D.A. says he saw no legal reason to remove chief

District Attorney Frank Parrish says he looked into a complaint by a Kill Devil Hills police officer but found no factual or legal basis for filing a court petition to remove Chief Gary L. Britt.

Through his lawyer, Parrish provided his account of an investigation into Britt’s management practices in papers filed with a Halifax County Superior Court judge.

The information was included in a response to six petitions that contend Parrish should be considered for suspension or removal for failing to perform his duties.

One of them was from Kill Devil Hills police officer Andrew Ennis, who says Parrish ignored his request to investigate Britt.

Ennis contends that multiple personnel files were kept on him and that at least one contained fabricated disciplinary actions. The same allegations are included in a civil suit since filed by Ennis and three other former or current KDH officers against the town and its top officials.

Parrish’s attorney, James B. Maxwell, said in the filing that Parrish considered Ennis’ complaints to be personnel matters outside of his jurisdiction. Still, he looked into them, Maxwell wrote.

“In reality, the matters raised by Mr. Ennis were investigated by or on behalf of Mr. Parrish as well as other agencies, and a conclusion was reached that there was no factual or legal basis upon which to file a petition for removal of Chief Britt,” Maxwell wrote.

Parrish consulted with the state Attorney General’s Office and with the Institute of Government in Chapel Hill, Maxwell wrote.

Kill Devil Hills officials acknowledged last month that in September 2011 they were told a petition by Parrish to remove Britt was “imminent.” The petition outlining the reasons why Britt should be removed had been drawn up by the District Attorney’s office but had not been signed or dated.

It was about the same time that Parrish had written a letter to Dare County Superior Court Judge Jerry Tillett of his intention to file the petition.

The town subsequently put Britt on non-disciplinary probation and contacted the League of Municipalities, which underwrites Kill Devil Hills’ insurance. According to Maxwell, the town elected to have a team from the league conduct an independent investigation.

Britt was reinstated in December. In response to inquiries from The Outer Banks Voice, the town released a statement in January outlining why he had been suspended and the team’s conclusion that, other than some problems with management style, the chief had done nothing wrong.

Parrish based his decision not to file the petition for Britt’s removal on his discussions with the Attorney General’s Office and the Institute of Government as well as the team’s findings, Maxwell wrote.

“Consistent with his legal obligation to not bring frivolous claims to court, Frank Parrish elected to not file such a petition,” Maxwell wrote.

Ennis and the three other former and current police officers also sent complaints to Tillett. The resident Superior Court judge can receive complaints, and under one section of the law can remove unfit officers. But under another section removing a police officer or sheriff lies with the county or the District Attorney when a petition is filed.

Besides criminal acts or drunkenness, maladministration can be a reason to remove a police officer or sheriff.

The Kill Devil Hills controversy has spun off numerous legal filings as well as unproven speculation about collusion among some officials to remove the chief.

One related case involves a document circulated among town officials calling for a revision to personnel policy that would prohibit police employees from taking their grievances to outside agencies, such as the District Attorney or a Superior Court judge.

Superior Court Judge Milton Fitch issued an order barring such a policy. The North Carolina Court of Appeals subsequently put the order on hold until the matter is settled.

Maxwell also detailed Parrish’s handling of the other five complainants’ concerns included among the petitions to remove him. He asked Judge Alma L. Hinton to dismiss the matter.

“Nowhere in the duties or responsibilities of an elected District Attorney is it required that he/she use his/her office for the purpose of pursuing a personal vendetta in the criminal courts against one party simply because of the allegations of the complaining party,” Maxwell wrote.

GO TO HOME PAGE »

---

Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.