In Re Charges Against Dewar

No. 13115 I N THE SUPREME COIJRT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 197 5 I n t h e Matter o f : CHARGES AGAINST ROBERT DW R , e A Police Officer. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable LeRoy L. McKinnon, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : John M. McCarvel argued, Great F a l l s , Montana For Respondent: Larsen and Gliko, Great F a l l s , Montana David V. Gliko argued, Great F a l l s , Montana Swanberg, Koby, Swanberg & Matteucci, Great F a l l s , Montana A. G. Matteucci argued, Great F a l l s , Montana Submitted: November 10, 1975 Decided :@R 1976 Filed : kph ; & 6 - ? Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Cascade County. The judgment d i r e c t e d t h a t t h e p o l i c e commission of t h e c i t y of Great F a l l s p r o c e e d w i t h i t s hearing of charges a g a i n s t Robert D e w a r , a Great F a l l s c i t y p o l i c e o f f i c e r , w i t h o u t r e q u i r i n g t h e d i s c l o s u r e of t h e i d e n t i t y of a n i n f o r m a n t . O f f i c e r D e w a r a p p e a l s from t h a t judgment. R o b e r t D e w a r , a p o l i c e o f f i c e r w i t h t h e c i t y of G r e a t F a l l s , i s c h a r g e d w i t h t h e t h e f t o f two b i c y c l e s from t h e G r e a t F a l l s p o l i c e d e p a r t m e n t s t o r a g e g a r a g e d u r i n g t h e month of Octo- ber 1974. Charges were b r o u g h t under s e c t i o n 11-1806, R.C.M. 1947, b e f o r e t h e p o l i c e commission of t h e c i t y of G r e a t F a l l s and D e w a r w a s suspended from h i s d u t i e s on December 2 6 , 1974. A h e a r i n g commenced b e f o r e t h e p o l i c e commission on F e b r u a r y 1 9 , 1975. A t t h e h e a r i n g , S e r g e a n t James Cook of t h e G r e a t F a l l s p o l i c e d e p a r t m e n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he f i r s t i n i t i a t e d h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f O f f i c e r Dewar when a n u n i d e n t i f i e d p o l i c e o f f i c e r t o l d him t h a t t h e r e was rumor O f f i c e r Dewar had s t o l e n some b i c y c l e s . S u b s e q u e n t l y , S g t . Cook's i n v e s t i g a t i o n l e d him t o i n t e r v i e w s e v e r a l o t h e r p o l i c e o f f i c e r s , one of whom admitbed s t e a l i n g a b i c y c l e from t h e p o l i c e s t o r a g e g a r a g e and i m p l i c a t e d O f f i c e r Dewar. The names of t h e i n t e r v i e w e d p o l i c e o f f i c e r s were r e v e a l e d . During t h e q u e s t i o n i n g of S g t . Cook by d e f e n s e c o u n s e l f o r R o b e r t Dewar, Cook r e f u s e d t o i d e n t i f y t h e unnamed p o l i c e o f f i c e r who o r i g i n a l l y r e l a t e d t h e rumor. The p o l i c e commission o r d e r e d S g t . Cook t o r e v e a l t h e i d e n t i t y of t h e i n - former. A motion w a s made by t h e c i t y a t t o r n e y t o c o n t i n u e t h e h e a r i n g t o a l a t e r d a t e and submission o f b r i e f s was o r d e r e d by t h e p o l i c e commission as t o whether t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e i n f o r m e r had t o be d i s c l o s e d . On March 1 0 , 1975, t h e h e a r i n g reconvened. S g t . Cook was a g a i n o r d e r e d by t h e p o l i c e commission t o respond and d i s c l o s e t h e i d e n t i t y of t h e i n f o r m a n t , he r e f u s e d . Upon motion of t h e c i t y a t t o r n e y , t h e p o l i c e commission g r a n t e d a r e c e s s t o a l l o w t h e c i t y a t t o r n e y t o s e c u r e a d e t e r m i n a t i o n from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a s t o whether t h e p o l i c e commission had t h e a u t h o r i t y t o o r d e r a w i t n e s s t o answer a q u e s t i o n propounded t o him. The c i t y t h e n made a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Cascade County, f o r a w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i o r o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e w r i t , on March 1 9 , 1975. The c o u r t g r a n t e d l e a v e t o f i l e t h e a f f i d a v i t f o r a w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i o r o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e w r i t and o r d e r e d t h e p o l i c e commission t o show c a u s e why such w r i t should n o t i s s u e . The h e a r i n g on t h e o r d e r t o show c a u s e w a s s e t f o r A p r i l 9 , 1975, b e f o r e t h e Hon. LeRoy L. McKinnon. B r i e f s were f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t by t h e c i t y , O f f i c e r Dewar, and a n amicus c u r i a e b r i e f on b e h a l f o f Sgt.Cook. A motion t o quash t h e o r d e r t o show c a u s e and t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i was f i l e d by O f f i c e r Dewar. A h e a r i n g was h e l d on t h e o r d e r t o show c a u s e and t h e motion t o quash. The c o u r t t o o k t h e matter under a d v i s e m e n t . On May 21, 1975, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t deemed " d e c l a r a t o r y judgment t h e more a p p r o p r i a t e remedy" and i s s u e d f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w , w h e r e i n t h e c o u r t concluded: 1. That t h e o n l y i s s u e p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h e c o u r t w a s t h a t of d i s c l o s u r e o r n o n d i s c l o s u r e of t h e i d e n t i t y of a n i n f o r - mant o r t i p s t e r . 2. That under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e c a s e , t h e i d e n t i t y of t h e i n f o r m a n t o r t i p s t e r was i r r e l e v a n t and i m m a t e r i a l , and t h e o b j e c t i o n t o d i s c l o s u r e s h o u l d be s u s t a i n e d . O f f i c e r Dewar a p p e a l s from t h e d e c l a r a t o r y judgment. The m a t t e r s j u s t r e l a t e d a p p e a r i n i t i a l l y t o be d e c e p t i v e l y s i m p l e b u t on f u r t h e r e x a m i n a t i o n w e have a m u l t i t u d e o f l e g a l problems which go t o t h e v e r y h e a r t and t h e i n t e g r i t y of t h e p o l i c e commission p r o c e e d i n g s , a s s e t o u t i n s e c t i o n 11-1801, e t . seq., R.C.M. 1947. F i r s t , t h e i n i t i a l i s s u e taken t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t from t h e commission was n e v e r r u l e d upon b u t h a s been r a i s e d a s a n i s s u e on a p p e a l t o t h i s C o u r t . The q u e s t i o n r u l e d upon by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was n o t r a i s e d a s a n i s s u e by a p p e l l a n t , b u t was b r i e f e d and argued by t h e c i t y and amicus c u r i a e . The i s s u e s t h i s C o u r t w i l l c o n s i d e r r e l a t e t o (1) t h e power of t h e p o l i c e commission t o compel a w i t n e s s t o t e s t i f y ; and ( 2 ) whether a w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i o r a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment properly l i e s i n t h i s proceeding. The p o l i c e commission i s a c r e a t u r e of s t a t u t e promulgated by t h e l e g i s l a t i v e b r a n c h of t h e government and d i r e c t e d t o t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b r a n c h o f government; t o be a d m i n i s t e r e d by t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r e x e c u t i v e branch i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e o p e r a t i o n of m u n i c i p a l p o l i c e d e p a r t m e n t s . The f a c t t h a t t h e p o l i c e com- m i s s i o n performs a s o - c a l l e d q u a s i - j u d i c i a l f u n c t i o n d o e s n o t change t h e c h a r a c t e r of t h e body o r i t s p r o c e e d i n g s o r p l a c e it w i t h i n t h e j u d i c i a l branch. Nor i s t h e r e a r e v i e w o r a p p e a l by o r t o t h e j u d i c i a l b r a n c h of government, u n l e s s p r o v i d e d by l e g i s l a t i v e enactment. S t a t e ex r e l . H o l t v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t , 103 Mont. 438, 63 P.2d 1026. The code s e c t i o n o f t h e M e t r o p o l i t a n P o l i c e Law which b e a r s on t h i s c o n t r o v e r s y i s s e c t i o n 11-1806, R.C.M. 1947. The p e r t i n e n t p a r t s of t h a t s e c t i o n r e a d : " (1) The p o l i c e commission s h a l l have t h e j u r i s - d i c t i o n , and it s h a l l be i t s d u t y t o h e a r , t r y and d e c i d e a l l c h a r g e s b r o u g h t by any p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s a g a i n s t any member o r o f f i c e r o f t h e p o l i c e d e p a r t m e n t * * *. " ( 3 ) I t i s t h e d u t y of t h e p o l i c e commission a t t h e time set f o r hearing a charge a g a i n s t a p o l i c e o f f i c e r , t o f o r t h w i t h proceed t o hear, t r y and d e t e r m i n e t h e c h a r q e a c c o r d i n q t o t h e r u l e s of e v i d e n c e a p p l i c a b l e t o c o u r t s o f r e c o r d i n t h e s t a t e of Montana. * * * " ( 4 ) The c h a i r m a n , o r a c t i n g c h a i r m a n , of t h e p o l i c e commission, s h a l l have power t o i s s u e subpoenas, a t t e s t e d i n i t s name, t o compel t h e a t t e n d a n c e o f w i t n e s s e s a t t h e h e a r i n g and any p e r s o n d u l y s e r v e d w i t h a subpoena i s bound t o a t t e n d i n o b e d i e n c e t h e r e t o , and t h e p o l i c e commission s h a l l have t h e same a u t h o r i t y t o e n f o r c e o b e d i e n c e t o t h e subpoena, and t o p u n i t h e d i s o b e d i e n c e t h e r e o f , a s i s p o s s e s s e d by a judqe of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n l i k e cases, p r o v i d e d , however, t h a t punishment f o r d i s o b e d i e n c e i s s u b j e c t t o r e v i e w by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e p r o p e r c o u n t y . " ( 6 ) Such a c t i o n o f t h e p o l i c e commission s h a l l , however, be s u b j e c t t o m o d i f i c a t i o n o r v e t o by t h e mayor, made i n w r i t i n g , g i v i n g r e a s o n s t h e r e f o r , which s h a l l become a permanent r e c o r d o f t h e p o l i c e commission, p r o v i d e d , however, t h a t where and when t h e p o l i c e commission d e c i d e s t h e c h a r g e n o t proven t h e decision i s not subject t o modification o r v e t o by t h e mayor n o r s u b j e c t t o any r e v i e w b u t i s f i n a l and c o n c l u s i v e . "Where t h e p o l i c e commission d e c i d e s t h e c h a r g e proven, t h e mayor, w i t h i n f i v e ( 5 ) d a y s from t h e d a t e of t h e f i l i n g of such f i n d i n g s and d e c i s i o n w i t h t h e c i t y c l e r k , may modify o r v e t o such f i n d - i n g s and d e c i s i o n . " ( 7 ) When a c h a r g e a g a i n s t a member o f t h e p o l i c e f o r c e i s found proven by t h e b o a r d , and i s n o t v e t o e d by t h e mayor, t h e mayor must make a n o r d e r e n f o r c i n g t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e b o a r d , o r i f modified by t h e mayor, t h e n such d e c i s i o n a s m o d i f i e d , and s u c h d e c i s i o n o r o r d e r s h a l l be s u b j e c t t o r e v i e w by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e p r o p e r c o u n t y on a l l q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t and a l l q u e s t i o n s o f l a w . " ( 8 ) The d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e p r o p e r c o u n t y s h a l l have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w a l l q u e s t i o n s of f a c t and a l l q u e s t i o n s of law i n a s u i t b r o u g h t by any o f f i c e r o r member o f t h e p o l i c e f o r c e , b u t no s u i t t o review such hearing o r t r i a l o r f o r r e i n s t a t e - ment t o o f f i c e s h a l l b e m a i n t a i n e d u n l e s s t h e s a m e i s begun w i t h i n a p e r i o d o f s i x t y ( 6 0 ) d a y s a f t e r t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e p o l i c e commission o r o r d e r o f t h e mayor h a s been f i l e d w i t h t h e c i t y c l e r k . " (Emphasis added. ) A s noted i n subsection ( 7 ) , s e c t i o n 11-1806, the final d e c i s i o n of t h e p o l i c e commission i s s u b j e c t t o r e v i e w by t h e mayor o r head of t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r e x e c u t i v e b r a n c h of the municipality. The mayor h a s been g i v e n t h e a u t h o r i t y t o v e t o , amend o r a f f i r m t h e a c t i o n s o f t h e p o l i c e commission, u n l e s s t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r i s a c q u i t t e d of t h e charges brought a g a i n s t him. T h i s seems t o be t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e r e v i e w process. S u b s e c t i o n ( 8 ) , s e c t i o n 11-1806, p r o v i d e s a remedy f o r t h e policeman i f he i s d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s of r e v i e w by t h e mayor. H e i s authorized t o f i l e - his s e p a r a t e a c t i o n i n t h e appropriate d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r a review of t h e f a c t s and t h e l a w . S u b s e c t i o n ( 3 ) , s e c t i o n 11-1806, p r o v i d e s t h e commission s h a l l proceed a c c o r d i n g t o t h e r u l e s of e v i d e n c e a p p l i c a b l e t o c o u r t s of r e c o r d . Subsection ( 4 ) , provides t h e a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e chairman t o i s s u e subpoenas, t o compel t h e a t t e n d a n c e of w i t n e s s e s a t a h e a r i n g and t o p u n i s h d i s o b e d i e n c e w i t h t h e same a u t h o r i t y a s p o s s e s s e d by a judge o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n l i k e c a s e s . However, punishment f o r d i s o b e d i e n c e i s s u b j e c t t o d i s t r i c t c o u r t review. T h e r e f o r e , we have a n i n d e p e n d e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e commis- s i o n w i t h e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r and d e t e r m i n e c h a r g e s b r o u g h t a g a i n s t m u n i c i p a l p o l i c e o f f i c e r s , which i s a q u a s i - j u d i c i a l f u n c t i o n ; S t a t e ex r e l . M u e l l e r v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t , 87 Mont. 1 0 8 , 285 P. 928. The g r a n t o f powers by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o t h e commission i n s u b s e c t i o n s ( 3 ) and ( 4 ) , s e c t i o n 11-1806, would be m e a n i n g l e s s w i t h o u t t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g power t o compel t e s t i m o n y once a r e l u c t a n t w i t n e s s h a s been b r o u g h t b e f o r e t h e commission; we f i n d t h i s t o be t h e i n t e n t of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . The power t o compel t e s t i m o n y must a l s o be s u b j e c t t o t h e same r e s t r i c t i o n s as t h o s e t h a t g u i d e a d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n t h e t r i a l of l i k e c a s e s . The h o l d i n g i n H o l t and s i m i l a r c a s e s would i n d i c a t e t h e j u d i c i a r y g e n e r a l l y s h o u l d be l e s s i n c l i n e d t o i n j e c t them- s e l v e s i n t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e e d i n g s d i r e c t l y by w r i t o r d e c l a r a t i o n and p a r t i c u l a r l y t h o s e i n p r o g r e s s , u n l e s s t h e r e a p p e a r s t o be c l e a r l e g i s l a t i v e a u t h o r i t y t o i n t e r v e n e . Inter- v e n t i o n i n a f f a i r s of t h e e x e c u t i v e b r a n c h should be c a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r e d i n any c a s e and much more c a r e f u l l y t h a n t h o s e m a t t e r s s o l e l y w i t h i n t h e j u d i c i a l branch. I n S t a t e e x r e l . J o h n s t o n v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t , 93 Mont. 439, 4 4 4 , 1 9 P.2d 220, t h i s C o u r t s e t o u t t h r e e r e q u i s i t e s t o be met i n t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i : (1) Excess o f j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h e c o u r t making t h e o r d e r complained of; ( 2 ) a b s e n c e o f t h e r i g h t o f a p p e a l ; and ( 3 ) l a c k of any p l a i n , speedy and a d e q u a t e remedy o t h e r t h a n t h e w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i . There d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o be any showing t h a t t h e commission a c t e d i n e x c e s s of i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h i s matter and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t seems t o a g r e e inasmuch a s t h e c o u r t a v o i d e d t h e w r i t and e n t e r e d i t s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s a s a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment. W f i n d no r e a s o n t o burden t h i s o p i n i o n w i t h a f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n e of o t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n v o l v e d i n t h e g r a n t i n g o f a w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i , e x c e p t t o comment t h a t i n any c a s e t h i s p r o c e d u r e i s n o t p r o p e r where t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t o be reviewed a r e pending o r undetermined. S t a t e ex r e l . J o h n s t o n v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t , s u p r a ; 1 4 C.J.S. C e r t i o r a r i 820a. The d e c l a r a t o r y judgment which w a s i s s u e d i n t h e m a t t e r seems t o be a p r o d u c t of p r a c t i c a l i t y i n a n e f f o r t t o r e n d e r some k i n d of g u i d a n c e t o a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e body boggled i n a t e m p e s t blown somewhat o u t o f p r o p o r t i o n t o i t s o v e r a l l v a l u e t o t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t h e n under c o n s i d e r a t i o n . There i s no Montana law on t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n be- c a u s e it i s g e n e r a l l y conceded i n t h e law t h a t t h i s i s n o t t h e o f f i c e of a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment. D e c l a r a t o r y judgment i s a remedy t h a t d e c l a r e s t h e r i g h t s and d u t i e s of t h e p a r t i e s . The p u r p o s e o f d e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f i s t o l i q u i d a t e un- c e r t a i n t i e s and c o n t r o v e r s i e s which m i g h t r e s u l t i n f u t u r e l i t i g a t i o n and t o a d j u d i c a t e r i g h t s o f p a r t i e s who have n o t o t h e r w i s e been g i v e n a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o have t h o s e r i g h t s d e t e r - mined. However, i t i s n o t t h e t r u e p u r p o s e o f t h e d e c l a r a t o r y judgment t o p r o v i d e a s u b s t i t u t e f o r o t h e r r e g u l a r a c t i o n s . 22 Am J u r 2d, D e c l a r a t o r y Judgment § § 1, 2 , 6. O t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s have d e n i e d t h e remedy o f d e c l a r a - t o r y judgment where a p p e a l by s t a t u t e o r o t h e r w i s e from t h e a c t i o n s of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e bodies e x i s t s . Board of County Com- m i s s i o n e r s v . Buch, 190 Md. 394, 58 A.2d 672, and c a s e s c i t e d therein. S i m i l a r l y i n F l o r i d a it i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d ( C i t y o f Miami v . E l d r e d g e , F l a . , 1 2 6 S.2d 1 6 9 , 1 7 0 ) t h a t t h e d e c l a r a t o r y judgment s t a t u t e : " * * * is no s u b s t i t u t e f o r a n e s t a b l i s h e d p r o c e d u r e f o r appeal o r review of d e c i s i o n s of j u d i c i a l tribunals, o r of boards o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c i a l s exercising j u d i c i a l o r q u a s i - j u d i c i a l powers." No j u r i s d i c t i o n s t h a t c o u l d b e found c o n s i d e r e d , much l e s s a p p r o v e d , t h e d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a s a v e h i c l e t o o b t a i n r e l i e f from r u l i n g s w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b o d i e s o r commissions i n t h e p r o c e s s o f e x e r c i s i n g t h e i r q u a s i - j u d i c i a l f u n c t i o n s a n d / o r powers. The d e c l a r a t o r y judgment i n t h i s m a t t e r was i m p r o p e r l y i s s u e d and i s h e r e b y v a c a t e d and o f no e f f e c t . The m a t t e r o f t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e o r i g i n a l i n f o r m e r who spoke t o S g t . Cook i s n o t s q u a r e l y b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t , e v e n t h o u g h t h e law on d i s c l o s u r e w a s p r e s e n t e d t o g e t h e r w i t h o t h e r a r g u m e n t s . The q u e s t i o n was n o t a c c e p t e d o r a d e c i s i o n g i v e n by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a s a m a t t e r o f law. Rather t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t r u l e d t h e matter i r r e l e v a n t a s a matter of f a c t . The l a w h a s been b r i e f e d t o t h e commission and t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t i n Roviaro v. United S t a t e s , 353 U.S. 53, 62, 7 7 S.Ct. 623, 628, 1 L ed 2d 639, c i t e d i n S t a t e ex r e l . O f f e r d a h l v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t , 156 Mont. 432, 436, 481 P.2d 338, seems t o f u r n i s h s u f f i c i e n t guidance i n t h i s matter: "'We b e l i e v e t h a t no f i x e d r u l e w i t h r e s p e c t t o disclosure is justifiable. The problem i s one t h a t c a l l s f o r b a l a n c i n g t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n p r o t e c t i n g t h e f l o w of i n f o r m a t i o n a g a i n s t t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s r i g h t t o prepare h i s defense. Whether a p r o p e r b a l a n c e r e n d e r s n o n d i s c l o s u r e e r r o n e o u s must depend on t h e p a r t i c u l a r circum- s t a n c e s of each c a s e , taking i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e c r i m e charged, t h e p o s s i b l e defenses, t h e p o s s i b l e s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e informer's testi- mony, and o t h e r r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s . ' " An e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e t r a n s c r i p t of t h e p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t d i s c l o s e s no f a c t s upon which a p r o p e r r u l i n g c o u l d be made a s t o r e l e v a n c e . The s h o r t exchange between t h e c i t y a t t o r n e y and d e f e n s e a t t o r n e y o n l y c o n t a i n s t h e c o n c l u s i o n of c o u n s e l on t h e one hand t h a t it would be damaging t o t h e d e p a r t m e n t i f t h e i d e n t i t y was r e v e a l e d . Counsel f o r O f f i c e r D e w a r a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e answer by S g t . Cook would d e t e r m i n e i f any f u r t h e r w i t n e s s e s would be c a l l e d by t h e d e f e n s e and u n t i l t h e m a t t e r w a s s e t t l e d t h e defense could n o t proceed. The d e c l a r a t o r y judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s v a c a t e d . The p o l i c e commission i s d i r e c t e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h e f a c t s upon which t h e p a r t i e s r e l y t o s u p p o r t t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e p o s i t i o n s by o f f e r of p r o o f o r memorandum, and based on t h e f a c t s r e c e i v e d and r u l i n g c a s e l a w f o r g u i d a n c e p r conclusion. / i i I P Justices