A former State Highway Patrol sergeant fired for kicking his police dog during training should get his job back, the State Personnel Commission said today.

The commission found that the patrol had failed to prove that Sgt. Charles L. Jones' actions constituted personal misconduct, or that he had abused the dog, Ricoh. Jones should also receive back pay, the commission said.

A 12-year veteran of the patrol, Jones was dismissed in September 2007 after a video of him kicking Ricoh, then a 7-year-old Belgian Malinois, had surfaced, Dan Kane reports. The patrol initially planned to discipline him with a lesser penalty, but dismissed him after the governor's office got involved.

Jones fought the dismissal at an administrative hearing in April, saying he was only following training methods other troopers had used. More than a dozen troopers testified and spoke of  rough obedience techniques such as swinging or hanging dogs by their leads, shocking them with stun guns and throwing rock-filled bottles at them. Patrol policies provided little guidance in training techniques.

Senior Administrative Law Judge Fred G. Morrison sided with Jones, saying the governor's office had placed undue pressure on the patrol to fire Jones. The commission did not agree with that finding.

More after the jump.

   Comments (2)

The state Highway Patrol will likely have a K-9 program again soon.

In April, Bryan Beatty, secretary of the state Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, suspended the patrol's K-9 program after a hearing exposed rough obedience techniques such as shocking, suspending and kicking dogs.

Beatty ordered a review that would show what training techniques were used and how they compare to generally accepted practices. The patrol has 10 dogs that mostly sniff out drugs.

Lt. Everett Clendenin, a patrol spokesman, said Thursday that Major Jamie Hatcher, director of special operations for the patrol is conducting the review.

"We feel confident that the highway patrol in the near future will have a K-9 program once again," Clendenin said.

The patrol's dogs are still living with their trooper handlers, but instead of tracking drugs, the dogs are staying home, Clendenin said.

State administrative law Judge Fred Morrison called on the state in a written order to stop using dogs for law enforcement unless the state purchases dogs that already are trained and assigns them only to troopers who also are fully trained. In such cases, he said, the state also should give the troopers specific written compliance techniques for dealing with the dogs.

A state administrative law judge today called for the reinstatement of a state trooper who was videotaped kicking his dog while it was suspended from a deck.

Judge Fred Morrison concluded that state officials short circuited disciplinary procedures in firing Sgt. Charles Jones over his treatment of the dog, reports Jane Ruffin.

Jones was fired in September, a month after a trooper used a cell phone to record footage of Jones suspending his dog, Ricoh, from a railing, then kicking him at least five times. Jones insisted that what he did was not abusive and that trainers had used several other rough methods.

Ricoh, a 7-year-old Belgian Malinois, was not seriously hurt. He has since been retired from the patrol.

Morrison also said the state should not use dogs such as Ricoh for law enforcement purposes unless it purchases fully-trained canines to be handed by trained troopers who receive specific written techniques for compliance.

The N.C. Highway Patrol suspended its canine program last month until a review determines if dogs were regularly mistreated.

The Council of State refused to reconsider its approval of the state's execution protocol today, saying that Judge Fred Morrison Jr., an administrative law judge who ordered them to take another look, doesn't have jurisdiction over them.

In August, Morrison ruled that the council should have allowed inmates' attorneys to weigh in as the council considered changes to the the protocol for lethal injection.

The protocol, which the council approved Feb. 6, requires a physician to monitor a condemned inmate's "essential body functions" and tell the warden if the inmate shows signs of suffering.

A few council members mentioned that they had received hundreds of strongly worded e-mails prior to the meeting about the death penalty. But Superintendent of Public Instruction June Atkinson said the only issue before the council was whether Morrison had jurisdiction.

N.C. Insurance Commissioner Jim Long cast the lone dissenting vote.

A judge ruled that North Carolina prison officials did not live up to their words.

In a ruling yesterday, administrative Judge Fred G. Morrison said that prison officials persuaded a federal judge to let the execution of Willie Brown proceed in 2006 by promising that a doctor would monitor the prisoner's vital signs.

"This persuaded the judge to let them execute Willie Brown," he wrote. "The doctor did not observe the inmate nor did he monitor vital signs."

Marc Kleinschmidt, an attorney for a death row inmate, said that lawyers for the Department of Correction misled the judge.

Prison officials had no comment. (N&O) 

Gov. Mike Easley said today that it would "be a mistake" for the Council of State to review evidence on execution protocol, saying that they are not supposed to be judges.

Speaking to reporters following a bill signing, Easley was responding to a ruling this morning by a state administrative law judge that the Council of State needs to reconsider execution protocol, reports Ryan Teague Beckwith.

Administrative Law Judge Fred Morrison ruled that the panel of top state officials failed to hear adequate debate on capital punishment during a previous hearing in May.

The Council of State may have to reconsider execution protocol.

Administrative Law Judge Fred Morrison ruled today that the panel of top state officials failed to hear adequate debate on capital punishment during a previous hearing in May.

Attorneys for death row inmates argued that the council did not consider their arguments.

In the decision, Morrison wrote that officials denied inmates their constitutional rights.

"The essence of due process is the right to be heard," he wrote. "It was not proper procedure to consider only documents and comments from those proposing the protocol and not hear from counsel for the condemned inmates."

Correction: An earlier version of the post did not note that the ruling could be appealed to a higher court.