Opinion ID: 152551
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Municipal LiabilityPolicymaker

Text: The first requirement for imposing municipal liability is proof that an official policymaker with actual or constructive knowledge of the constitutional violation acted on behalf of the municipality. Cox v. City of Dallas, Tex., 430 F.3d 734, 748-49 (5th Cir.2005). A policymaker is one who takes the place of the governing body in a designated area of city administration. Webster v. City of Houston, 735 F.2d 838, 841 (5th Cir.1984) (en banc). He or she must decide the goals for a particular city function and devise the means of achieving those goals. Bennett v. City of Slidell, 728 F.2d 762, 769 (5th Cir.1984) (en banc). Zarnow insists that Chief Coughlin acted as the City's policymaker and was actively aware of the errant plain view policy used in the seizure of items from her home. A city's governing body may delegate policymaking authority (1) by express statement or formal action or (2) it may, by its conduct or practice, encourage or acknowledge the agent in a policymaking role. Id. There is no express delegation here. As evidence of the City's conduct or practice, Zarnow produced several General Orders issued by the chief of police to the police department. [1] Each General Order begins with the language, It is the policy of this department ... and proceeds to set out regulations addressing specific behaviors. These orders are binding on the officers until reviewed, altered, or changed by the City Manager or City Council. Zarnow asserts that the chief's general power to issue such orders establishes a custom by which the chief creates law enforcement policy for the City. See Gros v. City of Grand Prairie, Tex., 181 F.3d 613, 616 (5th Cir.1999). The City, on the other hand, contends that Chief Coughlin was a decisionmaker but not an official policymaker for the City. There is a fine distinction between a policymaker and a decisionmaker. Jett v. Dall. Indep. Sch. Dist., 7 F.3d 1241, 1247 (5th Cir.1993). The fact that an official's decisions are final is insufficient to demonstrate policymaker status. Id. at 1248. The City employs state law as evidence that Coughlin is not a policymaker. Wichita Falls is a home rule city according to Texas Law. Its powers are limited only by the Texas Constitution, state statutes, and the City's Charter. Tex. Loc. Gov. Code § 51.072 (Vernon 2001). In Wichita Falls, the City Council and City Manager hold general legislative and executive powers. The City insists that the City Manager and City Council have the relevant authority over the police department as established by Article 12 of the City Charter: The police department shall be under the direction of a chief of police, who shall be appointed by the city manager and who, subject to the supervision of the city manager and to such rules regulations and orders prescribed by the city manager not inconsistent with the City Charter and ordinances, shall have immediate control and direction of such department.... This is the kind of authority, the City argues, that equates to policymaking authority in the specific department where the constitutional deprivation occurred. McMillian v. Monroe Cnty., Ala., 520 U.S. 781, 786-87, 117 S.Ct. 1734, 138 L.Ed.2d 1 (1997). Relying on Article 12, the City insists that the City Manager has supervisory authority over the police chief. This type of review of the police chief's actions demonstrates, the City argues, that he is not a final policymaker. See Colle v. Brazos Cnty., Tex., 981 F.2d 237, 244-45 (5th Cir. 1993). The nature of the administrative oversight is important in determining policymaker status. An official may be a policymaker even if a separate governing body retains some powers. See Bennett, 728 F.2d at 769. An official may be termed a policymaker even if the municipality retains the prerogative of the purse and final legal control by which it may limit or revoke the authority of the official. Id. Further, the subject matter of administrative review must be precise in order to attach the presumption against policymaking. Beattie v. Madison Cnty. Sch. Dist., 254 F.3d 595, 603 (5th Cir.2001). The mere existence of oversight, however, is not enough; the oversight must pertain to the area of authority in question. Id. (citation omitted). Although the City offered evidence that the City Council periodically authorized the creation of various police task forces, those resolutions have little to do with police policy. There is no evidence that the City Council has ever commented authoritatively on the internal procedures of the department. Consequently, the administrative review process in place here does not conclusively demonstrate that Chief Coughlin is not a policymaker. Still, we have maintained that neither complete discretionary authority nor the unreviewability of such authority automatically results in municipal liability. There must be more. Bolton v. City of Dallas, Tex., 541 F.3d 545, 551 (5th Cir.2008). We agree with the district court that the General Orders promulgated by the police chief sufficed to be the more that is needed to prove policymaking authority in these circumstances. On this evidence, the chief of police is the sole official responsible for internal police policy. Others have only marginal involvement with the internal procedures of the police force. The alleged constitutional violation arose from a peculiar interpretation of a plain view procedure, which was employed only during police activities. Although no General Order was ever entered regarding this policy, it appears that the police chief would have been authorized to speak on the City's behalf if such a policy was created. Accordingly, we hold that the City impliedly delegated its policymaking authority to the chief of police.