Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Police Officer’s Lawsuit Alleges Tracking Device Illegally Installed
A lawsuit has been filed on behalf of a Lawrenceburg Police officer who claims his rights were violated when coworkers illegally installed a tracking device on his patrol car.
The suit was filed through Lawrence County Circuit Court on behalf of Officer Johnathan Blake Grooms. Defendants named in the suit include the City of Lawrenceburg, Lawrenceburg Police Department, Hughie Dean Englett, Samuel Doris McConnell, Jr., Christopher Robin Barnett, and officers John Doe 1-9 (yet-to-be identified officers).
Documents show that Grooms was entering his department-issued patrol car in the parking lot of the police department last August when Barnett and Englett began to examine the rear of the vehicle.
Grooms exited his car to see what was going on and Barnett asked that he open the back door. While doing so, he said Englett walked to the front, bent over, then rejoined Barnett at the rear of the car. At this point, Grooms alleges that both left abruptly.
After leaving, Grooms reportedly became concerned about the incident. He pulled into a parking lot to check the car and reported finding a GPS device attached to the brush guard. Grooms took the device to his attorney and notified Chief Judy Moore.
A few days later, the complaint shows that Grooms set up a video camera in the police department parking lot to observe his vehicle. The surveillance footage reportedly shows Englett searching Groom’s car in the area where he had found the GPS device.
Documents show that Moore conducted an administrative investigation of the matter. They indicate that Englett denied any knowledge of the matter.
Barnett reportedly admitted to participating in the incident. McConnell, documents indicate, first denied, then admitted knowledge of the incident, “But asserted that the incident was part of an internal investigation into (Grooms).”
According to the lawsuit Englett and McConnell were sanctioned for, “Misrepresentation during an administrative inquiry with sanctions that included administrative leave and transfer from their previous assignment.”
They reportedly appealed the decision, however it was upheld by then-City Administrator William McClain.
They appealed the decision further to the Lawrenceburg Board of Mayor and Council. Documents show that, “The sanctions were overturned…in a closed-door meeting from which the public was physically restricted at the direction of the mayor and council.” Englett and McConnell were subsequently returned to their former positions in the police department’s Criminal Investigation Division.
Documents indicate that Grooms underwent an evaluation by a licensed mental health professional who informed department officials that, “It was contrary to Groom’s well-being, and likely injurious,” to continue to work with Englett, Barnett and McConnell. Having them returned to their positions, the suit maintains, “Requires that Groom’s materially and regularly cooperate with (them).”
The lawsuit claims that Groom’s was further targeted on July 26, 2013 when Barnett allegedly sent a photo, via text message, to department coworkers, “With the intent to embarrass or otherwise implicate him as incompetent, unprofessional, or otherwise inappropriate,” and, “Paint him in a false light as such, slander him, impact the employment contract and relationship between Grooms and the police department, and otherwise harass and intentionally injure him.”
The photo dispersed was one of Groom’s patrol car parked at a handicap parking space at Walgreens with the added caption of, ”HANDICAP PARKING AT LEAST ITS NOT A DOUGHNUT SHOP.”
Documents indicate that the photo was taken when Grooms responded to a call regarding, “A disabled female who appeared to be intoxicated and was causing a disturbance in Walgreens, at great risk to her safety and those around her.” Grooms indicated that his vehicle was positioned, “To minimize the risk to the suspect, the general shopping public, and himself.”
Grooms’ attorney maintains that the addition of the text to the photo, “Indicates malice and an intent to further embarrass, harass and intimidate Grooms.”
They purport that the photo was taken using equipment belonging to the city and police department and was dispersed to and by other department-managed equipment.
The suit indicates that the placement of the GPS device constituted an invasion of Grooms’ privacy. It states that, “The behavior of the defendants indicates a pattern of discrimination, harassment, and intimidation by government employees tasked with protecting our community from that very behavior,” and that Grooms was, “The only person targeted by his ‘brothers in blue.’” It indicates that Grooms was the victim of bullying by coworkers who, “have created a hostile work environment.”
The lawsuit alleges that Grooms, “Has been the victim of intentional infliction of emotional distress and/or outrageous conduct,” and has, “Suffered serious injury to his mental, emotional and behavioral health and associated physical well-being by the reckless and intentional acts of the defendants which are so outrageous that the actions are not tolerated by civilized society.”
The suit also claims that the city council violated the Tennessee Open Meeting Requirements set forth under Tennessee Codes Annotated, “By holding a City of Lawrenceburg Council meeting where a quorum was required, and preventing the public from attending.”
It alleges that since Barnett, Englett and McConnell were employed by the city and police department at the time of the incidents they, “Cloaked themselves in a veil of agency and authority at every turn and instance at issue,” and, “Asserted authority of the police department in ascertaining the tracking device from the Lawrence County Sheriff’s Department.”
Grooms seeks to be awarded injunctive relief against the city for violation of the Open Meeting requirements; that the decision be overturned or rendered void.
He is seeking compensatory damages of between $75,000 and $150,000, and punitive damages in an amount of no less than $2,100,000.
