Hopkins v. Mayor & Council of City of Wilmington

• Citation: 600 F. Supp. 542
• Decision Date: 26 December 1984
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 82-677 MMS.
• Parties: Warren V. HOPKINS, Plaintiff, v. The MAYOR & COUNCIL OF the CITY OF WILMINGTON, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware

600 F. Supp. 542

Warren V. HOPKINS, Plaintiff, v. The MAYOR & COUNCIL OF the CITY OF WILMINGTON, et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 82-677 MMS.

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

December 26, 1984.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Sheldon N. Sandler, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, Wilmington, Del., for plaintiff.

Jeffrey S. Goddess, Saul, Ewing, Remick & Saul, Wilmington, Del., for defendants.

OPINION

MURRAY M. SCHWARTZ, District Judge.

This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. The plaintiff, Sergeant Warren A. Hopkins, was employed by the defendant, the City of Wilmington ("the City") since November 14, 1966, as a member of the Department of Police ("the Department"). On March 26, 1982, Hopkins was arrested by the Wilmington Police on drug charges and immediately suspended from the force without pay. After an administrative hearing and appeal, the Department terminated Hopkins' employment. Hopkins subsequently instituted this action for injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief against the Mayor and Council of the City of Wilmington and various officers of the City and the Department in their individual and official capacities.¹ He claims that his suspension and eventual termination were effectuated in violation of his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The action is presently before the Court on cross motions for summary judgment.

I. FACTS

For purposes of this motion, the material facts are undisputed. At the time of his discharge, plaintiff was a sergeant in the Detective Division of the Wilmington Police Department with fifteen years of service. In early March, 1982, Detective Dennis Williams, then a subordinate of Hopkins, received information from an unidentified party implicating Hopkins and his girl-friend, Nancy Carter, in drug trafficking.² After the information was passed through appropriate police channels, a full investigation was ordered.³ As a result of this investigation, a warrant was issued authorizing a search of Ms. Carter's residence. On March 25, 1982, police followed Hopkins to Carter's home and waited outside until they were sure the couple was asleep. They returned early the next morning to execute the warrant.⁴ A thorough search of the second floor bedroom where Hopkins and Carter were sleeping revealed drugs and drug paraphernalia,⁵ some of which were in plain view. Hopkins and Carter were arrested and charged with possession with intent to deliver controlled substances —marijuana and amphetamines,⁶— but the charges against Hopkins were later reduced to simple possession.⁷ At 9:30 that same morning, Hopkins was suspended from the force without pay pending a hearing before a complaint hearing board. Although he was personally informed of his suspension, he was not apprised of the departmental charges against him nor was he given an opportunity to discuss the facts or explain his position.

Twenty-five days later, on April 20, 1982, Hopkins received written notification that a trial board hearing was scheduled for April 28, 1982.⁸ Attached to the hearing notice was a letter informing Hopkins for the first time that he was charged with violation of the Department's good conduct regulation⁹ because he had been found in possession of marijuana and amphetamines.¹⁰ At the request of Hopkins' attorney, the hearing was postponed until May 13, 1982. It was again postponed until May 25, 1982, for reasons which are in dispute.¹¹ After the hearing was finally held, the board concluded that Hopkins had been in possession of marijuana. The board found such conduct to be "prejudicial to the good order and best interests of the Police Department" and recommended that Hopkins be dismissed.¹²

Sergeant Hopkins appealed the recommendation to a three member panel that included the Chief of Police, Dennis Regan. Chief Regan had been involved in the earlier investigation of Hopkins and stated in his deposition that at the time of the appeal board hearing he mistakenly believed the trial board determined Hopkins had sold and used drugs, though the trial board found only that Hopkins possessed marijuana.¹³ After hearing argument from Hopkins' attorney and the Department prosecutor,¹⁴ the appeal board, on June 29, 1982, upheld the penalty of discharge and Hopkins was dismissed. On July 28, 1982, all criminal charges against Hopkins were nolle prossed by the state prosecutor.

Hopkins subsequently filed this action in federal district court alleging 1) his suspension and termination were effectuated in violation of procedural due process,¹⁵ 2) the Department conduct regulation was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad,¹⁶ 3) the Department action violated his rights to privacy¹⁷ and substantive due process, and 4) the penalty imposed by the Department violated his right to equal protection of the laws.

II. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

A. Plaintiff's Property Interest

Plaintiff has challenged two distinct actions in this suit: first, his summary suspension without pay, beginning on March 26, 1982, and second, his termination from employment after an administrative hearing and appeal. The propriety of both actions must be tested against the appropriate constitutional framework. As in any procedural due process analysis, the Court must consider whether plaintiff was deprived of a liberty or property interest sufficient to invoke the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause and if so, whether the procedures followed complied with the minimum requirements of the Constitution. The parties do not dispute plaintiff had a constitutionally protected right to continued employment as a permanent employee of the Wilmington Police Department. That right prevented either suspension without pay or termination from his position without due process of law. See Hayes v. City of Wilmington, 451 F.Supp. 696, 706 (D.Del.1978); accord Doe v. Anker, 451 F.Supp. 241 (S.D.N.Y.1978), remanded without opinion, Doe v. Sandner, 614 F.2d 1286 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 986, 100 S.Ct. 2970, 64 L.Ed.2d 844 (1980). There remains the more difficult question whether the process afforded to plaintiff was sufficient for Fourteenth Amendment purposes.

B. The Suspension Without Pay

Sergeant Hopkins was initially deprived of his right to paid employment with the Wilmington Police Department when he was suspended on March 26, 1982. Hopkins was given no notice of the charges against him¹⁸ and no opportunity to speak on his own behalf. The Department's due process protections were not triggered until over three weeks later when Hopkins received written notification that he was accused of violating the police conduct regulation and that a hearing was scheduled for the following week. Hopkins does not suggest that a full evidentiary hearing should have been held prior to the deprivation, but argues that the Department could not constitutionally dispense with all procedural safeguards until twenty-five days after his suspension. The issue is thus whether, despite the existence of post-deprivation process, some earlier additional process was necessary to comport with the constitutional minimum.

The requirements of notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner are fundamental to the concept of procedural due process. See, e.g., Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970). The "timing and content of the notice and the nature of the hearing will depend upon an appropriate accommodation of the competing interests involved." Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 579, 95 S.Ct. 729, 738, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975). As a general rule, an opportunity for notice and "some kind of hearing" must precede the deprivation. See Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 379, 91 S.Ct. 780, 786, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); accord Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. at 582, 95 S.Ct. at 740. Occasionally, however, circumstances warrant immediate government action without pause for extensive procedural precautions. Such action must be measured against the considerations set forth by the Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), to determine if minimal constitutional requirements are met. Thus, the Court must evaluate: "first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest including the function involved and the fiscal or administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail." Id. at 333, 96 S.Ct. at 902.

It has been recognized that a city employee's interest in the uninterrupted receipt of his salary and continuation of the benefits of employment is significant. Hayes v. City of Wilmington, 451 F.Supp. 696 (D.Del.1978). When deprivation of that interest is temporary in nature, as in the case of a short, finite disciplinary suspension, the impact on the individual is most often less severe than when termination of employment has been imposed. See id. at 708. A lesser degree of process is acceptable in connection with a temporary suspension if the government interest is strong and immediacy great.

The distinctions between suspension and termination are blurred, however, where imposition of the former is for an indefinite period culminating in an assessment of whether termination is in order. Indeed, when suspension deprives one of all the benefits of employment, subject to restitution only if the decision was erroneous, the impact on the individual is essentially indistinguishable from the effect of a decision to terminate an employee subject to reinstatement with back pay upon reversal of that decision. See Thurston v. Dekle, 531 F.2d 1264,...