Judge Coss rules in favor of retired police officer in civil suit against Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission

Following an oral hearing in Highland County Common Pleas Court, Judge Rocky Coss has ruled in favor of a local retired police officer in his civil lawsuit against the Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission regarding a rejected application for an instructor certificate.

As previously reported, a notice of appeal was filed Aug. 20, according to court records, in which former Blanchester Police Chief and Richland County Secret Service Officer Scott Reinbolt gave “notice of his appeal … from the undated decision of the Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission denying [Reinbolt’s] application for a Special Subject Instructor certificate.”

In the initial appeal and in a subsequent brief filed Oct. 7, Reinbolt — currently a Hillsboro resident — argued “that the Commission’s decision is not supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence and is not in accordance with law,” with numerous claims of “prejudicial error” allegedly committed by the Commission.

In a decision filed Nov. 7, Coss ordered that the Commission “make such finding” that Reinbolt “satisfies the minimum qualifications” and “issue a special subject instructor certification,” remanding the case back to the Commission’s director(s).  

An oral hearing was held Nov. 4, with Reinbolt representing himself and Assistant Attorneys General Mark D. Tucker and Byers B. Emerling appearing on behalf of the Ohio Peace Officers Training Commission.

According to Judge Coss’s decision, Coss considered “the certified corrected record of the administrative proceedings of the appellee filed on Sept. 30, 2024, including the transcript of the testimony at the hearing held May 9, 2024, the brief in support of the appeal filed by the appellant, the brief in opposition filed by appellee and the reply brief of the appellant” in making his judgment.

Coss found that Reinbolt’s first assignment of error — that the Commission’s decision is “invalid because the commission did not set the appeal within 15 days of receiving [Reinbolt’s] request for a hearing” as required by law— was “without merit” but sustained three other assignments of error.

For the second assignment of error, that the Commission denied Reinbolt’s application “based upon criteria other than that found in the Ohio Administrative Code and upon qualifications never adopted by the Commission,” Coss wrote about the conflicting reasons given for the commission rejecting Reinbolt’s request.

“Neither the appellee nor its executive director has any legal authority to adopt policies, procedures or ‘directives’ that are contrary to law,” Coss wrote. “[The Ohio Revised Code] provides that the executive director is to certify and to revoke for good cause certificates of instructors at approved peace officer training school. There is no authority granted to allow the executive director to exercise that duty using policies, procedures or ‘directives’ that are inconsistent with the administrative rules adopted by the attorney general.”

Coss ruled that “to the extent that they contradict the rule or add substantive requirements not included in the rule as in this case, they are not in accordance with law. Therefore, the appellee’s reliance on those provisions was not in accordance with law, and the decision affirming the denial of the appellant’s application is invalid.”

Coss further wrote that the Commission “should have reviewed the application under OAC 109:2-1-06(B)(1)(b), which it did not.

“Instead, it simply denied the application without reviewing and analyzing the attachments to determine whether the application should be approved under that subparagraph of the rule,” Coss wrote. “This was not in accordance with law.”

Reinbolt’s third assignment of error was that the Commission’s decision “states a conclusion which contradicts the evidence in the record.” Coss reiterated that the Commission “did not use the correct legal standard for evaluating the application and in the hearing before the full commission.”

The judge pointed out that Reinbolt provided “numerous attachments with his application which support his contention that he meets the requirements of minimum qualifications” for the license.

“There was no evidence officered to rebut any of the contents of the résumé and attachments to [Reinbolt’s] application,” Coss wrote. “Under the criteria set forth in OAC 109:2-1-06(B)(1)(b), [Reinbolt] clearly possesses minimum qualifications to serve as a special subject instructor on various topics set forth in his résumé and attachments to his application.

“[The Commission’s] denial of the application was clearly contradicted by the evidence in the certified record.”

Finally, Reinbolt argued that the Commission “committed prejudicial error by allowing its executive director … to testify that he ‘was in the process of terminating’” Reinbolt’s employment with OPOTA when he resigned.

Coss agreed “that this testimony was not relevant to the issue of determining whether [Reinbolt] met the criteria for certification as a special subject instructor.

“Employment and certification are separate issues,” Coss wrote. “The appellant’s employment status is not criteria under the rule to be considered in determining whether an application for certification should be approved. The testimony should not have been admitted.”

Coss concluded that “the evidence in the certified record in this case and specifically, the appellant’s application résumé and attachments included with it, constitute reliable, probative and substantial evidence that [Reinbolt] satisfies the minimum qualifications set forth” in the Ohio Administrative Code.

“The Court finds that ordering the appellee to make such finding and issue a special subject instructor certification is in accordance with the law,” Coss wrote. “However, the Court cannot discern from the certified record what subjects or courses that the appellant is entitled to be certified to instruct. Therefore, the Court must remand this case to the appellant and order that the Executive Director or Assistant Executive Director issue a certification as a special subject instructor for up to five courses as provided in” the OAC.

Along with ordering “the denial of the application” to be “hereby reversed,” Coss ordered that the Commission “pay the costs of this appeal.”

Publisher's note: A free press is critical to having well-informed voters and citizens. While some news organizations opt for paid websites or costly paywalls, The Highland County Press has maintained a free newspaper and website for the last 25 years for our community. If you would like to contribute to this service, it would be greatly appreciated. Donations may be made to: The Highland County Press, P.O. Box 849, Hillsboro, Ohio 45133. Please include "for website" on the memo line.