subject to disciplinary] action’ by a law enforcement agency for noncriminal allegations of misconduct.” Providence Lodge No. 3, 951 A.2d at 502 (quoting In re Sabetta, 661 A.2d 80, 83 (R.I.1995)); see, e.g., Town of North Kingstown v. Local 473, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 819 A.2d 1274, 1276 (R.I.2003) (recognizing that the Legislature intended that the LEOBOR outline “a comprehensive mode of procedure to govern the investigation of a police officer for misconduct”); In re Denisewich, 643 A.2d at 1196 (recognizing that the LEOBOR is the “exclusive remedy for permanently appointed law enforcement officers who are under investigation and subject to disciplinary action” for alleged improper conduct); City of East Providence v. McLaughlin, 593 A.2d 1345, 1348 (R.I.1991) (<HOLDING>). After Sullivan’s doctors diagnosed him unfit
holding that police officers have a duty to conduct an investigation into the basis of the witness report holding that the leobor is the exclusive remedy for permanently appointed police officers under investigation by a lawenforcement agency holding that the rules of criminal procedure should be common knowledge to lawenforcement and judicial officers who have the duty and responsibility to authorize searches holding that the state police is a state agency holding the flsa does not provide the exclusive remedy for violations of its mandates