Tyrone Dukes v. New Orleans Police Department

TYRONE DUKES * NO. 2022-CA-0746

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL

NEW ORLEANS POLICE * FOURTH CIRCUIT
DEPARTMENT
* STATE OF LOUISIANA

*******

APPEAL FROM
CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ORLEANS
NO. 9346

******
Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase
******
(Court composed of Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge
Tiffany Gautier Chase)

Chester Theodore Alpaugh, III
Claude A. Schlesinger
GUSTE BARNETT SCHLESINGER & ALPAUGH, L.L.P.
639 Loyola Avenue
Suite 2130
New Orleans, LA 70113

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

Elizabeth Robins
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
Corwin M. St. Raymond
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
Donesia D. Turner
CITY ATTORNEY - CITY OF NEW ORLEANS
1300 Perdido Street
Suite 5E03
New Orleans, LA 70112

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE

AFFIRMED
MAY 10, 2023

TGC
RLB
JCL
Officer Tyrone Dukes (hereinafter “Officer Dukes”) seeks review of the

September 6, 2022 ruling of the Civil Service Commission (hereinafter “the

Commission”). The decision denied Officer Duke’s appeal and upheld his eighty-

day suspension, for violating Rule 2, Moral Conduct, Paragraph 9: Failing to

Cooperate/Withholding Information, with the New Orleans Police Department

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

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

Dukes for a period of eighty days.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 4, 2020, two NOPD officers were called to investigate a complaint

of property damage to an apartment (hereinafter “the June 4th incident”). The

complaint was made by Edwina Buffert (hereinafter “Ms. Buffert”), the lease

holder of the apartment. Ms. Buffert alleged that a bedroom, which she previously

rented to a friend, Breshelle Williams (hereinafter “Ms. Williams”), had been

damaged and vandalized. Ms. Buffert characterized her recent relationship with

Ms. Williams as contentious. According to Ms. Buffert, Ms. Williams’ boyfriend,

1

Officer Dukes, was spending too many nights at the apartment and overnight

guests were not a part of their agreement. She communicated this to Ms. Williams,

who became angry, and stated that she was moving out of the apartment on June 4,

2020. Ms. Buffert maintains that there was no damage to the room the night before

the June 4th incident. However, on June 4th, she observed a significant amount of

damage which included: red wine stains on the walls; glitter thrown on the floor;

explicit language carved on the walls; and broken glass on the carpet.

NOPD INVESTIGATION

Sergeant Candice Preston (hereinafter “Sergeant Preston”) with the Criminal

Investigation Section of the Public Integrity Bureau was assigned to investigate

Officer Dukes’ actions surrounding the June 4th incident. As part of her initial

investigation, Sergeant Preston reviewed the body worn camera of the officers who

reported to the apartment, the NOPD report from the June 4th incident, a recorded

statement from Ms. Williams1, and photos of the damaged apartment.

On September 8, 2020, Officer Dukes voluntarily offered a criminal

statement to Sergeant Preston regarding the June 4th incident.2 Officer Dukes was

represented by counsel, read his rights, and was specifically asked whether he

wished to provide a statement regarding the commission of the crime of criminal

damage to property. During the criminal statement, Officer Dukes was asked

about his relationship with Ms. Williams and the June 4th incident. He stated that

Ms. Williams and her roommate were arguing about the rent and that he remained

1 In a telephone interview Ms. Williams stated that she was angry that Ms. Buffert did not return

her portion of the rent and that she damaged the apartment in retaliation. Ms. Williams
maintained that she acted alone in damaging the apartment.
2 Although police officers are not required to give criminal statements, Officer Dukes voluntarily

agreed to provide a statement as he was also being investigated for possible criminal conduct
regarding damage to the apartment.

2

at the apartment to “keep his girlfriend [Ms. Williams] from overreacting.” Officer

Dukes maintains that he left the apartment “at some point…early in the morning.”

The investigator also inquired as to “who was [at the apartment] there” and Officer

Dukes responded “I’m not sure about who was there.” He was then questioned

about the identity of “Michael Dukes or Mike Dukes.” Officer Dukes denied

knowing Michael Dukes or Mike Dukes and stated he did not want to answer the

question. Officer Dukes was also asked who his emergency contact was, to which

he replied, he could not recall. He then terminated the criminal statement.

On September 18, 2020, Officer Dukes submitted to an administrative

statement. He testified that Ms. Williams’ landlord wanted her to leave the

apartment and confirmed that Ms. Williams’ destroyed the apartment as retaliation.

He acknowledged that he and his brother, Michael Weaver (hereinafter “Mr.

Weaver”), assisted Ms. Williams’ in moving out of the apartment. In his

administrative statement, Officer Dukes admits that he was present and watched

Ms. Williams destroyed Ms. Buffert’s apartment.

At the conclusion of the investigation, Sergeant Preston determined that

Officer Dukes violated Rule 2, Paragraph 93 and Rule 4, Paragraph 4.4 Specifically,

3 Rule 2, Moral Conduct, Paragraph 9: Failing to Cooperate/Withholding Information

Failure to Cooperate/Withholding Information - In accordance with established
rights under law, employees shall not withhold any information, acts, or
omissions known to the employee that purposefully interfere or disrupt an
authorized investigation, whether internally or externally, investigated by any
official entity. Additionally, any employee who withholds information or fails to
cooperate with any internal investigation may be disciplined in addition to any
other disciplinary action based upon conduct disclosed by the primary
investigation.
4 Rule 4: Neglect of Duty, Paragraph 4: Neglect of Duty, Part a

Neglect of Duty - Each employee, because of his grade and assignment, is required to
perform certain duties and assume certain responsibilities. An employee's failure to
properly function in either or both of those areas constitutes a neglect of duty…

3

she found that Officer Dukes failed to prevent Ms. Williams’ from vandalizing the

apartment and that Officer Dukes was untruthful in his criminal statement when he

denied knowing “Michael Dukes.” Sergeant Preston concluded that Officer Dukes’

was intentionally deceitful in answering questions about his brother during his

criminal statement, thus violating Rule 2, Paragraph 9 regarding moral conduct.

Deputy Superintendent John Thomas, chairman of the disciplinary hearing

panel, conducted a disciplinary hearing regarding Officer Dukes’ actions. After

reviewing the evidence, the panel sustained charges against Officer Dukes

regarding violation of NOPD’s policy concerning performance of duty and failing

to cooperate/withholding information. The panel recommended a suspension of

two days for the violation of performance of duty and an eighty-day suspension for

failing to cooperate/withholding information during a criminal investigation. On

December 7, 2021, Officer Dukes was informed of the rulings. Officer Dukes only

appealed the eighty-day suspension.

The hearing officer received testimony and evidence, ultimately concluding

that Officer Dukes withheld pertinent information during his criminal statement.

Specifically, the hearing officer noted that he was “intentionally evasive” when

questioned about knowing “Michael Dukes.” The hearing officer recognized that

an eighty-day suspension was a severe penalty considering the circumstances, but

nonetheless concluded that the suspension was appropriate.

Officer Dukes sought review of the hearing officer’s findings with the

Commission. The Commission reviewed the transcripts, exhibits, and the hearing

officer’s report. On September 6, 2022, the Commission issued its decision finding

that Officer Dukes failed to provide accurate information during the June 4th

4

incident. The Commission further found that Officer Dukes intentionally withheld

information during a criminal investigation. However one of the panel members,

Commissioner Korn, dissented from the majority and concluded that he would

grant the appeal finding the following: (1) it was unclear the manner in which

Officer Dukes disrupted the criminal investigation and (2) the evidence submitted

indicated that Officer Dukes was honest during his voluntary criminal statement.

This appeal followed.

GOVERNING LEGAL PRECEPTS AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

On appeal, the standard of review in a case from the Civil Service

Commission is established by the constitutional rule that the Commission’s

decision is subject to review on any question of law or fact. La. Const. art. X, § 12.

A multifaceted standard of appellate review applies. First, as in other civil matters,

deference must be given to the Commission’s factual findings, which should not be

disturbed unless manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Regis v. Dep’t of Police,

2012-1043, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/12/12), 107 So.3d 790, 793. Second, in

evaluating the Commission’s determination as to whether the disciplinary action is

both based on legal cause and commensurate with the infraction, “the appellate

court should not modify the Commission’s decision unless it is arbitrary,

capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion.” Id. Arbitrary or capricious

means there is no rational basis for the action taken by the Commission. Id.;

Williams v. Dep’t of Police, 2008–0465, p. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/22/08), 996 So.2d

1142, 1146; Bankston v. Dep’t of Fire, 2009–1016, p. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/18/09),

26 So.3d 815, 820.

Classified civil service employees with permanent status may be disciplined

only for cause expressed in writing. La. Const., Art. X, § 8(A). New Orleans police

5

officers are included in the protection guaranteed by this provision. Walters v.

Dep’t of Police of City of New Orleans, 454 So.2d 106, 112 (La. 1984). “Legal

cause exists whenever an employee’s conduct impairs the efficiency of the public

service in which the employee is engaged.” Cittadino v. Dep’t of Police, 558 So.2d

1311, 1315 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). Thus, the appointing authority

must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the occurrence of the complained

of activity and that the conduct did in fact impair the efficient and orderly

operation of the public service. Id.; see also Cure v. Dep’t of Police, 2007–0166, p.

2 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/1/07), 964 So.2d 1093, 1094 (citing Marziale v. Dep’t of

Police, 2006–0459, p. 10 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/8/06), 944 So.2d 760, 767)) (citation

omitted).

In applying these standards, an appellate court must make two

determinations: “(1) whether the appointing authority had good or lawful cause for

taking the disciplinary action, and (2) whether the punishment the appointing

authority imposed is commensurate with the offense.” Harris v. Dep’t of Fire,

2008–0514, p. 11 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/16/08), 990 So.2d 54, 62 (citing Staehle v.

Dep’t of Police, 1998–0216, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/18/98), 723 So.2d 1031,

1033). Thus, to establish that it had cause, the appointing authority must prove two

factors: (i) that the complained of conduct occurred, and (ii) that the complained of

conduct impaired the efficiency of the Department. Harris, 2008–0514, p. 11, 990

So.2d at 62.

DISCUSSION

We summarize Officer Dukes’ assignments of error as follows: (1) the

eighty day suspension was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable and (2) the

6

eighty day suspension is not commensurate with the alleged infraction and is

excessive.

The first issue to consider is whether the Commission’s decision was

arbitrary and capricious. The Commission’s final decision “is subject to review on

any question of law or fact on appeal to the court of appeal where the commissions

is located.” La. Const. Art. X, § 12(A); Hardy v. Juvenile Justice Intervention Ctr.,

2022-0030, pp. 5-7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/16/22), 343 So.3d 288, 293-94. Thus, this

Court must engage in the following multifaceted review when reviewing an appeal

from the Commission’s final decision:

[i]nitially, deference should be given to the factual conclusions of the
civil service commission. A reviewing court should apply the clearly
wrong or manifest error rule prescribed generally for appellate review.
Then, the court must evaluate the commission's imposition of a
particular disciplinary action to determine if it is both based on legal
cause and is commensurate with the infraction; the court should not
modify the commission's order unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or
characterized by abuse of discretion. “Arbitrary or capricious” means
the absence of a rational basis for the action taken; “abuse of
discretion” generally results from a conclusion reached capriciously or
in an arbitrary manner.

Mathieu v. New Orleans Pub. Library, 2009-2746, pp. 5-6 (La. 10/19/10), 50

So.3d 1259, 1262-63 (internal citations omitted). The Commission determined that

Officer Dukes withheld information when he failed to disclose that his brother was

present during the June 4th Incident. The Commission’s Report did not focus on

Officer Duke’s conduct during the June 4th Incident, rather it considered the narrow

issue of whether Officer Dukes violated Rule 2, Paragraph 9 when giving his

criminal statement. Rule 2, Paragraph 9 provides that employees shall not withhold

information that purposefully interferes or disrupts an organized investigation.

Specifically, the Commission found that Officer Dukes was “deliberately evasive”

when providing his criminal statement. Although Officer Dukes asserts that he

7

answered all the questions asked of him, his answers ten days later during his

administrative statement were considerably different. The audio recordings of

Officer Duke’s criminal and administrative statements support the Commission’s

findings that he intentionally withheld information and interfered with the criminal

investigation. Such actions severely diminishes the efficient operation of the

NOPD. We therefore find these factual conclusions supported by the evidence

before this Court.

The second issue is whether the eighty-day suspension is commensurate

with the infraction and whether the penalty is excessive. The NOPD’s penalty

matrix sets forth an eighty-day suspension for a violation of Rule 2, Moral

Conduct, Paragraph 9, Failure to Cooperate/Withholding Information. The

Commission found that Officer Dukes failed to provide information about his

brother’s presence at Ms. Buffert’s apartment during the June 4th Incident. The

Commission acknowledged that the investigating officer “could have done a much

better job in the way the investigation was handled…,” it ultimately determined

that Officer Dukes withheld information that interfered with a criminal

investigation. The Commission found the evidence submitted by the NOPD

sufficient to satisfy its burden of proof in showing (i) the complained of conduct

occurred and (ii) the complained of conduct impaired the efficiency of the

department. See Harris, 2008–0514, p. 11, 990 So.2d at 62. It further determined

that the penalty is commensurate with the NOPD’s disciplinary matrix. This Court

will not disturb the conclusions of the Commission if the conclusions are not

contrary to the evidence within the record. See Mykulak v. New Orleans Police

Dept., 2022-0578, p. 6 (La.App 4 Cir. 3/16/23), --- So.3d ---, 2023 WL 2534601

*11.

8

CONCLUSION

This Court must give deference to the Commission’s factual findings. See

Stephens v. New Orleans Police Dep’t, 2019-0641, pp. 7-8 (La.App. 4 Cir.

12/4/19), 286 So.3d 519, 524. Finding no evidence that the Commission was

clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous, this Court will not modify the

Commission’s decisions. Id., 2019-0641, p. 8, 286 So.3d at 524. Thus, we affirm

the Commission’s decision to uphold Officer Dukes eighty-day suspension.

DECREE

For the aforementioned reasons we affirm the Commission’s decision to

uphold Officer Dukes’ suspension for violation Rule 2, Moral Conduct, Paragraph

9: Failure to Cooperate/Withholding Information.

AFFIRMED

9