ST. LOUIS • A judge here tossed out on Wednesday a temporary restraining order sought by ӣƵ police union attorneys to block the release of a so-called “exclusion list” of officers banned from bringing in cases for prosecution and blocked a union attempt to question an official in Circuit Attorney Kimberly M. Gardner’s office about the creation of the list.
But union lawyers said the court action would have little effect on an underlying lawsuit.
Circuit Judge Michael Stelzer’s actions followed a earlier in the day that said the union’s bid for a temporary restraining order was “patently insufficient.” That request, filed on behalf of an unidentified “John Doe” police officer, said that the officer’s inclusion on the list potentially harmed his character, violated his due process rights to challenge that inclusion, could affect promotions and “impedes the ability to perform current employment duties.”
People are also reading…
The three-judge panel wrote, “These assertions are ‘broad, conclusory statements of fact and legal conclusions,’ and John Doe failed to identify how these facts state a claim,” quoting in part another court opinion. “Moreover, they fail to invoke ‘substantive principles of law entitling (John Doe) to relief,’ and do not ‘meet the elements of a recognized cause of action,’” the opinion said.
The opinion ordered Stelzer to dismiss the temporary restraining order sought by the officer, as well as quash the subpoena for Chris Hinckley, Gardner’s chief warrant officer, whom lawyers wanted to question about the list’s creation.
A Gardner spokeswoman did not immediately return messages seeking comment Wednesday afternoon.
Doe attorney said the underlying lawsuit had not been dismissed and would continue. She also said that an amended suit would be filed, and that a consent order entered into by Gardner and others still bars release of the list.
ӣƵ Police Officers Association business manager Jeff Roorda said the same. ‘We’re going to refile it and we have no reason to believe we won’t be able to pursue it as we have,” he said.
The existence of the list became public in August, prompting howls from the union and the request for a temporary restraining order blocking release of the list to the public. Stelzer granted the request in September.
Prosecutors said ӣƵ police Maj. Michael Sack asked them to create the list, but police Chief John Hayden denied his department had a role.
Roorda, who has the list, has said some officers were on it because they were involved in police shooting cases, and had asserted their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination while Gardner’s office was reviewing the legality of the officer’s conduct.
He declined to explain why others had made the list.
A copy of the list that circulated among lawyers included the names of officers who had pending criminal charges or had been charged since the existence of the list became public in August.
