 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ray v. City of Bossier City10/24/2003
sion to provide plaintiffs with the option to voluntarily separate from the police department or be fired was made as a result of the IA investigation. The IA report includes a transcript of an interview by Captain Sproles of Officer Larry Hawkins, who stated that Ray approached him to set up Halphen for a DWI arrest. In this interview, Hawkins claimed that Ray told him that he would be able to "pretty well write (his) ticket to any place (he) wanted to go" within the Bossier City Police Department if Hawkins would arrange for Halphen's DWI arrest. Hawkins also stated that Ray informed him that Chief Dison was worried that Halphen would become the next police chief "unless somebody did something about it, and that getting arrested for DWI would keep him from becoming our next chief." Hawkins claimed that he was told to make up a story to legally justify a stop. Ray has specifically denied making such a statement to Hawkins.
The disclosure of misbehavior by public officials is a matter of public interest and, therefore, deserves constitutional protection. Thomas v. Harris County, 784 F. 2d 648 (5th Cir. 1986). The reporting of misconduct within a police department is speech addressing a matter of public concern. Brawner, supra. Even if the speech is not widely publicized, we find this to be the case. See Harrison v. Parker, 31,844 (La. App. 2d Cir. 05/05/99), 737 So. 2d 160, writ denied, 99-1597 (La. 09/17/99), 747 So. 2d 565, in which this court found that a sheriff's department employee 's reports of allegedly illegal or unethical conduct within the sheriff's office, namely using inmates to do personal work for or on behalf of deputy sheriffs, dealt with matters of public importance for purposes of the employee's wrongful discharge claim, alleging that he was retaliated against for exercising his First Amendment rights.
It is usually not a function of the trial court on a motion for summary judgment to weigh conflicting evidence of material fact; additionally, a motion for summary judgment is usually not appropriate for disposition of cases requiring judicial determination of subjective facts, such as motive, intent, good faith, or knowledge. La. C.C.P. art. 966; Harrison, supra.
Hawkins' interview evokes questions regarding the events preceding the adverse employment action. These questions go to the credibility of Ray, Patten, and Officer Hawkins. Credibility of witnesses is a determination for a fact-finder to make. Reasonable minds could differ as to the import of the evidence in this case and particularly whether plaintiffs' complaints within the police department concerning Jones and Halphen were merely talk or an attempt to set up Jones and Halphen for a false DWI arrest. Such a decision requires credibility determinations and a weighing of the evidence. While the trial court correctly dismissed the freedom of expression claim against Hall, Halphen, and Jones, who were not plaintiffs' employer and who simply expressed their opinion about plaintiffs, there are genuine issues of material fact pertaining to the remaining defendants. This view is further supported by Captain Sproles' report. Captain Sproles concluded,
"I can find no evidence or testimony to show that Patten used this information to actually `set up' on Jones or Huckaby. I cannot find where any officer followed, watched, or asked anyone from another agency to stop Jones . . . (or) where anyone from the Bossier City Police Department inquired into any information regarding Jones."
As to Halphen, Captain Sproles found that "there is also the question as to the alleged targeting of PIO Mike Halphen." Captain Sproles stated that this allegation surfaced when Halphen received information (abou
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Louisiana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|