POST had denied Boyce peace officer certification on the grounds that he had not completed basic recruit training when he became sheriff in 2006.
However, Boyce had done so in 1976 and on Thursday, a ruling filed in Davidson County Chancery Court by Chancellor Russell T. Perkins stated that Boyce "possesses training that is equivalent to basic recruit training" and POST has been directed by the court to "immediately issue a Certificate of Compliance."
"We're just tickled" over the decision, Boyce said Friday. "We knew we were right all along and the court agreed with us."
Boyce had asked for a certificate from POST that would have excused him from attending a full-fledged police academy, but POST denied that request "without making any specific findings of fact or conclusions of law," according to the ruling.
Completed training
In 1976, Boyce successfully completed the Basic Recruit School and was certified as a peace officer by the Tennessee Law Enforcement Planning Commission.
Boyce had served for several years as a police officer and deputy sheriff in the county, ending in 1978, with approximately 11 years of law enforcement experience.
After leaving law enforcement, Boyce raised horses and pursued other business interests and over that time, developed health concerns, namely difficulties with his right knee and heart problems.
Boyce took office as sheriff in Sept. 1, 2006 and following that, he completed new sheriff's school, the required 40-hour annual in-service training, as well as extra courses dealing with major catastrophes and child abuse cases.
He did not believe his health conditions would impair his ability to be sheriff, but would make it hard to complete basic recruit training or a police academy.
When Boyce ran for office it was his understanding that he would have to complete new sheriff's school, but not basic recruit training, but he did not contact POST to determine what his training obligation would be if elected.
"I knew that other (sheriffs) didn't have to go through it (recruit training), but they (POST) wanted me to," Boyce said.
"If you go to school and get a college education, you've always got that college education," the sheriff said. "That's a 20-year-old man's game to go through that school," referring to the recruit training.
While the matter was in the courts, Sen. Jim Tracy and former Rep. Curt Cobb even introduced a bill to the Tennessee State Legislature that would have changed the state code, allowing Boyce to be certified, but the effort was unsuccessful.
Cut in pay
According to a section of TCA 8-8-102, if a person did not complete his recruit training during his first year in office as sheriff, his pay would be 20 percent less during the second year in office, 25 percent lower during the third year and 30 percent less in the fourth year.
Boyce said Friday he assumed that he would be receiving back pay, but added that detail had yet to be "hammered out."
POST denied Boyce's first request to take the certification test without the basic recruit class and also denied his second request to take Basic Police School at Cleveland State Community College instead of the Tennessee Law Enforcement Training Academy.
The final order from POST dated Jan. 22 of this year had the effect of reducing Boyce's pay and made him ineligible to seek re-election.
The ruling stated that state statute "provides that it is mandatory for POST to issue a certificate of compliance to a sheriff who possesses the equivalence of recruit training."
"While it is common sense that this equivalent training must be valid, genuine and verifiable, the statue does not specify, however, that this equivalent training must be current," the court said .
The ruling stated that POST did not engage in handicap or age discrimination against Boyce when it denied his request for a certificate of compliance.
POST's decision not to issue the certificate was not arbitrary and capricious, however, it did exceed its statutory authority when it failed to decide whether Boyce's 1976 training was equivalent to current standards.
The sheriff is not entitled to an award of attorneys' fees, but the costs of the case are taxed to POST, the ruling stated.
![[Masthead]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate.png)
