Former Southern University Athletic Director Gregory LaFleur was recently dealt a legal defeat when the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling that absolved law enforcement officials for their handling of his arrest for prostitution in 2011.
After being acquitted by a jury on the criminal charge, LaFleur brought Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional violation claims against the defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as malicious prosecution claims under Texas state law. The defendants successfully moved for summary judgment, asserting the defense of qualified immunity, leading to the appeal.
On April 3, 2011, defendant Officer Paula Camp, executing a reverse-sting operation in consort with defendant Sergeant B. Klevens, approached LaFleur in conversation that turned to offers of sex for pay. Although general pleasantries were initially exchanged, the conversation quickly took a more adult tone, according to the court. Specifically, LaFleur became interested when Camp stated that she needed to “make some money.” LaFleur then offered that Camp could “come with him” and inquired as to “how much it would take?” After some exchange, LaFleur accepted the terms of their negotiation. Acting on LaFleur’s acceptance, Camp signaled Klevens to make the arrest, which was executed by other officers responding to Klevens’s order. Three days later, LaFleur was dismissed as athletic director of Southern University.
LaFleur was prosecuted in Texas state court, but he was ultimately acquitted of all charges in a jury trial. He then filed this federal cause of action, suing Officer Camp, Sergeant Klevens, and Chief Charles McClelland, Jr., asserting the aforementioned claims.
Addressing the claim against Officer Camp first, the court found she “is entitled to qualified immunity on all Fourth Amendment claims. Additionally, to the extent he tries to frame a substantive due process claim on these allegations, LaFleur’s Fourteenth Amendment claims are also unsupported. Thus, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to all claims against Officer Camp.”
Klevens was also entitled qualified immunity “because there is no convincing argument asserted that Sergeant Klevens acted unreasonably.”
As for LaFleur’s claims for malicious prosecution, the court noted that LaFleur would have to demonstrate that prosecution “was pursued without probable cause and with malice. As we have indicated here, the police had adequate probable cause to make the arrest in question, … thus, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.”
Eighteen months ago, LaFleur settled a lawsuit he had filed against Southern University, successfully claiming that the school fired him without just cause in breach of their contract. In the lawsuit, LaFleur sought damages, including his base salary for the remainder of his contract, which he said was to expire on June 30, 2013. As part of the settlement, Southern reportedly paid $150,000, or approximately half of the money the school would have paid LaFleur if he’d been allowed to fulfill the full terms of his contract.
Gregory LaFleur v. Charles A. McClelland, Jr., et al.; 5th Cir.; No. 15-20195, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17409; 10/2/15
