[The Brazil Times nameplate] Overcast ~ 56°F  
High: 58°F ~ Low: 45°F
Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Employee allowed to return

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Brandon Riggle
A Clay County employee who was suspended for his actions in an altercation with the Clay County Sheriff's Department has been reinstated.

In a special meeting Tuesday, the Clay County Commissioners accepted an agreement allowing Brandon Riggle, 27, Clay City, to return to his job at the Clay County Highway Department.

Commissioners' Attorney Eric Somheil told The Brazil Times the agreement is restricted to Riggle's personnel file only and the terms of his reinstatement are not public record.

On May 12, Riggle was suspended, without pay, for 90 days as the commissioners were waiting for the judgment in his court case, which included charges of resisting law enforcement and interfering with a law enforcement animal.

However, his suspension was maintained as the court date was delayed until Nov. 24, when Clay Circuit Court Judge Joe Trout accepted a plea agreement entered by Riggle. As part of the court-negotiated plea agreement, Riggle pled guilty to class A misdemeanor charges of operating a vehicle while intoxicated with an ACE of .15 or more, resisting law enforcement and interfering with a law enforcement animal, and was sentenced to a year's probation, with 90 days to be spent during in-home electronic detention and a 90-day suspension of his driver's license (retroactive to the first notice set by the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles).

The agreement for reinstatement was initially presented in an executive session prior to the meeting, and Riggle was considering taking the agreement to his lawyer for review.

The potential delay was noticeably frustrating to the commissioners.

"If he had been anywhere else with public works, he would have been fired," Commissioner Jack Withers said. "I think we have gone above and beyond the call in considering bringing him back."

Commissioners' President Charlie Brown agreed in wanting to resolve the issue.

"I believe (the agreement) is a fair document," he said. "He has the legal right to allow his attorney to look at it, but if it was not signed today, it would have had to wait until our next meeting."

After listening to his options when it came to signing the agreement, Riggle spoke privately with a member of his family and decided to sign it during the meeting.

Because the agreement was approved Tuesday, Riggle will be eligible to return to work Jan. 2, 2009.

"I am glad we got this resolved," Brown told The Brazil Times. "This issue had been drug out long enough."

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on thebraziltimes.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Mr. Withers, you stand correct, you have gone far above the call in considering bringing him back. In my opinion, too far.

-- Posted by Criminology08 on Tue, Dec 23, 2008, at 9:17 PM

He is a human who makes mistakes too, regardless his occupation. YOu only read what the paper wants you to see, I'm sure there are two sides to this story, and chances are we only hearing a blotched up version. I'd like to know who beat the crap out of this guy when he got arrested?

-- Posted by ape1 on Tue, Dec 23, 2008, at 9:23 PM

Wow... I too agree with Mr. Withers, but if I were Brandon I don't even know if I would want to come back. I would think it would be odd being a county employee, after you resist arrest from a county police officer..

-- Posted by Pro Se on Tue, Dec 23, 2008, at 9:24 PM

Like most post APE needs to get a clue. The german shepherd police dog "beat the crap out of the guy" Let me guess APE you think the dog should be suspended.

I wish they would not have brought him back, he should have been fired. But you know in the real world people get fired from there job's for much less.....i guess brandon doesnt like his job. I bet there are plenty of unemployed people that would like the job and not fight the police as well.

-- Posted by BigCB20 on Tue, Dec 23, 2008, at 9:55 PM

These plea agreements are getting old!!!

-- Posted by sassypants on Wed, Dec 24, 2008, at 8:44 AM

I find it apalling that people defend what this guy did. He put lives in danger. Period.

It doesn't look good for the county to let him keep his job, which involved driving a county truck, after such a horrific incident.

As for getting "the crap beat out" of him, I feel like he deserved whatever he got.

-- Posted by bsmom on Wed, Dec 24, 2008, at 8:49 AM

WOW! Just remember this when it`s time to vote for a Judge. MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE

-- Posted by rooster1 on Wed, Dec 24, 2008, at 10:07 AM

The judge didn't allow him to return to his job. The County Commissioners did. Just thought I would clarify that.

-- Posted by olmedic on Wed, Dec 24, 2008, at 3:05 PM

No... but someone has to accept the plea bargain(s). This happened to our police dog that the county owns. The county in return pays him. That doesn't seem right at all. Throw in some insurance and job security, sounds fair to me?

-- Posted by Criminology08 on Wed, Dec 24, 2008, at 3:44 PM

I figured the judge could`ve kept him from working for the county in some way. But then loopholes are mostly for criminals I guess. Maybe Expensive lawyers help a little too. Something is awful funny about this. Odds are he`ll get popped again within a year.

-- Posted by rooster1 on Wed, Dec 24, 2008, at 10:37 PM

-- Posted by Icareaboutbrazil on Mon, Dec 29, 2008, at 11:56 AM

Does anybody on here know this individual? I do. He is a good person that made a mistake. I suppose none of you ever did anything wrong. I agree that he needed to do the time for the crime. But I also believe that people deserve a second chance. This is the first time he has been in trouble with the law. Everybody wants to just shut the door on guy that made a mistake. As stated by ape1, you only have one side of the story.

-- Posted by dude1 on Tue, Dec 30, 2008, at 7:54 AM

The way I see it this person is an adult. We make our teens accountable when they do something wrong and they have to pay the penalty. They do not even have full capacity to make propper choices yet. This man did. He may be the nicest man alive but he admittedly did something wrong which he needs held accountable to.

-- Posted by lilbabyted on Wed, Dec 31, 2008, at 11:54 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: