Veteran police officer David Sugar shouldn't be fired on such shaky evidence or be made a pawn in the fight between St. Petersburg's police chief and union.

One can understand St. Petersburg Police Chief Goliath Davis III's reluctance to give the antagonistic police union an inch in their unseemly struggle for control of the department. But Davis has hurt his own credibility with his handling of the David Sugar case.

Davis fired Sugar July 5, saying the police officer lied during an internal investigation of excessive force by another officer. Sugar, a 10-year veteran, was present when officer Ron Adams arrested a fleeing suspect. A third officer, Leric Boyd, told police investigators that Adams dragged the suspect down some stairs, choked him and punched him several times. Sugar said he did not see that happen.

Sugar got in trouble when he slightly changed his account. At first he said he wasn't involved in handcuffing the suspect, but during a later re-enactment of events, Sugar remembered that he did assist another officer with the handcuffs. Adams retired before any disciplinary action could be taken against him. Sugar was fired after a chain-of-command review concluded that the officer had lied about Adams' actions. When Davis announced the firing to other police officers during a shift change, the chief and a patrol officer got into a finger-pointing shouting match until others stepped between them.

The Police Benevolent Association appealed the firing to the city's labor relations office, which historically upholds the chief's decisions. Not this time.

Hearing officer Rose McCormick found there was not "clear and convincing evidence" that Sugar lied. First, she found, the arrest scene was chaotic, with officers coming and going, and Sugar's attention could have been easily diverted. She noted that the suspect himself told a different story from Boyd, saying that while he was pulled down the stairs and choked, he wasn't punched by Adams.

Finally, McCormick drew this common-sense conclusion: "With 10 years of satisfactory service and no previous discipline, I believe (Sugar) is entitled to have the benefit of this prior record given significant consideration in judging his conduct in this instance."

In other words, you don't fire a good police officer on shaky evidence. It appears, however, that Sugar became a pawn in the ongoing political chess match between Davis and the union.

Both McCormick and Julie Upman, the city's labor relations manager, recommended that Sugar be reinstated with back pay and benefits. On Monday, however, Davis refused to take that advice, upholding the firing.

Davis is unconvincing in defense of his action. He says he is only following the advice of Sugar's commanding officers, but everyone knows Davis makes the important decisions in the department.

At the very least, Davis has lost his characteristic imperturbability. In the Sugar case, it looks as if Davis also has let ego override good judgment and given his critics new ammunition in their effort to undermine his leadership.

While Davis has good reason to dislike and distrust the union, it takes two to make a fight. Officer morale and the atmosphere of professionalism will only continue to deteriorate if Davis matches the union's childish behavior with juvenile tantrums.

St. Petersburg residents expect more of their chief of police, and it is time he lived up to those expectations.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page