Quincy officer's lawsuit dismissed

SPOKANE - A former Quincy police officer's civil lawsuit against the city, the former police chief and sergeant was dismissed by a federal judge.

District Court Judge Rosanna M. Peterson ruled the claims against the city and police officials didn't violate Darren Smith's First and 14th Amendment rights during and after his employment. 

She ruled without the violations, Smith's claims about the city violating public policy should be handled by state courts.

Smith claimed Sgt. Scott Jones and former Chief Bill Gonzales retaliated against him roughly nine months after Smith started working for the department, according to court records. Problems allegedly started after Smith questioned the selection process of a new police sergeant.

"Smith suggested meeting with the civil service commission to make recommendations for a fair and legitimate selection process," according to the complaint. "Jones became openly hostile to the suggestion and yelled at Smith and another union member for bringing the issue up."

The former officer alleged the sergeant tried to force him to change a use of force form, in a way that wasn't true, according to court records. Smith claimed the retaliation continued after he went to the city's Public Safety Committee and made several suggestions, including adding snow tires to patrol vehicles, not removing shotguns from the vehicles at the end of the shift and leaving department doors and windows unsecured.

"Some of Officer Smith's suggestions were accepted by the safety committee and others were rejected," according to court records. "On Jan. 11, 2009, Officer (Dan) Dopps sent an e-mail to the department expressing that Chief William Gonzales felt blind sided by 'person(s) outside the department on issues that should have been addressed first by the chief.'"

The chief asked for the concerns and issues to come through the chain of command before going outside of the department, according to court records.

Conflict between Jones and Smith started again during a series of e-mails concerning a flat tire on a patrol vehicle, according to court records. Each of the officers called the other one "unprofessional." The sergeant scheduled a meeting to "try to depolarize their relationship and discuss issues in an informal low-key environment.

"On the day of the meeting, Officer Smith brought a union member with him to the meting and alleges that Sgt. Jones became hostile and terminated the meeting."

Smith submitted a resignation letter later in the month, and tried to rescind it in the beginning of April on the conditions Jones would stop retaliation and the city would adopt a "whistle blower" policy. The city didn't allow Smith to rescind, according to court records.

In her ruling, Peterson stated Smith needed to meet a series of five requirements to prove the police administrators violated his First Amendment rights. The first was whether the speech involved a "matter of public concern." 

"The Ninth Circuit has defined the scope of public concern broadly and adapted a liberal construction of what an issue of public concern is under the First Amendment," Peterson wrote. "Still, speech concerning government inefficiency does not automatically receive First Amendment protection; rather the focus must be whether the public or community is likely to be truly interested in the particular speech."

The defendants claimed all of Smith's speech concerned his working condition, while Smith argued the selection of the next sergeant and the safety issues were matters of public concern, according to court records.

"The court finds that the majority of the plaintiff's complaints appear to be the result of personality conflicts and possibly an internal power struggle," Peterson wrote. "However, arguably some of Smith's issues could be deemed as matters of public concern: Most notably, Officer Smith's complaint regarding the removal of shotguns from patrol cars and the inadequate storage facilities."

Peterson ruled Smith failed to meet the next requirement stating the officer spoke as a public employee and not a private citizen. She cited the filings with the safety committee followed his initial argument with Jones and most of the issues involved issues related to Smith's employment. She also pointed out the safety committee is a small audience.

"Fore these reasons, the court concludes that Smith's statements and suggestions were internal communications made by a public employee," Peterson wrote. "The court is persuaded that Officer Smith's statements made at the private union meeting about the internal selection process of the next sergeant is employment related speech by a public employee."

Peterson also ruled Gonzales' limiting Smith to the public area of the department after he resigned didn't violate Smith's First or 14th Amendment rights.

Smith's attorney, Steven C. Lacy, filed a motion to amend Peterson's ruling.