09-C-1192 Milwaukee Police Association v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners of the City of Milwaukee

Listen to this article

Employment
Public employment; due process

A probationary police officer in Milwaukee has no due process right to a hearing before termination.
“The term ‘member of the police force’ has no specific statutory definition. Ramskugler argues that she was a ‘member of the police force’ because she was a ‘law enforcement officer,’ defined by statute as ‘any person employed by the state or any political subdivision of the state, for the purpose of detecting and preventing crime and enforcing laws or ordinances and who is authorized to make arrests for violations of the laws or ordinances that the person is employed to enforce.’ Wis. Stat. § 165.85(2)(c). Ms. Ramskugler did graduate from the MPD’s training academy, after which time she was certified as a ‘law enforcement officer.’ Wis. Stat. § 165.85(4)(b). But it does not follow that Ms. Ramskugler was a ‘member of the police force’ pursuant to § 62.50. The dictionary definition of ‘member’ is ‘one of the individuals composing a group.’ Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2011), http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/member; see also Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1986) (defining member as ‘one of the individuals composing a society, community, association or other group’). Ms. Ramskugler was not one of the individuals composing a group (i.e., the ‘police force’ in the City of Milwaukee) unless and until she successfully completed 16 months in active service. The statute governing general law enforcement standards ‘does not preclude any law enforcement agency from “setting recruit training and employment standards which are higher than the minimum standards set by the board.”’ Kraus, 662 N.W.2d at 300 (citing Wis. Stat. § 165.85(4)(e)).”

09-C-1192 Milwaukee Police Association v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners of the City of Milwaukee

E.D.Wis., Randa, J.