Louisiana Supreme Court
NEW ORLEANS – The Louisiana Supreme Court has ruled that a former Monroe interim police chief should have been suspended without pay, not fired, for his handling of a police brutality investigation in 2020.
Justice William Crain authored the court’s 17-page ruling, released Sept. 3.
“We affirm the judgment of the court of appeal and the decision of the Monroe Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board to reduce Reginald Brown’s discipline to a suspension without pay for ninety days,” Crain wrote.
The state’s high court found the record “reasonably supports” the board’s decision was made in good faith for cause.
The court heard the case on writ of certiorari from the Second Circuit Court of Appeal in Ouachita Parish. A writ of certiorari is a court order for a higher court to review a lower court's decision.
The City of Monroe argued the board’s decision to reduce Brown’s discipline is subject to judicial review and should be reversed because it was not made in good faith for cause.
While the state’s high court agreed the board’s decision is subject to judicial review, it found the decision was supported by the evidence.
Brown was fired by the Monroe Police Department in November 2020. His dismissal stemmed from the investigation of an excessive force complaint filed by Timothy Williams against Monroe police officers. Williams filed his complaint on July 6, 2020.
Brown claims he learned about the complaint a few months after he was appointed by then-Mayor James Mayo. But city officials accused him of lying about when exactly he began investigating the complaint.
Brown administratively appealed the disciplinary action, and a civil service board reduced the punishment to a 90-day suspension without pay.
A district court reinstated the termination, but the appeals court later reduced the punishment once again to a 90-day suspension without pay. The Supreme Court then granted a writ of certiorari.
“Brown’s conduct during and after the investigation of that incident, particularly whether he lied about the effect, if any, of an approaching mayoral election, ultimately led to the termination of his employment,” Crain explained in the Supreme Court ruling.
The justices agreed that “sufficient evidence” supports a finding Brown should have contacted the State Police about handling the investigation sooner, given the serious nature of the matter, the city attorney’s recommendation, and the need to avoid even the appearance of political impropriety.
“But, the evidence also supports a finding Brown did not fail a ‘properly administered’ polygraph examination, did not lie during the interrogation and pre-disciplinary hearing, and did not intentionally delay contacting the State Police for his own, personal benefit,” Crain wrote. “The testimony of multiple witnesses supports these findings.
“In short, sufficient evidence supports Brown being neglectful, but not dishonest or politically motivated, when he failed to contact the State Police sooner.”
The high court said cause existed to discipline Brown, but termination was “unreasonably harsh.”
