Judge sides with GPD Officer against City, orders GPD to hold Compliance Review Hearing

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – Judge Donna Keim has ruled in favor of Sergeant Aaron Wagle, who filed a lawsuit in February against former Gainesville Police Department (GPD) Chief Lonnie Scott, alleging violations of the Officers’ Bill of Rights. GPD must now hold a Compliance Review Hearing within 10 days.

The petition, filed by Attorney Bobi Frank, was similar to the petitions filed last year against former Sheriff Clovis Watson; Judge Keim ruled in favor of the deputies in all three of those cases, and this time she issued a ruling without requiring an evidentiary hearing.

City argued that the issue was “moot”

In the petition, Frank argued that GPD had violated Wagle’s rights by opening an investigation against him without providing the name of the complainant or a written complaint prior to his interview. Frank argued in a January email to GPD that because these were “intentional violations,” Florida statutes required that a Compliance Review Hearing be held within 10 working days. A response to Frank from an Assistant City Attorney argued that the issue was “moot” because the City believed GPD had “cured” the violations by removing the investigator from the investigation. In her petition, Frank argued that “GPD does not have the authority to ‘deny’ the invocation of a Compliance Review Board… GPD has a non-discretionary, ministerial duty to convene a Compliance Review Hearing when one is invoked.”

Judge Keim: “Defendant [the City] is incorrect.”

In her ruling, Judge Keim found that “an evidentiary hearing is not needed as the material facts are undisputed.” The Defendant (the City) had argued that Sergeant Wagle failed to follow the multi-step process outlined in statutes, but, Judge Keim wrote, “Defendant is incorrect.” She wrote that because only “some of the violations” of the Officers’ Bill of Rights were cured, “this Court finds that [Sergeant Wagle] has a clear legal right to have a Compliance Review Hearing convened.”

Judge Keim also noted that under Florida statutes, if a Compliance Review Panel finds that an alleged violation was intentional, an investigation must be initiated against the investigator who was found to have committed the violations, “for purposes of agency disciplinary action.”

Judge Keim granted Sergeant Wagle’s request for a Writ of Mandamus, ordering GPD to conduct a Compliance Review Hearing “no more than ten (10) days after the entry of this order.”

Frank told Alachua Chronicle that she is happy with the result; she added, “Now that Judge Keim has ruled against the agencies in all four cases we’ve brought forward, I hope law enforcement agencies will stop violating the Officers’ Bill of Rights.”

When Judge Keim issued a similar ruling against former Sheriff Watson last year, the Sheriff decided to reverse all disciplinary actions instead of holding the Compliance Review Hearings.

What is a Compliance Review Hearing?

A compliance review panel is made up of three members: one selected by the agency head, one selected by the officer filing the request, and a third member selected by the other two members. The panel members must be law enforcement officers from the same law enforcement discipline as the officer requesting the hearing, but panel members may be selected from any state, county, or municipal agency within Alachua County.

The panel is tasked with reviewing the circumstances and facts surrounding the alleged intentional violation of the officer’s rights to determine whether or not the investigator or agency intentionally violated the officer’s rights; the panel will not hear any evidence related to the disciplinary charges pending against the officer. The officer bears the burden of proof in establishing that the violation of rights was intentional. The determination must be made at the conclusion of the hearing, in writing.

If the panel finds that the violation was intentional, the investigator must immediately be removed from any further involvement with the investigation, and an investigation must be initiated against that investigator for purposes of agency disciplinary action. If the investigation is sustained, the allegations are forwarded to the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission for review as an act of official misconduct or misuse of position.