Former Glasgow Police Department Officer Guy Turcotte

The termination of Guy Turcotte from the Glasgow Police Department, upheld last year in a Barren Circuit Court ruling, remains in effect after the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision.

Turcotte was terminated in 2023 following an administrative hearing presided over by Glasgow Mayor Henry Royse in which the officer was found to have violated GPD’s policies of ethics and the department’s code of conduct.

That hearing took place in light of complaints from employees at pet grooming business PetSense regarding a 2023 incident at the store.

Employees testified that Turcotte, who had brought his dog to the business for a grooming session, put his arm around an employee, placed his hand near her pubic region and held her against him for a period of time without her consent.

Three employees testified about the incident at the hearing, as well as a 2021 incident in which an off-duty Turcotte was said to have flashed a badge and gun and said “it’s OK, I’m a cop” before going into a restricted area for employees only.

The 2023 incident with the PetSense employee formed the basis of a criminal case in which Turcotte was charged with harassment, but a jury in Monroe County acquitted him at a trial last year.

“I’ve shared (the appeals court ruling) with my client and we are in the process of reviewing that,” Turcotte’s attorney, Matt Baker, said about the ruling, adding that a motion requesting that Kentucky Supreme Court to review the matter is “still on the table.”

Baker said that Turcotte has relocated to Louisiana and is currently living there.

Turcotte, who joined GPD as its chief in 2011 and continued on as an officer after resigning as chief in 2014, petitioned the circuit court to review the decision from the disciplinary hearing, arguing that, with the evidence overlapping in both matters, the disciplinary hearing should have been postponed while the criminal case against him was active.

At the start of the administrative hearing, Royse denied a motion from Turcotte’s attorney, Matt Baker, to postpone the hearing until after the criminal trial.

Turcotte did not attend the hearing, though Baker questioned the PetSense witnesses there.

Barren Circuit Judge John Alexander ruled last year that Turcotte’s due process rights were not violated, finding that Turcotte’s right to remain silent was not held against him and that there was a public interest in resolving the complaint against Turcotte that overrode the criminal proceedings against him.

The state appeals court affirmed Alexander’s decision in a unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel issued Friday.

Based on its analysis, the appeals court found no error in the circuit court’s conclusion that Turcotte did not have a right to have his disciplinary hearing postponed while the criminal case against him was pending, and also agreed with the lower court that Turcotte was given the opportunity at the hearing to present evidence in his defense.

The appeals court also determined that the overlapping evidence presented in the administrative hearing and the criminal case did not require a postponement of the administrative hearing.

The administrative order recommending Turcotte’s termination was based in part on evidence brought out at the administrative hearing that the jury in Turcotte’s criminal case was not able to consider, the appeals court noted.

That evidence consisted of multiple visits to PetSense dating back to 2021 in which Turcotte was found to have made employees uncomfortable through his actions, prompting Royse in his administrative order to say that Turcotte’s actions were “chauvinistic and full of male bravado” and that there was “no scenario” in which the officer’s behavior was “remotely acceptable.”
v
Also, the appeals court found that Turcotte’s acquittal in his criminal harassment case did not mean that the circuit court acted erroneously in affirming the mayor’s decision to deny postponing the administrative hearing.

At his harassment trial, a jury had to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Turcotte intended to cause the PetSense employees discomfort through his actions, while a lower standard of proof existed at the administrative hearing for there to be a finding that Turcotte violated GPD policy.

“Given the differing standards of proof at the criminal trial and the administrative hearing, Turcotte has failed to establish how an acquittal would have been relevant,” the appeals court ruling said.

The appeals court also found that “prompt resolution of disciplinary proceedings against a police officer serves valid public interest of maintaining the community’s trust and confidence in its police force.”