Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sergeant Scofield tells commissioners reprimand came without interview; officials say discipline followed review
Summary
At a county commissioners’ grievance hearing, Sergeant Scofield disputed a written reprimand tied to a Jan. 9 highway pursuit, saying he was not interviewed and that the action felt retaliatory; the sheriff said the chief deputy reviewed evidence and issued a reprimand for supervisory shortcomings. Commissioners voted to go into executive session to deliberate.
Sergeant Scofield told county commissioners at a grievance hearing that he was reprimanded without being interviewed about a January vehicle pursuit and that the reprimand felt retaliatory.
"I was never interviewed," Scofield said, arguing he only learned of the disciplinary letter after it was issued and that he had asked for the required pursuit paperwork to ensure compliance. He said he would provide radio traffic and emails to support his account.
The employee representative who opened the hearing told commissioners the written reprimand violated the department's discipline policy and the collective bargaining agreement’s just‑cause protections because Scofield was not notified of an investigation or given an opportunity to respond.
The sheriff told commissioners the chief deputy concluded a reprimand was warranted based on a review of interviews and paperwork and characterized the finding as a failure of supervision and follow‑up rather than retaliation. "The chief deputy felt that he had all the information necessary," the sheriff said, explaining why discipline was issued.
Commissioners and other attendees questioned whether recordings or video exist from the Jan. 9 incident and why a request for a pursuit form occurred roughly 81 days later. Participants noted the pursuit was discussed on radio traffic and that a compressed radio recording, but not video, was available.
Officials and the sergeant also debated department reporting practices. The sheriff and witnesses described the Spillman system for shift incident entries and said supervisors have been asked to adopt formal shift passdowns to improve continuity; some deputies have not consistently entered required notes.
During the hearing commissioners emphasized they were taking testimony and would have an opportunity to deliberate in executive session with counsel rather than reach an immediate conclusion. A commissioner moved to go into executive session under the statute cited on the record; the motion was seconded and approved. The meeting adjourned shortly afterward.
The hearing record includes competing factual claims: Scofield said the delayed paperwork request and discipline were retaliatory and that he was never interviewed; the sheriff said the chief deputy reasonably concluded discipline was appropriate after reviewing the facts. Commissioners did not make a public decision at the hearing; they voted to deliberate in executive session.
