It will likely be several weeks before Leelanau County Prosecutor Joseph T. Hubbell renders a written opinion on whether former Sgt. James Kiessel was fired for just cause by Sheriff Michael Oltersdorf in October 2009.

Hubbell conducted a three-day hearing last week and heard testimony from Kiessel, Oltersdorf and Undersheriff Scott Wooters regarding Kiessel’s firing. Attorneys representing Kiessel and other deputies suing the sheriff, undersheriff and Leelanau County in federal court requested the hearing under the 1897 Veterans Preference Act.

Kiessel is an honorably discharged military veteran. The historic act requires that any military veteran who is fired from a county job be entitled to a hearing conducted by the county prosecutor, with the prosecutor determining whether the dismissal complied with provisions of the law.

Hubbell said Wednesday morning that he planned to ask attorneys representing both Kiessel and Leelanau County to present a written analysis of how the law should be applied in Kiessel’s case. Hubbell said he would also request transcripts from the hearing and consider the written input from attorneys on both sides of the case as he begins to prepare his own opinion. The law requires the prosecutor to render his decision in writing.

“I know that whatever I decide will be appealed by one side or the other,” Hubbell said, “but my goal will be to write an opinion that will not be overturned on appeal.”

As last week’s hearings concluded, questions remained over whether Kiessel’s attorneys would seek to call more witnesses to testify, which would extend the hearing into this week and possibly beyond. Hubbell said Wednesday morning he’d received indications that Kiessel’s attorneys intended to rest their case and would not ask that more witnesses testify, although he had not received official word from them.

Kiessel’s lead attorney, Michael Dettmer of Traverse City, could not immediately be reached for comment by presstime Wednesday.

Dettmer and his partners, local attorneys William Rastetter and Michael Grant, recently added allegations against the sheriff, undersheriff and the county in their federal lawsuit. On Friday, Federal Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody granted their motion to file a “third amended complaint” against the defendants.

The amended complaint alleges that Kiessel’s firing, as well as the firings of Deputy Duane Wright and Sgt. Michael Lamb, were in retaliation for the officers’ filing suit against the sheriff, among other activities.

Kiessel and Wright were fired at the same time following an internal sheriff’s department investigation into allegations that they violated citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights to remain free from unlawful searches and seizures in a case involving a drunk driving suspect. Lamb also lost his job last year after he missed work for several months, using up all of his allotted sick leave and vacation time as well as time provided under the Family Medical Leave Act. Following negotiations with his union, the county began paying Lamb’s disability payment. Lamb remains off duty.

The federal lawsuit filed by deputies against the sheriff, undersheriff and the county allege that deputies’ Fourth Amendment rights were violated because the sheriff and undersheriff listened to recordings of “private” phone conversations the deputies made on government phone lines in the Law Enforcement Center during working hours. The case also alleges violations of the deputies’ First Amendment rights to free speech and their Fourteenth Amendment right to free association for union purposes.

An attorney representing Leelanau County, John McGlinchy, filed suit against Hubbell to block the prosecutor from holding the hearing, asserting that there was at least an appearance of bias in favor of the deputies on Hubbell’s part because of comments allegedly made by Hubbell’s chief assistant, Doug Donaldson. Circuit Court judge Thomas G. Power last week denied McGlinchy’s motion for a preliminary injunction that would have prevented Hubbell from holding last week’s hearing. The county’s suit against its own prosecutor, meanwhile, remains on hold.