Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_04-cv-00219/USCOURTS-ared-4_04-cv-00219-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

 WESTERN DIVISION

STEVE SALE PLAINTIFF

vs. CASE NO. 4:04CV00219GH

PHIL MASK DEFENDANT

ORDER

Plaintiff brings this action alleging that defendant terminated him in violation

of his constitutional rights, as well as his rights under state law. The gravamen of

plaintiff’s complaint is that he was terminated in retaliation for exercising his First

Amendment right to free speech. 

In early 2002, plaintiff was hired as a full-time patrol officer with the Saline

County Sheriff’s Department. During his tenure as a patrol officer, plaintiff contends

that he began to discover and accumulate evidence and information regarding unlawful

conduct on the part of various officers assigned to the Criminal Investigation Division

(“CID”) of the Saline County Sheriff’s Department. Plaintiff claims that he and two

other patrol officers, Ralph Lee Lobbs and Chris Runnells, obtained information that

various members of the CID under Lieutenant Andrews’ command promised female

arrestees that no charges would be filed in exchange for sex, passed on information to

various drug dealers to prevent their arrest in exchange for money, and accepted

money from drug dealers in exchange for not arresting them. Plaintiff further

contends that he obtained information that members of the CID were getting charges

dropped against various drug dealers who had been arrested by other police officers in

exchange for false statements against police officers and other defendants. Plaintiff

Case 4:04-cv-00219-GH Document 36 Filed 07/15/05 Page 1 of 10
-2-

states that he reported these allegations to defendant, Phil Mask, who was the Sheriff

and other supervisors. 

Plaintiff states that at some point Lt. Andrews became aware of the information

that was gathered by Lobbs and plaintiff, but was unaware of Runnells’ involvement.

Runnells was called to a meeting at which Lt. Andrews, Sergeant Gay and Sergeant

Sandy Romeo attended. Runnells wore a microphone and secretly taped the meeting.

During the meeting, Lt. Andrews stated that he “would give his left nut” to take down

plaintiff and that he wanted Deputy Runnells to participate in a scheme to get plaintiff

fired. 

After this meeting, Runnells, Lobbs and plaintiff presented Sheriff Mask with

a tape of the meeting as well as the information they had obtained of wrongdoing in

the CID. Captain Wes Skinner and Lieutenant Tom Barnard were also in attendance

at the meeting with Mask. Mask promised to take care of the situation and to

investigate the wrongdoing. 

After the meeting with Mask, plaintiff was promoted to Corporal. Plaintiff avers

that the promotion was an attempt by Mask to prevent plaintiff from continuing to

investigate and report wrongdoing by members of the CID. He contends that because

he refused to overlook the unlawful conduct, Mask began to exert pressure on plaintiff

by making him the target of internal investigations for alleged wrongdoing. Plaintiff

states that he was the target of several internal investigations, all of which occurred

after having made Mask aware of Runnells’ tape. Plaintiff was cleared of wrongdoing

except for the final one which resulted in his termination. 

The internal investigation which resulted in the March 27, 2003 termination,

arose from a search and arrest of Brian Stoker that plaintiff conducted in September,

2002. Plaintiff contends that the internal investigation also occurred soon after Mask

Case 4:04-cv-00219-GH Document 36 Filed 07/15/05 Page 2 of 10
-3-

was informed that plaintiff was going to file a lawsuit claiming violation of his First

Amendment rights. 

The reasons asserted by Mask for plaintiff’s termination were: “1. Falsifying

sheriff’s department’s official documents, illegal search & seizure. 2. Insubordination.

3. Failure to comply with agreed and signed ‘Garrity Warning.” 4. Entering a

residence illegally without consent.” (Exhibit A to defendant’s motion for summary

judgment). 

Plaintiff argues that the termination was in retaliation for his protected activity.

He also contends that his constitutional rights and his rights under state law were

violated when he was denied the right of counsel to be present during the polygraph.

Qualified Immunity

Defendant asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. The inquiry

requires that the Court first determine whether the facts as asserted by the plaintiff

show that defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right. If the answer is no,

defendant is entitled to summary judgment. If the answer is yes, the Court must next

determine whether the right was clearly established, that is, that a reasonable official

would understand that what he is doing violates plaintiff’s rights. Powell v. Johnson,

405 F. 3d 652 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Defendant contends that plaintiff has failed to establish violation of a

constitutional right. He relies on plaintiff’s assertion that he was terminated because

he wanted his attorney present during the polygraph examination. Defendant states

that plaintiff does not have a Fifth or Sixth Amendment right to have an attorney

present during a polygraph examination given during a administrative investigation.

The issue was addressed by the Eighth Circuit in Hill v. Johnson, 160 F.3d 469

(8th Cir. 1998). 

Case 4:04-cv-00219-GH Document 36 Filed 07/15/05 Page 3 of 10
-4-

The [Fifth] Amendment is violated when public employees are compelled

to testify by employers who require the employees to either incriminate

themselves or to forfeit their jobs. See Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 497-98, 87 S.Ct. 616, 17 L.Ed.2d 562 (1967); Uniformed Sanitation

Men, 392 U.S. at 284, 88 S.Ct. 1917. As long as a public employer does

not demand that the public employee relinquish the employee's

constitutional immunity from prosecution, however, the employee can be

required to either testify about performance of official duties or to forfeit

employment. See Uniformed Sanitation Men, 392 U.S. at 284, 88 S.Ct.

1917; Gulden v. McCorkle, 680 F.2d 1070, 1073-74 (5th Cir.1982). Given

"the important public interest in securing from public employees an

accounting of their public trust[,][p]ublic employees may constitutionally

be discharged for refusing to answer potentially incriminating questions

concerning their official duties if they have not been required to

surrender their constitutional immunity." Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801, 806, 97 S.Ct. 2132, 53 L.Ed.2d 1 (1977). The Fifth Amendment

is violated only by the combined risks of both compelling the employee to

answer incriminating questions and compelling the employee to waive

immunity from the use of those answers. See Harrison v. Wille, 132 F.3d 679, 682 (11th Cir.1998).

Id. at 471.

Under Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), statements made by a police

officer during the course of an internal investigation cannot be used against the officer

in subsequent criminal proceedings. 

In this case, plaintiff was informed of his rights, which was entitled “GARRITY

WARNING.” This form stated as follows:

This is and [sic] official administrative inquiry regarding misconduct or

improper performance of official duties. In accordance with the Privacy

Act of 1974 you are advised that the authority to conduct this interview

is contained in Title 28, code [sic] of Federal Regulations, Section 0.137

and 0.85(c).

This inquiry pertains to Falsifying Police Documents.

This purpose of this interview is to obtain information which will assist

in the determination of whether administrative action is warranted.

You are going to be asked a number of specific questions regarding the

performance of your official duties.

You have a duty to reply to these questions, and agency disciplinary

action, including dismissal, may be undertaken if you refuse to answer or

fail to reply fully and truthfully..

Case 4:04-cv-00219-GH Document 36 Filed 07/15/05 Page 4 of 10
-5-

Nether your answers nor any information or evidence gained by reason

of your answers can be used against you in criminal proceeding, except

that if you knowingly and willfully provide false statements or

information in your answers, you may be criminally prosecuted for that

action. The answers you furnish and any information or evidence

resulting there from may be used in the course of agency disciplinary

proceedings, which could result in disciplinary action, including

dismissal.

The form, signed by plaintiff on March 21, 2003, acknowledged that plaintiff had

read and understood his rights and obligations as set forth in the warning. Because

he “was not asked to waive his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination to

answer job-related questions, his dismissal for refusal to answer does not violate that

privilege.” Hill, 160 F.3d at 471.

Relying on Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-702, plaintiff contends that he was entitled

to counsel under Arkansas law. That section provides:

 Prior to administering any psychological evaluation tests, the person to

whom the test is administered must be warned prior to any questioning

that:

(1) He or she has a right to remain silent;

(2) Anything he or she says can be used against him in a court of law;

(3) He or she has the right to the presence of an attorney; and

(4) If he or she cannot afford an attorney, one may be appointed for him

or her prior to his or her questioning if he or she so desires

Defendant argues that the statute applies to criminal situations. Plaintiff cites

an unpublished opinion by Judge Moody finding that Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-702 is not

limited to criminal investigations. Rauls, Bones and King v. Tolson, 5:00CV00348

JMM (E. D. Ark. July 19, 2001, docket entry 53). The Court is not persuaded that the

Rauls holding is controlling in this instance. There is no discussion of Garrity and no

indication that the plaintiff had been given a Garrity warning. 

Case 4:04-cv-00219-GH Document 36 Filed 07/15/05 Page 5 of 10
-6-

Even assuming that there is a right to counsel in administrative investigations

under Arkansas law, the Court cannot find that the right was clearly established.

Judge Moody’s unpublished decision is the only one addressing the Arkansas statute.

The overwhelming majority of cases have found that “that when a public employer

conducts an internal investigation it may dismiss an employee who refuses to answer

investigative questions, but it may not use any incriminating statements against the

employee in a criminal prosecution regarding the matter under investigation.”

McKinley v. City of Mansfield, 404 F. 3d 418, 423 (6th Cir. 2005). See also Grabinger

v. Conlisk, 320 F. Supp. 1213 (no Fifth or Sixth Amendment violation where police

officers suspended for refusing to take polygraph when they were denied presence of

counsel)

Thus, the Court finds that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on

plaintiff’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims.

There is no doubt that plaintiff has properly alleged a violation of his First

Amendment right, that is not to be discharged in retaliation for exercising his right to

free speech. To determine whether the right was clearly established, the Court must

first determine whether the speech is protected by the First Amendment. The

determination involves a two-step inquiry; first whether the speech can be fairly

characterized as constituting speech on a matter of public concern and second, if the

speech is a matter of public concern, then the Court must apply the Pickering balance

test, which requires the Court to balance the interests of the employee as citizen to

comment upon matters of public concern with the interests of the employer in

promoting the efficiency of public services it performs through its employees. Sexton

v. Martin, 210 F. 3d 905, 910 (8th Cir. 2000).

Allegations of potential misconduct by public officers involve matters of public

concern. Id. (citing cases) . “Complaints to superiors or private communications with

Case 4:04-cv-00219-GH Document 36 Filed 07/15/05 Page 6 of 10
1

This allegation was not raised in the complaint but was raised for the first time in his

response to the motion for summary judgment.

-7-

an employer about matters of public concern are also protected under the first

amendment.” Campbell v. Arkansas Dept. of Correction, 155 F.3d 950, 959 (8th Cir.

1998). See also Powell, 405 F. 3d 652 (officer’s criticism of Sheriff Department’s

promotion policies was protected activity). Here, plaintiff’s speech is not purely jobrelated but involves alleged wrongdoing in the Sheriff’s Department. The Court is of

the opinion that the allegations involve matters of public concern and therefore are

protected speech.

 As to the next step in the process, the Pickering balance, defendant has not

presented sufficient evidence to show that plaintiff’s speech had an adverse impact on

or disrupted the operations of the Sheriff’s Department. See Sexton, 210 F. 3d at 912-

913. 

The Court therefore concludes that at the time of plaintiff’s termination the law

was clearly established that defendant could not retaliate against plaintiff for

exercising his First Amendment right to free speech, and defendant is not entitled to

qualified immunity on plaintiff’s First Amendment claim. 

Plaintiff also contends that his rights to due process were violated when he was

denied a name-clearing hearing.1

 To establish his entitlement to a "name-clearing

hearing," the aggrieved employee must show that: “1) the public employer's reasons for

the discharge stigmatized the employee by seriously damaging his standing and

association in the community or by foreclosing employment opportunities that may

otherwise have been available; 2) the public employer made the reason or reasons

public; and 3) the employee denied the charges that led to the employee's firing. . . . 

Case 4:04-cv-00219-GH Document 36 Filed 07/15/05 Page 7 of 10
-8-

The requisite stigma has been found when the allegations involve ‘dishonesty,

immorality, criminality, racism, or the like.’ “Gibson v. Caruthersville School Dist. No.

8 , 336 F.3d 768, 773 (8th Cir. 2003)(citations omitted)

Here, plaintiff has submitted an affidavit contending that his termination was

the subject of newspaper reports and that he has been stigmatized in the community.

He was arrested at his home on suspicion of having committed three felonies and three

misdemeanors during the September, 2002, arrest, charges of which he was later

cleared. Plaintiff contends that he was terminated under allegations of misconduct,

including dishonesty, and that these allegations were widespread.. 

The Court finds that plaintiff has stated a claim for a Fourteenth Amendment

due process violation. The right to a name clearing hearing was clearly established at

the time of plaintiff’s termination. See e.g., Shands v. City of Kennett, 993 F. 2d

1337, 1348 (8th Cir. 1993). Thus, the Court finds that defendant is not entitled to

qualified immunity for plaintiff’s due process claim.

Summary Judgment

Defendant argues that summary judgment on the merits of plaintiff’s claim is

proper. He argues that the evidence reveals that plaintiff was discharged for

legitimate reasons, and not for exercise of First Amendment protected speech. To

establish a claim of unlawful First Amendment retaliation, plaintiff “must show that

he suffered an adverse employment action that was casually connected to his

participation in a protected activity. . . Once the employee satisfies his initial burden,

the burden shifts to the employer to show a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for

his or her actions. . . If the employer meets this burden, the burden shifts back to the

employee to show that [the] employer’s actions were a pretext for illegal retaliation.”

Duffy v. McPhillips, 276 F. 3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2002). 

Case 4:04-cv-00219-GH Document 36 Filed 07/15/05 Page 8 of 10
-9-

Here, the Court finds that the evidence submitted clearly reveals that a factual

dispute exists as to the real reason for plaintiff’s termination. For example, the

reasons for the internal investigation and the manner in which it was conducted are

suspect. The investigation occurred about six months after the incident. There is

evidence that the complaining officers were told to change their statements to support

allegations of misconduct by plaintiff. Furthermore, although defendant contends that

Department policy required plaintiff to submit to a polygraph examination, there is

evidence that a polygraph was not required in every internal investigation, and other

individuals involved in the September, 2002, incident were either not interviewed or

given a polygraph examination. 

Additionally, plaintiff has submitted evidence that officers who had engaged in

arguably more egregious misconduct than that attributed to plaintiff were not as

harshly disciplined. 

In sum, the Court finds that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to

whether plaintiff’s speech was a substantial or motivating factor in his termination.

Graves v. Arkansas Dept. of Finance and Admin., 229 F.3d 721, 723 (8th Cir. 2000)

Similarly, the facts are in dispute with regard to plaintiff’s allegation that he

was denied a name-clearing hearing. Thus, defendant is not entitled to summary

judgment on this claim.

To the extent plaintiff brings a claim for breach of contract under state law, that

claim must be dismissed. Under Arkansas law, plaintiff was an at-will employee. He

has not presented any evidence of an actual or implied employment contract. 

Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in

part. Defendant is granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims of violation of his

rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Additionally, plaintiff’s claim for

Case 4:04-cv-00219-GH Document 36 Filed 07/15/05 Page 9 of 10
-10-

breach of contract is dismissed. In all other aspects, the motion for summary judgment

is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of July, 2005.

___________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:04-cv-00219-GH Document 36 Filed 07/15/05 Page 10 of 10