Aristotle Stephens v. New Orleans Police Department

ARISTOTLE STEPHENS * NO. 2019-CA-0641

VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
NEW ORLEANS POLICE *
DEPARTMENT FOURTH CIRCUIT
*
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******

APPEAL FROM
CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ORLEANS
******
Judge Tiffany G. Chase
******
(Court composed of Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge
Tiffany G. Chase)

Kevin Vincent Boshea
Attorney at Law
2955 Ridgelake Drive, Suite 207
Metairie, LA 70002

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

Elizabeth Robins
Deputy City Attorney
William R.H. Goforth
Assistant City Attorney
Donesia D. Turner
Senior Chief Deputy City Attorney
Sunni Lebeouf
City Attorney
1300 Perdido Street
Suite 5E03
New Orleans, LA 70112

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE

AFFIRMED
DECEMBER 4, 2019

Officer Aristotle Stephens (hereinafter “Officer Stephens”) seeks review of

the April 23, 2019 ruling issued by the Civil Service Commission (hereinafter “the

Commission”). The decision denied Officer Stephen’s appeal and upheld the

termination of his employment with the New Orleans Police Department

(hereinafter “the NOPD”). After consideration of the record before this Court and

the applicable law, we affirm the decision of the Commission terminating Officer

Stephens’ employment with the NOPD.

Facts and Procedural History

February 4, 2017 Incident

On February 4, 2017, Officer Stephens was operating his patrol unit during a

general overtime assignment. While on patrol, Officer Stephens observed a vehicle

and attempted to execute a traffic stop.1 When the vehicle came to a stop, Officer

Stephens exited his patrol unit to approach the vehicle, at which point the driver

hastily sped away. Officer Stephens returned to his patrol unit and pursued the

vehicle with his patrol unit lights activated. While pursuing the vehicle, Officer

Stephens contacted the NOPD dispatcher to advise that he was behind the vehicle.

After providing the information, Officer Stephens contacted his supervisor and

advised that he was “not chasing” the vehicle and was “veering off.”

1
Officer Stephens initiated the traffic stop of the vehicle due to potential problems with the
vehicle’s license plate or excessive window tint.
1

However, Officer Stephens continued to pursue the vehicle. He turned down

a different street, reactivated his patrol unit lights and proceeded down the wrong

lane of traffic in order to return to Chef Menteur Highway. Officer Stephens

proceeded eastbound on Chef Menteur Highway towards the Danziger Bridge.

Through the body worn camera (hereinafter “BWC”) video footage, Officer

Stephens is heard talking on his cellular phone with an unidentified female. He

states “what they don’t know is that I’m still behind that fool.” The unidentified

female asks Officer Stephens why he was still behind the vehicle, to which he

replied “because you don’t run from Aristotle.”

Officer Stephens stops his patrol unit in the median on Chef Menteur

Highway. He then recognizes the vehicle and is heard on the BWC video footage

stating “there he go, there he go.” Officer Stephens proceeds to follow the vehicle

over the Danziger Bridge with the lights on his patrol unit activated. Officer

Stephens and the vehicle then enter westbound on Interstate-10. The vehicle then

cuts across all three lanes of traffic and is involved in a collision with another

vehicle. Officer Stephens verbally reacts to the collision, does not stop and

proceeds to travel westbound on Interstate-10. As he is traveling, Officer Stephens

contacts the NOPD dispatcher to inquire as to whether or not she can identify his

location in an attempt to conceal the fact that he had been in continued pursuit of

the vehicle.

NOPD Investigation

Sergeant Trinell Franklin (hereinafter “Sgt. Franklin”), with the Public

Integrity Bureau (hereinafter “PIB”), initiated the disciplinary investigation into

Officer Stephens’ actions after speaking with witnesses at the scene of the

collision. Witnesses advised Sgt. Franklin that an NOPD patrol unit was pursuing

2

the vehicle at the time of the collision. As part of her initial investigation, Sgt.

Franklin viewed Officer Stephens’ BWC and the mobile video unit (hereinafter

“MVU”) cameras2 located inside Officer Stephens’ patrol unit. As a result of Sgt.

Franklin’s preliminary investigation, Officer Stephens was reassigned pending a

full investigation.

On June 1, 2017, Officer Stephens provided an administrative statement to

Sergeant Kimberly Hunt (hereinafter “Sgt. Hunt”)3 of PIB’s criminal investigation

team. Sgt. Hunt reviewed all available video footage of the incident, which

included Officer Stephens’ BWC and MVU cameras. At the conclusion of the

investigation, Sgt. Hunt found that Officer Stephens violated NOPD Rule 2

regarding honesty and truthfulness.4 She determined that Officer Stephens was

untruthful by willfully and negligently providing false and misleading statements.

Sgt. Hunt concluded that the BWC and MVU video footage contradicted Officer

2
Officer Stephens’ patrol unit contained two mobile video unit cameras: one dashboard camera
and one camera facing the back seat of the unit.
3
Lieutenant Darryl Watson also participated in obtaining Officer Stephens’ administrative
statement.
4
Rule 2: Moral Conduct, Paragraph 3: Honesty and Truthfulness
Honesty and Truthfulness
Employees are required to be honest and truthful at all times, in their spoken,
written, or electronic communications. Truthfulness shall apply when an employee makes a
materially false statement with the intent to deceive. A statement is material when, irrespective
of its admissibility under the rules of evidence, it could have affected the course or outcome of
an investigation or an official proceeding, whether under oath or not, in all matters and official
investigations relating to the scope of their employment and operations of the Department, as
follows:
(a) Employees shall truthfully state the facts in any oral, written, or electronic
communication;
(b) Employees shall not willfully or negligently make any false, misleading, or
incorrect oral, written, or electronic communication;
(c) Employees shall not willfully or negligently withhold relevant information of
which they have knowledge, from any oral, written, or electronic
communication;
(d) Employees shall truthfully answer all questions directed to them on the order
of the Superintendent of Police, the Superintendent’s designee, a superior
officer, or any judicial, departmental, or other official investigative body… .

3

Stephens’ description of his actions on the date of the incident and recommended

NOPD sustain the allegations of misconduct against Officer Stephens.

Deputy Superintendent Paul Noel (hereinafter “Superintendent Noel”),

chairman of the disciplinary hearing panel, conducted a disciplinary hearing

regarding Officer Stephens’ actions. After reviewing evidence, the panel sustained

the charges against Officer Stephens regarding violation of NOPD’s policy

concerning honesty and truthfulness. The panel recommended termination of

employment due to the violation. Superintendent Michael Harrison concurred and

issued a letter of termination to Officer Stephens. Officer Stephens appealed his

termination.

The appeal was heard by a hearing officer over the course of two days.

During the hearing, the hearing officer heard extensive testimony, viewed all

evidence and concluded that Officer Stephens’ termination was warranted because

the evidence established that he was untruthful about pursuing the vehicle and

witnessing the collision. The hearing officer noted that given the nature of the

offense regarding truthfulness, the NOPD had no alternative but to terminate

Officer Stephens and agreed that the level of discipline was appropriate.

The Commission reviewed the transcript and exhibits from the hearing and

the hearing officer’s report. The Commission issued its decision on April 23, 2019,

finding Officer Stephens intentionally provided false information to the NOPD

dispatcher during the February 4, 2017 incident. The Commission further found

that Officer Stephens intentionally provided misleading statements during the

NOPD’s investigation. The Commission determined, after viewing the video

evidence, that Officer Stephens was untruthful regarding: (1) his statements

concerning his pursuit of the vehicle and (2) his statements with regards to

4

witnessing the collision involving the vehicle. The Commission denied Officer

Stephens’ appeal and upheld his termination. This appeal followed.

Discussion

This Court has previously determined that decisions by the Commission are

reviewed under a multifaceted standard of review.

In Banks v. New Orleans Police Dep't., 2001–0859, p. 3
(La.App. 4 Cir. 9/25/02), 829 So.2d 511, 513–14, we
articulated the standard of review in civil service cases.
First, the review by appellate courts of the factual
findings in a civil service case is governed by the
manifest error or clearly erroneous standard. Second,
when the Commission's decision involves jurisdiction,
procedure, and interpretation of laws or regulations,
judicial review is not limited to the arbitrary, capricious,
or abuse of discretion standard. Instead, on legal issues,
appellate courts give no special weight to the findings of
the trial court, but exercise their constitutional duty to
review questions of law and render judgment on the
record. A legal error occurs when a trial court applies the
incorrect principles of law and such errors are prejudicial.
Finally, a mixed question of fact and law should be
accorded great deference by appellate courts under the
manifest error standard of review. See Stern v. New
Orleans City Planning Comm'n, 2003–0817, pp. 5–6
(La.App. 4 Cir. 9/17/03), 859 So.2d 696, 699–700.

Russell v. Mosquito Control Bd., 2006-0346, pp. 7-8 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/27/06), 941

So.2d 634, 639-640. As such, we will review this matter under a manifest

error/clearly erroneous standard of review.

By Officer Stephens’ assignments of error, he argues the Commission erred

in upholding his termination for violating NOPD Rule 2 regarding truthfulness. He

contends the evidence was insufficient to establish that his statements, concerning

the incident, were intended to deceive the NOPD. Furthermore, Officer Stephens

maintains that the NOPD failed to meet its burden of proof.

5

“An employee with permanent status in the classified city service may only

be terminated, or otherwise subjected to disciplinary action, in writing and for

good cause.” Laviolette v. Dep’t of Police, 2016-0095, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir.

8/24/16), 200 So.3d 962, 966 (citations omitted). This Court has determined that

“good cause” includes conduct by the employee which is detrimental to the

efficient operation of the department or prejudicial to the public service. Id. “The

burden of proof on appeal to the Civil Service Commission is on the appointing

authority.” Waguespack v. Dep’t of Police, 2012-1691, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir.

6/26/13), 119 So.3d 976, 977. Thus, the NOPD must prove, by a preponderance of

the evidence, that the complained of activity and conduct impaired the efficiency

of public service. Johnson v. Dep’t of Police, 575 So.2d 440, 444 (La.App. 4 Cir.

1991).

When an appointing authority has terminated an employee, the Commission

has a duty to review whether good or lawful cause exists for taking such

disciplinary action against an employee. Id. at 443. Although the NOPD found

Officer Stephens violated various departmental policies, he was terminated for

violation of the policy regarding honesty and truthfulness. Officer Stephens avers

that he did not intentionally misrepresent the facts. He maintains that the length of

time between the date of the incident and providing his administrative statement,

along with a previous concussion, caused a lack of adequate recollection regarding

the February 4, 2017 incident. Conversely, the NOPD maintains that Officer

Stephens intentionally misrepresented his conduct as the incident was unfolding

and during the investigation of his actions. The Commission agreed with the

NOPD.

6

In order for the Commission to uphold Officer Stephens’ termination, it was

tasked with concluding that he provided materially false statements with the intent

to deceive. During the incident and his administrative statement, Officer Stephens

maintains that after the vehicle sped away, he did not pursue the vehicle. He also

contends that he did not witness the collision involving the vehicle. However, a

review of the MVU video footage and the audio from the BWC indicates that

Officer Stephens continued his pursuit of the vehicle although he told the

dispatcher that he was no longer in pursuit of the vehicle. Also, in the BWC video

footage Officer Stephens can be heard reacting to the collision as it occurs.

A review of the footage from the two MVU cameras provides a clear view

of the incident as it transpired. Officer Stephens is observed continuing to pursue

the vehicle after communicating with the dispatcher and his supervisor that he had

cancelled the pursuit. Additionally, the videos provide a view of the collision as it

occurs. The vehicle is observed cutting across three lanes of traffic on Interstate-10

and immediately colliding with another vehicle.

The Commission found Officer Stephens untruthful in his statements that he

did not pursue the vehicle and that he did not witness the collision. We find this

conclusion supported by the evidence. Specifically, a review of the MVU and

BWC video footage does not support Officer Stephens’ version of events.

Although he advised the dispatcher that he cancelled the pursuit of the vehicle, the

MVU and BWC footage contradicts that statement. Additionally, the MVU video

footage shows Officer Stephens reacting to the collision right as it occurs.

The Commission weighed the evidence and determined the NOPD

established Officer Stephens was untruthful in the statements provided during the

February 4, 2017 incident, as well as, during the course of the investigation. This

7

Court has previously held that ‘“deference will be given to the factual conclusions

of the Commission.”’ Pope v. New Orleans Police Dep’t, 2004-1888, p. 6 (La.App.

4 Cir. 4/20/05), 903 So.2d 1, 4 (quoting Smith v. New Orleans Police Dep’t, 1999-

0024, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/22/99), 743 So.2d 834, 837). The Commission deemed

the evidence submitted by the NOPD sufficient to meet its burden of proof. Thus,

we find the factual conclusions made by the Commission are not contrary to the

evidence and as such, will not be disturbed by this Court.

Conclusion

We review the decision of the Commission to determine if its actions are

manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. The Commission’s decision should not be

modified absent such a finding. DeSalvo v. Dep’t of Police, 2013-1598, p. 4

(La.App. 4 Cir. 5/28/14), 141 So.3d 929, 931. Based on the record before this

Court, we do not find the decision of the Commission manifestly erroneous. The

Commission found Officer Stephens’ statements regarding pursuing the vehicle

and witnessing the collision, involving the vehicle, intentionally deceptive and

designed to thwart the investigation into his actions. The Commission determined

that Officer Stephens deliberately misled the investigation.

For the foregoing reasons, we find the record reasonably supports the

Commission’s decision to uphold Officer Stephens’ termination due to his

violation of NOPD Rule 2 regarding honesty and truthfulness. Therefore, the

Commission was not manifestly erroneous in finding the evidence presented by the

NOPD sufficient to terminate Officer Stephens.

AFFIRMED

8