Justices: City didn’t deny Cedar Rapids officer’s rights in dispute over official photo

A Cedar Rapids police officer disciplined after refusing to have his picture taken for a photo display at headquarters appealed his case against the city up to the Iowa Supreme Court — and lost when justices said Friday his rights weren’t violated.

Officer Antoine Smith was suspended — without pay — for 10 hours in 2023. He argued his rights were violated when he was suspended even though the department had not yet provided him with internal investigative materials about his case.

A district court denied his assertions, and the Supreme Court upheld that denial in a ruling issued Friday.

Iowa law provides a “bill of rights” — or enhanced rights for police officers and other first responders — when they are subject to an internal investigation after a complaint is made that may lead to discipline. But those “rights aren’t limitless,” Iowa Supreme Court Justice David May said in the ruling.

The court found the Cedar Rapids Police Department wasn’t required to announce the results of the investigation until it determined discipline was warranted for Smith. The district court was “correct” to reject his arguments, May said.

What led to Smith’s appeal

Smith, who was hired in 2009, was informed in February 2023 that the department was updating photos that are displayed in the department, the ruling stated. But Smith didn’t want his photo retaken and displayed. He made his supervisors aware of this.

In March 2023, Smith talked to a captain about it. The captain told Smith that he had to get a new photo taken, although the department was still discussing whether the photo would be displayed, according to the ruling. Smith again argued against it, but the captain ordered him to his official photo taken within five days.

Smith said he wouldn’t comply, so the captain filed a complaint.

The interim chief at the time ordered an administrative investigation, which consisted of questioning the officer and gathering evidence to determine the merit of complaint that could lead to discipline.

On April 1, 2023, Smith received notice of the investigation, according to the ruling. Accompanied by a lawyer, Smith was interviewed April 13, 2023, by a lieutenant. Smith admitted his refusal to follow a captain’s order was a violation of the department’s code of conduct for officers.

A few days later, the lieutenant submitted an investigative report to the department’s disciplinary board, citing two findings of code of conduct violations, the ruling stated. About a week later, Smith’s lawyer asked for the results of the investigation and any recommendations or proposed discipline.

The lieutenant denied the requests, stating the investigation wasn’t completed because the disciplinary board could seek follow-up.

The board agreed with the findings against Smith and recommended that he should be suspended for 10 hours without pay. The board also said Smith should be required to get a new photo within 10 days of receiving the final determination, according to the ruling.

Smith was told he was found in violation of two code of conduct policies, which could result in the suspension without pay, and would have a hearing May 25, 2023. Smith’s lawyer asked for the investigative materials, but the department again denied his request, stating further information wouldn’t be released because the investigation hadn’t at the time resulted in any disciplinary action.

Smith’s lawyer sought to delay the May 25 hearing because he didn’t have the documents, but the department proceeded with the hearing, according to the ruling.

On May 31, 2023, the police chief suspended Smith for 10 hours without pay and required Smith to get a new photo taken. Smith was then provided the “completed investigation.”

Smith had his photo taken and displayed, and served his suspension. In mid-July 2023, Smith filed his court case.

Smith asserted the materials should have provided to him on April 18, 2023, when the lieutenant submitted his report to the disciplinary board. Or alternatively, the materials should have been provided before the hearing, he argued.

The city contended it had no duty to provide the materials until May 31, 2023, when the chief made a final determination.

Sixth Judicial District Chad Kepros granted the city’s motion for a summary judgment.

Justices affirm

The justices found Smith had no claim under the bill of rights section until after May 31, 2023, when the department decided to impose discipline.

“We recognize Smith’s point that it could be beneficial for accused officers and their attorneys to have access to the agency’s full investigative file prior to the pre-disciplinary hearing required by due process,” May stated in the ruling.

However, Smith didn’t cite and the court couldn’t find any authority stating due process requires an agency to provide its full investigative file before the hearing, the ruling stated. The plain language of the section also makes it clear that an agency has no obligation to provide those materials until after a disciplinary decision is made.

Comments: (319) 398-8318; trish.mehaffey@thegazette.com