By David E. Worley
Loose lips sink ships, and the Wright County Sherriff’s Office wants their ship water-tight. In Wright County, 131 LA 410 (Befort, 2012), the termination of a Sherriff’s deputy who divulged law-enforcement information to her cousin and then clearly lied to investigators was firmly upheld. The arbitrator here also made a finding concerning the admissibility of the evidence proving the grievant had actually divulged the information in question, finding although the evidence was improperly obtained, it was done so by a private citizen and is therefore admissible and not barred by the 4th amendment.
A voicemail of the grievant obtained by the ex-partner of the grievant’s cousin clearly and unequivocally revealed the grievant disclosing internal information regarding a pending warrant of the ex-partner. This information was to be used in a pending custody dispute. However, that voicemail was obtained by the ex-partner accessing the cousin’s private voicemail without permission. When questioned, the grievant specifically denied divulging information, but then admitted to it when they played the voicemail of herself clearly doing so. She had been warned 10 days prior that disclosing information could result in termination following an identical complaint by the cousin’s ex-partner.
The grievant claimed that since the evidence was obtained without consent, it could not be used against her. The arbitrator acknowledged that search and seizure restrictions apply to arbitration decisions where termination is at stake. However:
The Fourth Amendment acts only as a restraint on governmental action. Thus, a search undertaken by a private individual is subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny only where the individual acts “as an instrument or agent of the state when conducting the search.
Because the ex-partner of the cousin of the grievant was clearly acting outside the bounds of any governmental authority, the evidence could freely be admitted in the hearing.
From this point on, the decision was straightforward. The grievant had been fairly warned only ten days prior that such an action may result in termination. The grievant obviously lied about disclosing the law-enforcement information and thus placed her loyalty to her family above her duties as a law enforcement officer. While progressive discipline was not present, the arbitrator nonetheless found termination proper. Although the earlier accusation was unsubstantiated by the investigation, the grievant’s clear disregard of the warning given by her supervisor shows a flagrant breach of her duties and the trust put in her position.
