Patterson v. City of Greenville
117 So. 3d 630
| Miss. | 2013Background
- Greenville discharged Chief Patterson for malfeasance and willful violation of a direct order after he directed off-duty officers to move police vehicles to a nearby substation.
- The city council provided notice, held a hearing on December 6, 2010, after postponing from November 16, 2010, and unanimously voted to terminate him.
- Patterson argued the council’s removal was improper, violated his rights, or exceeded the council’s power.
- The circuit court affirmed the council’s discharge, and Patterson appealed to the Mississippi Court of Appeals.
- The majority held the council acted within its discretion under Greenville Code sections 2-87 and 2-6, with substantial evidence supporting malfeasance.
- Dissent argues Vice Mayor Gines’s order was unlawful and that the chief’s use of vehicles for crime-prevention purposes was not malfeasance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was discharge proper under statutory removal procedures? | Patterson—removal lacked lawful procedure and due process under 2-6. | Greenville—council followed removal procedures and had discretion to remove for malfeasance. | Discharge upheld; procedures followed and discretion within bounds. |
| Did the council have substantial evidence of malfeasance to support discharge? | Patterson—no malfeasance proven; actions were within official duties. | Greenville—evidence showed willful violation of a direct order and malfeasance. | Yes; substantial evidence supports malfeasance. |
| Were the actions regarding use of police vehicles for off-duty/private security a public-law-enforcement purpose? | Patterson—vehicle use for private security; not an official duty; no malfeasance. | Greenville—vehicles used to deter crime and protect the public, a valid enforcement purpose. | Vehicles parked at a police substation served a public law enforcement purpose. |
| Was Vice Mayor Gines’s order governing the chief’s actions lawful and within authority? | Patterson—order unlawful and void; exceeded authority. | Greenville—order consistent with leadership oversight; not void. | Dispositive focus on council procedures; court affirmed discharge despite dissent’s view on authority. |
| Did the standard of review require reversal or affirmation? | Patterson—error in process and scope; rights violated. | Greenville—court should defer to agency and rely on substantial-evidence and proper procedures. | Affirmed; decision not arbitrary or capricious and supported by substantial evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Law Enforcement Officers Standards & Training v. Butler, 672 So.2d 1196 (Miss. 1996) (substantial-evidence and arbitrary-capsious standards for agency review)
- Miss. Transp. Comm’n. v. Anson, 879 So.2d 958 (Miss. 2004) (substantial evidence requires more than a scintilla)
- Burks v. Amite Cnty. Sch. Dist., 708 So.2d 1866 (Miss. 1998) (arbitrary or capricious standard in public-school contexts)
- Ware v. State, 72 So. 237 (Miss. 1916) (officer may be removed at pleasure without notice or hearing)
- Ex parte Castle, 159 So.2d 81 (Miss. 1963) (officer may be removed for pleasure; no formal charges required when at-will)
- Edwards House Co. v. City of Jackson, 103 So. 428 (Miss. 1925) (municipal authority limited by legislature)
- Thornhill v. Wilson, 504 So.2d 1205 (Miss. 1987) (public duties and law-enforcement responsibilities)
- Marion Cnty. v. Taylor, 55 Miss. 184 (Miss. 1877) (supervisor's order may be null if beyond authority)