When did Louisiana's deadline start and end for a municipal police discipline investigation?

Plain-English summary

New Iberia's mayor asked when a municipal officer's disciplinary investigation began and ended under Louisiana's then-existing police-officer protections. In Opinion 03-0095, the Attorney General said an investigation began when an authorized person started an inquiry or collected evidence concerning an officer with possible discipline, demotion, or dismissal in view. The evidence-gathering phase had to finish within the statute's sixty-day period, subject to its extension provisions.

The AG said the statute did not specify a consequence for missing that period. He nevertheless inferred that the department could not restart the investigation after the period ran, because that would defeat the time limit. The opinion described an extension through the municipal civil-service board or a written agreement with the officer, and noted that the statutory limit did not apply to an investigation of alleged criminal activity. It distinguished the later due-process hearing before discharge from evidence gathering.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2003. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

What the opinion meant at issuance

Municipal police departments

The AG measured the statutory investigation period from the start of authorized inquiry or evidence collection aimed at possible discipline. He treated evidence gathering as the investigation to be completed within the period and rejected a simple restart after it elapsed.

Officers under investigation

The opinion quoted the statutory opportunities to contest an extension before the civil-service board and to agree in writing to one. It also recognized that a pre-termination notice and chance to respond followed evidence collection before a tenured employee could be discharged.

Common questions

Q: When did the sixty-day police investigation clock begin? A: The AG said it began when an authorized person started inquiry or evidence collection about an officer with possible disciplinary action, demotion, or dismissal in view.

Q: Did the deadline include the later dismissal hearing? A: The opinion described the investigation's purpose as gathering evidence, followed by the officer's opportunity to respond before discharge.

Q: Could a department start the same investigation again after the period expired? A: The AG said the statute did not state a consequence expressly, but he inferred that restarting would defeat its time limit and was impermissible.

Q: Did the same time limit apply to alleged criminal activity? A: No. The opinion quoted a statutory exception for criminal-activity investigations.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion quoted R.S. 40:2531's minimum standards for covered municipal and campus officers under investigation for possible employment action. It reviewed the sixty-day completion rule, civil-service-board and written-agreement extensions, and the express criminal-investigation exception. It relied on an earlier AG opinion for the meaning of investigation. A court citation in the OCR extract is damaged, so the case is omitted from citation metadata and prose.

Citations and references

Authorities in the opinion: R.S. 40:2531; R.S. 40:2531(B)(7); Attorney General Opinion 93-52.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/03-0095

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

~tate of
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
One American Place
301 Main Street, Suite 600
CIVIL DIVISION
P.O. Box 94005
BATON ROUGE
TEL.: (225) 342-7013
FAX: (225) 342-2090
RICHARD P. IFYOUB
70804-9005
ATTORNEY GENERAL

May 1, 2003
OPINION 03-0095

59 LAW OFFICERS - Authority & Jurisdiction Honorable Ruth Fontenot
R.S. 40:2531; R.S. 40:2531(B)(7)
Mayor
Discusses the municipal law enforcement officers’ bill of rights when a
457 E Main Street, Suite 300
law enforcement officer is under investigation with a view to possible
disciplinary action, demotion, or dismissal.
New Iberia, La 70560-3700

Dear Mayor Fontenot:

You have several questions concerning the police officer’s bill of rights, R.S. 40:2531.
This statute pertains to the rights of a law enforcement officer under investigation. Of particular interest are the following provisions of the statute:

§ 2531. Applicability; minimum standards during investigation

A. The provisions of this Chapter shall only apply to those law enforcement officers employed by any municipality and campus police employed at any state-supported college or university who are under investiqation with a view to possible disciplinary action, demotion, or dismissal.

B. Whenever a law enforcement officer is under investigation, the following minimum standards shall apply:

(7) Except as otherwise provided in this Paraqraph, each investiqation of a law enforcement officer which is conducted under the provisions of this Chapter shall be completed within sixty days. However, in each municipality which is subject to a Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service law, the municipal police department may petition the Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board for an extension of the time within which to complete the investigation. The board shall set the matter for hearing and shall provide notice of the hearing to the officer who is under investigation.
The officer who is under investigation shall have the right to attend the hearing and to present evidence and arguments against the extension. If the board finds that the municipal police department has shown good cause for the granting of an extension of time within which to complete the investigation, the board shall grant an extension of up to sixty days.

Page 2

Honorable Ruth Fontenot
OPINION 03-0095
Page 2

Nothing contained in this Paragraph shall be construed to prohibit the law enforcement officer under investigation and the appointing authority from entering into a written agreement extending the investigation for up to an additional sixty days. Further, nothin.q in this Paraqraph shall limit any investiqation of alle,qed criminal activity. (Emphasis added).

We rephrase your questions as stated in your letter to this office.

Question I

At what point does an investigation begin?

Attorney General Opinion 93-52 proves helpful in answering your first question.
We quote the author of that opinion:

LSA-R.S. 40:2531 does not specifically provide for a definition of "investigation." However, Black’s Law Dictionary defines the term as the process of inquiring into or tracking down through inquiry. Black’s further defines the term "investigate" as follows:

’qo follow up step by step by patient inquiry or observation. To trace or track; to search into; to examine and inquire into with care and accuracy; to find out by careful inquisition; examination; the taking of evidence; a legal inquiry."

From this definition, it is our opinion that if the investigation requires a close study or systematic inquiry into a situation, the protections afforded an officer under LSA-R.S. 40:2531 apply. Moreover, one must not overlook the express language of the statute. The term "investigation" is modified by the phrase "with a view to possible disciplinary action, demotion, or dismissal." Therefore, if any of the three results are possible, then the officer is afforded the protections of LSA-R.S. 40:2531.

In accord with Opinion 93-52, our interpretation of R.S. 40:2531 reflects that an investigation begins when an authorized person begins to make inquiry or collect evidence concerning a situation with an officer where the end result is "with a view to possible disciplinary action, demotion, or dismissal."

Question 2

When is the investigation complete?

In our opinion, the purpose of the investigation is to collect evidence concerning the complaint, and must be completed within the statutorily mandated sixty days. After the gathering of evidence is completed, and before the officer may be discharged, "he is

Page 3

Honorable Ruth Fontenot
OPINION 03-0095
Page 3

entitled to oral or written notice of the charges against him, an explanation of his employer’s evidence, and an opportunity to present his side of the story...Thus, due process requires, at a minimum, some type of a pre-termination hearing before a tenured employee is discharged." See Kniqht vs. Department of Police, 619 So.2d 1116 (La. App. 4th Cir 1993), at page 572.

Question 3

What is the consequence for failure to complete the investigation within sixty days?

R.S. 40:2531 is silent regarding any consequence for failure to complete the investigation within sixty days. However, we find it a logical inference that the investigation may not be "restarted" once the sixty days have passed as this action would invalidate the purpose of a time limitation. The statute does permit an additional sixty days for the municipal police department to complete the investigation if granted by the municipal civil service board at a hearing. Finally, R.S. 40:2531 (B)(7) states that there is no time limitation on any investigation of alleged criminal activity.

We hope the foregoing is helpful to you. Should you have other questions in which we may provide assistance, please contact this office.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
ATTO|~NEY GENERAL

BY:
LPAT
ASSISTA ATTORNEY GENERAL

KLK:ams