Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the termination of a Madison police officer after a merit board found he didn’t properly log evidence or disclose relationships with women involved in criminal cases.
Indiana State Police first investigated Jonathon Simpson in 2006 for alleged improper relationships with women potentially involved in criminal investigations or cases.
In one instance, Simpson admitted to the police chief that he had been in a sexual relationship with one woman and desired to have a sexual relationship with another. The chief gave him a written informal reprimand for conduct unbecoming an officer.
The Jefferson County prosecutor asked Simpson sometime between 2011 and 2013 about rumors that he was having a sexual relationship with defendants, confidential informants or witnesses in then-pending cases. Simpson denied the relationships.
Then in 2016, Simpson found drugs in a car and arrested two people — but not a third, one of the women he’d had a relationship with.
A second investigation in 2013 involved Simpson’s evidence handling and packaging after he had evidence in his office that wasn’t packaged, sealed or put in an evidence locker.
In 2017, Simpson searched the residence of a convicted felon and found methamphetamine, two guns and other evidence that he collected. He didn’t make an arrest, though. A state trooper who was there radioed his sergeant to express concern about Simpson’s actions during the search.
Simpson waited more than six months to log the evidence and didn’t submit a report to the police department’s case report system. As a result, the prosecutor’s office didn’t file charges.
In 2019, the county prosecutor informed the police chief that the prosecutor’s office wouldn’t accept cases filed by Simpson.
The chief referred charges to the merit board, alleging various violations of the department’s standard operating procedures and police merit board handbook.
The merit board issued an order in 2020 terminating Simpson’s employment, ruling in part that his failure to disclose previous relationships resulted in his violation or had caused the prosecutor’s office to violate the Brady rule that requires “disclosing information of an exculpatory nature to defendants in criminal matters.”
Simpson filed a petition with the Jefferson Superior Court for judicial review, arguing he was denied fairness or due process when the hearing officer admitted exhibits related to a state police investigation report and the prosecutor’s decision to not take cases from him.
The trial court upheld the merit board’s decision.
On appeal, Simpson reiterated his due process and evidence arguments. He also argued that the merit board improperly used his 2006 informal reprimand as a basis for its decision, and that some of the board’s findings weren’t supported by substantial evidence.
The Court of Appeals first ruled Simpson waived the argument that his due process rights were violated because he failed to raise a due process objection to the merit board.
Even without the waiver, though, the Court of Appeals said Simpson failed to show a violation.
The appellate court next ruled Simpson’s argument that the board improperly considered his informal reprimand was without merit.
The board’s decision, the COA said, was based on Simpson’s failure to disclose a prior sexual relationship, not on the fact that he had engaged in the relationship.
Turning to the admission of two exhibits, the appellate court ruled Simpson failed to show fundamental error — even assuming “this civil proceeding was one of the limited situations in which the fundamental error doctrine would apply.”
Simpson argued the exhibits included hearsay, but the Court of Appeals noted the hearing officer explained that the merit board hearing would “not follow strict evidentiary rules” and that hearsay would be allowed.
The Court of Appeals also disagreed with Simpson’s argument that the admission resulted in prejudice.
Lastly, the COA rejected Simpson’s argument that the board’s findings weren’t supported by substantial evidence.
“We will not individually discuss each of the findings that Simpson challenges,” the opinion says, “because a review of each one reveals that Simpson’s challenges are nothing more than a request for us to reweigh the evidence.”
Judge Rudolph Pyle wrote the opinion. Senior Judge Margret Robb and Judge Leanna Weissmann concurred.
The case is Jonathon D. Simpson v. City of Madison, Indiana, 22A-MI-246.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.