Palmer v. Department of Police

706 So. 2d 658, 97 La.App. 4 Cir. 1593, 1998 La. App. LEXIS 144, 1998 WL 32530
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedJanuary 28, 1998
Docket97-CA-1593
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 706 So. 2d 658 (Palmer v. Department of Police) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Palmer v. Department of Police, 706 So. 2d 658, 97 La.App. 4 Cir. 1593, 1998 La. App. LEXIS 144, 1998 WL 32530 (La. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

706 So.2d 658 (1998)

Karl PALMER
v.
DEPARTMENT OF POLICE.

No. 97-CA-1593.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

January 28, 1998.

*659 Frank G. DeSalvo, Frank G. DeSalvo, P.L.C., New Orleans, for Appellee.

Avis Marie Russell, City Attorney, Franz L. Zibilich, Chief Deputy City Attorney, Joseph V. DiRosa, Jr., Deputy City Attorney, New Orleans, for Appellant Department of Police.

Before SCHOTT, C.J., and KLEES and CIACCIO, JJ.

SCHOTT, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal by the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) from a decision of the Civil Service Commission of the City of New Orleans reversing a two day suspension imposed on police officer Karl Palmer for misconduct.

The facts are not in dispute. While Officer Palmer was working a detail at Cohen High School, he arrested a juvenile student for theft of bus tokens and lunch passes worth approximately six dollars. He stayed with the juvenile for two hours while waiting for jail transport. Meanwhile, the hysterical mother of a runaway who was in school that day approached Officer Palmer and requested that he speak to her daughter. Officer Palmer did not agree to see the girl until the school principal agreed to watch the prisoner. Meanwhile, the principal was called away to break up a fight and the prisoner escaped. The escapee was returned to the custody of the principal by his grandmother.

The officer ordered to investigate this matter recommended that Palmer be exonerated. The Appointing Authority disagreed and suspended Palmer for two days. Palmer appealed to the Commission. In considering whether Palmer's actions impaired the efficient operation of the public service the Commission reasoned that it "must take into account the mitigating circumstances surrounding this .... untenable situation." The Commission concluded that Palmer's actions "were taken in good faith, and (could not) be interpreted as an offense to the efficient operation of the public service..... Mitigating circumstances existed in this case which make it unique."

In this court NOPD argues that the Commission simply substituted its judgment as to the appropriate sanction, that it gave no articulated basis for its action, and that its action was arbitrary, and capricious, and abusive of its authority.

The standard of appellate review in civil service cases requires a determination of whether the Commission's findings are arbitrary and capricious. In order to modify the disciplinary action of the Appointing Authority, the Commission must find that there was insufficient legal cause for the action taken. Legal cause for the disciplinary action exists if the facts found by the Commission disclose that the conduct of the employee impaired the efficiency of the public service. Reboul v. Department of Police, 420 So.2d 491, 494 (La.App. 4th Cir.1982).

In this case, Palmer's actions clearly impaired efficient operation of the public service. A prisoner in his custody escaped because he did not follow police procedure. As we interpret the Commission's decision, there was no definite conclusion that Palmer's actions did not impair the efficient operation of the service, but that mitigating circumstances served to counter balance Palmer's improper conduct. Palmer's behavior *660 either did or did not impair the efficiency of public service despite mitigating circumstances. In this case his conduct did. Consequently, the Commission's action was an opinion that a two day suspension was inappropriate, and a substitution of its judgment for the Appointing Authority's. For the reasons assigned this day in Chapman v. Dept. of Police, 706 So.2d 656 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1998) we conclude that the Commission's action in the present case was erroneous.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Civil Service Commission is reversed and the two day suspension imposed upon Karl Palmer by the Appointing Authority is reinstated.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Eddie Williams, Jr. v. Sewerage & Water Board
Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2022
Rhett Charles v. New Orleans Police Department
Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2020
Cunningham v. New Orleans Police Dep't
257 So. 3d 801 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2018)
Aucoin v. Department of Police
229 So. 3d 531 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2017)
Vara v. Department of Police
197 So. 3d 294 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2016)
Lewis v. Department of Police
89 So. 3d 452 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2012)
Durden v. Plaquemines Parish Government
930 So. 2d 182 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2006)
Pope v. New Orleans Police Dept.
903 So. 2d 1 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2005)
Monteverde v. New Orleans Fire Department
891 So. 2d 716 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2004)
Broaden v. Department of Police
866 So. 2d 318 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2004)
Whitaker v. New Orleans Police Dept.
863 So. 2d 572 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2003)
Smith v. New Orleans Police Department
820 So. 2d 643 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2002)
Bush v. New Orleans Department of Public Works
806 So. 2d 977 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2002)
Lombas v. New Orleans Police Department
805 So. 2d 329 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2001)
Taylor v. New Orleans Police Dept.
804 So. 2d 769 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2001)
Williams v. New Orleans Police Department
800 So. 2d 1086 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2001)
Fihlman v. New Orleans Police Dept.
797 So. 2d 783 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2001)
Muhammad v. New Orleans Police Dept.
791 So. 2d 788 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2001)
Smothers v. Department of Police
787 So. 2d 1110 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2001)
Shepack v. New Orleans Police Department
791 So. 2d 733 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
706 So. 2d 658, 97 La.App. 4 Cir. 1593, 1998 La. App. LEXIS 144, 1998 WL 32530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-v-department-of-police-lactapp-1998.