Former officer appeals panel’s action in firing
Ex-LR lawman also seeks to admit consultant’s report
A former Little Rock police officer who was fired has appealed the decision of the Little Rock Civil Service Commission that upheld the city’s findings against him even as the commission overturned his termination in favor of less-serious discipline.
David Mattox was fired earlier this year after Police Chief Keith Humphrey sustained the findings of unauthorized investigation and untruthfulness.
His termination came after an internal investigation of Mattox’s involvement in the 2020 search for a suspect who was exposing himself to women in the city, with Mattox’s wife as one of the victims.
The Civil Service Commission on Nov. 4 sustained the city’s findings but opted to impose a less-severe punishment: the addition of a letter of reprimand to Mattox’s personnel file and a monthlong suspension.
The seven-member commission heard the case with just four members.
Days later, in spite of his reinstatement, the North Little Rock Police Department confirmed Mattox had been hired as a patrol officer.
In a Dec. 6 filing in Pulaski County Circuit Court, Mattox named the city of Little Rock and the Police Department.
The filing said a notice of appeal had been filed with the commission and the court reporter had been contacted in order to prepare a transcript of the Civil Service Commission’s proceedings.
Additionally, the filing said the court should allow evidence to be introduced from Loretta Cochran, a former part-time Little Rock Human Resources Department investigator who works in the management and marketing department of Arkansas Tech University.
Cochran had found Mattox’s firing to be an example of racial discrimination, hostile working conditions and retaliation by the police chief and two other officials, according to an email she sent to another human resources official over the summer.
However, her full report, which Mattox’s attorney Robert Newcomb sought to obtain in court proceedings earlier this year, has never been released to the public.
During the Civil Service Commission proceedings this fall, Chairman Jeffrey Hildebrand barred Newcomb from questioning Co
chran as a witness or citing her report.
Mayor Frank Scott Jr. in October announced he would take no disciplinary action against Humphrey based on Cochran’s inquiry. The mayor suggested her investigation had been tainted by bias. Cochran submitted her resignation from the Human Resources Department one day later.
Newcomb is the same litigator who represented former officer Charles Starks.
Starks’ firing after his fatal shooting of motorist Bradley Blackshire in 2019 was upheld by the Civil Service Commission but overturned by a circuit court judge. Starks later resigned from the department.
The Arkansas Court of Appeals in September reversed the circuit judge’s ruling and remanded the case to the lower court for further consideration.
A subsequent filing on Dec. 9 in Mattox’s appeal to the circuit court included a transcript of Assistant Chief Hayward Finks’ testimony that had been proffered to the Civil Service Commission but not heard as part of the evidentiary proceedings.
The filing from Mattox said the court should allow Finks to be called at the hearing. Finks recently accepted a new job as the school safety director for the North Little Rock School District, according to a Dec. 17 school district news release.
In a response filed Dec. 20 by Deputy City Attorney Rick Hogan, the city argued that the request to introduce Cochran’s report should be denied since it was not part of the decision to terminate Mattox, nor the decision to reinstate him.
Additionally, the city cited another lawsuit filed by Newcomb on behalf of Mattox and other officers that is pending in circuit court before another judge. Little Rock’s response said the new matter should be dismissed or, alternatively, combined with the other lawsuit.
The city’s response went on to say that in the event “this court determines this testimony [from Cochran] is germane to the employment action taken against the Petitioner, this matter would need to be remanded to the Commission for reconsideration.”
Cochran’s report was “merely a document critical of the current Chief of Police and is introduced for no other purpose but to try to embarrass and humiliate the African American Chief of Police who has drawn criticism from officers who wish to maintain the status quo,” the city’s response said. “Should the court permit such testimony, the Respondent should also be able to explore testimony of the efforts made by officers to oust the current Chief of Police.”