State Of Louisiana Court Of Appeal In re Appeal Of Emerson Jackson And Travis Wheeler ( 2020 )

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
2019 CW 0164
In re Appeal of Emerson Jackson and Travis Wheeler
Judgment Rendered:'
Appealed from the
19th Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Docket Number. 659565
Honorable Wilson Fields, Judge Presiding
Anderson O. Dotson, III Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant
Kim L. Brooks City of Baton Rouge and Parish of
Baton Rouge, LA East Baton Rouge
Brandon Kyle Kershaw Counsel for Defendants/ Appellees
Baton Rouge, LA Emerson Jackson and
Travis Wheeler
Floyd J. Falcon, Jr. Counsel for Defendant/ Appellant
Baton Rouge, LA Municipal Fire and Police Civil
Service Board
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., GUIDRY, AND CRAIN', JJ.
Justice Will Crain is serving as judge ad hoc by special appointment of the Louisiana
Supreme Court.
WHIPPLE, C.J.
The City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge ( the City) appeal a
judgment of the district court, which reversed the decision of the Municipal Fire
and Police Civil Service Board ( the Board), upholding the termination of
employment of Emerson Jackson ( Jackson) and Travis Wheeler ( Wheeler) from
the Baton Rouge Police Department. After reviewing the facts and applicable law,
we convert the appeal to an application for supervisory writs, and grant the writ.'
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 26, 2014, Jackson and Wheeler, both officers with the Baton
Rouge Police Department, received pre -termination letters as a result of an incident
that allegedly occurred on February 4, 2014. The letters summarized events that
took place that evening, which resulted in a complaint of sexual assault being made
against the officers, and triggered an internal investigation.
The letters provided as follows. At approximately 9: 00 p.m., Jackson,
Wheeler, and a third officer not a party to this proceeding, entered the BREC Park
on Old Hammond Highway where they encountered a young man and woman in a
vehicle. The officers asked the occupants of the vehicle to exit, and separated
them for questioning. Ultimately, the young man was told to leave, and he did so
on foot; the young woman remained with the officers and her interrogation
continued. The third officer allegedly threatened the young woman with vehicle
impoundment and the arrest of her mother if she did not agree to have sex with
2I Miazza v. City of Mandeville, et al., 2010- 0304 ( La. 5121110), 34 So. 3d 849 ( per
curiam), the Louisiana supreme court stated that when, as in this case, the legislature has vested
appellate jurisdiction in the district court, the court of appeal lacks appellate jurisdiction, and
should convert the appeal to an application for supervisory writs. The supreme court gave a
similar directive to this court in Meiners v. St. Tammany Fire Protection District # 4 Board of
Commissioners, 2010- 0912 ( La. 6125110), 38 So. 3d 359. Since these cases, this court has
followed this procedure in several other cases, including Dwyer v. West Feliciana Fire Protection
District #1 Civil Service Board, 2011- 1096 ( La. App. 1" Cir. 12/ 21/ 11), 80 So. 3d 1229; Baton
Rouge Police Department v. O' Malley, 2010- 1386 ( La. App. I" Cir. 3125111), 64 So. 3d 773;
Beck v. City of Baker, 2011- 0803 ( La. App. I" Cir. 9/ 10112), 102 So, 3d 887, writ denied, 2012-
2455 ( La. 1/ 11113), 107 So. 3d 617; and Sanders v. City of Mandeville Municipal Police
Department, 2018- 0125 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 1112118), 2018 WL 5792011 ( unpublished).
2
him, and under duress she agreed. Jackson and Wheeler were present during this
time, and Jackson even positioned himself to see what occurred between the victim
and the other officer. The young man returned to the park after receiving an
explicit text message from the young woman about what was to transpire, and
upon re- entering the park, Jackson and Wheeler stopped him before he made it to
the parked vehicles. The young man was told to leave the park or face arrest.
The letters further specifically noted that none of the officers had their in -car
cameras on during the time of the incident. The letters concluded that Jackson and
Wheeler had violated certain policies provided in the Department' s Policies and
Procedures Manual Disciplinary Code, Section XII, " Disciplinary Articles,"
3
mainly subsections 0: 0, 2: 10, 3: 1. 7 and 3: 23. The letters further stated that
Wheeler and Jackson' s conduct also constituted reason for which disciplinary
3Pursuant to the pre -termination letters, the department policies involved provided:
0: 0 Violators Subject to Disciplinary Action
All members of the Baton Rouge Police Department, regardless of rank or assignment,
are subject to disciplinary action for any violation of the rules, procedures, or
departmental policy contained herein or in other procedural Manuals issued by the
Department. It is not necessary the violation be intentional, but may be by omission or
failure.
2: 10 Conduct Unbecoming an Officer
Every member of the Department, whether on or off duty, in an official capacity, must
conduct himself at all times in such a manner as to set a good example for others with
whom he may come in contact. He shall in no way, through actions or neglect, bring
dishonor or disgrace upon himself or the Baton Rouge Police Department.
3: 17 Carrying Out Orders
It is incumbent on every member of the Department to observe and give effect to the
policies of the Department. Members of the Department are required to obey any
standing or general order, abide by all policies and procedures and promptly carry out
any lawful order of a superior, including any order relayed from a superior by an
employee of the same or lesser rank, whether issued verbally, in writing or by
telecommunications ( 2 -way radio, phone, fax, digital communications). If a member is
issued an order that is in conflict with departmental policy or an order previously issued
by a superior, this fact shall be brought to the attention of the supervisor issuing the order.
If the supervisor fails to resolve the conflict, the order shall stand and the responsibility
shall be his. Officers are not required to obey unlawful orders.
3. 23 Truthfulness
Every member of the Department is required to be truthful except while conducting
investigations that require surreptitiousness.
3
action may be taken under the provisions of LSA-R. S. 33: 2500( A)( 1), ( 2), and ( 3).
These letters also provided notice for a pre -termination hearing, and indicated the
sixty- day deadline for the administrative investigation was April 5, 2014.
On November 12, 2014, both Jackson and Wheeler received correspondence
notifying them that they were being placed on paid administrative leave effective
November 13, 2014, until further notice. On November 13, 2014, both Jackson
and Wheeler again received pre -termination letters arising out of the February 4,
2014 incident, which were almost identical to the letters received on March 26,
2014, except that the new letters contained one additional fact paragraph which
provided:
Further, on November 12, 2014 you were indicted by the Grand
Jury of the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana, alleging
that you committed the offense of abuse of office, violating Louisiana
R] evised [ S] tatutes Title 14, Article 134. 3.
Additionally, these pre -termination letters added another department policy
violation found in Subsection 3: 22, entitled, " Violation of Laws," which provides
n] o member will willfully or by neglect or omission violate any Federal, State or
City ordinance or statu[ t] e." The letters concluded by providing that a pre-
termination hearing would be held the following day, November 14, 2014.
Neither Jackson nor Wheeler appeared at the November 14, 2014 pre-
termination hearing, and after reviewing the internal investigations report, Chief of
Police Carl Dabadie made the decision to terminate the officers' employment.
Jackson and Wheeler received notice of their terminations in correspondence dated
November 17, 2014, which was nearly identical to the November 13, 2014 pre-
termination letters, except to say that their employment had been terminated for the
reasons set forth in the previous letters.
Both officers appealed their terminations to the Board. In their petitions,
Jackson and Wheeler alleged that the decision to terminate their employment was
4
not made in good faith or for cause, and was procedurally defective. They further
denied the allegations made against them in their termination letters.
The Board conducted a full evidentiary hearing on June 29, 2017 and June
30, 2017.4 After narrowing the scope of the hearing, due to procedural issues, only
evidence regarding whether the officers " violated the law" was presented. The
Board proceeded to hear testimony from nine witnesses, and had the testimony of
another read into the record.
The Board also received several exhibits into evidence, including the cell
phone records of the three officers involved, the victim, and the young man, and an
electronic timeline created, in part, from all of these records, for their
consideration. Prior to ruling, one board member stated that she believed, based on
the information at his disposal, "[ the Chief] did act in good faith and for just
cause" in terminating Jackson and Wheeler' s employment and made a motion to
uphold the terminations. A second board member then stated,
I recognized that [ counsel for Jackson and Wheeler] indicated
in his summation that there' s been a profound effect upon these two
gentlemen' s lives, but things like that happen in the real world. But I
do believe something happened in that park and that there' s a [ cover-
up] being held or being perpetrated.
Perhaps there [ were] some inconsistencies in the statements of
the two young people, but I think there were also inconsistencies in
the statements of the other witnesses, especially the two officers, and
based on that, I think the Chief did make a decision that he thought
was correct based on the information that he had. And for that reason,
I will second the motion.
The Board determined, by a four -to -one vote, to uphold the terminations of
Jackson and Wheeler.
Jackson and Wheeler filed a petition for judicial review of the Board' s
decision in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court on July 14, 2017. In the appeal,
4We note that prior to this hearing, both Jackson and Wheeler were acquitted of the criminal
charges of abuse of office by a jury on January 28, 2017.
5
the officers alleged that the Board' s decision was not made in good faith and for
cause as it was contrary to the evidence produced at the hearing of this matter and
the applicable law, urging that they could not be disciplined for criminal charges of
which they were acquitted.
On March 7, 2018, the district court signed a judgment, remanding the
matter back to the Board and ordering " the Board to give the accuseds proper
notice as it relates to Section 2501, the ten ( 10) day notice, to let them know the
time, place and the date of hearing;" and further ordering " the Board to consider
the verdict of the jury that was rendered in the criminal trial, and for the Board to
articulate what laws Emerson Jackson or Travis Wheeler violated and the reasons
for the Board' s decision. If the Board determines that they should uphold the
C] hiefs termination, then articulate what laws have been violated."
Upon receiving the remand order from the district court, the Board discussed
the court' s instructions and moved to formulate a written response, incorporating
those items requested by the court and discussed by the Board. The Board
provided to the district court a " notice" asserting that it not only gave Jackson and
Wheeler ten days' notice of their hearing, but in fact gave them thirty days advance
notice, as it granted a continuance for the hearing on May 30, 2017, and scheduled
the hearing for June 29, 2017.
The Board also issued " findings" pursuant to the second part of the district
court' s judgment, which included:
The appeal hearing proceeded on the charge of 3: 22 Violation
of Laws and Violations of [LSA-]R. S. 33: 2500( A)( 1)( 2) and ( 3)...
Three police units arrived at [ the] BREC [ P] ark on Old
Hammond Highway about the same time[, two of which were] driven
by Officers... Wheeler and Jackson.
A civilian vehicle was parked at this same BREC [ P] ark.
The officers had the male and female occupants of the civilian
vehicle exit the vehicle but did not activate their cameras.
6
The officers obtained identification from the two occupants and
ran same and the license plate of the car and found no issue.
All three officers were at the park for approximately 45 minutes
with no cameras activated.
T] he male occupant of the civilian vehicle, after being
identified was ordered from the park and left on foot.
The third officer] got in the back seat of [the victim' s] vehicle
with her.
Both Wheeler and Jackson were out of their vehicles and were
standing in the vicinity of [ the victim' s] vehicle while [ the third
officer] was in the back seat of her vehicle with her.
The victim] texted [ the male occupant] that the officer
demanded sex.
The third officer] did not testify at the hearing.
The male occupant] attempted to return to the park but was
stopped by Jackson and Wheeler and threatened with arrest if he did
not again leave.
The victim] was threatened by [ the third officer] and forced to
have sex with him.
Officers Jackson and Wheeler knew what was transpiring in the
victim' s vehicle and prevented [ the male occupant] from coming to
the aid of [the victim] and they failed to intervene on [ the victim' s]
behalf.
Wheeler' s testimony that he did not get out of his vehicle and
that [ the male occupant] left on foot and [ the victim] drove away after
the identification check was totally unworthy of belief and indicates
he was aware of what was happening.
Emerson Jackson' s testimony before the Board was not
credible.
Travis Wheeler' s testimony before the Board was not credible.
The victim' s] testimony of actions of [ the third officer] and the
actions/ inactions of Jackson and Wheeler were credible.
The male occupant' s]
testimony relative to his being sent
away, his being kept away and his attempted return [ was] credible as
was his testimony relative to his communication with [ the victim]
during and after the ... incident.
The male occupant and the victim] left the park to report the
incident. They initially attempted to report it to the first officer they
encountered. That officer referred them to the Third District. [ The
victim] was interviewed and examined at the hospital.
Multiple calls and in- person contact transpired between
Wheeler and Jackson in the hours following the incident in the park.
The Board believed that Jackson and Wheeler were accessories
to [ the third officer' s] rape or sexual battery of [the victim].
The Board believed that Jackson and Wheeler were accessories
to [ the third officer' s] false imprisonment of [the victim].
The Board believed that Jackson and Wheeler were guilty of
Malfeasance in Office and failing to protect [ the victim].
The Board believed that Jackson and Wheeler were guilty of
Malfeasance in Office in ordering [ the male occupant] away from the
area leaving [ the victim] alone with [ the third officer] and then
refusing to allow [ the male occupant] to return to the scene in order to
aid [ the victim].
The Board believed that Jackson and Wheeler demonstrated
unwillingness or failure to perform their duties in a satisfactory
manner, were guilty of deliberate omissions to the performance of
their duty; and they committed multiple acts to the prejudice of
departmental service contrary to the public' s interest.
The Board considered the jury finding in the criminal trial but
determined it was not bound to the same conclusion based on the
differing standards of review and the testimony of the officers which
was not presented in the criminal trial.
The Board voted 4- 1 that the appointing authority acted in good
faith and for cause in terminating both Jackson and Wheeler.
Upon receiving these findings, along with supplemental memoranda from the
parties, the district court held another hearing on Jackson and Wheeler' s petition
for judicial review on October 15, 2018. After hearing the parties' arguments, the
district court stated in part:
This matter came to the court on judicial review in which ...the
Board upheld the Chief' s termination of Mr. Wheeler and Mr.
Jackson. The court reviewed the matter and remanded the matter back
to the Board for them to take into consideration the acquittal of Mr.
Wheeler and Mr. Jackson. The Board did that and also submitted its
findings as to upholding the Chief' s termination of the two
individuals. After reading the Board' s findings and having further
discussion with both counsel in this matter, the court has decided that
the Board acted outside of the scope of their authority.
0
In the termination letter that the Chief gave to both individuals,
the court finds that that letter in itself did not give the individuals
enough notice to know what they were — had to defend against.
Specifically, what the Board' s findings was on 3: 22 Violation of
Laws, no member will willfully or by neglect or omission violate any
federal, state or city ordinance or statute. The Chief in his letter laid
out the fact scenario in which he based his decision on. And the
Board itself decided what laws were violated. And the court finds that
that is outside of the scope and authority of the Board to determine
what laws were violated on their own. The Chief has to let the
individuals know in their termination letter what laws were violated
and then it['] s the responsibility and duties of the Board to determine
whether or not the Chief acted with good cause in terminating the
individuals based off that individual law or particular laws, not just
saying you can' t violate any laws of state, federal or city. So it left
the Board in the position of looking at the fact patterns and then
determining what laws were violated. And that' s where the court
finds that the Board is outside of their authority. So therefore, the
court is going to reverse the decision of the Board and the
terminations due to the fact that they went outside of the scope of their
authority.
A judgment reflecting the district court' s ruling was signed on December 3,
2018, granting the officers' petition for judicial review and overturning the
termination of the officers' employment by the Baton Rouge City Police
Department. The City then timely filed this appeal.
DISCUSSION
The grounds for which a municipal appointing authority may remove or
discipline a tenured employee are set forth in LSA-R.S. 33: 2500. The pertinent
parts of the statute provide that the following constitute " cause" for termination or
other disciplinary action and set forth the types of disciplinary action that may be
taken, as follows:
A. The tenure of persons who have been regularly and permanently
inducted into positions of the classified service shall be during good
behavior. However, the appointing authority may remove any
employee from the service, or take such disciplinary action as the
circumstances warrant in the manner provided below for any one of
the following reasons:
01
1) Unwillingness or failure to perform the duties of his position in a
satisfactory manner.
2) The deliberate omission of any act that it was his duty to perform.
3)The commission or omission of any act to the prejudice of the
departmental service or contrary to the public interest or policy.
Any regular employee in the classified service who feels that he has been
discharged or disciplined without just cause may demand a hearing and
investigation by the Board to determine the reasonableness of the action. LSA-
R.S. 33: 2501( A). At such a hearing, the appointing authority must prove by a
preponderance of evidence that a legal cause existed for the disciplinary action
imposed. Miller v. City of Gonzales, 2015- 1008 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 8131116), 202
So. 3d 1114, 1118. Legal cause for disciplinary action exists if the conduct by the
employee impairs the efficiency of the public service in which the employee is
engaged.
Wopara v. State Employees' Group Benefits Program, 2002- 2641 ( La.
App. 1St Cir. 712103), 859 So. 2d 67, 69.
The Board reviews the appointing authority' s decision to take disciplinary
action to determine whether the decision was made " in good faith for cause."
LSA-R. S. 33: 2501( C)( 1). The Board may, if the evidence is conclusive, affirm the
action of the appointing authority. If it finds that the action was not taken in good
faith for cause, the Board shall order the immediate reinstatement or reemployment
of such person, or it may modify the discipline imposed. LSA-R.S. 33: 2501( C)( 1);
Landry v. Baton Rouge Police Department, 2008- 2289 ( La. App. Ft Cir. 5/ 8/ 09),
17 So. 3d 991, 994- 95. The imposition of disciplinary action against a police
officer does not occur in good faith if the appointing authority acted arbitrarily,
capriciously, or as the result of prejudice or political expediency. Arbitrary or
capricious means the lack of a rational basis for the action taken. Miller, 202 So.
3d at 1118.
10
An employee dissatisfied with the Board' s decision may appeal to the
district court by filing a petition for judicial review. LSA-R. S. 33: 2561( E) &
2501( E)( 1). Upon the Board' s filing of the complete transcript of its hearing with
the district court, the court shall proceed to hear the appeal. LSA-R. S.
33: 2501( E)( 2). The district court' s review of the Board' s quasi-judicial
administrative decision is an exercise of appellate jurisdiction and does not include
a trial de novo. Beck, 102 So. 3d at 892. The district court' s review is confined to
the determination of whether the decision made by the Board was made in good
faith for cause. The district court may not substitute its opinion for that of the
Board. The district court should accord deference to the Board' s factual
conclusions and must not overturn them unless they are manifestly erroneous.
Likewise, the intermediate appellate court' s and Supreme Court' s review of a civil
service board' s findings of fact is limited. Those findings are entitled to the same
weight as findings of fact made by a district court and are not to be overturned in
the absence of manifest error. St. Tammanv Parish Fire Protection District No. 4
v. Picone, 201.0- 0481 ( La. App. 15t Cir. 12115110), 53 So. 3d 704, 706; Beck, 102
So. 3d at 893.
In its sole assignment of error, the City contends that the district court used
the wrong standard when reviewing the Board' s decision. We agree. In reviewing
the Board' s decision, the district court had before it the full record of the
evidentiary hearing upon which it was to determine whether the Board made its
decision to uphold the appointing authority' s decision to terminate the employment
of the officers in good faith and for cause. Instead, the district court remanded the
matter back to the Board, ordering it to list the laws the Board believed Jackson
and Wheeler had violated. Once the Board complied with the order, the district
court ruled that the Board had gone beyond the scope of their authority in doing so.
11
On review of the record, this court concludes that the Board' s findings were
based upon substantial and competent evidence, and that the Board' s decision to
uphold the terminations of Jackson and Wheeler' s employment was made in good
faith for cause.
At the board hearing, the victim and the young man who was with her
testified to the events that were contained in the officers' termination letters. Both
testified to driving to the BREC Park and getting into the backseat of the victim' s
vehicle prior to three police units arriving at the park. Both testified that they
exited the vehicle, and were separated, with the young man being questioned by
the third officer, and the victim being questioned by Jackson and Wheeler. The
victim testified to Wheeler running their drivers' licenses, as well as the license
plate of the victim' s vehicle. The victim further testified that Jackson and Wheeler
joked about what they were going to do to the victim and young man. Both
testified that the young man was allowed to leave while the victim was not. The
victim testified that she was told by the third officer that he had the " say- so" as to
what happened to her that evening, and that she could be free to go if she would
first be his " ten minute girlfriend." The victim testified that she sent the young
man a text message informing him of what was to transpire, and the young man
testified regarding his receiving that message. The young man testified that he
attempted to return to the park after receiving the text, but was stopped by Jackson
and Wheeler and threatened with arrest if he did not leave. The victim testified
that although vaginal sex was initially proposed, the third officer settled for oral
sex, during which she saw Jackson come around to see what was happening. After
the assault was finished, Wheeler gave her back her identification information and
told her she was free to go.
Both the victim and the young man testified that they reunited at the
Hammond Aire parking lot after the victim was set free, and attempted to report
12
the incident to the first nearby police officer. That officer told them there was
nothing he could do, and advised them to go to the Third District on Coursey to
make the complaint.
On cross examination, opposing counsel pointed out several inconsistencies
in the victim' s statements, arguing that they were material, including that the
victim had not always testified that the police had their flashing lights activated
when they entered the park; the type of sex that was had; whether a condom was
used; whether the offending officer was circumcised; and whether she scratched
the offending officer.
Lieutenant Johnny Dunnam ( Dunnam), the lead internal affairs ( IA)
investigator of this case, testified about his investigation and findings. Dunnam
stated that after taking the victim' s statement, he found it to be consistent with her
prior statements, and remained basically consistent. He further testified that the
victim positively identified the three officers from a photographic lineup. Dunnam
also interviewed Officer Matthew Dunaway, the patrolling officer at Hammond
Aire, to whom the victim and young man initially attempted to report the assault.
Officer Dunaway confirmed the victim' s recollection of their interaction, and that
once the victim and young man had left for the Third District, he immediately
called Wheeler and told him that a complaint was about to be filed involving
officers at the BREC Park. Dunnam testified that he interviewed the three officers
involved, all of whom admitted to being in the park that evening. Dunnam stated
that all three also admitted to coming into contact with the victim and the young
man, but that all three had very different accounts as to which officer did what.
In addition to the interviews, Dunnam accessed the officers' in -car cameras,
which he discovered were not on during this incident. He also accessed the GPS
trackers or " air cards" in the officers'
patrol units, which specifically placed the
third officer at BREC Park at the time of the alleged assault, from approximately
13
9: 07 p.m. to 9: 51 p.m. This fact further corroborated the victim' s allegations, as
there was an insurance flag on the victim' s vehicle, which could be found by
running the license plate. After completing his investigation, Dunnam testified that
he concluded that the evidence corroborated the victim' s allegations. Dunnam
further testified that he believed that Jackson, Wheeler, and the third officer had
inconsistent stories about what happened that night, not only between each other,
but also with what the evidence showed. After interviewing the officers, he felt
they were very untruthful during the investigation, and believed Jackson and
Wheeler were " covering for" the third officer.
Cindy Carmack ( Carmack), a criminal intelligence analyst with the Baton
Rouge Police Department, whose duties include assisting detectives at the
Department with " workups," finding people, and creating timelines, was called to
testify regarding the timeline she had been tasked to create for this case. Some of
the important points in the timeline were highlighted during Carmack' s testimony
as follows:
9: 06 p. m., the other officer arrived at the BREC Park;
9: 12 p.m., Wheeler used the ICJIS database to search for the victim' s
name;
9: 14 p.m., Wheeler used the ICJIS database to search for the young
man' s name;
9: 21 p. m., Wheeler searched for information regarding the vehicle driven
by the victim; about that same time, Wheeler also searched the victim' s
mother' s background;
9: 22 p.m., the young man sent a text to the victim, asking her to let him
know what happened;
9: 27 p. m., the victim sent a text message to the young man advising him
the officers wanted to have sex;
There was no activity on any device until 9:41 p.m. when the victim
called the young man, which lasted a few seconds, and precipitated a few
phone calls between the two young people;
14
9: 51 p.m., Officer Dunaway called Wheeler, which call lasted about two
minutes;
9: 53 p.m., Wheeler called Jackson, which call also lasted about two
minutes;
10: 12 p.m., Wheeler received his first phone call from Sargent Kenny
Brewer, Wheeler' s supervisor at the Third District, which triggered
multiple calls between Jackson, Wheeler, and the third officer;
10: 55 p.m., Brewer called Wheeler once more, this time, the call lasted
approximately six minutes;
Excerpts from the testimony of Lieutenant Steve Wilkinson ( Wilkinson)
were read into the record. Wilkinson' s testimony was that the GPS data used was
not as precise as the City made it out to be regarding the exact location of the unit
being tracked or the time it was at a particular location.
Chief Carl Dabadie testified, explaining that he relied upon the facts in the
IA file as well as the indictments to make his determination about the terminations
of Jackson and Wheeler, as neither showed up to their pre -termination hearings.
At the end of his testimony, Chief Dabadie stated that he believed something
happened that evening, and that Jackson and Wheeler were complicit in that
activity. He believed that based on the information that was provided to him,
Jackson and Wheeler were guilty of violating the laws of Louisiana, the City of
Baton Rouge, as well as the United States.
Sargent Kenny Brewer ( Brewer) testified that on the night of the alleged
incident, he received a phone call from an officer at the Third District regarding a
complaint to be made against several officers. After learning that the complainant
al leged an assault by officers at a BREC Park, he called Wheeler, because he knew
Wheeler was known to patrol BREC Parks. He testified that the victim was very
inconsistent in her statement to him. He further testified that he believed that both
Jackson and Wheeler were good officers. Brewer admitted that at the time of the
complaint, he was not only Jackson and Wheeler' s supervisor, but he was also the
15
union steward for the police officers, and therefore, was " wearing two hats" during
the investigation.
On cross examination, it was shown that Brewer had made inconsistent
statements regarding what he told Wheeler about the complaint that was filed, and
whether he had spoken to Wheeler prior to taking the victim' s statement. He was
also inconsistent about whether Brewer looked at any text messages the young man .
attempted to show him to corroborate the victim' s complaint.
At the board hearing, Jackson testified that he was assigned to patrol the new
headquarters building the evening of February 4, 2014. He testified that he left his
post and went to the BREC Park on Old Hammond Highway in order to retrieve a
clipboard from Wheeler, and upon arriving at the park, he encountered the two
young people as well as Wheeler and the other officer. Jackson testified that
because it was cold outside, he sat in his car watching YouTube videos on his
phone until the victim drove away. At that point, he retrieved his clipboard and
left to return to headquarters when he was contacted by Wheeler and told that he
had been ordered to go to the Third District. Jackson also stated that he had not
seen the victim and any officer take part in any kind of sexual relations.
On cross examination, Jackson' s prior inconsistent statements were
highlighted, as he had previously told the IA investigator that he had spoken to the
victim when he arrived, which he now said was not true. Moreover, Jackson could
not account for what he did in the park, as the mobile data showed that there was
no activity on his phone between 8: 31 p.m. and 9: 53 p.m., other than to say that he
sat in his vehicle for an undeterminable amount of time without speaking to
anyone.
Wheeler' s account of the evening of February 4, 2014 was that after
finishing a call, he and the third officer decided to go to the BREL Park to type
reports.
Upon their arrival, they encountered what appeared to be an abandoned
16
car, but upon closer inspection, they found a young man and woman inside.
Wheeler asked for the youths' identifications and proceeded to run the information
after separating the two, with the young man standing with the third officer in front
of his unit, and the victim standing in front of his. Wheeler stated that after
running the drivers' licenses, there was nothing outstanding, and the officers told
the victim to leave the park. Wheeler testified that the young man had previously
left on foot, because he was worried his girlfriend would find out that he was in the
park with the victim.
Wheeler testified he received a phone call from Brewer, asking him whether
he had been in the BREC Park that evening, to which Wheeler testified he stated
yes, and advised Brewer about the stop that had occurred. Wheeler stated that
later, Brewer called him once more, this time telling him that a complaint had been
lodged and he, Jackson, and the third officer needed to come to the Third District.
Given the conflicting testimony, the Board was required to make credibility
determinations, and did so, concluding the victim' s version of events to be
credible.
Because the evidence submitted into the record supports such a finding,
we do not find the Board' s factual findings to be manifestly erroneous.
Using this record, the district court was to determine if the Board acted in
good faith for cause in upholding the Chief' s termination of Jackson and Wheeler' s
employment. The only claim left before the Board was whether Jackson and
Wheeler violated any laws on the evening of February 4, 2014, related to the
events of the sexual assault as explained in the November 17, 2014 termination
letters, and specifically, whether they had abused their power, which was the
charge upon which both men were indicted.
Louisiana Revised Statutes 14: 134. 3, abuse of office, provides in pertinent
17
A. No public officer or public shall knowingly and
employee
intentionally use the authority of his office or position, directly or
indirectly, to compel or coerce any person to provide the public officer,
public employee or any other person with anything of apparent present
or prospective value when the public officer or employee is not entitled
by the nature of his office to the services sought or the object of his
demand.
For purposes of Section 14: 134. 3, the term " anything of value" includes sex and
loss of simple human dignity. See State v. Seaton, 47, 741 ( La. App. 2nd Cir.
4110113), 112 So. 3d 1011, 1020."
Jackson and Wheeler were employed as police officers at the time of the
incident, clearly qualifying them as public officers or employees. Jackson and
Wheeler came into contact with the victim through their job duties in generally
patrolling their district. After running the victim and young man' s drivers'
licenses, as well as the license plate of the victim' s vehicle, the officers learned
that there was a flag on the vehicle due to an insurance issue. Rather than issuing a
citation, or simply letting the two young people go, the officers, using their
authority, separated the young man from the woman, and told the woman she
would only be released if she agreed to have sex. Rather than helping the young
woman, Jackson and Wheeler stood by, and prevented the young man from helping
the young woman while she was sexually assaulted by the third officer.
The record supports a finding that Jackson and Wheeler knowingly and
intentionally used the authority of their office to coerce the victim to provide sex to
the third officer, which is a thing of value that he was not entitled to receive by the
nature of his office. See Seaton, 112 So. 3d at 1. 020. Therefore, we find no error
in the Board' s finding that the appointing authority acted in good faith and for
cause when it terminated the employment of these two officers, which the Board
set forth at the end of the hearing on June 30, 2017.
In so concluding, we reject Jackson and Wheeler' s argument that Caldwell
v. Caddo Levee District, 554 So. 2d 1245 ( La. App. 1" Cir. 1989), writ denied, 559
18
So. 2d 126 ( La. 1990), is controlling and mandates that they may not be disciplined
based on violations of law for which they have been previously acquitted. As
discussed above, the City' s burden of proof was to establish that legal cause
existed for the disciplinary action by a preponderance of the evidence, Miller, 202
So. 3d at 1118, which clearly differs from the burden of proof required for a
criminal conviction. See Sanders, 2018 WL 5792011, * 6; See also, Bailey v.
Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2005- 2474 ( La. App. 1st Cir.
1216106), 951 So. 2d 234, 240 ( where police officer appealed decision of the State
Police Commission that affirmed the termination of his employment due to driving
while intoxicated while he had been acquitted of the same charge; this court agreed
with the Commission' s finding that an acquittal on a criminal charge does not
preclude a civil service disciplinary action based on the same set of facts, as the
burden of proof differs between the two proceedings), and Fulton v. Department of
Police, 2017- 0523 ( La. App. 4th Cir. 12/ 6/ 17), 234 So. 3d 107, 111, writ denied,
2018- 0016 ( La. 2/ 23/ 18), 237 So. 3d 515 ( where police officer appealed decision
of the New Orleans Civil Service Commission that affirmed his discharge resulting
from a second degree battery charge for which he was found not guilty; court
agreed with the Commission that the burden of proof was a preponderance of
evidence, not that required for a criminal conviction).
We disagree with the contention that the terminations could not be based on
legal cause because the officers were found not guilty of the charge of abuse of
power.
Instead, we find that the appointing authority proved by a preponderance
of the evidence that the complained of action occurred and impaired the efficient
operation of the public service.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we convert the City' s appeal to an application for
supervisory writs and grant same, hereby reversing the district court' s ruling, and
19
reinstating the decision of the Board in upholding the termination for cause of the
employment of Emerson Jackson and Travis Wheeler. Costs of this writ are
assessed against the Appellees, Emerson Jackson and Travis Wheeler.
APPEAL CONVERTED TO APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY
WRIT; WRIT GRANTED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT REVERSED;
BOARD DECISION REINSTATED.