Owen v. City Of Independence

Facts

The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the city of Independence, Mo. (D), 'is entitled to qualified immunity from liability' based on the good faith of its officials. The City Manager of D appointed petitioner P to an indefinite term as Chief of Police. P and a new City Manager, Lyle W. Alberg, engaged in a dispute over P's administration of the Police Department's property room. A handgun, which the records of the Department's property room stated had been destroyed, turned up in Kansas City in the possession of a felon. Alberg initiated an investigation of the management of the property room. Alberg received a written report. The Police Department's records were insufficient to permit an adequate accounting of the goods contained in the property room, the City Counselor concluded that there was no evidence of any criminal acts or of any violation of state or municipal law in the administration of the property room. Alberg discussed the results with several City Council members and advised them that he would take action at an appropriate time to correct any problems in the administration of the Police Department. Alberg asked D to resign as Chief of Police and to accept another position within the Department or be terminated. D refused to resign. D having consulted with counsel, sent Alberg a letter demanding written notice of the charges against him and a public hearing with a reasonable opportunity to respond to those charges. Councilman Roberts asked for a copy of the investigative report on the Police Department property room and got the audit report and witness statements. At a City Council meeting, Roberts charged that D had misappropriated Police Department property for his own use, that narcotics and money had 'mysteriously disappeared' from his office, that traffic tickets had been manipulated, that high-ranking police officials had made 'inappropriate' requests affecting the police court, and that 'things have occurred causing the unusual release of felons.' Roberts moved that the investigative reports be released to the news media and turned over to the prosecutor for presentation to the grand jury and that the City Manager 'take all direct and appropriate action' against those persons 'involved in illegal, wrongful, or gross inefficient activities brought out in the investigative reports.' The City Council passed Roberts' motion. Alberg discharged D the very next day. P was not given any reason for his dismissal; he received only a written notice stating that his employment as Chief of Police was terminated. P's request by his attorney for an appeal of the discharge decision was denied. Alberg referred the investigative reports and witness statements for consideration by a grand jury. The results of the audit and investigation were never released to the public. The grand jury returned a 'no true bill,' and no further action was taken by either the City Council or City Manager Alberg. Of course, the press go in on the deal and had a field day with the 'scandal.' P sued Ds for violation of his procedural and substantive due process rights. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for Ds. The Court of Appeals initially reversed. It concluded that D's allegedly false public accusations had blackened P's name and reputation, thus depriving him of liberty without due process of law. The Supreme Court got the case and remanded it for further consideration. On remand, the court of appeals reaffirmed its original determination that D had violated P's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, but then held that all D, including the city, were entitled to qualified immunity. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court denying P any relief. P again appealed.  

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.