Use of hearsay testimony in disciplinary actions permitted
Brinson v Safir, Appellate Division, 255 AD2d 247, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 93 NY2d 805
James Brinson, a New York City police officer, was dismissed after being found guilty of “knowingly and wrongfully associat[ing] with persons know to be engaged in criminal activity.”
The evidence against Brinson consisted of hearsay statements of two informants. The statements of the informants were corroborated by police surveillance. The Appellate Division said that such testimony, together with its corroboration, constituted substantial evidence of the charges filed against Brinson and dismissed his appeal.
Another aspect of the appeal involved Brinson’s being required to submit to a drug test. The Appellate Division said that “corroborated information” supplied by informants provided a “reasonable suspicion” to require Brinson to undergo drug testing.
NYPPL