Retired police officer files civil suit in Highland County against Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission

By Caitlin Forsha
The Highland County Press

A local retired police officer has filed a civil lawsuit in Highland County Common Pleas Court against the Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission, seeking the reversal of a state opinion rejecting his application for an instructor certificate.

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.

According to the appeal, Reinbolt “retired in 2022 after a 25-year law enforcement career” and has earned a juris doctor degree but “elected not to take the bar examination.” His career includes “serving as a subject matter expert for the Commission on training curriculum, including legal topics,” as well as being a college instructor in “criminal justice … including legal topics.

“In 1997, he was certified as a ‘special subject’ instructor in legal topics by the Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission under a ‘no expiration’ teaching certificate,” the brief says. “He used that certificate to teach police recruits in Ohio, but in 2018 was notified of new continuing training requirements to maintain that certificate and therefore voluntarily allowed the teaching certificate to lapse.” 

The brief says that Reinbolt formerly served as Director of Regional Advanced Training at the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy from February 2022-May 2023, from which he “voluntarily resigned,” then applied for a position with Great Oaks Schools in their police training program in August 2023.

“Great Oaks asked [Reinbolt] to obtain a teaching certificate from the Commission so that he could be used as a peace officer basic training instructor in addition to his other duties at their institution,” the brief says.

According to the brief, Reinbolt applied for a “‘special subject’ instructor certificate in legal topics” in October 2023, which was denied in January 2024, with the Commission saying Reinbolt failed to meet “mandated additional prerequisites” for the certificate.
  
Reinbolt then requested a hearing, which was granted in May, with the Commission ruling in August that his appeal was rejected for his “failure to meet the alleged qualifications.

“The only legitimate qualifications for peace officer training instructors are found in Administrative Code rule 109:2-1-06,” Reinbolt argues. “There is no legal authority to support the proposition that the Commission nor its Executive Director can unilaterally modify or alter those qualifications. Even if they were so empowered, there is no reliable, probative and substantial evidence to show that the Commission took action to adopt modifications or alterations to those qualifications.”

Reinbolt further argues that “he meets the qualifications” as legally outlined in the Ohio Administrative Code “based upon his formal legal training and 25-year police career.” He is seeking “an order in his favor reversing the undated opinion of the Commission and directing that the instructor certificate sought by [Reinbolt] be issued by the Commission.”

In his lawsuit, Reinbolt raises four assignments 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; that the Commission denied his application “based upon criteria other than that found in the Ohio Administrative Code and upon qualifications never adopted by the Commission;” that the Commission’s decision “states a conclusion which contradicts the evidence in the record;” and 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.

According to Reinbolt, he received notice Feb. 13 of the hearing date in May, “116 days after the request was made” instead of 15 days.  

“In that letter, the Commission states that they ‘planned initially to set’ the hearing for Jan. 22, 2024, but instead decided to ‘continue’ the hearing to May 9,” the brief says. “[Reinbolt] is perplexed as to how a hearing that was never set can be ‘continued.’

“[Reinbolt] did not receive notice of a Jan. 22 hearing and certainly did not ask for a continuance.” 

Reinbolt adds in the brief that “the minutes of the only Commission meeting” in that time frame “contains no mention” of his hearing, nor of a continuance. He alleges that the Commission is trying “to avoid accountability for this violation by using the verbiage ‘continuance’ … instead of calling it what it was: the initial hearing in this matter.” 

Regarding the rejection of his certificate application, Reinbolt argues that “the Commission’s argument is a convoluted one.

“The Ohio Administrative Code lists only two avenues to certification as a ‘special subject’ instructor,” Reinbolt’s brief says. “The Commission does not assert that [Reinbolt] was denied certification due to not meeting the qualifications found in either of those two avenues. Instead, the Commission states that they denied [his] application because he did not meet the qualifications that they claim the Commission adopted outside of the Ohio Administrative Code found in the ‘Guidelines’ document.”

Reinbolt alleges that “in so doing, the Commission is attempting to add qualifications to the Administrative Code that do not appear there.” He questions “where … the qualifications found in the ‘Guidelines’ document come from, “when [they were] adopted by the Commission” and on what “legal authority.” 

Reinbolt also explains that he made a public records request for further explanation of the “Guidelines’ document and received “several typed pages on plain paper (not letterhead or displaying any official insignia) bearing no signature nor other indicia of authentication. In short, these appear to be typewritten notes.” Reinbolt alleges that there may be no “writings in the Commission’s possession showing that the ‘Guidelines’ were ever adopted.” 

According to Reinbolt, he “attempted to elicit information” about “the Guidelines” during his hearing in May but was unable to ascertain “when the ‘Guidelines’ were adopted, who adopted them or even who wrote them,” nor was he told “who recommended” them.

“If the Commission believes that the qualifications for instructor certification found in the Ohio Administrative Code should be amended or altered, then they should do so in the proper manner: recommendation to the Attorney General,” Reinbolt’s brief says. “Even if one argues that the Ohio Administrative Code provides only minimum qualifications for instructor certification, and that the Commission is somehow authorized to adopt additional qualifications, there is no reliable or substantial evidence that the Commission ever adopted the qualifications found in the ‘Guidelines.’

“Based on the above, the Commission denial of [Reinbolt’s] application ... was arbitrary and capricious, is not in accordance with law, nor is it supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence. [Reinbolt] satisfies all of the requirements for issuance of said certificate under [the] Ohio Administrative Code.”

Next, Reinbolt alleges that the Commission’s decision on his application “states a conclusion which contradicts the evidence in the record, to wit: that the ‘Guidelines’ leading to rejection of [Reinbolt’s] application were adopted by the Commission.” 

According to Reinbolt, the decision says that the guidelines “were approved” and “adopted” by the Commission, but that the Commission allegedly “was not able to provide anything to support that claim” or “any documentation to evidence their adoption of the ‘Guidelines.’” 

For his fourth assignment of error, Reinbolt alleges that the Commission’s executive director, Thomas Quinlan, provided “false” testimony by saying he “‘was in the process of terminating’” Reinbolt’s employment “at the time [Reinbolt] resigned his position with the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy.

“That testimony … certainly could have had a prejudicial effect on the Commission members who decided [Reinbolt’s] appeal by implying that [he] had engaged in misconduct warranting termination,”” Reinbolt’s brief says.

According to Reinbolt, he “submitted his resignation on May 31, 2023,” and it was accepted June 1, 2023, with no “notice of any sort indicating that his employment was in jeopardy or that his job performance was lacking.” He said “it is troubling that” they made “no effort to correct the record” during his appeal hearing.

An “oral hearing on issues of law only” is scheduled for Nov. 4 in Highland County Common Pleas Court, according to court records.