A Little Rock police officer, fired over accusations he misled a supervisor while he was investigating a possible drunken-driving crash, has been reinstated and paid $82,358 in back pay and benefits after a Pulaski County circuit judge's findings his mistakes were the result of inadequate training.
"The court finds that there was not an intentional misstatement or lie by Officer [Drew] Talbert. In this case, Officer Talbert failed to be as knowledgeable as he should be of all the conflicting laws pertaining to DWI [driving while intoxicated]," Judge Mary McGowan's Wednesday order states.
The judge also ordered the city to pay Talbert's attorney Robert Newcomb $1,346 -- at a rate of $190 per hour -- plus $1,055 in expenses.
The two-page order supplements McGowan's decision in December to overturn the move by Assistant Police Chief Hayward Finks and then-Chief Kenton Buckner to fire Talbert in November 2018.
Senior officers who reviewed Talbert's actions all agreed Talbert had been dishonest about the circumstances of the arrest but recommended that he be suspended for a month, instead of terminated. Finks and Buckner fired Talbert, citing a nationwide "best-practices" policy of firing dishonest officers.
Talbert had been suspended three times before, although never for more than two days.
Talbert's dismissal was subsequently upheld by the Civil Service Commission, reaching McGowan when Talbert appealed the commission decision. The judge reduced his punishment to a three-day suspension for failing to completely investigate the situation before reporting it to his patrol sergeant.
At issue was a radio call Talbert made to Sgt. Jonathan Prater the night of July 28, 2018, reporting his encounter with a potential drunken driver in the parking lot of Pit Stop Bar-B-Que Grill at 5506 Baseline Road, while looking for a car that had crashed into the entry gate at the Colonial Parc apartments at 5813 Baseline Road.
Talbert had been directed to the restaurant by an apartment security guard who witnessed the collision.
Talbert, 34, phoned Prater for advice on how to proceed, whether he could arrest the man for driving while intoxicated or ticket him for public intoxication. At Prater's recommendation, Talbert arrested the 41-year-old man for drunken driving and other driving infractions, although prosecutors dropped the charges after Talbert's honesty was called into question.
Prater concluded Talbert had lied to him about key details of the encounter after the sergeant, a 13-year veteran, conducted a routine, next-day review of the circumstances of the arrest, including watching patrol-car video. Prater accused Talbert of attempting to shirk his duties by trying to get out of making an arrest, which requires a more elaborate and time-consuming procedure than writing a ticket.
The incident had occurred about an hour before Talbert's shift was to end, and Prater said he thought Talbert was hoping to get by with ticketing the man so Talbert could just release him at the scene and finish his shift on time.
In his defense, Talbert said he hadn't had any drunken-driving case training since finishing his training 10 years earlier and that what Prater concluded were misleading statements actually reflected his lack of knowledge about driving-while-intoxicated procedure, which also contributed to misstatements he made about the circumstances of his encounter.
Resolving the situation and making the arrest took Talbert about 18 hours because the driver had to be examined at the hospital.
The judge found Talbert's explanation compelling after reviewing the video and the transcript of the Civil Service Commission hearing. She noted that Talbert did not have all of the materials necessary to make a driving-while-intoxicated arrest and that he sought advice from not only Prater but two other officers about how to proceed.
She also dismissed the accusation that Talbert had been trying to get out of making the arrest so he could go home on time by noting that whether Talbert arrested the man for drunken driving or ticketed him for public intoxication, police procedure under the circumstances would have required Talbert to accompany the driver to the hospital and then to jail, a process that would extend his workday by hours.
"[T]o discourage the ability of a police officer to call his sergeant for advice does not bode well for the Police Department," McGowan wrote. "In this case, Officer Talbert failed to be as knowledgeable as he should be of all the conflicting laws pertaining to DWI. He should not be penalized for seeking advice. Nor should he be terminated for trying to do the right thing in seeking advice. This Court would urge the Police Department to continue to encourage its officers to seek out advice on how to proceed if they have questions."
NW News on 02/03/2020