Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

City of Shreveport v. Shreveport Municipal Fire & Police Civil Service Board

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Second Circuit

August 14, 2019

CITY OF SHREVEPORT Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
SHREVEPORT MUNICIPAL FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD AND PEGGY ELZIE Defendants-Appellees

          Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 608942 Honorable Michael A. Pitman, Judge.

          PETTIETTE, ARMAND, DUNKELMAN, WOODLEY, BYRD & CROMWELL, L.L.P. By: Joseph Samuel Woodley E. Henry Byrd, IV Counsel for Appellant

          BILLY RAY CASEY Counsel for Appellee, Shreveport Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board

          BRAINARD & BRAINARD, L.L.C. By: Eron Jay Brainard Counsel for Appellee, Peggy Elzie

          Before WILLIAMS, MOORE, and McCALLUM, JJ.

          McCALLUM, J.

         At issue in this appeal is whether the computation of time set forth in La. C.C.P. art. 5059 applies to the time period in La. R.S. 40:2531(B)(7) concerning the permitted length of a disciplinary investigation of a law enforcement officer. Agreeing with the District Court that it does not, we affirm the judgment upholding the Shreveport Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board's decision to set aside the Shreveport Police Department's discipline of Officer Peggy Elzie.

         FACTS

         Elzie was involved in a motor vehicle accident on July 4, 2017, when her vehicle struck the rear of two stopped vehicles. An investigation was conducted on the date of the accident.

         The investigation into the accident was considered by law to be completed when, on September 5, 2017, Elzie received notice of a September 11 predisciplinary hearing. At the hearing, Elzie received a three-day fine and was ordered to attend a defensive driving class. Elzie appealed the discipline to the Shreveport Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board ("Board"), contending that the discipline was an absolute nullity because the investigation had not been completed within 60 days as required by La. R.S. 40:2531(B)(7). Saturday, September 2, was the 60th day.

         The Board found a violation of the 60-day rule and as a consequence, it nullified Elzie's discipline. The City of Shreveport ("City") appealed this determination to the First Judicial District Court, which upheld the Board's decision. The City appeals the District Court's judgment.

         DISCUSSION

         La. R.S. 40:2531(B) contains the minimum standards to be followed when a police employee or law enforcement officer is under investigation and faces possible disciplinary action, demotion or dismissal. Included among the minimum standards is a provision pertaining to the permissible length of an investigation:

When a formal, written complaint is made against any police employee or law enforcement officer, the superintendent of state police or the chief of police or his authorized representative shall initiate an investigation within fourteen days of the date the complaint is made. Except as otherwise provided in this Paragraph, each investigation of a police employee or law enforcement officer which is conducted under the provisions of this Chapter shall be completed within sixty days. However, in each municipality which is subject to a Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service law, the municipal police department may petition the Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board for an extension of the time within which to complete the investigation. . . . Nothing contained in this Paragraph shall be construed to prohibit the police employee or law enforcement officer under investigation and the appointing authority from entering into a written agreement extending the investigation for up to an additional sixty days. The investigation shall be considered ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.