SER C., Billy Ray v. Skaff
Annotate this Case
January 1995 Term
________________
No. 21894
________________
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA EX REL. BILLY RAY C., JR.,
Petitioner
v.
MAJOR GENERAL JOSEPH J. SKAFF, SECRETARY, WEST VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS AND PUBLIC SAFETY,
THOMAS L. KIRK, DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
MILITARY AFFAIRS AND PUBLIC SAFETY; AND LARRY HITE, DAVID
SHIRLAW AND KELLY GEORGE, MEMBERS OF THE WEST VIRGINIA
STATE BOARD OF RISK AND INSURANCE MANAGEMENT,
Respondents
________________________________________________________________
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
WRIT GRANTED AS MOULDED
________________________________________________________________
Submitted: May 2, 1995
Filed: June 21, 1995
Daniel F. Hedges, Esq.
Charleston, West Virginia
Attorney for Petitioner
Bradford W. Deel, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
Charleston, West Virginia
Attorney for Department of Public Safety
The Opinion of the Court was delivered PER CURIAM.
JUSTICE BROTHERTON and JUSTICE RECHT did not participate.
JUSTICE CLECKLEY, deeming himself disqualified,
did not participate.
RETIRED JUSTICE MILLER, JUDGE FOX and JUDGE RANSON
sitting by temporary assignment.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. "Implicit within the Superintendent of the West
Virginia Division of Public Safety's mandatory duty to investigate
allegations of misconduct under W. Va. Code, 15-2-21 (1977), there
is a duty to promulgate formal, written investigation procedures.
These procedures should outline (1) how a citizen may notify the
Superintendent of alleged misconduct by a State Police officer, and
(2) the specific procedure to be followed to ensure that a thorough
investigation is conducted by an impartial and neutral party.
These procedures also should require that a report of the
investigation be given to the Superintendent on which to base his
decision." Syllabus Point 4, State ex rel. Billy Ray C. v. Skaff,
190 W. Va. 504, 438 S.E.2d 847 (1993).
2. "'Mandamus is a proper remedy to compel tribunals
and officers exercising discretionary and judicial powers to act,
when they refuse so to do, in violation of their duty, but it is
never employed to prescribe in what manner they shall act, or to
correct errors they have made.' Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Buxton
v. O'Brien, 97 W. Va. 343, 125 S.E. 154 (1924). Syl. pt. 2, State
ex rel Lambert v. Cortellessi, 182 W. Va. 142, 386 S.E.2d 640
(1989). Syllabus, Ney v. West Virginia Workers' Compensation Fund,
186 W. Va. 180, 411 S.E.2d 699 (1991). Syllabus Point 6, Lyons v.
Richardson, 189 W. Va. 157, 429 S.E.2d 44 (1993)." Syllabus Point
3, Anderson v. Richardson, 191 W. Va. 488, 446 S.E.2d 710 (1994).
3. "Under W. Va. Code, 29-12-5 (1986), which delegates
to the West Virginia State Board of Risk and Insurance Management the authority to investigate and settle claims under the State's
liability insurance, the Board of Risk is required to promulgate
rules or regulations for State agencies covered by the State's
liability insurance policy that will enable the Board to promptly
identify potential liability claims against the State." Syllabus
Point 5, State ex rel. Billy Ray C. v. Skaff, 190 W. Va. 504, 438 S.E.2d 847 (1993).
PER CURIAM:
This is a sequel to our opinion in State ex rel. Billy
Ray C. v. Skaff, 190 W. Va. 504, 438 S.E.2d 847 (1993) (Skaff I) in
which the relator sought a writ of mandamus to compel the
respondent Major General Skaff, as the Secretary of the West
Virginia Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety, and
Colonel Kirk, the Superintendent of the West Virginia Division of
Public Safety, to promulgate formal written investigation
procedures to handle complaints of misconduct against state police
officers (the respondents). We determined that a writ of mandamus
was proper setting out by way of summary our conclusions in
Syllabus Point 4:
Implicit within the Superintendent of the
West Virginia Division of Public Safety's
mandatory duty to investigate allegations of
misconduct under W. Va. Code, 15-2-21 (1977),
there is a duty to promulgate formal, written
investigation procedures. These procedures
should outline (1) how a citizen may notify
the Superintendent of alleged misconduct by a
State Police officer, and (2) the specific
procedure to be followed to ensure that a
thorough investigation is conducted by an
impartial and neutral party. These procedures
also should require that a report of the
investigation be given to the Superintendent
on which to base his decision.
I
Following our opinion in Skaff I, the respondents filed
proposed regulations in April 1994. Copies were sent to counsel
for the relator who in June of 1994 made written comments and objections. We permitted respondents to file written comments to
relator's objections.
The proposed regulations may be generally summarized as
creating an Inspection and Internal Affairs Section (Section) that
is "under the command of the agency's Inspector" who reports to the
Superintendent. Section 3.00. This Section is composed of trained
investigators.See footnote 1 The Inspector receives the initial complaint and
assigns it to an investigator with directions as to the procedures
to be used. Section 3.03. There are detailed operational
procedures covering the conduct of the investigation by an
investigator in Sections 7.00 through 7.08. At the conclusion of
the investigation, the investigator prepares a case file and
written recommendations which are submitted to the Inspector. The Inspector reviews the case file and recommendations, then makes his
own recommendation to the Superintendent who, under W. Va. Code,
15-2-21 (1977), is charged with making the final determination.
Relator made six objections to the proposed regulations
filed on behalf of the Department of Public Safety.See footnote 2 This Court
concluded that it lacked the expertise to fully evaluate the
proposed regulations and the objections made to them.
Consequently, we obtained the services of Professor James J. Fyke,
Ph.D. of the Department of Criminal Justice at Temple University to
review the Department's proposed regulations and the various
comments that had been received from the parties. Thereafter, in
January of 1995, we received a written report from Professor Fyke.
Copies of his report were transmitted to the parties by an Order
entered on January 6, 1995, with the request that they file
responses to the report by March 1, 1995. This matter was reset
for argument on May 2, 1995.
Professor Fyke's report raised a new issue that the
relator now adopts; that the proposed internal investigation
regulations are inherently defective. It is recommended that there
be a civilian police advisory committee that should review
complaints against members of the department of public safety. The
basis for this recommendation is that this would enhance the public
perception that an unbiased tribunal was handling misconduct and
abuse charges.
The exact structure of this type of procedure is not set
out. Even the general role of the civilian committee is not stated
as to whether it would investigate the complaint initially, or use
investigators and then act as a decision panel. We are also not
informed as to whether the civilian panel's decision is final or
subject to ultimate review by the Superintendent. As we explained
in Skaff I, under W. Va. Code, 15-2-21 (1977), the Legislature has
reposed the ultimate decision as to disciplinary matters in the
office of the Superintendent of the Department of Public Safety.
We decline to require a civilian review panel for several
reasons. First, in view of the ultimate decision having to be made
by the Superintendent, it would seem that civilian input into the
process would not ultimately satisfy a complainant who has received
an adverse ruling from the Superintendent. A second and more
compelling reason is that from a legal standpoint, we have
traditionally stated that while mandamus is an appropriate remedy
to require public officials to perform their prescribed duties, it
is not available to prescribe in what particular manner they shall act as illustrated by Syllabus Point 3 of Anderson v. Richardson,
191 W. Va. 488, 446 S.E.2d 710 (1994):
Mandamus is a proper remedy to compel
tribunals and officers exercising
discretionary and judicial powers to act, when
they refuse so to do, in violation of their
duty, but it is never employed to prescribe in
what manner they shall act, or to correct
errors they have made. Syl. pt. 1, State ex
rel. Buxton v. O'Brien, 97 W. Va. 343, 125 S.E. 154 (1924). Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel
Lambert v. Cortellessi, 182 W. Va. 142, 386 S.E.2d 640 (1989). Syllabus, Ney v. West
Virginia Workers' Compensation Fund, 186
W. Va. 180, 411 S.E.2d 699 (1991). Syllabus
Point 6, Lyons v. Richardson, 189 W. Va. 157,
429 S.E.2d 44 (1993).
We initially issued the mandamus in Skaff I because we
found that W. Va. Code, 15-2-21 (1977) provided a basis for
requiring rules and regulations for handling complaints against
members of the department of public safety. The argument now
advanced for a civilian oversight panel is an effort to have us
prescribe details of the type of system that must be used.See footnote 3 This
we decline to do.
Finally, respondents point out that the standards,
adopted by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement
Agencies, Inc., do not mandate a civilian review panel in its
section on Internal Affairs.See footnote 4
When we turn to the original six objections made by the
relator, we find that some of them are resolved in the June 17,
1994 Response of the Superintendent. As to the first objection,
relating to the lack of a small group of full time investigators,
it is pointed out that the twenty-one trained investigators are a
preliminary measure. They are to be considered as a pool from
which the "Division intends to select from this specially trained
group a contingent of three to five investigators to staff the
Inspection and Internal Affairs Section on an exclusive, full-time
basis." We accept this representation and find that it satisfies
the relator's first objection.
The relator's second objection on the use of a polygraph
in the investigation of complaints is not well-founded. First, the
proposed regulations make it clear that use of polygraph
examinations are limited ". . . to those cases in which the
allegations are relatively serious and all other investigative
leads have failed to produce a preponderance of evidence which will
either prove or disprove the allegations." Section 8.08.
Moreover, under Section 8.08(3), the ". . . complainant [can]
refuse . . . to take the examination. . . ."
The third objection is to the provision in Section 5.06
requiring that, at the time the initial written complaint is taken
by a state police officer, the complainant is to be advised that it
is a violation of W. Va. Code, 15-2-16 (1977) to provide false
information.See footnote 5 The relator claims that this will intimidate persons
from making complaints. However, we do not agree as this provision
is nothing more than a statement of existing law.
The fourth objection by the relator dealt with the lack
of a thorough annual report. However, this claim is based on the
general language of Section 3.04 which merely requires that "The
Inspector shall prepare an annual statistical report." The
respondents' point out that W. Va. Code, 15-2-23 (1977) authorizes
an annual report, and that this annual report "is a matter of
public record . . . and contains . . . a detailed synopsis of every
facet of activities within the Inspection and Internal Affairs
Section, including but not limited to data on complaints filed,
investigations, dispositions, and discipline." A copy of an annual
report has been furnished and we find that it is adequate.
The fifth objection was that there were no incident
report forms to report injuries to others. The respondents dispute
this claim by pointing to Section 9.00 and accompanying Exhibits H
and I attached to the proposed regulations. These are forms for
reporting any use of force by state police. Consequently, we find
no merit as to this objection.
The final objection relates to public access to various
internal documents generated in investigation of complaints. We
decline to address this general claim as obviously, this issue
would be controlled by the West Virginia Freedom of Information
Act, W. Va. Code, 29B-1-1, et seq. (1977), and we decline to give
any general advisory opinion in this area.
We note that during the course of oral argument, the
attorney representing the respondents, acknowledged that its
brochure regarding the filing of complaints was misleading, as to
the requirements for taking a polygraph examination, because it did
not comport with its Section 8.08. The same problem existed as to
its language regarding the filing of a false complaint. We were
advised that new brochures were being prepared to correct these
deficiencies. We accept this representation.
Finally, we address the question of which type of rules
should be published. The proposed regulations which have been
referred to in this opinion are quite detailed. It appears that
the Superintendent, rather than publish these regulations under The
Administrative Procedure Act, W. Va. Code, 29A-3-1, et seq. (1988)
(Act), proposes to publish a brief synopsis of the proposed regulations, some of which may be misleading.See footnote 6 We believe that
W. Va. Code, 29A-3-2 (1982) dealing with what must be published
under the ActSee footnote 7, when read in conjunction with the definition of
"Rule" contained in W. Va. Code, 29A-1-2(i) (1982),See footnote 8 requires that the full proposed regulations need to be published in accordance
with the procedures set out in the Act. See generally West
Virginia Chiropractic Society, Inc. v. Merritt, 178 W. Va. 173, 358 S.E.2d 432 (1987).
II.
In addition, the relator had sought mandamus against the
members of the West Virginia State Board of Risk and Insurance
Management (Board) to require it to adopt regulations to identify
police misconduct claims because they would have an impact on the
State's liability insurance which is supervised by the Board. This
request was also granted as summarized in Syllabus Point 5 of
Skaff I:
Under W. Va. Code, 29-12-5 (1986), which
delegates to the West Virginia State Board of
Risk and Insurance Management the authority to
investigate and settle claims under the
State's liability insurance, the Board of Risk
is required to promulgate rules or regulations
for State agencies covered by the State's
liability insurance policy that will enable
the Board to promptly identify potential
liability claims against the State.
The relator's chief complaint to the regulations is that
the term "incident" as defined in its proposed rule is too narrowSee footnote 9
and should be broadened as follows:
3.4: Incident means any activity, whether
participated in by an employee, observed by an
employee, or made known to an employee, and
whether intentional or unintentional, which
has or might have resulted in physical or
property damage to another or to another's
property and which has the potential for
resulting in a claim against the State of West
Virginia for damages.
During the course of oral argument the attorney for the Board
agreed to accept the relator's proposed definitions of the term
"risk".See footnote 10 We accept this representation.
For the foregoing reasons, and subject to the
representations made by the various parties, we conclude that the
regulations proposed by the respondents and the Board are
acceptable.
Writ granted as moulded.
Footnote: 1
The Superintendent states in his April 4, 1994 Response which
accompanied the proposed regulations that:
Twenty-one troopers recently attended and
successfully completed a basic internal
affairs investigation training program. The
course was taught at the State Police Academy
by representatives of the Institute of Police
Technology and Management of North Florida
University, at Jacksonville, Florida. The
goal of the training was to enhance the
Division's ability to investigate all
complaints and personnel problems in a
competent, neutral and timely manner. . . .
Two Division officers have completed an
Advanced Proactive Internal Affairs course
conducted by the International Chiefs of
Police Association. The course focused on
current case law and the implementation of
internal management systems aimed at
identifying personnel problems before they
manifest themselves as inappropriate on or
off-duty behavior.Footnote: 2
The relator's six objections to the regulations proposed by
the Superintendent are summarized as follows:
1) Reliance on a group of troopers to conduct
employee investigations rather than one or two full time
investigators (Section 3.0).
2) Routine use of polygraph on the complaint.
(Section 7.2).
3) Informing complainant that the law makes it a
misdemeanor to give false information to a state police
officer. (Section 7.2).
4) Lack of details in annual report summary.
(Section 3.04).
5) Lack of mandatory trooper incident report where
observable injury to another has occurred.
6) Lack of public access to reports of
investigations.Footnote: 3
We have recognized that mandamus can be brought to control
what may be termed discretionary acts if it can be shown that the
public official or agency was acting contrary to law or the conduct
was fraudulent. See Syllabus Point 1 Pell v. Board of Education of
Monroe County, 188 W. Va. 718, 426 S.E.2d 510 (1992).Footnote: 4
Section 52 of the Standards deals with the structure of an
Internal Affairs section as follows. The designation (M) is for a
mandatory provision and (O) indicates it is optional.
52.1 Administration
52.1.1 A written directive establishes the
agency's internal affairs function. (M)
52.1.2 Deleted as of November 20, 1992.
52.1.3 A written directive specifies the
activities of the internal affairs function,
to include:
(i) recording, registering, and controlling
the investigation of complaints against
officers; (ii) supervising and controlling the
investigation of alleged or suspected
misconduct within the agency; and (iii)
maintaining the confidentiality of the
internal affairs investigation and records.(M)
52.1.4 A written directive specifies the
categories of complaints that require
investigation by the internal affairs
function. (M)
52.1.5 A written directive specifies a
position in the agency responsible for the
internal affairs function with the authority
to report directly to the agency's chief
executive officer. (M)
52.1.6 Written directives relating to the
administration of the internal affairs
function are disseminated to all personnel.
(M)
52.1.7 When employees are notified that they
have become the subject of an internal affairs
investigation, the agency issues the employee
a written statement of the allegations and the
employee's rights and responsibilities
relative to the investigation. (M)
52.2 Complaint Processing
52.2.1 A written directive requires the agency
to investigate all complaints against the
agency or employees of the agency. (M)
52.2.2 A written directive requires the agency
to maintain a record of all complaints against
the agency or its employees. (M)
52.2.3 The agency provides written
verification to complainants that the
complaint has been received for processing.
(O)
52.2.4 The agency disseminates information to
the public on procedures to be followed in
registering complaints against the agency or
its employees. (O)
52.2.5 A written directive requires that the
agency notify the complainant concerning the
status of complaints against the agency or its
employees. (O)
52.2.6 A written directive specifies the
procedures for notifying the agency's chief
executive officer of complaints against the
agency or its employees. (O)
52.2.7 Records pertaining to internal affairs
investigations are maintained in a secure area
by the individual responsible for the internal
affairs function. (O)
52.2.8 The agency publishes annual statistical
summaries, based on the records of internal
affairs investigations, for dissemination to
the public and to agency employees. (O)
52.3 Operational Procedures
52.3.1 The agency maintains liaison with the
prosecutor's office in investigations
involving alleged criminal conduct on the part
of an employee. (O)
52.3.2 A written directive defines the type of
complaints to be investigated by line
supervisors that are to be reviewed by the
agency's internal affairs function. (O)
52.3.3 A written directive specifies the
circumstances in which an employee may be
relieved from duty. (O)
52.3.4 A written directive specifies the
conditions, if any, under which instruments
for the detection of deception are used in
conducting internal affairs investigations.
(O)
52.3.5 A written directive specifies the
conditions under which:
(i) medical or laboratory examinations are
administered in conducting internal affairs
investigations; (ii) photographs are taken of
employees in conducting internal affairs
investigations; (iii) an employee may be
directed to participate in a line-up as part
of an internal affairs investigation; and
(iv) an employee may be required to submit
financial disclosure statements as part of an
internal affairs investigation. (O)
52.3.6 A written directive specifies a 30-day
time limit for completing an internal affairs
investigation, with status reports due every
seven days. (O)Footnote: 5
W. Va. Code, 15-2-16 (1977) states, in relevant part:
Any person who shall at any time . . . who
knowingly gives false or misleading
information to a member of the department,
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon
conviction thereof, shall be fined not less
than twenty-five dollars nor more than two
hundred dollars, or imprisoned in the county
jail for not more than sixty days, or both
fined and imprisoned.
Footnote: 6
For example the proposed draft to be filed as Legislative
Rules contains in Rule 7.1 only a brief statement relating to the
use of polygraphs that the "complainant may be asked to submit to
a polygraph examination . . ." whereas the detailed regulations
clearly indicate that polygraph examinations are limited under
Section 8.08 and may be refused under 8.08(3).Footnote: 7
W. Va. Code, 29A-3-2 (1982) states in relevant part:
(a) Except when, and to the extent, that
this chapter or any other provision of law now
or hereafter made expressly exempts an agency,
or a particular grant of the rule-making
power, form the provisions of this article,
every grant of rule-making authority to an
executive or administrative officer, office or
agency, heretofore provided, shall be
construed and applied to be effective only:
(1) If heretofore lawfully exercised in
accordance with the prior provisions of this
chapter and the resulting rule has not been
revoked or invalidated by the provisions
hereof or by the agency; or
(2) If exercised in accordance with the
provisions hereof.
There is no applicable exemption for the proposed rules.Footnote: 8
W. Va. Code, 29A-1-2(i) (1982) states:
(i) "Rule" includes every regulation,
standard or statement of policy or
interpretation of general application and
future effect, including the amendment or
repeal thereof, affecting private rights,
privileges or interests, or the procedures
available to the public, adopted by an agency
to implement, extend, apply, interpret or make
specific the law enforced or administered by
it or to govern its organization or procedure,
but does not include regulations relating
solely to the internal management of the
agency, nor regulations of which notice is
customarily given to the public by markers or
signs, nor mere instructions. Every rule
shall be classified as "legislative rule,"
"interpretive rule" or "procedural rule," all
as defined in this section, and shall be
effective only as provided in this
chapter. . . .
Footnote: 9
The Board's proposed definition of "incident" was:
3.4 - "Incident" means any activity either observed by an "Employee" or made known to him or her, which has or may have resulted in physical or property damage to a third party or to his or her property and which has the potential of resulting in a claim against the State of West Virginia for damages.Footnote: 10 The relator also claimed that the three (3) year retention period for the initial reporting form is insufficient. However, this particular section states "three (3) years or longer". Moreover, this term is merely for the initial reporting forms. It is contemplated that a further investigation will be made.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.