CITY OF SHREVEPORT v. SHREVEPORT MUNICIPAL FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD (2024)

Writ application denied.

Incredibly, when the civil service-protected Shreveport police officer received a “Notice of Pre-Disciplinary Hearing” (PDH), it included a notation that the complaint against him had been “sustained.” As such, the officer “had already been found guilty [ ] before he walked into the PDH.” Washington v. Shreveport Fire & Police Civil Serv. Bd., 54,463, p. 8 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/25/22), 339 So.3d 1276, 1281, writ denied, 2022-01001 (La. 10/12/22), 348 So.3d 78. By the department's own policy, the officer “could not present evidence that the violation should be classified as anything other than ‘sustained’ ․” Id. Accordingly, the PDH did not provide the officer with a meaningful opportunity to be heard in violation of La. Const. Art. I, § 2 and Art. X, § 8 and, therefore, he was denied the due process to which he is entitled. The facts of this case are notably similar to that of the above-cited, Washington, 54,463, 339 So.3d 1276, wherein the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit held an officer's discipline was an absolute nullity as result of the same due process violation as occurred here. For these reasons, I concur in the denial of The City of Shreveport's (The City) writ application—the lower courts’ decisions were entirely correct.

Moreover, I am concerned that in the face of losing its appeal in Washington, The City, represented by an attorney ¹ bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct, nevertheless expended precious taxpayer dollars pursuing appellate litigation in this nearly identical case. Finally, if it has not done so already, the Shreveport Police Department must correct this unlawful practice to ensure its officers receive the due process they deserve.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The same attorney who represented The City in Washington.

Hughes, J., would grant. Crichton, J., concurs in the denial and assigns reasons.