Court Opinion

ID: 9647561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:40:17.073725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:50.660839
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. The appellant had been employed as a policeman for more than four years when he was terminated for investigating the activities of the police department in a nearby city. I believe he had a vested property right in his position because the state and the city had enacted laws giving him certain rights. I will not reiterate the authority and precedent cited by the majority because the answer to the question before us depends upon how each member of the court interprets the Constitutions. The appellant was in a permanent status classification rather than probationary. Why have the two classifications if one confers no more right than the other? I am aware that Arkansas is still an employment-at-will state. However, we have held that in the proper case we might recognize exceptions to the rule. Appellant’s claim should be an exception because the state and city have granted rights in this case which remove the appellant from the employment-at-will doctrine. Appellant was fired for violating a department rule which states “all off duty employment must be approved by the chief of police in writing.” It seems that the only victim of the rule was the appellant. He became the first casualty of the rule when he obtained or attempted to obtain information relating to the happenings of a nearby police department. Almost all of the Russellville Police Department had knowingly violated the same rule. Many of the other “moonlighting” jobs were in areas ordinarily included in duties of policemen. Controlling traffic and crowds, watching for theft and protecting property rights were some of the off-duty jobs performed by other members of the same police department. I cannot see that investigating the Dardanelle Police Department is in any manner interfering with the functions or responsibilities of the Russellville Police Department. I can see no distinction between investigating the activities of a police department and trying to catch a thief in a department store inasmuch as each activity involves duties which are common police functions. The appellant was not in uniform and did not attempt to deceive anyone. He identified himself and expressly announced that he was acting as a private investigator. The evidence presented and the argument of appellee prove that appellant did not violate the purpose and intent of the rule. Appellee argues that it is improper for a police department to investigate another police department. If so, such investigation by the appellant did not involve a police function. I do not question the right of the city to terminate the appellant. However, I do insist that such termination comply with the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the State and United States Constitutions. The appellant’s right to equal protection was clearly disregardéd because he was the only officer terminated for violating the department, rule.