After a near year long saga, the legal action taken against and from former Glasgow Police chief Guy Turcotte draws to a close, when an appeal made by Turcotte, in regard to a civil hearing presided over by Glasgow Mayor Henry Royse, resulted in his termination. This decision was upheld by Barren Circuit Court’s Judge John Alexander.
Beginning on August 18th, 2023 Turcotte began the appeal process to overturn the decision made by Royse, to terminate Turcotte.
As allegations surfaced, Turcotte was placed on paid leave on Feb. 28, 2023, but following GPD investigation aided through citizen complaints, Turcotte was presented with formal disciplinary charges and was suspended without pay on May 4,2023.
The hearing preceding Turcotte’s appeal began on July 18th, 2023, where Royse conducted an administrative hearing to ascertain whether Turcotte had violated GPD policies and, if so, what disciplinary actions should be taken. Attorneys for Turcotte had moved for a continuation (a bid by the council to delay proceedings) of the hearing, as Turcotte was facing criminal misdemeanor charges based on the same facts, going on at the same time, asserting his privilege against self-incrimination.
The continuance was rejected by Royse, using precedence set by Maze v. Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission, which, according to the court’s file, he interpreted to establish that, “To proceed with an administrative hearing while companion criminal charges are pending, does not violate an individuals due process.”
The file also states that Royse did not hold Turcotte’s silence against him, adding that Turcotte had previously testified under oath in another case with the court. This case, involving some of the same allegations, had resulted in an interpersonal protective order. This ruling had been taken into consideration against Turcotte due to the Maze case once more, where the Kentucky Supreme Court observed that, testimony under oath involving the same allegations was permissible as evidence in an overlapping case considering that the defendant made their statements voluntarily.
The hearing conducted before Royse saw the testimony of four separate witnesses, each of whom was subject to vigorous cross-examination. While information gathered at the hearing overlapped with evidence that could be presented at the misdemeanor trial, not all of it did. According to court filings Royse’s decision was, at least, partly based on factors other than the allegation of inappropriate touching, including that Turcotte “flashed his gun and badge” to gain access to areas not accessible by the public and that Turcotte stated, “It’s okay, I’m a cop,” while on personal and not official business.
Evidence also showed that Turcotte engaged in highly inappropriate behavior, such as taking photos of a female worker from behind and making comments that would not have been “remotely acceptable in any context.” The court’s file simplifies this with “There was considerably more evidence involved in this proceeding than the proof which would be involved in the pending criminal prosecution for an offense that essentially amounts to touching another person inappropriately.”
It is important to note that while the hearing and the criminal trial were held concurrently, the ultimate outcome of the criminal proceedings would have no bearing on Royse’s decision in the disciplinary matter. Likewise according to the file, Turcotte did not argue that the case lacked sufficient factual support. Turcotte’s argument being, “The strongest case for differing civil proceedings until after completion of criminal proceedings is where a party under indictment for a serious offense is required to defend a civil action involving the same matter.” This argument was nulled as Royse did not force Turcotte to testify, and he specifically noted that he did not hold Turcotte’s absence or his invocation of the right to remain silent against him.
Ultimately, Judge Alexander’s decision was to uphold Royse’s decision to terminate Turcotte’s employment with the city.
Ian Loos, attorney with the firm Bell, Orr and Ayers, who represented the city of Glasgow in the appeals case said, “I appreciate the thoroughness and attention that was provided to this matter by both Mayor Royse and Judge Alexander. Knowing the importance of this matter to the Glasgow Police Department, the city of Glasgow and the individuals that filed the citizens complaints, I am pleased that Mayor Royse’s decision adopting the police department’s recommended disciplinary action has been affirmed by the Barren Circuit Court.”
