Suspended firefighter faces 3rd arrest in 4 months

[INIT915 1,119]

Suspended firefighter faces 3rd arrest in 4 months

Terence Corcoran • The Journal News • January 19, 2008

PHILIPSTOWN - A suspended volunteer firefighter, already accused of stealing gas from the department and engaging in sexual activity with a 15-year-old girl, is now also charged with burglary.

http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...335/1020/NEWS04

[ny10570 745]

I'm starting to like this kid. He just doesn't know the word quit. I know that there are certain policies and procedures intended to protect people from false accusations and the like, but couldn't Philipstown FD find a way to cut ties with this clown based on his pattern of behavior. Yeah, he will still always be a "former firefighter" as far as the paper is concerned but it would at least be another little gap between him and the dept.

[JetPhoto 626]

He is from North Highlands FD in the town of Philipstown.

Looks like this guy is going to the big house for sure this time.

[RescueKujo 130]

Unfortunately, it is my understanding that because he has not gone through the trial process or copped a plea if guilty, he can only be suspended. But if I were the Chief or whomever is in charge of personnel matters, the paperwork would already be drawn up so the minute a guilty plea is brought down he is no longer a member of the department.

[PC_420 28]

This guy reminds me of OJ Simpson.

Arrogant.

Ignorant.

OR BOTH.

[firecapt32 282]

This is again sosmthing that we should al be aware of-- being held to a higher standard. After being accused of stealing the gas from the fire department, this individual engaged in other activities NOT CONCERNING the fire department BUT because he is/was/suspended the article clearly has in its headlines FIREFIGHTER faces third arrest.

This is another example of being carefull out there we are all HELD to that higher standard in the publics eye.

[smwells 7]

This is again sosmthing that we should al be aware of-- being held to a higher standard. After being accused of stealing the gas from the fire department, this individual engaged in other activities NOT CONCERNING the fire department BUT because he is/was/suspended the article clearly has in its headlines FIREFIGHTER faces third arrest.

This is another example of being carefull out there we are all HELD to that higher standard in the publics eye.

Something that probably should have been done (may have been) by the FD is asking him to resign.. based upon the charges alone, not his guilt or innocence to save the department a black eye..

Unfortuantely based upon the multiple charges, this person doesn't have the common sense to do the right thing anyway, even if it was suggested.

[firecapt32 282]

As I like to quote from Red Neck Comedy "YOU CANT FIX STUPID" and this young man certinaly fits that description.

[jack10562 414]

The fact he was associated with the fire service makes it sexy,

"Suspended firefighter faces 3rd arrest in 4 months"

sells more papers than

"Local Teen arrested Three Times"

Everyone in public service might as well face reality, especially when it's concerning the media:

... anything that you do wrong will be reflected on what it is that you do.

[50-65 205]

Unfortunately, it is my understanding that because he has not gone through the trial process or copped a plea if guilty, he can only be suspended. But if I were the Chief or whomever is in charge of personnel matters, the paperwork would already be drawn up so the minute a guilty plea is brought down he is no longer a member of the department.

I don't understand why they have to wait. Why can he only be suspended? Why, as suggested in another post, should they have to ask him to resign?

Don't the members of the department get to vote on his membership when he joins? Do they not have a membership committee, rules/regulations, by-laws, etc?

In my department, just the original charge of the theft from the department would have been enough to get him booted, not just suspended. His actions, as reported, would be considered as conduct unbecomming a firefighter. That, in itself, should be grounds for dismissal from the department.

[ex-commish 490]

I don't understand why they have to wait. Why can he only be suspended? Why, as suggested in another post, should they have to ask him to resign?

Don't the members of the department get to vote on his membership when he joins? Do they not have a membership committee, rules/regulations, by-laws, etc?

In my department, just the original charge of the theft from the department would have been enough to get him booted, not just suspended. His actions, as reported, would be considered as conduct unbecomming a firefighter. That, in itself, should be grounds for dismissal from the department.

It is not that easy today to remove someone. They have the right to due process like anyone else. He has not been found guilty of anything yet. As much as someone like this should be dumped he does have rights. My guess is he will have his day and will spend some time eating bolagna sandwiches and protecting his lower backside.

[helicopper 1,050]

It is not that easy today to remove someone. They have the right to due process like anyone else. He has not been found guilty of anything yet. As much as someone like this should be dumped he does have rights. My guess is he will have his day and will spend some time eating bolagna sandwiches and protecting his lower backside.

The FD should be able to conduct its "hearing" and "convict" him of violating the SOP's (as someone else suggested for conduct unbecoming if nothing else). They could then vote to remove him. It's not like a civil service position and I'd guess that he doesn't have the funds to mount a big legal challenge against the FD if they did boot him.

What happens if he gets (not that he will) an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal or his record is sealed as a youthful offender? Then the FD can't rely on a "conviction" to remove him. Mind you I'm referring to his theft from the FD not his other legal issues.

No point delaying the inevitable - gotta get rid of the bad apples!

[Rimrockny24 0]

If my sources are correct this kid was removed from Philipstown VAC for "problems" also.

[AFS1970 504]

Once a case move to the Criminal Authorities (Police and ultimately the Courts) the department is often better served by waiting for a verdict. Imagine if there was an internal hearing and he was found guilty on Departmental charges based on the same actions he is awaiting trial for. Then he is found not guilty in court, basically saying he did not do what the department said he did. He now has a civil case against the department. Another way these could effect each other is if the department finds him guilty and that is reported in the media, it could in theory taint the case against him in criminal court. Once again, he may have a civil case against the department.

If they wait for the court case(s) to be finished, and he is convicted on any of the three charges, the department has much more to stand on in the Departmental hearing. A convicted Burglar can not be allowed to have to access to peoples homes that we have as emergency responders. A convicted Sexual Offender can not be allowed to have the access to the general public, especially children, or in the case of EMS, to patients that we have as emergency responders. So it is a matter that will not get much debate and justice, while delayed will be definative.

[jack10562 414]

The Department officials are already "doing the right thing" as indicated in the original article:

He was suspended from the Fire Department, and fire officials are waiting for the charges to be adjudicated before moving to officially drop Kivel from the roster.

They seem to be acutely aware of the implications that could result from taking additional immediate action, other than the already-in-effect suspension, since he's in the legal system.

As soon as there is a court decision handed down on any or all of the charges, then he's gone.

[crcocr1 8]

It is my understanding that even if there were a conflicting decision, a firefighter charged with violating the bylaws and/or department rules only is entitled to procedural due process, meaning that as long the department follows the applicable law governing an administrative hearing in this regard (i.e. General Municipal Law, Town Law, etc.), it is protected regardless of any future criminal proceeding. If the accused firefighter feels aggrieved, he may appeal the decision to the trial court through an Article 78 proceeding to review the department's disposition.

Criminal proceedings work differently because of constitutional concerns and a higher burden of proof. Remember that OJ Simpson was found liable in a civil proceeding, but not guilty by a criminal court, albeit in the State of California?

Although there may be many good reasons for waiting until the criminal charges are resolved, it is possible to remove the accused firefighter nonetheless. I, however, am not an attorney and will not speculate as to the cost benefit analysis in waiting versus not waiting in this specific instance.

[ex-commish 490]

The FD should be able to conduct its "hearing" and "convict" him of violating the SOP's (as someone else suggested for conduct unbecoming if nothing else). They could then vote to remove him. It's not like a civil service position and I'd guess that he doesn't have the funds to mount a big legal challenge against the FD if they did boot him.

What happens if he gets (not that he will) an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal or his record is sealed as a youthful offender? Then the FD can't rely on a "conviction" to remove him. Mind you I'm referring to his theft from the FD not his other legal issues.

No point delaying the inevitable - gotta get rid of the bad apples!

I totally agree with getting rid of bad apples and there were a few in my day I wish I could of simply dumped but as a former chief who had similiar issue come across my desk I can tell from experience that it is not that simple today to get rid of someone especially if they have not been convicted. There are laws in place for conducting department hearings which must follow due process.