W e no t e t hat “got hi c, ” as used her e, p ert ai ns t o a s t y l e charact eri zed by t he m acab re, m y st eri o us, outl and i sh, 1

o r v io le n t. W e b ste r’s D ic tio n a ry, a v a ilab le a t http :// w w w .m e rr ia m w e b ste r.c o m /c g i-b in/d ic tio n a ry.



### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT JAC KSON A ugus t 23 , 200 5 S es sio n CIT Y OF MEMPHI S, a Mu ni ci pa l Co rpo ra tio n v . THE CI VIL SERVI CE

COMMI SSI ON OF TH E CIT Y OF MEMPHI S, ET AL 

### . Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Shelby Cou nty No. CH-04-0432- 2 Arnold Goldin, Ch ancellor

No. W2005-00091-C OA-R3-C V - F iled October 10, 2005

Th e City of Mem ph is te rm inate d th e e mpl oyme nt o f Ja c k V inc e nt, a po lic e of fi c e r. Th e Civ il Service Commi ssion rever sed, and Memphis a ppeale d to the Shelby County Chance ry Court under a writ o f c e rtior ari . T he c hanc e ry c ou rt a ff irmed th e deci si on of

theCom mis sio n, a ndMe mph is appeals. W e re verse
. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cha nc e r y C our t R e ve r se d; and Rem anded
D AVI D R. F ARMER , J. , d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e c o u rt, in w h ic h W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., and A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J ., joined.
Sara L . Hall, CityAttorney , and C ar m al i ta Carletos-D rayton, Assistant Ci ty Attorney , for the Ap pe llant, City

of Me mph is.
Th oma s E . H a ns om, Me mph is, Te nn e sse e , f or theapp e lle e , Jac k V inc e nt.
OP IN ION

T h e facts of

t hi s ca se a re undi sput ed. A t t he t i m e of t he i nci dent g i vi ng ri se t o t hi s l aw suit , D ef end ant Ja ck V i ncen t (M r. V i ncen t ) had been a M em ph i s po l i ce of f i cer f or fou r and on e-half

y ears. H e w as f orty y ears of

age
. I n O ct ob er 20 02 , M r. V i ncen t m et a f em al e m i no r (“the m i no r”) i n an o n li n e “ go thic” ch atro o m . M r. V inc en t w as ch atti n g u n d er the n am e “ U n k lecr eep y.” T h e m ino r to ld 1 M r. V i ncen t t ha t s he w a s s e ve nt e e n y e a r s ol d, a nd M r
. V i nc e nt s a i d he w a s t hi r t y - one y e a r s of age
. O ver the nex t t w o d ay s, M r. V i ncen t and t he m i no r com m un i cat ed over the i nternet and by t el eph on e. T he m i nor t ol d M r. V i nce nt t hat h er s t epf at her s exu al l y m ol es t ed he r on a re gul ar bas i s, a nd as ked M r. V i ncen t i f

she cou l d m ov e i n w i t h h i m
. I n ex chan ge, she o f f ered to coo k, cl ean, and perform sex ualIn hi s st at em ent t o t he M em p hi s P o l i ce D ep art m ent , M r. V i ncent st at ed t hat he “ t ho ught t hey were al l of age 2 b u t t h e y w e re a lre a d y o n the re .” -2- favors
. S he al so perf

orm ed st ri pt ea se s and sexual act s i n f ront o f a com put er w eb ca m er a w hi l e M r. V i ncen t w at ched

. M r. V i ncen t arran ged t o pick t he m i no r u p f rom h er ho m e i n O akland on O ct ob er 5 , 2 0 0 2 , at 1:0 0 A M , w h en h er step fathe r w o u ld b e at w o rk . A t no ti m e d id M r. V inc en t rep o rt this
s i t ua t i on t o h i s s upe r i or s on t he M e m phi s Pol i c e Forc e , t o a ny ot he r l a w e nf or c e m e nt a g e nc y , or t o t he D epartm ent of

C hil dren ’s S ervices.

T he O akland P oli ce, F ay et t e C ou nty S herif f ’s D epartm ent, t he F B I , a nd t he M em ph i s P oli ce (c o ll ectiv ely, “ the au tho rities”) , actin g o n a c o m p laint ab o u t a p ro p o sed en co u n ter b etw een an ad u lt
a nd a m i nor w ho ha d met ov er the i nt e r ne t , i de nt i f i e d M r
. V i nc e nt a s t he a dul t

. The FBI s e t

- up su rv eill an ce o u tside M r. V inc en t’s h o m e an d the h o m e o f the m ino r in F ayett e C o u n ty

. I n the ea rly
m orn i ng h ou rs of O ct ob er 5, 2 00 2, t he autho ri t i es foll ow ed M r. V i ncen t en rou t e t o the m i no r’s ho m e. T he a ut hori t i es s t opped M r. V i nce nt bef ore he rea che d t he m i nor’s hom e. They a cc om pani ed M r. V i ncen t back t o h i s ho m e i n S helby C ou nty and t oo k p ossession o f his p e r s o n a l co m pu t er, w hich
c o n t a i n e d d o w n l o a d e d i m a g e s o f n u d e f e m a l e s , i n c l u d i n g m i n o r s , a n d u s e o f t h e s c r e e n n a me 2

“ U nk l ecreepy .” M r. V i ncen t coo perated w i t h t he au t ho ri t i es and the i nciden t did no t l ead to cri m i nal ch ar ges . H o w ev er , M r. V inc en t f ailed to re p o rt the incid en t t o the M em p h is P o li ce D ep ar tm en t.
T he C i t y o f M e m p h is (“M em ph i s”) t erm i nated M r. V i ncen t ’s em ploym ent w i t h the po l i ce dep art m ent on Jan uary 24 , 200 3, f or v i olat i on s of D R -10 4 P erson al C on du ct and D R -12 5 M em ber U nder I nv e s t i g a t i on
. M r
. Vi nc e nta pp e a l e d t o t he Ci vi l Se r vi c e Co mm i s s i on ( “t he Co mm i s s i on ” ),
w hi ch f ound “no re aso nabl e bas i s f or t er m i nat i on” a nd re ver se d. Th e C om m i ss i on re i nst at ed M r. V i nc e nt w i t h f

ul l ba c k p a y a nd be ne f

i t s
. O n M ar c h 3 , 20 04, M e m phi s pe t i t i one d u nde r a w r i t of cert i orari t o the C han cery C ou rt of S helby C ou nty

. O n Jan uary 4, 20 05 , t he ch ancery cou rt af f i rm ed t he C om m i ssi on ’s deci si on
. M em ph i s no w app eal s t o this C ou rt

. W e reverse.
Issu es P resen ted
The onl y i s s ue r a i s e d on a ppe a l i s w he t he r t he t r i a l c our t e r r e d i n a f f i r m i ng t he de t e r m i na t i on of t he Ci vi l Servi ce Co m m i ss i on t o re ver se t he d ecisio n o f the C i t y of M em phi s t o t er m i nat e M r. V inc en t. Stand ard of Review
Th is i s a n a

pp e a l f ro m th e tria l c ou rt ’s jud g me nt u nd e r a writ o f c e rtiorari. Suc h a writ i s available from administrative de cisions wher e an adminis trative boa rd or a g ency

is acting in a j u d i c i a l o r

q u a s i

- j u d i c i a l c ap a c i t y. Da v iso n v . Ca rr , 659 S.W .2d 361, 363 (Tenn. 1983) . The Te nn e sse e c od e pr ov ide s:
Th e writ o f c e rt io rari maybe g rante d w he ne ve r a uth orize d b y

la w, a nda lso in all case s wherean infe rior tribunal, boa rd, or of fice r exercising judic i al functions hasT he M emp hi s po l i ce off i cer i nv ol ved i n t he i nv es t i gat i on of M r
. V i nce nt t es t i f i ed t hat t he mi nor ’ s s t epf at her 3

was subseq uent l y arres t ed and charged wi t h sexual ab use. H e f urt her t est i f

i ed t hat he b el i eved t he st ep f at her “ p l ed ” and
w a s inc a rc e ra te d

. -3- exceede d the jurisdiction c onfer red, or is a cting illegally , when, in the judgme nt of the court, there is no other plain, speedy , or ade quate r emedy

. Tenn. Code Ann. § 27- 8-101 (2000)

. The c ourt’s re vi ew u n d er such a w rit is lim ited to whether the inferior board or

tribunal e x c e e d e d i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n o r a c t e di l l e g a l l y, ar

b i tr ar i l y, o r

f r au d u l e n t l y. Mc Cal le n v . Ci ty of M e mp his , 78 6 S. W.2 d 6 33 , 6 40 (T e nn . 199 0)

. Th e re vie wi ng c ou rt do e s n ot r e -w e ig h th e e vid e nc e , b ut mus t u p h o l dt h e b o ar d ’ s d e c i s i o n i f t h e b o ar da c t e dw i t h i n i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n a n dd i dn o ta c ti l l e g a l l y, arbitra rily , or fr audulently . A board’ s determination is arbitra ry and void if it is unsupported by any materia l evidence

. W

att s v . Civil Se rv . B d. of Colu mb ia , 606 S.W .2d 274, 276-77 (Te nn. 1980). Whether m aterial evidenc e supports the boar d’s dec ision is a question of law to be dec ided by the revie wing court ba sed on the e vidence s u b m i tted to the board. Id. at 277. Our r eview of the trial c ou rt ’s c on c lus ion s o n matte rs of la w i s de novo with no presumption of cor rec tness. Bowden v. W ar d , 27 S.W .3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000) ; Tenn. R. App P. 13(d). Ho weve r, this Court’s scope of revie w of the boa

rd’s de termination “is no broa der or more compre hensive than that of the trial court with respec t to evidence prese nted bef ore the [b] oard.” W

att s , 606 S.W .2d at 277.
Ana lys is As an initial matter, we note that Memphis does not contend that the Commi ssion acted illegally or fr audulently

. It submits only that the Commi ssion’s de terminations wer e not supported by su bs ta nti a l a ndmate ri a l e vid e nc e in l ig ht o f t he e nti rere c or d. We a lso no te that, i n it s b ri e f t o this Court, Memphis does not a rg ue that the Commi ssion e rre d in r ever sing the termination of Mr. Vi nc e nt u nd e r D R 12 5 - Me mbe r U nd e r Inv e sti g a tio n. Rathe r, in i ts a rg ume nt s e c tio n, Me mph is asserts onlythat the Commiss ion e rre d in reve rsing the termination of Mr. V incent under DR 104 - Pe rs on a l Co nd uc t. A c c or din g ly , w e c on fi ne ou r r e vie w t o w he the r the reis m a te ri a l e vid e nc e in this re c or d to su pp ort th e Com mis sio n’ s d e te rm inatio n th a t th e rewa s no re a so na bleba sis to t e rm inate Mr. Vince nt’s employ ment under D R 104.
Mr . V inc e nt s tate d du ri ng the inv e sti g a tio n of thi s matte r a ndarg ue s to thi s Co urt th a t hedid no t in te ndto e xploi t the min or fe ma le in thi s c a se , bu t on ly so ug ht to re mov e he r fr om an a dmi tte dly ho rrif ic ho me e nv ir on me nt i n o rd e r to hel p her. He s ub mit s th a t hesimply didno t kn ow ho w t o 3 handle this situation. During the course of the investigation of this matter , howeve r, on Oc tober 23, 2002, he stated,
I told my self this is wrong , y ou can’ t do this. This is not the way to handle it. And ah I g ot online and I

did te ll he r so and it just seeme d like I let her dow n so much I-4-

wa s a fr a id s he mig ht be su ic idal and ah I sa id we ’l l just g o ah e a d andg o th ro ug h w ith it.
Wit h reg ard to ter

mination under DR 104, the majority of the Commission s tated:
Wit h respe ct to D R104 - Personal Conduct, the Commi ssion g rapple d with the nature of the “ relationship” betwee n the minor and Vinc ent and Vinc ent’ s Consti tutional Right to Privacy . Howeve r, it was not shown that Vi n ce n t i n an y way encour ag ed inappropriate beha vior on the part of the minor, nor did he en g ag e in any of the behavior outside the privac y

of hi s h o m e. Further, while V incent admitted that he saw the minor nude via a we b-cam and re ceive d a re quest from he r to provide sexual favor s, he neve r enc ourag ed, re quested, or a g ree d to anything.
Moreove r, Vince nt testified that he wa s attempting to re move the m i n o r fr o m her situation, not t o further

exploi t her. The Commi s s i o n co n cedes that there was testimonyVincent said that his intent was to “ exploi t he r for sexual be nefit,” but the Commi ssion does not find this t estimony completely

cre dible.
F or the se re a so ns thi s Com mis sio n f ind s, in a sp lit de c isi on , th a t th e City ’s a c tio n to terminate O ffice r Vince nt for violation of DR-104 - Per sonal Con duct, was not rea sonable unde r the c ircumstance s. The “ dissent”, howeve r, whil e conc urring with the majority ’s re versa l of termination base d on DR 12 5, state d: [T] his Comm issioner fee ls that Vincent’s c ond u ct was unbecoming of a Police Of fi c e r. Ev e n a ssu min g that he didno t have a pr urie nt i nte re st i n th e min or a ndon ly ma int a ine d a

re latio ns hip in o rd e r t o he lp he r with he r d ome sti c situatio n, he c le arl y we nt abo ut it in the wr on g way
. He a dmi tte d that he wa s no t train ed t o h and le situations such as the one this minor was fa cing , and he n eglec ted to g et social worke rs, Child and FamilyService s, or psy cholog ical counse lors involved. Further, by choosing to p ic k

u p th e mi n o r

a t th e ti mea n dinth e man n e r inw h ic h he attempted, eve n if his motives were pur e, he g ave the appea ranc e of impropriety

. For these reasons, thi s Commi ssioner feels that Vincent’ s behavior violate d DR104- Pe rs on a l Co nd uc t, b ut c on c ur s w ith the plu rality that the re wa s n ot a re a so na bleba sis for termination.
As we unde rstand this opinion, the m inority Commi ssioner found Mr. Vincent had, in fac t, violated DR 104, but that the violation did not pr ovide a “re asonable basis” for termination. Acc ording ly , we perc eive the minority

not to have dissented f

rom the judg ment, but only from the finding that Mr. Vincent ha d not violated DR 104.-5-

Th e tria l c ou rt ’s or de r o n r e vie w o f the Com mis sio n’ s d e c isi on state s: [T] he C ourt

. . . must determine whe ther ther e is substantial and material evidenc e to support the Commi ssion’s decision.
It further appea ring to the Court that while the evidenc e is suc h that the Civil Service Commi ssion might have determined the issues in f avor or either side, the Court finds no basis on which to overturn or re verse that decision.
Th us , th e tria l c ou rt app are ntl y de te rm ine d th a t th e reis m a te ri a l e vid e nc e in this c a se to s up po rt bo th the termination of Mr. V incent under DR 104 and the Commission’s decision to reve rse the decision to terminate.
DR10 4 p ro vid e s: The c on du c t of

e a c h me mbe r, bo th on a nd of f du ty , is e xpe c te d to be su c h th a t it wi ll not refle ct adve rsely

on other members, the Department, t he C ity of Memphis , or the law enf orce ment profe ssion. This regu l at i o n appli es to both the professional and private conduc t

of a ll m e mbe rs . It pr oh ibi ts any a nda ll conduct

wh i ch i s contrary to the letter and spirit of dep ar t m en tal policy and proc edurewhich would re flec t adver sely upon the Department or its members. It includes not only unlawful a cts by members but also a cts which, althoug h not unla wful in the mselves, would violate the L aw Enf orce ment Code of Ethics, and w ould deg radeor bring d i s respect upon the member or

the Depa rtment. (Emphasis adde d.)
The fa cts reg arding Mr. Vince nt’s conduct in this case are entirely undisputed. Over a period of seve ral day s, Mr. Vince nt eng ag ed in “chats” with a fema le he knew to be a minor; w atche d her perf orm sever al sexual a cts via internet video came ra; failed to notify either the Police Depa rtment o r th e D e p artm e n t o f Ch il d r e n ’ s Se r v ic e s o f a ll e g a ti o n s o f s e xu a l ab u s e b y h e r s te p f a the r; and arr a ng e d to take he r f

ro m he r h omein the mid dleof thenig ht. Th e on lyun c e rt a inty app e ars to revolve around Mr . Vincent’ s intentions in attempti n g to remove he r fr om her home, w hich the Commi ssion appear s to have found to ha ve bee n to help her. DR 104, howeve r, see ks to reg ulate the conduct of Me mph is p oli c e of

fi c e rs , n ot the ir int e nti on s. I n th is c a se , w hate ve r M r. Vi nc e nt’ s in te nti on s may ha ve be e n at the tim e he se t ou t to take the minor f

rom her home , his conduct unquestionably ref lects adver sely

on the member s of the Memphis Poli ce D epartment, the City of Memphis, and the law e nforc ement prof ession. Moreove r, wi t h o u to p i n i n g o n wh et h erwa t ch i n g a fema le known to be a minor pe rf orm se xua lly

e xplic it a c ts via a n int e r n e tv i d e o c a m e r a i s w i t h i n o n e ’ s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h tt o p r i v a c y , s u c h c o n d u c tc l e a rl y ref lects adver sely

on the Memphis Police Depa rtment. More sig nificantly , despite Mr. Vinc ent’s contention that he did not know how to handle this situation, his statement clearly indicates that he knew his conduc t was “not the w ay to handle it.” This undisputedly was not an e merg ency

situation requiring a quick de cision, and Mr. Vinc ent knowing ly h an d le d th es it u ati o n inappropriately , without-6-

seeking assistance or g uidance , and in a manne r which r efle ct s neg atively on the Memphis Police Depa rtment.
We disa g ree with the Commi ssion that there is no rea sonable basis for termination under DR10 4 inlig ht o f Mr

. Vi nc e nt’ s c on du c t. Mr

. Vi nc e nt e ng a g e d in an in te rn e t “ re latio ns hip ” wi th a minor fe male over

a period of sever al day s. He watched the minor eng ag e in sex ual ac tivitymore than once

. He ag ree d to take the minor away from her home in the middle of the nig ht. Mr. Vincent failed to see k assistance from the Police De partment or the Depa rtment of Children’s Services.
We also re sp e c tf

ull y dis a g re e wi th the tria l c ou rt that th e reis m a te ri a l e vid e nc e in this c a se to support the Commi ssion’s determination that therewas n o reasonable ba sis to terminate Mr. Vincent’ s employ ment with the M emphis Police Depa rtment under D R 104. Mr. Vincent’s c onduct clea rly provided a

rea sonable ba sis for termination under DR 104. Moreove r, thereis no evidence in this record th at M r. Vi n ce n t’s conduct wa s not in viol ation of DR 104, whate ver his intentions might havebeen.
Hol ding
The Com mission’s determination that there was no rea sonable basis for termination of Mr. Vincent unde r DR 104 - P er s o n al C onduct is not supported by the material evidenc e in this case. Acc ording ly , we r ever se the judg ment of the trial court and uphold the determination of the Cityof Memphis to terminate Mr. Vincent’ s employ ment with the Memphis Police D epartment. Costs of thi s a pp e a l areta xedto the Ap pe lle e Jac k V inc e nt.

___________________________________ DAVID R. FARMER, J UDGE