Ex parte City of Birmingham. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (In re: Sean F. Hudson v. City of Birmingham)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 02/18/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2091117 Ex p a r t e C i t y o f Birmingham PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT (In r e : Sean F. Hudson v. C i t y o f Birmingham) (Jefferson C i r c u i t Court, CV-10-1279) MOORE, J u d g e . The judgment City o f Birmingham seeks entered by a three-judge certiorari panel review of a of the Jefferson 2091117 Circuit Board Court reversing a decision of Personnel Hudson. We of the J e f f e r s o n County t e r m i n a t i n g t h e employment o f Sean reverse the d e c i s i o n of the three-judge F. panel. F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y Hudson was by t h e C i t y of B i r m i n g h a m P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t ( " t h e BPD") f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 12 years; he had e m p l o y e d as a p o l i c e been assigned to officer work at the Birmingham I n t e r n a t i o n a l A i r p o r t ( " t h e a i r p o r t " ) f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 10 o f those to 12 y e a r s . monitor shift. Hudson's d u t i e s a t t h e a i r p o r t r e q u i r e d h i m a locked gate According to at "Checkpoint Hudson, the C" on t h e m o r n i n g Transportation Security A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ( " T S A " ) , a component o f t h e f e d e r a l D e p a r t m e n t o f Homeland S e c u r i t y , h a d t a k e n o v e r s e c u r i t y a t t h e a i r p o r t i n 2003. A c c o r d i n g t o Edward Downing, t h e a s s i s t a n t federal s e c u r i t y d i r e c t o r f o r s c r e e n i n g a t TSA, when p a s s e n g e r s at the a i r p o r t t r a v e l through a checkpoint, there i s c e r t a i n property that passengers according may n o t t a k e o n t o an a i r p l a n e . t o Downing, p a s s e n g e r s At that point, have a c h o i c e -- t h e y t a k e t h e i t e m out o f t h e a i r p o r t , t h e y can p l a c e c e r t a i n i n t h e i r luggage they c a n abandon can items t h a t goes " i n t o t h e b e l l y o f t h e p l a n e , " o r the item. I f the passengers 2 abandon the 2091117 item, i t i s d e p o s i t e d b y a TSA a g e n t i n t o a b i n t h a t i s u s e d s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r c o l l e c t i o n o f v o l u n t a r i l y abandoned p r o p e r t y ("VAP"). TSA D i r e c t i v e No. 200.51, r e g a r d i n g " D i s p o s i t i o n o f L o s t o r U n c l a i m e d P e r s o n a l P r o p e r t y Found i n T S A - O c c u p i e d S p a c e s , " states in a footnote that "[l]ost distinct from p r o h i b i t e d items TSA screener at voluntarily checkpoints, abandoned property regarding "Care, (VAP)." also TSA Handling, personal and property is abandoned t o t h e known as Directive voluntarily No. D i s p o s i t i o n of 200.52, Voluntarily Abandoned P r o p e r t y , " s t a t e s t h a t "VAP d e p o s i t e d i n c o l l e c t i o n b i n s s h a l l n o t be r e c o v e r e d passengers. Upon voluntary item, the item immediately Government." is t o be types. n o t be r e t u r n e d t o , abandonment of the p r o h i b i t e d becomes t h e p r o p e r t y o f t h e F e d e r a l D i r e c t i v e No. 200.52 f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t s t h a t VAP segregated b y TSA according to different category The f i r s t c a t e g o r y , VAP w i t h an e s t i m a t e d r e s a l e v a l u e o f l e s s t h a n $ 5 0 0 , "may only, b y , and w i l l transferred reimbursement, donations are to be r e t a i n e d f o r o f f i c i a l m i s s i o n another donated, authorized, or federal abandoned they 3 always or agency without destroyed. take use priority If over 2091117 destruction. to A donation p u b l i c bodies testified that only." "official f u n c t i o n s ; i n other bin that i n l i e u of d e s t r u c t i o n i s authorized (Emphasis mission i n original.) use" would Downing include TSA w o r d s , TSA c a n u s e t h e i t e m s i n t h e VAP are valued a t l e s s t h a n $500 a t t h e a i r p o r t . He s t a t e d t h a t " d o n a t e d " i n t h e d i r e c t i v e means g i v e n away t o t h e S t a t e o f Alabama. Column entitled Items," C on Attachment A " D i s p o s i t i o n Guidance includes destroyed; a list to Directive Table of c e r t a i n No. 200.52, f o r [VAP] Prohibited items that should be some o f t h e i t e m s i n c l u d e d i n t h a t c o l u m n have an a s t e r i s k n e x t t o them, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h o s e a r e " a d d i t i o n a l items that may be donated to a public body i n lieu of Abandonment a n d D e s t r u c t i o n . " Included i n those items denoted with and box c u t t e r s , an a s t e r i s k a r e k n i v e s items. Column D on A t t a c h m e n t A l i s t s donated, and i t i n c l u d e s s c r e w d r i v e r s , bin. other i t e m s t h a t a r e t o be among o t h e r Downing s t a t e d t h a t t h e VAP b i n i s l o c k e d TSA among items. and t h a t only e m p l o y e e s have a c c e s s t o t h e k e y t o t h e l o c k on t h e VAP Hudson t e s t i f i e d , authorization however, that, a t one t i m e , t o go i n t o t h e VAP b i n t o t a k e 4 he h a d out dangerous 2091117 items. with He s t a t e d t h a t TSA h a d s u p p l i e d a k e y when i t t o o k o v e r i n 2003. t h a t k e y was l o s t , could. the p o l i c e According precinct t o Hudson, so he b e g a n t o open t h e VAP b i n any way he Hudson t e s t i f i e d t h a t he w o u l d t a k e t h i n g s o u t o f t h e VAP b i n i f he n e e d e d them f o r h i s o f f i c i a l u s e and t h a t he h a d given some items other official t o others uses t o use i n c o n s t r u c t i o n a t C h e c k p o i n t C, b u t t h a t and f o r he h a d n e v e r k e p t any o f t h o s e i t e m s o r t a k e n them home w i t h h i m . s t i p u l a t e d t h a t he h a d o p e n e d t h e VAP b i n w i t h a Hudson screwdriver. Hudson t e s t i f i e d t h a t he knew t h a t t h e a r e a was v i d e o t a p e d a n d that he was officers being assigned recorded. t o work He other also police regularly i t e m s t h e r e i n a n d t h a t i t was o p e r a t i n g p r o c e d u r e a t t h e a i r p o r t f o r them t o do s o . According and that at the a i r p o r t a c c e s s e d t h e VAP b i n t o o b t a i n standard stated t o Hudson, t h e VAP b i n was l a b e l e d "throwaway b i n , " he c o n s i d e r e d Captain i t s c o n t e n t s t o be t r a s h . W i l l i a m J o h n C r a n e t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t some p o i n t , he was t h e commander o f t h e e a s t p r e c i n c t o f t h e BPD a n d t h a t he h a d o v e r s e e n o f f i c e r s t h a t were a s s i g n e d Captain that, Crane important testified to the a i r p o r t . i n h i s opinion, i t i s not f o r h i m t o know what t h e r u l e s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s o f 5 2091117 the a i r p o r t a r e b e c a u s e he relies on t h e BPD require h i s o f f i c e r s to turn i n property c o n t r o l of a p o l i c e o f f i c e r . had supervised airport, Hudson and rules, t h a t comes w i t h i n t h e Sergeant Matthew R o s t o w s k i , other officers t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t r e c a l l working seeing Sergeant conversation do with testified w i t h Hudson a n d C a p t a i n items according Rostowski to that were BPD's found rules and that at the the that BPD headquarters. working i n the airport had a what t o and officers that, are out a property to the property room a t Sergeant Rostowski c o n d i t i o n because property Captain to f i l l in regarding had airport regulations, and t o t a k e t h e p r o p e r t y at the Crane regarding s u p p o s e d t o t a k e any f o u n d p r o p e r t y , inventory, he who anything the manuals o f r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s a t the a i r p o r t VAP. which creates a stated, however, different i s constantly being C r a n e , a n d Hudson were w r e s t l i n g w i t h working f o u n d a n d he, the problem of d i s c e r n i n g w h e t h e r i t e m s were p r o p e r l y c a t e g o r i z e d as p r o p e r t y f o u n d by t h e p o l i c e d e p a r t m e n t t h a t t h e y were t a k i n g c h a r g e o f or whether those items were simply articles left by a p a s s e n g e r t h a t n e e d e d t o go t o t h e l o s t a n d f o u n d a r e a a t t h e airport. Sergeant Rostowski stated 6 that i t could be said 2091117 t h a t , b e c a u s e o f t h a t p r o b l e m , he h a d d e v i a t e d r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s Tabitha Kline, from the normal o f t h e BPD. Edward Lewis Hannon, Ronald Edward Y o u n g b l o o d , J r . , and M a n u a l D i a z , a l l p o l i c e o f f i c e r s e m p l o y e d by t h e BPD, testified that they had been assigned to the a i r p o r t and t h a t t h e y h a d n o t r e c e i v e d any i n s t r u c t i o n as t o what t o do w i t h VAP. Preston Weed, who i s also an officer w i t h t h e BPD, h a d a l s o been a s s i g n e d to the a i r p o r t . Officer Weed t e s t i f i e d t h a t , when TSA f i r s t assumed a u t h o r i t y a t t h e a i r p o r t , i t was m a k i n g p o l i c i e s as i t went a l o n g had allowed abandoned operating the and officers that, at p r o c e d u r e o f TSA to one take point, to allow what t h e y w a n t e d f r o m t h e p r o p e r t y passengers. testified one Another BPD agents police had t o l d t h r o w away t h e i t e m s t h a t i t was had the police officers officer, standard t o take Darryl Trucks, him t h a t TSA agents occasions, Hudson simply TSA items. h a d o p e n e d t h e VAP 7 that b i n and t h a t Downing t e s t i f i e d t h a t , on May 30, 2009, he l e a r n e d on s e v e r a l been t o t h e a i r p o r t and go i n t o t h e VAP does n o t have any u s e f o r t h o s e that TSA t h a t h a d been a b a n d o n e d by t h a t he h a d b e e n a s s i g n e d o f t h e TSA knives and t h a t that, b i n with a 2091117 screwdriver reported and h a d removed i t e m s . t o t h e BPD t h a t he h a d v i d e o t a p e d f o r c i n g e n t r y i n t o t h e VAP b i n . is assigned testified On J u n e 2, 2009, Downing to the I n t e r n a l t h a t he i n i t i a t e d Downing's c o m p l a i n t . footage o f Hudson Sergeant David Grayson, Affairs D i v i s i o n of the them Sergeant Grayson t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d i n construction or repair when TSA took over been transition understanding when o f how p r o p e r t y at the According from those i n t e r v i e w s s e c u r i t y at the a i r p o r t , period work a number o f BPD to the a i r p o r t . S e r g e a n t G r a y s o n , he d e t e r m i n e d took f u l l other Sergeant Grayson a l s o i n t e r v i e w e d o f f i c e r s who h a d b e e n a s s i g n e d a received f r o m Hudson t h a t h a d b e e n t a k e n f r o m t h e VAP b i n f o r t o use airport. BPD, an i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n r e s p o n s e t o s p o k e n w i t h two a i r p o r t m a i n t e n a n c e w o r k e r s who h a d property who there was there not that, may a to have clear was h a n d l e d b u t t h a t , once TSA c o n t r o l , the o f f i c e r s t h a t he h a d i n t e r v i e w e d had n o t b e e n g i v e n any i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e y were a l l o w e d t o remove property f r o m t h e VAP b i n . S e r g e a n t G r a y s o n s t a t e d t h a t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t Hudson h a d b r o k e n i n t o t h e VAP b i n w i t h o u t he a key, t h a t Hudson d i d n o t h a v e a r i g h t t o u s e t h e i t e m s i n t h e VAP b i n , and that Hudson's actions 8 amounted to theft. 2091117 Sergeant Grayson i n v e s t i g a t i o n , he A.C. stated that, upon t u r n e d the matter over t o BPD Police his Chief Roper. Hudson was given notice that p o s s i b l e personnel which c o u l d r e s u l t i n h i s suspension, was completing being contemplated h e a r i n g was scheduled t h a t he was charged a g a i n s t him for July 7, action, demotion, or d i s m i s s a l , and that a 2009. determination Hudson was w i t h " e n t e r i n g " t h e l o c k e d VAP informed bin with a s c r e w d r i v e r , r e m o v i n g p r o p e r t y t h e r e f r o m , and g i v i n g p r o p e r t y from the VAP bin to S p e c i f i c a l l y , Hudson was Board airport charged of J e f f e r s o n County maintenance w i t h v i o l a t i n g the Rules and Regulations, workers. Personnel including Rule 1 2 . 2 ( c ) , "Conduct unbecoming a C l a s s i f i e d Employee"; Rule 12.2(g), "Neglect "Incompetency of duty"; Rule or inefficiency"; 12.2(l), Rule "Violation of any r e g u l a t i o n of the A p p o i n t i n g A u t h o r i t y , or f a i l u r e with instructions made and given by a 12.2(j), rule or t o comply superior officer or s u p e r v i s o r " ; R u l e 12.2(m), " V i o l a t i o n o f any o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s ... of these Rules"; and n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y reason disciplinary action, and R u l e 12.2(p), "Any other l e g i t i m a t e t h a t c o n s t i t u t e s good cause f o r i s reasonably 9 specific, i s consistent 2091117 with ... t h e s e related Rules preference and i s n o t m o t i v a t e d o r animus b y any f o r or against non-work- any person." Hudson was a l s o c h a r g e d w i t h v i o l a t i n g a d d i t i o n a l BPD Rules and R e g u l a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g S e c t i o n I I o f P r o c e d u r e Number 1 0 9 ¬ 3, w h i c h p r o v i d e s : "Members w i l l efforts such i n carrying tend to establish and m a i n t a i n the o f e f f i c i e n c y " ; S e c t i o n V I , S u b s e c t i o n A-8, o f P r o c e d u r e Number 110-2, r e g a r d i n g to duty"; their o u t t h e f u n c t i o n s o f t h e Department i n a manner as w i l l highest standard d i r e c t or coordinate "Neglect P r o c e d u r e Number A-36, r e g a r d i n g or inattention "Any o t h e r a c t o r o m i s s i o n c o n t r a r y t o good o r d e r and d i s c i p l i n e o r c o n s t i t u t i n g a violation Department, o f any of the Rules and R e g u l a t i o n s o r o f any D e p a r t m e n t Procedure Number property, which p r o v i d e s : Birmingham Police circumstances, regarding and S e c t i o n conversion of impounded "Members a n d / o r e m p l o y e e s Department shall not, I of of the under any m a n u f a c t u r e , o r d e s t r o y , o r c o n v e r t t o h i s own use any e v i d e n c e investigation 116-41, order"; of the o r o t h e r m a t e r i a l f o u n d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h an or any property safekeeping." 10 taken or received for 2091117 The determination hearing was held on July 7, 2009. C h i e f R o p e r and a number o f d e p u t y c h i e f s were p r e s e n t hearing. through According the to Chief determination Roper, hearing the and deputy discuss at chiefs s i t the case g i v e recommendations, but the u l t i m a t e d e c i s i o n i s h i s . Roper testified s h o u l d be Hudson had not that he decided that Hudson's have i t s e m p l o y e e s s t e a l i n g . employment b i n and t h e BPD According and Chief t e r m i n a t e d because the i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e v e a l e d s t o l e n p r o p e r t y f r o m t h e VAP the to Chief that could Roper, Hudson d i d n o t have t h e r i g h t o r a u t h o r i t y t o b r e a k open l o c k e d VAP bin. C h i e f Roper t e s t i f i e d , t o t h e a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n o f BPD the items d e p o s i t e d i n t o t h e VAP material found property taken A in connection or r e c e i v e d f o r number o f the deputy however, w i t h the regard P r o c e d u r e Number 116-41, t h a t b i n are not evidence, with an other investigation, or safekeeping. c h i e f s who were p r e s e n t at the d e t e r m i n a t i o n h e a r i n g t e s t i f i e d at a subsequent h e a r i n g before a hearing Hudson had officer that s t o l e n items. worked at the airport, t h e BPD's r u l e s w i t h o u t t e r m i n a t i o n was Although they appropriate because none o f t h e d e p u t y c h i e f s s p o k e t o Hudson's v i o l a t i o n s reference 11 to the r e g u l a t i o n s of of the 2091117 a i r p o r t o r TSA. not They e a c h t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e BPD's r u l e s do d i f f e r e n t i a t e between l o s t p r o p e r t y The a n d VAP. c h a r g e s a g a i n s t Hudson were s u s t a i n e d , a n d Hudson was dismissed f r o m h i s p o s i t i o n as a p o l i c e o f f i c e r w i t h t h e BPD, effective at the close August 10, 2009, of business Hudson appealed on A u g u s t 7, 2009. On t h e BPD's decision. A h e a r i n g was h e l d on F e b r u a r y 26, 2010, a n d , on M a r c h 15, 2010, the hearing officer filed his findings recommendation, which s t a t e d , i n p e r t i n e n t of fact part: " R e s p o n d e n t , S e a n Hudson, a l o n g t e r m P o l i c e O f f i c e r f o r t h e C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m , was a s s i g n e d t o the Birmingham A i r p o r t . "On June 2, 2009, E d w i n D o w n i n g , A s s i s t a n t Federal S e c u r i t y D i r e c t o r of Screening f o r the Transportation Security Administration ( h e r e [ i n ] a f t e r ' T S A ' ) f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t t h a t Hudson and a n o t h e r Birmingham P o l i c e O f f i c e r opened a l o c k e d p r o p e r t y c a b i n e t t h a t was u n d e r TSA c o n t r o l and removed p r o p e r t y w i t h o u t permission. "Downing was c a l l e d as a w i t n e s s a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t when one o f h i s o f f i c e r s made h i m aware t h a t some c h a n g e h a d b e e n removed f r o m t h e l o c k e d cabinet, he reviewed videotapes of the TSA checkpoint a t T e r m i n a l C a n d o b s e r v e d Hudson a n d a n o t h e r o f f i c e r f o r c i n g t h e i r way i n t o t h e TSA cabinet. "Hudson the locked thought i t c a b i n e t as s t i p u l a t e d t h a t he h a d i n d e e d entered cabinet. Hudson t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was o k a y t o f o r c e h i s way i n t o t h e a f o r m o f ' d u m p s t e r d i v i n g . ' Hudson 12 and 2091117 t e s t i f i e d t h a t he gave away i t e m s t h i s area t o a i r p o r t workers. recovered from "However, r e g a r d l e s s o f m o t i v a t i o n , C h i e f R o p e r t e s t i f i e d [ t h a t ] having p o l i c e o f f i c e r s break i n t o another's property without a u t h o r i z a t i o n v i o l a t e d the C i t y o f Birmingham's r u l e s o f deportment f o r Police Officers. "Hudson contends that after 2001 a n d t h e establishment o f t h e TSA, t h e r e was a l a c k o f procedures and/or t r a i n i n g r e g a r d i n g t h e d i s p o s a l o f ' v o l u n t a r y a b a n d o n e d p r o p e r t y . ' W h i l e t h a t may have b e e n t r u e i n 2001 a n d / o r 2002, b y 2009 -- some s e v e n y e a r s l a t e r -- S e c u r i t y C h e c k p o i n t C as t e s t i f i e d t o by Mr. D o w n i n g was f i r m l y u n d e r TSA c o n t r o l . Hudson had no a u t h o r i t y t o t a k e i t upon h i m s e l f t o r e ¬ d i s t r i b u t e t h e p r o p e r t y , abandoned o r o t h e r w i s e , w h i c h had been t u r n e d over t o t h e f e d e r a l o f f i c i a l s . " P r i o r t o t e r m i n a t i n g Mr. H u d s o n , C h i e f R o p e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he r e v i e w e d t h e m a t t e r w i t h D e p u t y C h i e f s F i s h e r , H i n t o n , L a m p k i n a n d Tubbs ( e a c h o f whom t e s t i f i e d i n s u p p o r t o f t h e t e r m i n a t i o n ) a n d that Sergeant David Grayson conducted an i n v e s t i g a t i o n as t o t h e p r o c e d u r e s f o r VAP p r o p e r t y at t h e a i r p o r t . D e p u t y C h i e f Tubbs t e s t i f i e d t h a t o f f i c e r s breaking into property without authority, ' s t r i k e s a t t h e i n t e g r i t y o f t h e d e p a r t m e n t . ' The o t h e r D e p u t y C h i e f s t e s t i f i e d t o t h e same. "Sergeant Grayson i n t e r v i e w e d other officers a s s i g n e d t o t h e B i r m i n g h a m a i r p o r t who confirmed t h a t i t h a d b e e n many y e a r s s i n c e B i r m i n g h a m P o l i c e had any a u t h o r i t y f o r ' v o l u n t a r y a b a n d o n e d p r o p e r t y ' g i v e n t o TSA p e r s o n n e l . "CONCLUSIONS "The B i r m i n g h a m P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t Hudson's c o n d u c t was w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y a n d v i o l a t e d standards expected for their officers. 13 2091117 E v e n t h o u g h O f f i c e r Hudson a r g u e d a t t h e h e a r i n g t h a t t e r m i n a t i o n was t o o s e v e r e a p e n a l t y and t h e r e was a l a c k o f t r a i n i n g , t h e P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t has t o be a l l o w e d t o make p e r s o n n e l d e c i s i o n s t o u p h o l d t h e department standards. "RECOMMENDATION " A f t e r v i e w i n g the e n t i r e r e c o r d , I f i n d t h a t t e r m i n a t i o n as i m p l e m e n t e d by t h e P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t s h o u l d be s u s t a i n e d . The Personnel entered an officer's order Board on findings of April of J e f f e r s o n County 13, fact 2010, and ("the Board") the hearing adopting recommendation, thereby a f f i r m i n g t h e BPD's d e c i s i o n t o t e r m i n a t e Hudson's employment. Hudson f i l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l f r o m t h e B o a r d ' s o r d e r t o t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t on A p r i l 21, 2010. a h e a r i n g was 2010. See A c t No. June 25, 2010, s e t b e f o r e a p a n e l o f t h r e e j u d g e s on A u g u s t A c t No. 684, On 248, § 22, A l a . A c t s A l a . A c t s 1977 1945, 13, as amended ( s t a t i n g t h a t an a p p e a l from by the B o a r d ' s o r d e r l i e s i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t and t h a t t h e p r e s i d i n g judge of the c i r c u i t c o u r t s h a l l a s s i g n the case t o a p a n e l of three judges for review). o r d e r on A u g u s t 18, 2010, The which three-judge panel entered stated, i n pertinent p a r t : "The t h r e e (3) j u d g e p a n e l a s s i g n e d t o t h i s c a s e hereby unanimously orders, after review of the r e c o r d and o r a l a r g u m e n t s , t h a t P o l i c e O f f i c e r Sean F. Hudson be r e s t o r e d t o h i s p o s i t i o n as a p o l i c e 14 an 2091117 o f f i c e r w i t h the C i t y p a y and b e n e f i t s . of Birmingham w i t h full back "The p a n e l has d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e p l a i n t i f f , Sean F. Hudson, was a r b i t r a r y and capricious. The p a n e l h e a r d t e s t i m o n y t h a t no m i s a p p r o p r i a t i o n f o r p e r s o n a l u s e was i n v o l v e d . The p a n e l i s c o n v i n c e d t h a t , b a s e d upon t h e r e c o r d and t e s t i m o n y , a p p r o p r i a t e p o l i c i e s and p r o c e d u r e s were not i n p l a c e f o l l o w i n g the t r a n s i t i o n from the C i t y of Birmingham to the Transportation Security A u t h o r i t y o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Homeland S e c u r i t y . " The City of Birmingham certiorari on A u g u s t 26, petitioned this court f o r a w r i t of 2010. Discussion The C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m a s s e r t s t h a t t h e t h r e e - j u d g e panel e r r e d by o v e r t u r n i n g t h e Board's d e c i s i o n because, i t a r g u e s , t h e B o a r d ' s d e c i s i o n was b a s e d on f i x e d s t a n d a r d s be and should affirmed. "When c o n d u c t i n g c e r t i o r a r i r e v i e w o f a d e c i s i o n o f a c i r c u i t c o u r t p a n e l u n d e r § 22 o f t h e B o a r d ' s e n a b l i n g a c t , t h i s c o u r t has s t a t e d t h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w as f o l l o w s : "'"Under t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w f o r c a s e s b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t on c e r t i o r a r i , this court i s l i m i t e d to a review of whether the c i r c u i t c o u r t p r o p e r l y a p p l i e d the law and whether the d e c i s i o n i s s u p p o r t e d by any l e g a l e v i d e n c e . " Ex p a r t e J a c k s o n , 733 So. 2d [456,] 457 [ ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) ] . Our supreme c o u r t has a l s o h e l d t h a t i n a d d i t i o n to the foregoing, the trial c o u r t must r e v i e w the record to 15 2091117 e n s u r e t h a t t h e r e had b e e n no v i o l a t i o n o f a p a r t y ' s f u n d a m e n t a l r i g h t s . E v a n s v. C i t y of H u n t s v i l l e , [580 So. 2d 1323 (Ala. 1 9 9 1 ) ] . The s c o p e o f a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f administrative actions is narrow; therefore, "[t]he determination of the w e i g h t and c r e d i b i l i t y of the evidence presented i s s o l e l y w i t h i n the p r o v i n c e of t h e B o a r d . " Ex p a r t e P e r s o n n e l Bd. of J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y , 440 So. 2d [1106,] 1109 [ ( A l a . C i v . App. 1983)].' "Ex p a r t e D i x o n , 841 So. 2d 1273, 1278 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002) . See a l s o Ex p a r t e J a c k s o n , 733 So. 2d 456, 457-58 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) ; Ex p a r t e C o o p e r G r e e n Hosp., 519 So. 2d 1352, 1353 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 7 ) ; and Ex p a r t e S m i t h , 394 So. 2d 45, 48 ( A l a . Civ. App. 1981). A d d i t i o n a l l y , this court has stated: "'The Personnel B o a r d a c t s as the t r i e r o f f a c t s and has t h e d u t y t o r e a c h a determination regarding conflicting t e s t i m o n y . C i t y o f M o b i l e v. M i l l s , 500 So. 2d 20 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 6 ) . When t h e B o a r d u t i l i z e s a h e a r i n g o f f i c e r , h i s f i n d i n g of f a c t s i s p r e s u m e d t o be c o r r e c t . Coleman v. Alabama A l c o h o l i c Beverage C o n t r o l Board, 465 So. 2d 1158 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 5 ) . ' "Ex p a r t e C o o p e r G r e e n Hosp., 519 Ex p a r t e C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m , 7 So. App. So. 3d 363, 2d a t 1353." 367-68 (Ala. Civ. 2008). After r e v i e w i n g the record before u s , we agree w i t h C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m t h a t t h e B o a r d ' s d e c i s i o n was s u b s t a n t i a l evidence and t h a t the three-judge 16 the supported by panel erred by 2091117 failing to presented affirm the Board's to the hearing decision. officer The indicated testimony that, although t h e r e h a d b e e n some c o n f u s i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e h a n d l i n g o f VAP a t the onset o f TSA's regulations authority o f TSA were at the a i r p o r t , clear that items t h e r u l e s and i n t h e VAP b i n b e l o n g e d t o t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t a n d were t o be h a n d l e d b y TSA employees. indicating airport and Although that presented evidence a t the t o a c c e s s t h e VAP b i n a n d t h a t he h a d h a d a u t h o r i t y possessed t h e b i n , i t was on clear that Hudson a key t o t h e l o c k e d b i n and t h a t a c c e s s e d t h e b i n b y p r y i n g i t open. based some i t was s t a n d a r d o p e r a t i n g p r o c e d u r e a key t o a c c e s s longer Hudson the evidence presented properly dismissed f o r violating no he h a d Although i ti s arguable that Hudson c o u l d n o t be t h e BPD's r u l e prohibiting c o n v e r s i o n o f p r o p e r t y f o r p e r s o n a l u s e , Hudson was actually d i s m i s s e d f o r v i o l a t i n g s e v e r a l r u l e s o f b o t h t h e BPD a n d t h e Board, including rules o r d e r and d i s c i p l i n e . " conclude that prying prohibiting acts " c o n t r a r y t o good We n o t e t h a t i t i s n o t u n r e a s o n a b l e t o open a l o c k e d b i n and removing items t h e r e i n t h a t do n o t b e l o n g t o t h e p e r s o n a c c e s s i n g t h e b i n i s c o n t r a r y t o good o r d e r . As s u c h , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e B o a r d ' s 17 2091117 decision i s supported by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence and p r o p e r l y a p p l i e d t h e l a w , a n d , t h u s , i t must be u p h e l d . We t h e r e f o r e r e v e r s e t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e t h r e e - j u d g e p a n e l a n d remand t h i s cause w i t h instructions that the three-judge judgment a f f i r m i n g t h e Board's panel enter a decision. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , concur. 18 Bryan, a n d Thomas, JJ.,

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.