Jordan v. New Orleans Police Dept.

• Decision Date: 06 May 1957
• Docket Number: No. 43026,43026
• Citation: Jordan v. New Orleans Police Dept., 95 So.2d 607, 232 La. 926 (La. 1957)
• Parties: Arthur R. JORDAN v. NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Page 607

95 So.2d 607

232 La. 926

Arthur R. JORDAN v. NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT.

No. 43026.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 1957.

Joseph A. Gowan New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Henry B. Curtis, City Atty., Beuker F. Amann, Asst. City Atty., New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.

FOURNET, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff, Arthur T. Jordan, availing himself of the provisions of Article 14, Section 15 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1921, as amended, granting an appeal to this Court on questions of law from decisions of the Civil Service Commissions for the various cities, appeals from the ruling of the Civil Service Commission of the City of New Orleans on his appeal to that body from the action of the Superintendent of Police in fining him the loss of five days' pay and femoting him from the rank of detective to that of patrolman.

The disciplinary action against appellant followed an investigation conducted by the Chief of Detectives, the results of which were submitted to the Superintendent of Police, covering incidents which occurred shortly after 4 p.m. of Monday, January 30, 1956, on Rampart Street at the corner of Canal Street, when the appellant, off duty and not in uniform, was involved in a scuffle with two other men, as a consequence of which nearby police officers were summoned, he was arrested, taken to the police station and booked 'simple drunk,' placed in a cell and there kept until his release that night at about 10:30 p.m. The Superintendent of Police, in advising appellant of the disposition of the case, felt 'obliged to concur in the findings by the investigators,' even though mitigating circumstances were found to exist in that the appellant had not been the aggressor, had been struck a severe blow in the face by an unknown person who left the scene, and the description of the two men fitted descriptions of wanted pickpockets; yet the facts were that he was under the influence of liquor and drunk, and because of that condition he was unable to perform the police work he had undertaken¹ of arresting the pickpockets, by his actions reflecting discredit on the Department of Police.

Following a hearing the Civil Service Commission found the weight of evidence developed by the appointing authority was to the effect that appellant was in a drunken condition on the afternoon in question, and concluded as a matter of law that the appellant had failed to discharge the statutory burden of proof to establish that the action of the employing authority was arbitrary, unreasonable, or without cause.

Counsel for appellant, contending that the record contains no evidence as a matter of law to support the ruling of the...