Brittingham v. Town of Georgetown, 113 A.3d 519

Background

In 2009 seven off-duty Georgetown Police Department (GPD) officers met with Town Council member Sue Barlow; Chief Topping had previously issued an order barring officers from contacting Council about internal matters without permission.
Dover PD Sergeant Eric Richardson (outside GPD) was assigned to investigate; transcripts of interviews were provided to GPD command; the CJC panel found substantial evidence of insubordination.
Chief Topping imposed suspensions, rank reductions, and one-year probation for Brittingham and Story; the Town Appeals Board upheld the CJC findings.
Brittingham and Story filed a mandamus petition in Superior Court seeking a new hearing, production of records, reinstatement and removal of records; they also filed a separate civil suit raising First Amendment claims.
Superior Court denied the mandamus petition; this appeal challenges alleged LEOBOR violations (including that the investigator was not an "authorized member" of the department) and seeks vacatur of discipline.
The Supreme Court found one technical LEOBOR violation (investigator from outside GPD under the pre-2014 statute) but held (1) other LEOBOR claims lacked merit, (2) the claim is moot because neither officer remains employed by GPD and (3) vacatur/removal of records is not relief available by mandamus.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether LEOBOR required an investigator to be an "authorized member of the department" and whether failure violated officers' rights	Brittingham: investigation by Dover officer violated §9200(c)(3) because investigator was not an authorized GPD member	Georgetown: use of an outside investigator was appropriate given conflicts; it provided added protection and caused no prejudice	Court: Technical violation occurred (statute version then required in-department investigator) but no prejudice; claim is moot because officers no longer employed by GPD
Whether appellants were denied LEOBOR discovery/production rights and written findings	Brittingham: appellees failed to produce exculpatory evidence, logs, and written investigator findings	Georgetown: provided transcripts and procedures; CJC lacked authority to compel discovery; no ministerial duty breached	Held: Claims meritless; Superior Court correctly rejected them
Whether First Amendment rights were violated by Chief’s order and whether CJC should decide constitutional issue	Brittingham: order chilled protected speech; CJC panel failed to resolve First Amendment question	Georgetown: CJC is a fact-finding body without jurisdiction to decide constitutional questions; remedies exist in civil court	Held: Mandamus inappropriate; First Amendment issues litigated and resolved in separate civil case; mandamus claim moot or improper here
Whether mandamus can compel vacatur/removal of disciplinary records	Brittingham: seek vacatur of CJC findings and removal of records as alternative relief	Georgetown: mandamus is extraordinary and not a remedy to undo completed acts or force record correction	Held: Mandamus does not provide relief to expunge or vacate completed disciplinary records; request outside scope and therefore denied/moot

Key Cases Cited

Ingersoll v. Rollins Broad. of Del., 272 A.2d 336 (Del. 1970) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy committed to judicial discretion)
Clough v. State, 686 A.2d 158 (Del. 1996) (mandamus requires a clear legal right and is unavailable when other adequate remedies exist)
State ex rel. Smith v. Carey, 112 A.2d 26 (Del. 1955) (writ of mandamus will not issue if it would be unavailing or futile)
Henderson v. Mayor of Medford, 75 N.E.2d 642 (Mass. 1947) (mandamus does not quash records or compel undoing of completed disciplinary records; relief may be moot when petitioner no longer affected)
Ohio ex rel. Dussell v. Lakewood Police Dep’t, 791 N.E.2d 456 (Ohio 2003) (mandamus inappropriate to compel correction/removal of law enforcement records absent clear legal right or due process violation)