Blair v. Sugarcreek Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 970 N.E.2d 884

Blair, a certified township peace officer under R.C. 109.77, was appointed chief of police in Sugarcreek Township (pop. <10,000; no civil service).
Sugarcreek Township has a police department with fewer than ten officers and residents under 10,000, and the board exercises control over appointment and removal of the chief at pleasure.
Blair was terminated as chief in September 2006 and was not automatically returned to any prior police department position.
Blair appealed the termination, alleging due process violations and improper removal under the relevant statutes.
The Second District held Blair was terminated only as chief and had no right to return to a prior position; the Seventh District’s Staley approach was in conflict and required resolution by the Supreme Court.
The Ohio Supreme Court held that R.C. 505.49(B)(3) does not apply to certified chiefs in townships not governed by (C), and a certified township peace officer removed as chief does not automatically regain a prior position; the chief serves at the pleasure of the trustees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 505.49(B)(3) applies to certified chiefs in non-C townships	Blair should have a right to reinstatement under R.C. 505.49(B)(3).	B.(3) does not apply to chiefs in non-C townships.	No automatic applicability to chiefs in non-C townships.
Whether Blair has an automatic right to return to a previous position upon removal as chief	Blair maintains a tenured right to return to his prior role.	Board may terminate at pleasure; no guaranteed reappointment.	No automatic right to return.
Whether R.C. 505.49(C)(2) creating a right to return for larger townships applies here	Right to return should extend to Blair as a certified officer.	C(2) applies only to larger townships with civil service.	Not applicable to under-10,000 townships.
Whether statutory history supports a return-right despite non-application of (C)	Legislative history implies protection for certified chiefs.	Cannot read implied rights into the statute.	No implied right; statute interpreted as written.
How R.C. 505.49(B) and (C) should be read in pari materia	Read together to harmonize protections for chiefs.	Read harmoniously; under-10k townships have no return-right.	Read in pari materia; under-10k townships grant no return-right.

Fryfogle v. Fryfogle, 70 Ohio St.2d 58 (Ohio 1982) (police chief removal rules and due-process considerations)
State v. Hughes, 86 Ohio St.3d 424 (Ohio 1999) (statutory construction principles; avoid reading words in)
State v. Perez, 124 Ohio St.3d 122 (Ohio 2009) (interpretation of statutory language; pari materia)
State ex rel. Cordray v. Midway Motor Sales, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 234 (Ohio 2009) (in pari materia construction; harmonize related provisions)