Tommy Morrison VS Baton Rouge Police Department and the Baton Rouge Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2007 CA 0673 TOMMY MORRISON VERSUS BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE BATON ROUGE MUNICIPAL FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD J DATE OF JUDGMENT DEe 2 1 2007 ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NUMBER 420 540 J 25 PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE CURTIS A CALLOWAY JUDGE Charles L Dirks III Counsel for Plaintiff Appellant Floyd Tommy Morrison Baton J Falcon Jr Rouge Louisiana Joseph N Lotwick Baton Rouge Louisiana Counsel for Defendant v Charles Cusimano Counsel for Defendant Baton Rouge Louisiana The Appellee Baton Rouge Police Department Municipal Civil Service Board BEFORE Disposition AFFIRMED Appellee Fire and Police P ARRO KUHN AND DOWNING JJ Kuhn J Plaintiff a Tommy Morrison appeals decision of the Morrison For the Department I the evidence with upheld Chief Greg Phares decision the Baton following reasons employed was room Morrison and his we Police Rouge were as a 1 for many years room no rather than needed longer attorney and other police officers he did not update As reflect these releases destroyed In early 2000 destroying them as evidence the as had released many fireanns ordered by the a an personally profited by selling Phares sent Morrison held 1 2 to consider a was a investigation regarding letter corporal when Morrison acknowledged not updated evidence of them 2 assistant district on his supervisor to s accurately notifying him that action for his acquiesced practice to in maintaining a the Chief Phares the release of the firearms pre termination hearing Chief would be alleged violations of Department policy he was terminated these sales occurred he had 110t room that he result the computer records showed many of these guns disciplinary Morrison an some Department s computer system Morrison admitted that he internal district court acknowledged Morrison admitted that based the in Department learned that Morrison inaccurate records and he also failed to report this After the Department He also knew that other guns had been released to McGehee had been terminate police officer with the Department and worked obtained several of these guns and had instructions to affirm supervisor Sergeant Robert McGehee from the evidence they judgment that affinned FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Morrison after The Board employment s s Muncipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board for the City of Baton the Board Rouge the district court kept any records to reflect these transactions 2 record of the sales and he had 3 and state civil service law results of the internal Based on Disciplinary Code Section and La R S 33 2500 A 3 XII I Department at testimony 3 Morrison Morrison and McGehee were and several the s this hearing and the employment s Policies and Procedures Manual subsections 0 0 and 2 1 04 Disciplinary Articles 5 15 appealed his termination of Chief Phares s investigation Chief Phares terminated Morrison in June 2000 for violations of the Morrison Morrison to the Board After hearing the testimony police officers and other civilians the Board subjects of the internal affairs investigation and both were terminated 4 The Department AIiicles s Policies and Procedures Manual subsections 0 0 and 2 10 0 0 Violators were quoted in Morrison Subject to Disciplinary All members of the Department Disciplinary Code Section XII termination letter s Disciplinary follows as Action regardless of rank assignment are subject to disciplinary action for any violation of the rules procedures or department policy contained herein or in other procedural manuals issued by the Department It is not necessary the violation be intentional but may be by omission or failure 2 10 Conduct Every Unbecoming member of the capacity an Department or Officer whether on or off duty in must conduct himself at all times in such an a manner as official to set a or unofficial good example for all others with whom he may come in contact He shall in no way through actions or neglect bring dishonor or disgrace upon himself or the Department 5 Louisiana Revised Statutes 33 2500 A in pertinent paIi provides The tenure of persons who have been regularly and permanently inducted into positions of the classified service shall be during good behavior However the appointing authority may remove any employee from the service or disciplinary action as the circumstances warrant in the manner provided anyone of the following reasons 1 Unwillingness or failure to perform the duties of his position in a take such below for satisfactory maImer 3 The commission service or contrary 15 Any other act offender to be an or to the or omission of any act to the public interest or prejudice of the departmental policy failure to act which the board deems sufficient to show the unsuitable or unfit person to be 3 employed in the respective service voted to uphold the termination the district court reinstating his employment the district court matter the Board s rescission of the Board seeking decision Morrison then filed Morrison uphold in favor of the s cause court Law La R S case just 6 discharged or subjected a taken in not immediate reinstatement prejudicial the matter in a or an good faith for 2 and 3 appealed s Moore or was made Ware 01 3341 disciplinary 7 if If it finds La R S 33 250 1 C appeal 1 to the Board shall order the from any decision of the The district court shall hear s action is limited to in good faith for p action The Board may appointing authority person may Service investigation by the Board and its review of the Board decision v in in the classified service who cause La R S 33 2501 E manner finding of whether the Board 33 2501 E Morrison has La R S 33 2501 A reemployment of such to him summary Department that affirmed to any corrective hearing and Any employee under classified service Board that is hearing the employment the evidence is conclusive affinn the action of the was order ANALYSIS detennine the reasonableness of the action that the action After an finding that Chief Phares acted Any regular employee may demand cause erred in for praying governed by the Municipal Fire and Police Civil 33 2471 et seq feels that he has been without is termination in terminating his II The present action and s judgment a urging that the Board and the district good faith and with just petition for judicial review in with retroactive wages and benefits signed to a cause La 2 25 03 a La R S 839 So 2d 940 945 6 Louisiana Revised Statutes 33 2471 2508 Civil Service Law for within the section entitled between 13 000 and 250 000 population between 250 000 and 500 000 XIV S 1 15 and La Const 1974 Art X S 18 having Art Municipalities are a 4 as well but Part II Fire and Police apply See La RS 33 2591 to municipalities La Const 1921 If made based cannot be disturbed good on judicial on authority acted arbitrarily expediency Id action taken or Arbitrary The district faith and statutory review Good faith does capriciously capricious or court and or as means appellate civil service board s factual conclusions and manifestly On arbitrary and identical or to those of his co policies procedures governing the release Department did Corporal Jonathan Dunham Department testified an they court could attorney pick out at the Morrison political should accord deference them unless to they decision to terminate him s were a are not were terminated was either He also establish that he had violated any of firearms set for destruction hearing before Corporal Dunham the Internal Affairs Division the Board that Morrison had by obtaining room release orders from an discovered that the assistant district were the guns 7 guns they wanted pre stamped by judges from the to be fill out the release form and take Corporal Dunham learned that Morrison had received six guns from the assistant district had been ordered 7 courts a or The assistant district attorney had told Morrison and McGehee that possession of the evidence rational basis for the investigator with attorney had obtained release forms that district appointing the lack of must not overturn not obtained various guns from the evidence assistant district if the prejudice workers who contends the of the occur He urges the evidence revealed that his actions capricious generally or not the result of Morrison contends the Board similar decision of the Board a Id at 01 3341 at pp 7 8 839 So 2d at 946 erroneous appeal cause destroyed acknowledged observing attorney as Morrison received that the assistant district forms 5 gifts a attorney Although release had a form the guns from the stack of blank release assistant district attorney for these guns as other evidence Morrison sold guns for which he had not obtained Corporal Dunham acknowledged that 8 from the evidence room the who had obtained guns only officers evidence room officers he to them was aware either maintained 9 on s the destruction list He also possession of the guns which had been ordered 8 Sergeant Stacy a release orders where the order He believed conceal the number of guns that had to guns or were the only had sold them He state s she would investigation hearing conduct law and After the of of Morrison and investigation obtaining departmental policy explained that the officers LeBlanc who also worked in the evidence gun destroyed the was and guns He stated the destroyed should have been disposed of in accordance to release orders but these guns had she released to pursuant were of who had also received guns without release orders and had determined that Morrison court release form explained that Morrison and McGehee maintaining false records violated with the well as He testified however that Morrison and McGehee conduct also testified at the Board he complete of these guns other officers had obtained weapons Chief Phares who initiated the internal affairs McGehee a records indicated that such weapons had been the guns had remained been released some never update room been ordered to be the Department s were admitted destroyed allowed not to subvert receiving guns pursuant explained that if She also computer records to indicate the gun s release Officer Harold Williams who worked in the Narcotics Department acknowledged obtaining three guns from closed drug cases in which he had been involved in the initial arrests He explained that he had gone personally to the drug court judge to get the release orders signed so he knew the signatures of the assistant district attorney and the judge on each order was legitimate Further the evidence does not establish the guns obtained by Williams had been ordered to be he had been involved in maintaining any of the evidence room records 9 Captain Barbara the or that Rushing who was in charge ofthe evidence room after McGehee s termination hearing She explained that although the release orders should have been evidence room her investigation revealed that in many instances they were not also testified at the Board kept in destroyed 6 departmental policy by acquiring release orders after the destruct order had been signed Chief Phares testified that Morrison maintained that maintaining contrary were the false records reality to Morrison s subordinate and that he had been involved in Morrison also knew that guns that had been ordered to be were position some of the guns he sold Chief Phares also stated that destroyed McGehee to that records had been acknowledged did relieve him of not being a responsible police officer After not err Phares in reviewing the evidence finding not were good we conclude the district court did faith for cause in the evidence room in obtaining property from the evidence contrary to the Department s in upholding Chief The record demonstrates that employment s perform his duties and that his actions of false records entirety the Board had acted in termination of Morrison Morrison did in its a satisfactory room and manner maintaining interest and that of the public Although the record reveals that other officers obtained property from the evidence room that Department was might also have been classified and that of the significantly more public contrary to the interests of the the record demonstrates that Morrison egregious than conclude that neither the Board as nor the conduct of his fellow officers Chief Phares acted terminating Morrison 7 arbitrarily or s conduct Thus we capriciously in III CONCLUSION For these Board s reasons decision that we affinn the district upheld Morrison s against Morrison AFFIRMED 8 court s termination judgment which affirmed the Appeal costs are assessed
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
