Conflict of interest charges dropped against police chief
An ethics adjudicatory panel threw out conflict of interest charges against St. Gabriel Police Chief Kevin Ambeau because state ethics prosecutors refused to turn over information gathered in their investigation of alleged impropriety.
Ambeau wanted a copy of the investigative report that led to the Louisiana Board of Ethics bringing charges involving his ownership of a private security business while he served as police chief. The Ethics Board argued that doing both jobs was a conflict of interest. Ambeau countered that particular state law applied to sheriffs but not to police chiefs.
But the case ended on arguments, by Ambeau’s lawyer, that the reports in the Ethics Board’s possession were needed so he could properly defend his client. The adjudicatory panel agreed.
The Louisiana Board of Ethics is fighting the same issue in 19th Judicial District Court, where initial rulings have gone against it and in favor of document disclosure in the Ambeau case.
The stance could impact pending and future cases of alleged wrongdoing. “It could have a chilling effect on our investigations and our process when we talk to individuals and witnesses on a confidential matter,” state ethics administrator Kathleen Allen said Friday.
Attorneys in at least three other cases are making the same legal argument as Ambeau for release of documents.
Ambeau’s attorney, Edward “Lucky” Songy, said the adjudicatory panel and the court “have hit the nail on the head.”
“A public official charged with ethics violations by the Board of Ethics is entitled to full due process,” Songy said. His client and others are entitled to full discovery called for in state law, Songy said. “Upon the request of the accused everything can become public,” he said. “The public has the right to know everything, not just the confidential Board of Ethics.”
Ethics lawyers had argued that information in the investigative report was confidential and privileged under state law and the lawyer’s “work-product privilege.”
Allen said the Ethics Board may apply for a rehearing to the Ethics Adjudicatory Board.
The decision is just the latest legal battle involving the enforcement of state ethics laws since a 2008 law split prosecution and adjudication of cases. The Ethics Board had investigated, prosecuted and decided cases involving conflict of interest, nepotism and other law under its jurisdiction.
The law established the Ethics Adjudicatory Board, called EAB, under which panels of three administrative law judges hear and decide cases.
The boards are frequently at odds over interpretation of laws governing ethics enforcement.
The Ambeau case brought the issue of how much information the ethics agency must share with attorneys for the accused.
On Friday, Ambeau said he is glad the case against him is over. “It cost me a lot of money. It’s been going on two years,” he said.
Ambeau said the Ethics Board’s refusal to release document “wasn’t fair.” He also said state law clearly allowed him to have a private security business. Only sheriffs are precluded, he said.
Songy also noted that state law also allows law enforcement to provide private security in their uniforms, using police cars and other equipment.
In dismissing the case, the adjudicatory panel said the Ethics Board had failed to comply with both EAB and court orders and judgments to provide the information to Ambeau’s attorney.
The Board of Ethics’ “continued failure to comply with the orders compelling discovery rendered by the EAB constitutes a willful disobedience of the decisions rendered” and rises to the legal precedent for case dismissal, according to a ruling signed by Alvin F. Landry and Dawn Fuqua, two of the three administrative law judges.
Robert Aguiluz, the third administrative law judge, agreed with the outcome but for a different reason.
“The charges should be dismissed because the procedures for the issuance of charges were not followed,” Aguiluz wrote.
Aguiluz said the Ethics Board did not refer the case to a panel of at least three of its 11 board members for investigation. He said that panel is required to make a recommendation to the full board on whether charges should be filed.
Allen said the Ethics Board disagrees with Aguiluz. Whether to operate with panels is discretionary, she said.