Gast v. Department of Police
137 So. 3d 731
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- On Nov. 23, 2009, Quanetia Davis and Kyana Boykins complained that Officers Beau Gast and Thomas McMasters wrongfully arrested them for prostitution loitering in the French Quarter. A PIB DI-1 investigation followed.
- Gast arrested the women; his arrest affidavit stated undercover officer Marshall Scallan observed solicitation and that Davis approached then turned away when Gast approached. Neither woman had prior prostitution convictions.
- Investigators found Gast did not check NOPD records for prior prostitution convictions and Scallan testified he was not undercover that night and could not have observed the conduct Gast described.
- Superintendent Roñal Serpas sustained charges for moral conduct (false imprisonment), neglect of duty (failure to verify prior convictions), and falsifying official information; Serpas terminated Gast and imposed two 10-day suspensions for the latter two charges.
- The Civil Service Commission (CSC) denied Gast’s appeal; Gast challenged both the merits (false arrest/false affidavit) and timeliness of the investigation under La. R.S. 40:2531(B)(7).
- The appellate court affirmed the CSC: it found the appointing authority proved by a preponderance that Gast filed a false arrest affidavit and that the disciplinary action was supported; the timeliness argument failed in light of controlling Louisiana Supreme Court precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appointing authority had cause to discipline for false affidavit/false arrest | Gast: relied on undercover tip from Scallan; affidavit truthful; unaware prior conviction was required | Supt./CSC: Scallan credibly could not have observed; Gast failed to verify records and falsified affidavit | Court: Upheld CSC; preponderance shows false affidavit and cause to dismiss Gast |
| Whether failure to check computer for prior prostitution convictions justified discipline | Gast: unaware requirement; omission excusable | Supt./CSC: omission impaired efficient operation and led to unlawful detention | Court: Supported discipline (20-day suspensions) for neglect of duty |
| Whether discipline was arbitrary/capricious or disproportionate | Gast: penalty excessive | CSC: applied disciplinary guidelines; termination and suspensions within discretion | Court: Not arbitrary or abuse of discretion; affirmed |
| Whether investigation violated the 60-day limit of La. R.S. 40:2531(B)(7) making discipline void | Gast: DI-1 opened Nov. 23, 2009 and investigation completed July 7, 2010 — >60 days => nullity | NOPD/CSC: investigation was proper; Supreme Court precedent controls | Court: Timeliness argument rejected per McMasters/O’Hern precedent; discipline valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Pope v. New Orleans Police Dep’t, 903 So.2d 1 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2005) (CSC may modify, reverse, or affirm disciplinary penalties)
- Cure v. Dep’t of Police, 964 So.2d 1093 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2007) (appointing authority bears burden to prove cause by preponderance)
- Marziale v. Dep’t of Police, 944 So.2d 760 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (standards for proving dereliction affecting department efficiency)
- Cornelius v. Dep’t of Police, 981 So.2d 720 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2008) (civil service protects only against firing without cause)
- Fihlman v. New Orleans Police Dep’t, 797 So.2d 783 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (scope of civil service review)
- Staehle v. Dep’t of Police, 723 So.2d 1031 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (punishment must be commensurate; rational basis required)
- O’Hern v. New Orleans Police Dep’t, 131 So.3d 29 (La. 2013) (timeliness of internal investigations analysis)
- McMasters v. Dep’t of Police, 134 So.3d 1163 (La. 2014) (investigation into alleged criminal activity not subject to 60-day limitation)