots, like Reed and Carleton, who claim that the 2nd in command in their police department doesn't need a certification to name just one other city, anywhere in the United States that has a deputy police chief that does not have arrest powers.

Name just one!

Anyone?
lurchaddams
|
August 31, 2010
Original story and comments can be found here:

Hall Certification Request Denied