 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lamarr v. City of Memphis2/27/2004
Facts and Procedural History
On the night of July 13, 2000, Antoine LaMarr ("Plaintiff"), an officer with the Memphis Police Department, was involved in an alcohol-related single vehicle accident while off-duty. Officers responding to the scene observed Plaintiff to be unsteady on his feet, with bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and breath that smelled of alcohol. Plaintiff refused to submit to a field sobriety test or a blood alcohol content test, leading to his arrest and charges of driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUI), refusal to submit to a blood alcohol content ("BAC") test, reckless driving, and public intoxication. On July 21, 2000, the Memphis Police Department administratively charged Plaintiff with violating D.R. 104, a department regulation that states, in relevant part:
The conduct of each member [of the Memphis Police Department], both on and off duty, is expected to be such that it will not reflect adversely on other members, the Department, the City of Memphis or the law enforcement profession. This regulation applies to both the professional and private conduct of all members and prohibits any and all conduct . . . which would reflect adversely upon the department or its members. It includes not only all unlawful acts by members, but also acts which, although not unlawful in themselves, would violate the law enforcement code of ethics and degrade . . . the department.
After conducting a disciplinary hearing on August 16, 2000, the Memphis Police Department terminated Plaintiff for violating D.R. 104 by engaging in conduct unbecoming an officer.
Plaintiff appealed his termination the following day to the City of Memphis Civil Service Commission ("Commission"). On March 1, 2001, while the appeal to the Commission was still pending, Plaintiff pled guilty to the charge of reckless driving. The Commission then conducted a hearing on July 27, 2001 to review Plaintiff's discharge. At this hearing, Plaintiff argued that he was treated differently than other officers who had previously been involved in alcohol-related accidents. Plaintiff cited numerous officers who, under similar circumstances, had received suspensions or fines rather than being terminated. The department argued that these previous incidents were inapposite, because they occurred prior to the department's new zero tolerance policy for alcohol-related offenses, which was instituted by the Interim Director, Walter Crews ("Mr. Crews"), in the weeks prior to his appointment as permanent Director on July 15, 2000. Plaintiff, in turn, maintained that the new policy was not adequately communicated and could not be relied upon to support his termination. After considering the foregoing arguments, the Commission upheld Plaintiff's termination, finding that the Memphis Police Department had a reasonable basis for the action taken. Specifically, the Commission found that there was evidence that the department's new zero tolerance policy for alcohol-related incidents had been properly communicated and implemented throughout the department.
Plaintiff then appealed the Commission's decision to the Shelby County Chancery Court through a Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The matter was heard on April 3, 2002, after which the lower court determined that the Petition was well founded. The lower court found that the Commission acted arbitrarily in upholding Plaintiff's termination because there was insufficient evidence before the Commission to determine whether the new zero tolerance policy had been properly communicated and enforced. Accordingly, the lower court remanded to the Civil Service Commission for further findings regarding the Memphis Police
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|