Opinion ID: 74654
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Coker Incident and Stanley's Termination

Text: 20 In November 1997, Stanley discussed a shift change with a subordinate, Sergeant Coker. Coker told Captain Walthour that Stanley lost his temper and used profanity, but Stanley denies this. Walthour relayed Coker's complaint to Chadwick and interviewed both Coker and Stanley. Because they reported differing versions of the incident, Walthour's report concluded that no evidence existed to support misconduct charges against Stanley. Chadwick requested polygraph tests. Coker's results indicated truthfulness, but Stanley's indicated deception, as follows: 21 The below-indicated pertinent questions were among those asked during the over-all examination. 22 5. HAVE YOU LIED REGARDING THIS INCIDENT WITH YOUR SERGEANT? 23 7. REGARDING THIS INCIDENT WITH YOUR SERGEANT HAVE YOU LIED ABOUT ANY PART OF IT? 24 A total of three polygraph charts were recorded. An assessment of the psychophysiological responses of the examinee to the above questions reflected significant reactions which would [sic] considered to be indicative of deceptive criteria. 25 It is polygraphist's opinion that physiological responses which are usually indicative of deception was [sic] noted. DECEPTION INDICATED. 26 Chadwick charged Stanley with unprofessional conduct in the presence of a subordinate with the use of profanity, failure to control his temper, and providing false statements in an internal investigation. 2 After a pre-disciplinary conference, 3 Chadwick terminated Stanley based on the Coker and Cooper incidents, the buy fund investigation, and Stanley's polygraph results indicating deception. 4 27 Stanley appealed his termination to the City of Dalton Public Safety Commission. After a hearing, that Commission found that the charges of conduct unbecoming an officer arising out of the November 13, 1997 incident are true and that [Stanley] . . . be herewith discharged from employment with the Dalton Police Department effective December 22, 1997. In April 1998, Stanley filed this § 1983 action for violation of his first amendment rights alleging that Chadwick terminated him for naming Chadwick as a suspect in the 1997 GBI's interview. The only issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in denying Chadwick qualified immunity on Stanley's first amendment claim. 5