MINUTES

BLEOST MEETING
July 22, 2021
Call to Order:

The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by the Vice-Chair, Brad Carter.

Roll Call:

The Vice-Chair called the roll, and a quorum was established. Board members present were:

Officer Brad Carter

Hon. Kassie Coleman
Chief Don Gammage
Col. Randy Ginn
Chief Michael Hall
Sheriff Jim Johnson
Dr. Steve Mallory
Constable Glenn McKay
Sheriff Greg Pollan

Hon. Candice Rucker, Board Counsel

Board members not present were:

Chief Vance Rice

Mayor Gary Rhoads
Hon. Ed Snyder
Mr. Windy Swetman

Introduction of Guests, Introductory Remarks:

Chief Michael Hall with the Guntown Police Department was welcomed by the Board after he
received a Governor’s appointment to fill the Police Chief vacancy. Col. Ginn and Board Counsel
Candice Rucker were also welcomed by the Board. The guests introduced themselves and they
were welcomed.

Speakers/Guests present were:

Lt. Paul Leslie, DeSoto County S.O.

Major Luke Shepherd, DeSoto County S.O.
Major Steve Palmer, DeSoto County S.O.
Major V. L. Farr, Olive Branch P.D.
Lt. Jacqueline Moreno, SRPSI
Lt. Mike Cowan, DeSoto County S.O.
Sheriff Bill Rasco, DeSoto County S.O.
Harrison Hatcher, DeSoto County S.O.
Craig Dickson, DeSoto County S.O.

Page | 2
Jordan Walters, DeSoto County S.O.
Francis Springer, Springer Law Firm
Lt. Col. Thomas Tuggle, MLEOTA
Deputy Chief William Cox, Olive Branch P.D.
M/SGT. Ryan Buckley, MLEOTA
Dan Rawlinson, MLEOTA
Gary Seale Jr., MLEOTA
Allen Fry, MLEOTA
Chuck Jenkins, Lafayette County S.O. (by phone)
Phyliss Colson, Northeast CC (by phone)
Lt. Richardson, Hattiesburg P.D. (by phone)
Lt. Tapp, Hattiesburg P.D. (by phone)
Sheriff Randy Atkins, Leake County S.O. (by phone)
Lynn Carey, Meridian CC (by phone)

Staff Members Present were:

Bureau Director Robert Davis

Division Director Bob Morgan
Training Director, Michael Nash
Certification Officer Donna Rogers

Approval of Minutes:

A copy of the minutes from the May 2021 meeting was emailed to each member. Sheriff
Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Chief Gammage seconded the
motion. The motion carried without opposition.

OLD BUSINESS

Discuss Goals and Objectives of Officer Safety, Mechanics of Arrest-Positional Asphyxia:

The staff proposed an addition to the goals and objectives of Officer Safety, Mechanics of Arrest,
Restraint and Control. The purpose is to provide officers with the proper instruction for the quick
and efficient application of handcuffs, ensuring proper placement and fit of the restraint, and care
of the arrested individual, in order to enhance officer safety while reducing the potential for injury.
The course will identify positional asphyxia and will train the officer to not leave the suspect on
their stomach, to sit them up right.

Training materials will be provided to the academies on this subject from IADLEST.

Sheriff Johnson made a motion to adopt these changes. Dr. Mallory seconded the motion and it
passed without opposition.

Page | 3
Review Military Training Evaluation; Attorney General’s Opinion Request:

The Board was presented with the form that compares our basic curriculum to military basic police
training. There are 46 topics in our basic curriculum. The staff was presented with a request to
grant equivalency from an individual that used this form to compare his military training. This
applicant identified 21 of the 46 areas of training that he took in his military training class.

After discussion, Chief Gammage made a motion to deny equivalency of training to this individual
based on the comparison. Mrs. Coleman seconded the motion and it passed without opposition.

A request has been made for an Attorney General’s opinion dealing with the Universal Recognition
of Occupational Licenses Act and the Military Family Freedom Act as they apply to the Board.
Our policy requires out of state and federally trained officers transferring to Mississippi to attend
the Refresher Course before being issued a Mississippi certification. These new acts state that
certificates are to be issued without further training.

NEW BUSINESS

Discuss Dismissal from Basic Training:

Two situations have come to light recently concerning cadets in the academy and there is no
policy in place to settle these situations.

A sponsored cadet made it through the academy and was a few days away from graduation. The
sponsoring agency dismissed the cadet from their agency, not for disciplinary reasons. The
agency wanted the academy to dismiss the cadet, but the academy didn’t have a reason to dismiss
the cadet. The question is should the cadet be removed from the academy since they were no
longer sponsored or could the academy director allow the cadet to finish the academy as a self-
sponsor.

In another situation, the academy director dismissed a sponsored cadet for disciplinary reasons.
The sponsoring agency also dismissed the cadet from their department. The question is sho uld the
academy director let the cadet return to the next class if the cadet is not sponsored. Should the
director only allow the cadet to return if he is sponsored or could he be allowed to return as a self-
sponsor? If the director doesn’t allow the cadet to come back unless he is sponsored and the cadet
doesn’t get sponsored, should the director issue a release.

A survey will be taken of academy directors and this topic will be continued at the next meeting.

Request to Approve Leake County Law Enforcement Training Academy:

Training Director Michael Nash presented the application from the Leake County S.O. to establish
a Part-Time Academy. Director Nash advised the Board that this department has complied with
all the requirements for academy accreditation. He recommended that this application be
approved. He stated that there is a need in this area to provide this service.

Page | 4
Sheriff Pollan made a motion to approve Leake County S.O. to operate a part-time academy. Mrs.
Coleman seconded the motion and it passed without opposition.

Certification of Officers:

Director Davis presented 6 F/T Basic classes for certification pending completion of all
requirements. The Chair entertained a motion. Sheriff Johnson made a motion to approve the
candidates for certification subject to meeting all requirements and Sheriff Pollan seconded the
motion. The motion passed without opposition. There are 30 F/T equivalency candidates and 9
P/T equivalency candidates for certification pending completion of all requirements. The Chair
entertained a motion. Sheriff Pollan made a motion to approve the equivalency candidates for
certification subject to meeting all requirements and Mrs. Coleman seconded the motion. The
motion was adopted by unanimous consent.

Certification Hearing for Officer Jordan R. Walters:

Officer Walters requested a hearing before the Board after the Standards and Training Certification
Section determined that he was not eligible for law enforcement certification. This was determined
after the review of his file which indicated that he violated his department’s policy by using
unnecessary force in making an arrest and copying police video evidence and sharing this evidence
by text or email to other officers and civilians. While conducting an investigation concerning the
copying of police video evidence, his department discovered text messages on his cell phone that
included racial slurs and other unprofessional messages. He was later, while serving as a law
enforcement officer arrested for assault in an unrelated matter. This conduct is considered conduct
that would violate the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics or would greatly diminish the public trust
in the competence and reliability of a law enforcement officer.

The evidence was presented to the Board during the hearing. Officer Walters was represented by
Attorney Francis Springer. Mr. Springer requested to exclude some of the evidence due to his
belief that this evidence was improperly obtained. The Chair agreed to exclude the evidence
dealing with the material discovered on Officer Walter’s cell phone.

The Chair entertained a motion to enter into closed session to consider whether to declare an
executive session. Mr. McKay made the motion, and it was seconded by Dr. Mallory, there was no
opposition. In closed session, the chair entertained a motion to declare an executive session to
consider the allegations of misconduct and evidence produced during open proceedings, and the
possible issuance of an appealable order. Sheriff Johnson made the motion, and it was seconded by
Mr. McKay. The vote was unanimous.

At the conclusion of the executive session, a motion and second was made to come out of executive
session. The vote was unanimous.

The Chair announced that while in Executive Session there were multiple concerns expressed by the
Board about the Chair’s conduct of this hearing particularly the exclusion of specific testimony and
specific evidence that had been brought to the Board’s attention by documents that had been
properly filed of record with this office. Because of concerns that this information may have been

Page | 5
improperly excluded, the Chair on his motion requests that the Attorney General’s office research
the matter of whether or not that information was properly excluded from this testimony and
whether the Chair has the authority at all to make ruling on admissibility of evidence.

The Chair declared the hearing in recess and based on the Attorney General’s advice to reconvene
on this matter.

Sheriff Pollan made a motion to recess the hearing. Sheriff Johnson seconded the motion and it
passed without opposition.

Next Scheduled Meeting:

The next meeting will be announced at a later date.

Concluding Remarks; Adjournment:

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn. Sheriff Johnson made a motion to adjourn. Sheriff
Pollan seconded the motion and it passed without opposition.
.

Respectfully submitted,

Director, Board on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Training

Page | 6
 MINUTES

BLEOST MEETING
September 23, 2021
Call to Order:

The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by Chairman Ed Snyder.

Roll Call:

The Chair called the roll, and a quorum was established. Board members present were:

Officer Brad Carter

Hon. Kassie Coleman
Chief Don Gammage
Col. Randy Ginn
Chief Michael Hall
Sheriff Jim Johnson
Dr. Steve Mallory
Constable Glenn McKay
Sheriff Greg Pollan
Chief Vance Rice
Hon. Ed Snyder
Mr. Windy Swetman

Board members not present were:

Mayor Gary Rhoads

Hon. Candice Rucker, Board Counsel

Introduction of Guests, Introductory Remarks:

The guests introduced themselves and they were welcomed.

Speakers/Guests present were:

Lt. Mike Cowan, DeSoto County S.O.

Attorney Francis Springer, Springer Law Firm
Director Phyliss Colson, Northeast CCTA
Lt. S. Richardson, Hattiesburg P.D.
Sheriff Randy Atkins, Leake County S.O.
Lt. Ricky Williamson, Grenada LETA
Major Louis Elias, Harrison Co. LETA
Jimmy Warden, Harrison Co. LETA
Director Amy Vanderford, MDCCLETA

Staff Members Present were:

Bureau Director Robert Davis

Page | 2
Division Director Bob Morgan
Training Director, Michael Nash
Certification Officer Donna Rogers

Approval of Minutes:

A copy of the minutes from the July 2021 meeting was emailed to each member. Sheriff Johnson
made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Mrs. Coleman seconded the motion. The
motion carried without opposition.

OLD BUSINESS

Discuss the Recessed Hearing for Officer Jordan R. Walters:

The Board began the hearing for Officer Jordan R. Walters at their July meeting. After hearing
certain testimony, the Board voted to go into Closed Session and then into Executive Session. The
Board voted to come out of Executive Session and the Chair announced that while in Executive
Session that there were multiple concerns expressed by the Board about the exclusion of specific
testimony and specific evidence that had been brought to the Board’s attention by documents that
had been properly filed of record with this office. Because of concerns that this information may
have been improperly excluded, the Chair on his motion requests that the Attorney General’s office
research the matter of whether or not that information was properly excluded from this testimony
and whether the Chair has the authority at all to make ruling on admissibility of evidence. The
Chair declared the hearing in recess and based on the Attorney General’s advice, to reconvene on
this matter. A motion to recess the hearing with a second was made and it passed without
opposition.

The AG’s office researched Board policy and in Chapter 4, 4.3, 1, J, the policy states that at the
appointed time, the chair shall convene the certification hearing. The chair or the vice chair shall
be the presiding officer and control the course of the hearing. The Board itself shall constitute the
hearing panel. (1) The proceedings of the hearing shall be recorded electronically, and a record
made by qualified court reporter. (2) The Board shall consider all oral and written material
presented at the hearing.

Based on this policy, Board counsel recommended that the Board reconvene the hearing, admit the
evidence that was excluded, and make a decision based on everything presented.

The Chair entertained a motion, after Officer Walters’ attorney agreed on the date and time of
October 7th beginning at 9:00 a.m., to reconvene the hearing at 9:00 a.m. on October 7, 2021.
Officer Carter made a motion to reconvene the hearing of Officer Walters on that date and time.
Dr. Mallory seconded the motion, and it was adopted by unanimous consent.

In-Service Training – Request for Approval:

Page | 3
 1. Mississippi Sheriffs’ Association Winter Conference; 13.5 hours
2. Mississippi Crime Stoppers Training Conference; 11.5 hours
3. Situation Awareness Specialist; Arcuri Group LLC.; 4 hours
4. Next Level Combatives – Defensive Tactics to De-escalation; Columbia Law Enforcement
Training Academy; 24 hours
5. Defensive Tactics for Law Enforcement; 30 hours; Tactical Operations Medical Specialist;
40 hours; Mid-America Safety Services
6. FBI/CAST-Introduction to Cell Site Analysis; 16 hours; National Domestic
Communications Center
7. Sex Offender Registration and Compliance Symposium; 8 hours; Criminal Information
Center

The Chair entertained a motion for approval. Sheriff Pollan made a motion to approve the training.
Mrs. Coleman seconded the motion, and it was approved by unanimous consent.

Final Vote to Adopt Proposed Policy Changes – Chapters 1,2,3,4,5,7,9,13:

The OLRC approved the below changes to board policy with the addition of the words “or
individual” to the description of a law enforcement officer:

Part 301 Chapter 1

Rule 1.1 Definitions

Herein are defined certain terms used in these Policy and Procedures.

1. Administrative Hold - Shall mean the withholding of all training funds and certification
certificates due to non-compliance with Board policy or official requests for information.

2. Background Investigation – Shall mean a comprehensive process designed to produce

fact-based, complete, accurate and unbiased information to ensure that an applicant meets all
standards and requirements for employment.

32. Board - Shall mean the Board on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Training.

43. Board Director - Shall mean the Director of the Division of Public Safety Planning.

54. Break in Service - Any period of time when an individual is not a law enforcement officer
as defined in this policy.

65. Certificates - Shall mean certificates issued only to fully qualified officers.

76. Certified - Shall mean the Board has acknowledged that all requirements mandated by this
policy and the Law Enforcement Officers Training Program have been achieved and that a
certificate has been issued as documentation of the same.

87. Chief of Police - Shall mean the chief law enforcement officer of the municipality, who

Page | 4
shall have control and supervision of all police officers employed by the municipality. The officer
in charge of municipal law enforcement officers, regardless of title, is acting as the Chief of Police.

98. Code of Ethics - Shall mean the ethical mandates set forth in Chapter 4, Rule 4.4,(1), Law
Enforcement Code of Ethics, that law enforcement officers use to perform their duties.

109. Criminal Record - Shall mean any type of felony or misdemeanor conviction.

1110. Disqualifying Criminal Convictions - Shall mean a criminal record that is specific and
directly related to the duties and responsibilities of a law enforcement officer as determined by a
consideration of the following factors: the nature and seriousness of the crime for which the
individual was convicted; the passage of time since the commission of the crime; the relationship
of the crime to the ability, capacity, and fitness required to perform the duties and discharge the
responsibilities of a law enforcement officer; and any evidence of rehabilitation or treatment
undertaken by the individual that might mitigate against a direct relation.

1211. Employment Standards -– All law enforcement applicants must meet the following
guidelines to be employed as a law enforcement officer. To be qualified for employment as a
law enforcement officer, the applicant must meet the following standards and requirements: They
must Be at least twenty-one (21) years of age, be a high school graduate (or obtain a General
Educational Development (GED) Diploma), and be a United States citizen; be of such good
physical and mental condition, to be capable of performing the duties under conditions inherent to
the profession, as verified by a licensed physician; and be of good moral character as evidenced
among other things by having neither a conviction, a plea of guilty, a plea of nolo contendere,
probation, pre-trial diversion or the payment of any fine for a felony or a misdemeanor involving
moral turpitude. or in relation to a crime that is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of
a law enforcement officer; and have engaged in no conduct or action that would greatly diminish
the public trust in the competence and reliability of a law enforcement officer. Individuals Former
members of the Armed Forces must have been discharged from the Armed Forces under honorable
conditions. Fitness for service as it relates to moral character must be verified by an appropriate
background investigation.

139. Equivalency of Training - Shall mean the assessment of an applicant's law enforcement
training, education, experience and qualifications.

1410. “Grand-fathered” or exempt officers - Shall mean full-time law enforcement officers
already serving under permanent appointment on July 1, 1981, and personnel of the division of
community services under § 47-7-9, Mississippi Code of 1972, serving on July 1, 1994, are not
required to meet any of the provisions of the Law Enforcement Officers Training Program.

1511. Lateral Transfer - A transfer by a certified officer to a different law enforcement

agency.

1612. Law Enforcement Employer - Shall mean the agency which employs the law enforcement
officer.

1713. Law Enforcement Officer - Shall mean any person or individual appointed or employed
full time by the state or any political subdivision thereof, or by the state military department as

Page | 5
provided in Section 33-1-33, who is duly sworn and vested with authority to bear arms and make
arrests, and whose primary responsibility is the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension
of criminals and the enforcement of the criminal and traffic laws of this state and/or the ordinances
of any political subdivision thereof. The term "law enforcement officer" also includes employees of
the Department of Corrections who are designated as law enforcement officers by the
Commissioner of Corrections pursuant to Section 47-5-54 and includes those district attorney
criminal investigators who are designated as law enforcement officers. However, the term "law
enforcement officer" shall not mean or include any elected official or any person employed as a
legal assistant to a district attorney in this state, compliance agents of the State Board of Pharmacy,
or any person or elected official who, subject to approval by the board, provides some criminal
justice related services for a law enforcement agency. As used in this paragraph, "appointed or
employed full time" means any person, other than a deputy sheriff or municipal law enforcement
officer, who is receiving gross compensation for his or her duties as a law enforcement officer of
Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) or more per week or One Thousand Seventy-Five Dollars
($1,075.00) or more per month; for a deputy sheriff or municipal law enforcement officer, the term
“appointed or employed full time” means a deputy sheriff or municipal law enforcement officer
who is receiving gross compensation for his or her duties as a law enforcement officer of Four
Hundred Seventy-five Dollars ($475.00) or more per week or Two Thousand Fifty Dollars
($2,050.00) or more per month.

1814. Law Enforcement Trainee - Shall mean any person appointed or employed in a full-time,
part-time, reserve or auxiliary capacity by the state or any political subdivision thereof for the
purposes of completing all the selection and training requirements established by the board to
become a law enforcement officer or a part-time law enforcement officer. Such individuals shall
not have the authority to use force, bear arms, make arrests or exercise any of the powers of a peace
officer unless:

A. The trainee is under the direct control and supervision of a law enforcement officer;

B. The trainee was previously certified under this chapter; or

C. The trainee is a certified law enforcement officer in a reciprocating state

19. Moral Turpitude - Any conduct, or pattern of conduct, contrary to justice, honesty, honor,
modesty or good morals that would tend to disrupt, diminish or otherwise jeopardize public trust
and fidelity in law enforcement.

2016. Part-time Law Enforcement Officer - Shall mean any person or individual appointed or
employed in a part-time, reserve, or auxiliary capacity by the state or any political subdivision
thereof who is duly sworn and vested with authority to bear arms and make arrests, and whose
primary responsibility is the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of criminals and
the enforcement of the criminal and traffic laws of this state and/or the ordinances of any political
subdivision thereof. However, the term “part-time law enforcement officer” shall not mean or
include any person or elected official who, subject to approval by the Board, provides some
criminal justice related services for a law enforcement agency. As used in this paragraph
“appointed or employed” means any person, other than a deputy sheriff or municipal law
enforcement officer, who is performing such duties at any time whether or not they receive any

Page | 6
compensation for duties as a law enforcement officer provided that such compensation is less than
Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) per week or One Thousand Seventy-Five Dollars ($1,075.00)
per month; for a deputy sheriff or municipal law enforcement officer, the term ‘appointed or
employed” means a deputy sheriff or municipal law enforcement officer who is performing such
duties at any time whether or not they receive any compensation for duties as a law enforcement
officer provided that such compensation is less than Four Hundred Seventy-five Dollars ($475.00)
per week or Two Thousand Fifty Dollars ($2,050.00) per month.

2117. Probationary Period - A period of one year for full-time status and two years for part-time
status from the initial date of hire as a law enforcement trainee, in the original appointment. The
probationary period cannot be enlarged by additional or multiple appointments. Individuals acquire
an additional two-year period following a break in-service of more than two years.

2218. Self-Sponsored Cadet – Shall mean any person applying to an accredited law enforcement
academy with the intent of completing the basic course curriculum or refresher course curriculum
for full-time or part-time employment.

2319. Training Packet -Shall mean the Board adopted forms used to collect information
necessary for enrollment in a basic, part-time/reserve or refresher training course.

History: adopted - 07/1981; rev - 04/1988, 10/1991, 07/1998, 07/2004, 07/2006, 07/2007, 09/2008,
05/2013, 03/2017 and 08/2020

Source: Miss Code Ann. § 45-6-3, 45-6-7

Part 301 Chapter 2: Applicant Evaluation, Employment and Certification Procedures

C. All law enforcement applicants with the noted exception in paragraph (b) above must meet
the following guidelines to be employed as a law enforcement officer:

5. And be of good moral character as evidenced among other things by having neither a
conviction, a plea of guilty, a plea of nolo contendere, having been ordered into probation or pre-
trial diversion or have been fined in relation to a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral
turpitude or to a crime that is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of a law enforcement
officer; and not have been engaged in any conduct or action that would greatly diminish the public
trust in the competence and reliability of a law enforcement officer. Former members of the Armed
Forces Individuals must have been discharged from the Armed Forces under honorable conditions.
Fitness for service as it relates to moral character must be verified by an appropriate background
investigation.

1. A complete background investigation (See Background Investigations). This investigation

is a critical factor in determining whether law enforcement applicants meet the requirements
established under the LEOTP. The primary purpose of the investigation is to provide the law

Page | 7
enforcement employer with enough factual information to determine if a particular candidate
would ensure the continued public trust in the competence and reliability of the department.

c. All other types of offenses are crimes and must be reported, regardless of
the fine, pleas entered, or the adjudication status. This would include but is not limited to cases that
are non-adjudicated, nolle prossed, dismissed, or acquitted, or expunged .

d
c. Eligible for certification after successful completion of the Skills Test and Law Courses of
the Refresher Course (completion of a Board-approved basic training course and break in service
of more than two years), or the Refresher Course (completion of a Board-approved basic training
course and break in service of more than five years).

F. Self-Sponsored individuals may request to attend an accredited academy for the purpose of
completing basic or refresher training before applying for a law enforcement position. Self-
Sponsored individuals must obtain certification within two years of completing basic or refresher
training. If certification is not granted, the training must be repeated.

Part 301 Chapter 3: Professional Certificates

D. The employer should return the certificate to the Board director, along with a complete
“Termination/Reassignment Report” form, within ten working days after:

1. The employee no longer meets all of the qualifications for employment (i.e.- the
employee has been convicted, pled guilty, pled nolo contendere, fined, ordered into
probation or pre-trial diversion in relation to a felony or a crime involving moral
turpitude or to a crime that is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of a
law enforcement officer, etc. [the employer shall provide official documentation
of any such conviction]);

Part 301 Chapter 4: Hearings, Denial or Other Sanctions of Certificates

Rule 4.2 Policy

1. The Board may reject any unqualified applicant for certification by a classification of not
eligible for certification. Further, the Board reserves the right to reprimand, suspend or cancel and
recall any certificate when:

A. The certificate was issued by administrative error;

B. The certificate was obtained through misrepresentation or fraud;

C. The holder has been convicted, pled guilty, pled nolo contendere, fined, ordered into
probation or pre-trial diversion in relation to a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude or that is
directly related to the duties and responsibilities of a law enforcement officer;

Page | 8
D. The holder has committed an act of malfeasance or has been dismissed from his employing
law enforcement agency; or

E. The physical or mental condition of the officer is such that the officer is incapable of
performing law enforcement duties inherent to the profession; or

FE. Or Oother due cause as determined by the Board.

1. The Board has established standards and qualifications by rule and regulation for the
employment of law enforcement officers as they relate to the competence and reliability of persons
to discharge the responsibilities of that position of public trust. These standards address minimum
age, education, training, physical and mental standards, citizenship, good moral character and
experience.

2. Any condition, conduct or action that would breach the established minimum standards,
violate the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics or would greatly diminish the public trust in the
competence and reliability of a law enforcement officer would be actionable as due cause for
reprimand, suspension (under conditions), recall or cancellation of a certificate.

Source: Miss Code Ann. § 45-6-7, 45-6-11

Rule 4.3 Procedures

1. The procedures listed herein shall be followed to ensure a fair and expedient process
consistent with law.

A. The Board staff shall open a certification review file upon the instruction of the assistant
director or the director. The director or the assistant may base the opening of a review file on a
number of sources.

F. The director shall have the administrative authority to issue both temporary or permanent
declarations of ineligibility for certification as well as an administrative revocation of those
certificate holders who have been adjudicated guilty of a felony crime.

1. Once the date has been established for the hearing, the director shall notify the
officer/individual and the agency head of the hearing date. The letter shall state, in clear terms, the
time and place of the hearing, purpose of the hearing and proposed action to be taken. The letter
will also:

a. Invite the officer/individual to appear personally before the Board to make a presentation on
his certification.

Page | 9
b. Advise the officer/individual that they have a right to be heard, present evidence and that
they may bring people to give oral testimony or to provide assistance in the presentation. They also
may question any adverse witnesses.

c. Advise the officer/individual that they may have counsel assist and/or represent them at the
hearing.

d. Advise the officer/individual that strict rules of evidence do not apply.

e. Advise the officer/individual that documents may be submitted for consideration. All copies
of any official documents must be submitted under the county seal or notary public. Any written
testimony must be presented in the form of duly sworn affidavits. All documents must be submitted
to the Board staff not later than five working days before the hearing.

7. During deliberations the Board shall first consider the factual charges against the
officer/individual and determine if the information presented supports the charges. If the Board
finds that one or more of the charges are supported, then the Board shall consider the appropriate
sanction.

8. The Board action shall be reduced to writing and entered into the written record of the
proceedings. This record shall report the Board's findings of fact relative to each charge and the
certification sanction by the Board.

K. The director shall notify the employing agency and the officer/individual in writing of the
Board's decision. If the Board suspended or recalled the certificate, the notification shall advise the
employer that no person shall serve as a law enforcement officer during a period when that person's
certificate has been suspended, canceled or recalled in accordance with Mississippi Code
Annotated, § 45-6-11 (3).

L. An officer/individual aggrieved by the findings and order of the Board may file an appeal
with the chancery court of the county in which the officer was employed. The officer/individual
must submit written notice of the appeal and the appropriate venue to the Board within thirty days
after the date of the Board's final order.

Source: Miss Code Ann. § 45-6-7, 45-6-11

Part 301 Chapter 5: Compliance Monitoring and Noncompliance

Rule 5.3 Procedures

A.

2. Law enforcement agencies must establish policy that ensures only authorized (certified)
officers perform duties as full-time,or part-time, (including reserve, and/or auxiliary) law
enforcement officers.

Page | 10
Part 301 Chapter 7: Standards for the Successful Completion of Law Enforcement Training

Rule 7.3 Procedures

1. This section establishes procedures governing the standards to be used by accredited

training academies.

A. Admission/enrollment procedure

1. Each academy shall develop an admittance and enrollment procedure. This procedure must
ensure that only those applicants who are of good moral character meeting Board standards and are
physically and mentally fit are admitted to the academy.

Part 301 Chapter 9: Certification Based on Equivalency of Training and Refresher Training

D. Any officer, certified in this state, whose break in service was due to service in a closely
related criminal justice position may restore their certification by completing the hands-on skill
tests and law courses of the refresher course. Once an officer has been deemed eligible for the skill
tests and law courses, the department head will be notified by the Board.

1. Applicants must have completed the basic course as in Chapter-9, Rule 9.2, Subsection-C
above, met the current employment guidelines and completed each of the hands-on skill tests and
law courses and provide verification of First Aid/CPR certification within one year for full-time
status and two years for part-time status of their date of hire. The skill tests must be conducted by a
certified instructor or at a Board accredited academy. The law courses must be conducted at a
Board accredited academy. Academies and instructors must review the Board’s notice that the
student is eligible for the skill tests and law courses. The skill tests are:

a. Firearms,

b. Defensive Driving and

c. Mechanics of Arrest

3. c. Or Applicants must have served in a part-time law enforcement status position in this
state.

E. Any officer, certified in this state, whose break in service was due to serving as a law
enforcement officer in another state or federal jurisdiction may restore their certification. Eligible
officers need only complete the hands-on skill tests and law courses of the refresher course and
provide verification of First Aid/CPR certification within one year for full-time status and two
years for part-time status of their date of hire, provided that the break in service is not more than
five (5) years. The skill tests must be conducted by a certified instructor or at a Board accredited
academy. The law courses must be conducted at a Board accredited academy.

Page | 11
1. Applicants must have completed the basic course as in Chapter-9, Rule 9.2, Subsection-C
above and met the current employment guidelines.

2. Applicants must have not had a break in service of more than five (5) years.

2.3. Applicants must have served in a full-time capacity as a law enforcement officer in one of
the following positions (or other position as approved by the Board):

b. An agent, police officer or other law enforcement officer Any person

currently or formerly classified under the GS-1811 series or any uniformed federal law
enforcement officer who is: appointed or employed full-time by; the United States Department of
Justice or its law enforcement subdivisions, the Department of Defense or its recognized military
service branches, the Department of the Interior, the Department of the Treasury or its law
enforcement subdivisions, or the District of Columbia; and/or who is vested with the authority to
bear arms, make arrests, and has as their primary duty the prevention and detection of crime, the
apprehension of criminals, and the enforcement of criminal and traffic laws of the United States of
America.

Rule 9.4 Refresher Training Curriculum

1. This document describes the 200-hour Refresher Training Curriculum for all Mississippi
Law Enforcement Officers.

LAW ENFORCEMENT REFRESHER TRAINING CURRICULUM

HOURS

1. Mississippi Vehicle Law and Enforcement

9. Traffic Crash Investigation 16

10. Mississippi Motor Vehicle Law and Enforcement 4

13. DUI Law, Detection and Field Sobriety 10

2. POLICE DEFENSIVE TACTICS

15. Officer Safety - Mechanics of Arrest, Restraint and 16

Control

16. Use of Force 4

3. FIREARMS

21. Firearms Training 32

Page | 12
4. EMERGENCY VEHICLE OPERATION

25. Emergency Vehicle Driver Training 16 12

5. INVESTIGATIVE PRACTICES

22. Crime Scene Processing 2

6. ORGANIZED CRIME/DRUGS

26. Identification and Handling Drugs 6

7. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURES

28. Constitutional Law; Search and Seizure; Laws of Arrest 8

29. Mississippi Criminal Law 16

30. Mississippi Juvenile Law - Dealing with Juveniles 2

31. Courtroom Procedures and Rules of Evidence 1

32. Courtroom Testimony, Demeanor and Mock Trial 1

8. Civil Liability 2

8. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

33. Principles of Criminal Investigation 2

36. Domestic Violence Response 16

9. REPORT WRITING

37. Report Writing, Note Taking and Case Preparation 2

10. PATROL OPERATIONS

38. Patrol Concept, Preparation and Techniques; Calls for 8

Service; Crimes in Progress

39. Active Shooter 16

41. Civil Complaints and Service Calls 22

Page | 13
 44. Bias Based Profiling 2

11. HOMELAND SECURITY

45. Introduction of Homeland Security and ICS 1

46. Introduction of Human Trafficking 2

12. HUMAN RELATIONS

17. Human Behavior/Interpersonal Communications 4

18. Law Enforcement and Citizens with Special Needs 4
19. Conflict Management 4

13. ADMINISTRATIVE 21

Total 200

Part 301 Chapter 13: Instructor Certification

Rule 13.1 Purpose

1. This section establishes policy and procedures governing the standards and qualifications to
be used to certify instructors for Board-approved training.

2. As with the professional certificate the instructor certificate remains the property of the
Board. The possession and stewardship of the certificate is the responsibility of the sponsoring
agency. The Board may revoke any instructor certificate upon a showing of just cause, which
includes, but is not limited to:

a. Administrative error in issuance.

b. Falsification of any information on the application,

c. Failure to complete the prescribed internship,

d. Conviction or the entering of a plea of either guilty or nolo contendere, being fined, ordered
into probation or pre-trial diversion in relation to a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral
turpitude or a crime that is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of a law enforcement
officer,

The Chair entertained a motion for the final adoption of these policies. Chief Rice made a motion
to adopt with a second from Dr. Mallory. The motion was adopted by unanimous consent.

Discuss Dismissal from Basic Training:

The Board continued to discuss the two following questions from the last meeting:

Page | 14
When an agency sends a cadet to an academy and the agency decides to terminate the cadet or
removes their sponsorship, should the academy director allow the cadet to continue as a self-
sponsor at the objection of the agency?

When an academy director decides to dismiss a sponsored cadet for cause, and the cadet is
dismissed by their agency, if the cadet wants to return as a self-sponsor, should the academy
director have the authority to not accept him unless he is sponsored by an agency?

Additional views were presented to the Board concerning these issues. Neither issue received a
motion. It was the consensus of the Board that the academy director should make these decisions.

NEW BUSINESS

Certification of Officers:

Director Davis presented 6 F/T Basic classes and 3 P/T Basic classes for certification pending
completion of all requirements. There are 23 F/T equivalency candidates and 1 P/T equivalency
candidate for certification pending completion of all requirements. The Chair entertained a
motion. Dr. Mallory made a motion to approve the basic and equivalency candidates for
certification subject to meeting all requirements and Mrs. Coleman seconded the motion. The
motion was adopted by unanimous consent.

Director’s Report:

The director stated that hopefully by the November meeting, we will have the AG’s opinion on
the Board’s questions concerning the new laws that were discussed. The director stated that there
will possibly be 2 hearings at the next meeting.

Next Scheduled Meeting:

The next regular meeting is scheduled for November 11, 2021. The continuation hearing for
Officer Walters is set for October 7, 2021.

Concluding Remarks; Adjournment:

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn. Mr. Swetman made a motion to adjourn. Chief
Rice seconded the motion and it passed without opposition. The meeting adjourned at 10:02 a.m.
.

Respectfully submitted,

Director, Board on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Training

Page | 15
 MINUTES

BLEOST MEETING
October 7, 2021
Call to Order:

The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by Vice-Chairman Brad Carter.

Roll Call:

The Vice-Chair called the roll, and a quorum was established. Board members present were:

Officer Brad Carter

Hon. Kassie Coleman
Chief Don Gammage
Chief Michael Hall
Sheriff Jim Johnson
Dr. Steve Mallory
Constable Glenn McKay

Hon. Candice Rucker, Board Counsel

Board members not present were:

Col. Randy Ginn

Sheriff Greg Pollan
Mayor Gary Rhoads
Chief Vance Rice
Hon. Ed Snyder
Mr. Windy Swetman

Introduction of Guests, Introductory Remarks:

The guests introduced themselves and they were welcomed.

Speakers/Guests present were:

Major LeAnn Farr – Olive Branch P.D.

Deputy Chief William Cox – Olive Branch P.D.
Attorney Francis Springer
Lt. Col. Thomas Tuggle – MLEOTA
Deputy Paul Leslie – DeSoto Co. S.O.
Deputy Jonathan Hardin – DeSoto Co. S.O
Deputy Steve Palmer – DeSoto Co. S.O
Lt. Mike Cowan – DeSoto Co. S.O
Sheriff Bill Rasco – DeSoto Co. S.O
Deputy Jordan Walters – DeSoto Co. S.O

Staff Members Present were:

Page | 2
Bureau Director Robert Davis
Division Director Bob Morgan
Training Director, Michael Nash
Certification Officer Donna Rogers

Reconvene Hearing on Officer Jordan R. Walters:

The hearing on Deputy Jordan R. Walters continued with the addition of new evidence that was
excluded during the beginning of the hearing, and witnesses were called to testify. The rule was
invoked.

At the conclusion of all presentations, the vice-chair entertained a motion to enter into closed
session to consider whether to declare an executive session. Mr. McKay made the motion, and it
was seconded by Mrs. Coleman. The vote was unanimous. In closed session, the vice-chair
entertained a motion to declare an executive session to consider the allegations of misconduct and
evidence produced during open proceedings, and the possible issuance of an appealable order.
Sheriff Johnson made the motion, and it was seconded by Mr. McKay. The vote was unanimous.
When executive session was finished, everyone was called back into the meeting room, the vice-
chair announced that all members of the board who were present before deliberations, are present
now. The vice-chair entertained a motion to come out of executive session. Mr. McKay made the
motion and Mrs. Coleman seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. The vice-chair
announced the finding made in executive session which is contained in the final order.

BEFORE THE MISSISSIPPI BOARD ON

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING

In the Matter of:

DEPUTY JORDAN R. WALTERS

Certificate Number 25019

FINAL ORDER

This matter concerns the certification of Jordan R. Walters as a law-

enforcement officer in the State of Mississippi. Under Mississippi Code Annotated §
45-6-11, the Certification Staff of the Mississippi Board on Law Enforcement Officer
Standards and Training determined that Walters was not eligible for law-enforcement
certification. Walters requested and was granted a certification-review hearing before
the Board. A quorum of the Board was present throughout the hearing and
deliberation on this matter.

Robert Davis, Director of the Office of Standards and Training, presented

testimony and documents to the Board. Walters, having been served notice of the
hearing and being fully informed of his rights to a formal hearing before the Board

Page | 3
(Ex. 4 at 10-12), appeared and was represented by counsel. Walters and his witnesses
testified, and Walters presented documents as evidence at the hearing.

The hearing of this matter was first convened on July 22, 2021. At that time,
Walters—through counsel—objected to a portion of the evidence that Mr. Davis
presented, arguing that it was obtained by Olive Branch Police Department (OBPD)
in violation of the Fourth Amendment. (July 22 Tr. 5-6). Acting Chairman Brad
Carter excluded the evidence but later recessed the hearing so the Board Attorney
could determine whether evidence may be excluded. (July 22 Tr. 72-73). During the
recess, the Board Attorney determined that evidence may not be excluded from
consideration under the Board’s policies and procedures, which provide: “The Board
shall consider all oral and written material presented at the hearing.” See Rule
4.3(1)(J)(2) (emphases added); accord Alston v. Miss. Dep’t of Emp. Sec., 247 So. 3d
303, 311 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (noting that “formal rules of practice, procedure, and
evidence are more relaxed in proceedings before administrative agencies than in
courts of law”). The Rule being written in the imperative, Acting Chairman Carter
formally requested that Mr. Davis schedule a special Board meeting to conclude the
hearing. (Oct. 7 Tr. 5-6). The Board then reconvened Walters’s hearing on October 7,
2021, and considered all evidence presented. Again, Walters was provided notice of
the hearing and of his rights to be represented by counsel and to present evidence on
his behalf—which he exercised.

The Board, having considered all evidence presented, makes these findings of
fact and conclusions of law based on clear and convincing evidence and issues this
Final Order:

I. Findings of Fact

1. Present at the hearing on the date of the vote were:

Members:
Officer Brad Carter, Ridgeland Police Department
District Attorney Kassie Coleman, Lauderdale County
Chief Don Gammage, Olive Branch Police Department
Chief Michael Hall, Guntown Police Department
Sheriff Jim H. Johnson, Lee County
Dr. Steve Mallory, University of Mississippi
Constable Glenn McKay

The above-named Members were also present during the first portion of Walters’s
hearing on July 22. Chief Gammage recused himself from consideration of this case
(July 22 Tr. 7; Oct. 7 Tr. 8-9, 11), and Acting Chairman Carter elected not to
participate in the vote, leaving a five-person quorum of the Board to deliberate. See

Page | 4
Bylaws of the Mississippi Board on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Training,
Art. V § 5.

Board Attorney:
Hon. Candice L. Rucker, Mississippi Attorney General’s Office

Standards and Training Staff:

Robert Davis, Director Bob Morgan, Division Director
Michael Nash, Training Director Donna Rogers, Certification Officer

2. These exhibits were admitted as evidence at the hearing:

Exhibits Sponsored by Mr. Davis:

• Exhibit 1: 33 pages total
o Walters’s Professional Certificate
o Law Enforcement Termination/Reassignment Report
o Documents relating to OBPD’s internal investigations into
Walters’s conduct
o September 13, 2019 letter on Walters’s certification
• Exhibit 2: 9 pages total
o OBPD Employee Disciplinary Report
o Walters’s letters of resignation from OBPD
o Documents relating to OBPD meetings and attendance
o Log of relevant correspondence from Walters’s cell phone
• Exhibit 3: 145 pages total
o Downloaded text messages from Walters’s cell phone
• Exhibit 4: 12 pages total
o Walters’s Application for Certification
o Correspondence on Walters’s certification, request for hearing,
and hearing date set
• Exhibit 5: 13 pages total
o Police reports reflecting Walters’s 2019 charge for simple assault
• Exhibit 6: 1 page total
o Law Enforcement Code of Ethics
• Exhibit 7: Police Videos
• Exhibit 8: April 29, 2019 Litigation Hold Letter

Exhibits Sponsored by Walters:

• Unnumbered Exhibit 9: Walters’s Life-Saving Award presented by
DeSoto County Sheriff’s Department (DCSD)
• Unnumbered Exhibit 10: Walters’s Officer of the Year Award presented
by OBPD

Page | 5
 • Unnumbered Exhibit 11: Letters of reference from (1) Dep. Brian C.
Brock; (2) Sgt. Jack Henry; (2) Sgt. Donald Anglin; and (4) Sgt. Keith
Walters (Ret.)
• Unnumbered Exhibit 12: Order of Expungement of Criminal Record

3. Mr. Davis testified that Walters first attended law-enforcement training

in Indiana and was certified there in 2015. (July 22 Tr. 10). He attended the
Mississippi Law Enforcement Refresher Course in April and May 2016 and was
certified by the Board on May 5, 2016. (July 22 Tr. 10). That certification allowed him
to work for OBPD. (July 22 Tr. 10).

4. Board Staff received a Law Enforcement Termination/Reassignment

Report from OBPD in September 2019. (July 22 Tr. 12; Ex. 1 at 2). That Report
advised that Walters resigned “prior to, during or at the conclusion of an
investigation” on August 13, 2019. (Ex. 1 at 2). OBPD attached information to that
Report about two internal-affairs investigations into Walters’s conduct while he was
employed by OBPD. (July 22 Tr. 12; Ex. 1 at 3-32).

5. The first of these internal-affairs investigations began in April 2019,

when a citizen complained that Walters used excessive force while responding to a car
stopped in the roadway. (July 22 Tr. 12). The suspect—who was passed out in the
car—claimed that he had a handicapped arm and could not comply with Walters’s
commands to remove his hand from his pocket. (July 22 Tr. 12-13). Walters then took
the suspect to the ground and handcuffed him. (July 22 Tr. 13). OBPD determined
“that unnecessary force was used.” (July 22 Tr. 13; Ex. 1 at 3-10). Walters received a
one-day suspension for “exercising too much force on th[at] individual.” (July 22 Tr.
44; Ex. 2 at 1). The Board viewed the video of this incident at Walters’s hearing. (Ex.
7).

6. On April 29, 2019, OBPD received a litigation-hold letter from Olive

Branch City Attorney Bryan Dye, advising that litigation “has been threatened, or is
reasonably anticipated,” about Walters’s April 2019 use of excessive force. (Ex. 8). The
letter required OBPD “to refrain from deleting or destroying any evidence, including
electronic data (emails, etc.) and video relating to the subject of the anticipated or
pending litigation.” (Ex. 8). It also advised that “[f]ailure to comply with the Litigation
Hold may result in claims of evidence spoilation against the City of Olive Branch and
its employees, and may further result in the imposition of sanctions by the presiding
Court.” (Ex. 8).

7. The second of these internal-affairs investigations began in August 2019,

when OBPD learned that Walters had recorded videos from his dash-mounted camera
onto his personal cell phone and shared those videos—including video of the April
2019 excessive-force incident—with people outside the department. (July 22 Tr. 14;
Oct. 7 Tr. 17). This conduct violates OBPD policy, and Walters was aware of that

Page | 6
policy at the time of the infraction. (Ex. 2 at 4-8). When confronted, Walters admitted
that he had police-department video on his personal cell phone and that he had
shared those videos with several people outside the department. (July 22 Tr. 14, 27;
Oct. 7 Tr. 46).

8. OBPD then asked Walters for his cell phone so the police-department
videos could be removed. (July 22 Tr. 15). Major LeAnn Farr testified that OBPD felt
bound by the April 2019 Litigation Hold to make a record of the videos Walters had
captured and the people to whom they were sent. (Oct. 7 Tr. 19-20, 22). OBPD Deputy
Chief William Cox and Major Farr testified that Walters voluntarily surrendered his
cell phone, along with the security code to the cell phone. (July 22 Tr. 26; Oct. 7 Tr.
18). Walters testified that he did not voluntarily surrender his cell phone but that it
was “physically taken” from him during a meeting with his superiors. (July 22 Tr. 38-
39; Oct. 7 Tr. 91). He concedes that he provided the security code to his cell phone but
claims that he only did so because he did not feel free to resist. (July 22 Tr. 40).

9. When Walters was asked to surrender his cell phone, OBPD was
conducting an administrative investigation. (July 22 Tr. 27-28). At that time, Major
Farr testified that the investigation was not criminal and that Walters was not
advised of his rights under Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967). (July 22 Tr.
30-31; Oct. 7 Tr. 18). Major Farr testified that the purpose of the meeting was to
determine whether the accusations against Walters—i.e., that he had recorded and
shared OBPD videos on his personal cell phone—were valid. (Oct. 7 Tr. 18, 46).
According to Deputy Chief Cox, Walters was advised at the meeting that it was
unclear whether “there would be any subsequent charges filed against him in
relation[] to the sharing of th[e] video[s].” (July 22 Tr. 30). Walters contests this
account, claiming that Chief Gammage threatened to “arrest [him] right then.” (July
22 Tr. 38).

10. OBPD then found seventeen police-department videos on Walters’s cell

phone. (July 22 Tr. 29). Major Farr and her colleagues learned that Walters had
videoed and shared the April 2019 excessive-force incident and sixteen other incidents
occurring while he was in the line of duty. (Oct. 7 Tr. 23-24). In many cases, Walters
shared the video within minutes of the incident occurring—while the scene was still
being processed and before the suspect involved had been arrested and charged. (Oct.
7 Tr. 24-25). Most suspects involved in these videos were African American men, and
Major Farr suspected “veil[ed] racism” against members of the African American
community. (Oct. 7 Tr. 25). As a result, she asked the forensic technician to search
Walters’s phone for racial slurs (“n-----” and “n----”). (Oct. 7 Tr. 26).

11. During this search, OBPD uncovered many text messages containing
racial slurs, threats of violence against minorities, and “other unprofessional
messages.” (July 22 Tr. 15; Ex. 4 at 10). Major Farr testified that OBPD prepared an
extraction report of these text messages in accord with the April 2019 Litigation Hold

Page | 7
and in anticipation of civil litigation on the excessive-force incident. (Oct. 7 Tr. 19).
During her investigation, she tied Walters’s text messages, including racial slurs and
threats of violence, to the many OBPD videos that he shared. (Oct. 7 Tr. 27). Major
Farr and Deputy Chief Cox specifically testified to these text messages Walters
shared about incidents that he worked as an OBPD officer:

• August 18, 2018 Assault with Weapons Incident: “Hahaha, he’s a

piece of shit. He and his four other brahs chased a rival ‘gang’
member with a loaded pistol. Parents called us and just so happened
their car passed right as I was pulling up. He wanted to keep pushing
against me . . . well say hello to the hood of my car with your face
motherfucker.” (Ex. 1 at 18).

• September 5, 2018 Motor Vehicle Theft Incident: “Long story short.

We got in a pursuit with a stolen vehicle out of Memphis . . . I was
setting up stop sticks on the hwy. LT got on the radio saying he cut
his lights off. I turned around to see if I could see him coming.
Dropped a handle of my stop sticks. Reached down to get it and as I’m
coming up, this fucking n----- goes around my car on the right side
and nearly took my head off. I could have reached out and touched his
car. If there weren’t other cars on the hwy I would have tried putting
rounds in his car hoping to blow his goddamn head off.” (Ex. 1 at 19).

• September 5, 2018 Motor Vehicle Theft Incident: “Fucking crazy shit

man. I had to go to the pd throw a dip in and take a minute after.
After he almost clipped me I got back in my car and I hit 140 trying to
catch that fucker. If I did I was gonna put rounds through my
windshield dude. It was that close and I would’ve been more than
justified. Fucking n------ from Memphis being fucking thugs and
stealing cars. Fuck them” (Ex. 1 at 19).

12. Before the second internal-affairs investigation began, Walters had

resigned and given two weeks’ notice. (July 22 Tr. 14; Ex. 2 at 2). When he admitted
to possessing and sharing police-department videos with people outside the
department, he was asked to resign immediately and did immediately resign at that
time “in lieu of termination.” (July 22 Tr. 14, 27; Oct. 7 Tr. 19; Ex. 2 at 3). Chief
Gammage later submitted a letter to Board Staff, reflecting “that he did believe that
there was a violation of Board policies, which helped [Board Staff] make the decision
to declare [Walters] ineligible for certification.” (July 22 Tr. 43; Ex. 1 at 33).

13. Walters was hired by DeSoto County Sheriff’s Department about one
week after resigning from OBPD. (July 22 Tr. 46). Shortly after beginning his work
with DCSD, Walters was arrested and charged with simple assault. (July 22 Tr. 51;
Ex. 5). According to the police report, Walters had an altercation with his then-

Page | 8
fiancée’s ex-husband at the preschool where her four-year-old child attended. (July 22
Tr. 54). That charge was not prosecuted and was ultimately expunged (Unnamed Ex.
12), but “the Board does consider expungements . . . when it comes to the certification
of law enforcement officer[s]” (July 22 Tr. 53).

14. After Walters resigned from OBPD, Board Staff received his Application
for Certification from the DCSD. (July 22 Tr. 46; Ex. 4 at 1). As part of his
Application, Walters submitted a written statement to explain his suspension from
OBPD earlier that year—i.e., for violating arrest procedures by using excessive force
against the suspect. (Ex. 4 at 4). Walters further advised that he filed a grievance,
and the disciplinary action against him was ultimately upheld. (Ex. 4 at 4). Board
Staff declared Walters ineligible for certification based on information received about
Walters’s conduct while he was employed with OBPD. (July 22 Tr. 9). Board Staff
issued a document to DCSD reflecting as much (Ex. 4 at 5-6), and Walters requested a
hearing (July 22 Tr. 9; Ex. 4 at 7-9).

15. Mr. Davis also introduced the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics, which
reads, in pertinent part:

I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all; maintain

courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn or ridicule; develop self-
restraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others. Honest in
thought and deed in both my personal and official life, I will be
exemplary in obeying the laws of the land and the regulations of my
department. Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is
confided to me in an official capacity will be kept ever secret unless
revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty.

I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices,

animosities or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise
for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the
law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill
will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never accepting
gratuities.

(Ex. 6).

16. For his part, Walters called five witnesses to testify—including Sheriff
Bill Rasco, Lieutenant Paul Leslie, Major Steve Palmer, Deputy Jonathan Hardin,
and Chief Gammage. The substance of the first four testimonies was similar: Walters
is a person of good character and performs well as a law-enforcement officer; he has
excelled in his role as a K-9 handler and at least twice jeopardized his personal safety
to save lives; he provides the same level of courtesy to all members of the public; and
losing him would harm DCSD, which has trouble finding quality officers. (July 22 Tr.

Page | 9
65, 67; Oct. 7 Tr. 108-09, 114-15, 118, 121-22). Sheriff Rasco, Lieutenant Leslie, and
Major Palmer testified that they had not seen the text messages at issue before the
Board. (Oct. 7 Tr. 113, 116, 123).

17. Walters also testified on his own behalf. (Oct. 7 Tr. 86). He likewise
testified that he enjoys and excels at his work with DCSD, harbors no racial
animosity, and treats all members of the public with the same courtesy. (Oct. 7 Tr. 87-
88, 98-99, 105).

18. And Walters submitted documentary evidence in support of his case. In

no particular order, the Board considered a December 7, 2018 letter from OBPD
naming Walters “Officer of the Year” for freeing the driver of a submerged vehicle
after a one-car motor-vehicle accident. (Unnamed Ex. 10). The Board considered a
“Life-Saving Award” presented to Walters by DCSD for saving the entrapped
occupant of a vehicle after it caught fire. (Unnamed Ex. 9). It is undisputed that
Walters performed these heroic actions. The Board considered four letters of reference
submitted on Walters’s behalf from various law-enforcement officers familiar with his
character. (Unnamed Ex. 11). And the Board considered the Order of Expungement
relevant to his 2019 simple-assault charge. (Unnamed Ex. 12).

19. At the end of his presentation, Mr. Davis identified four issues
concerning Walters’s conduct, all of which occurred during the same year: (1)
excessive use of force in violation of OBPD’s policy; (2) copying and sharing police-
department videos with people outside the department in violation of OBPD’s policy;
(3) simple-assault arrest that was ultimately expunged; and (4) text messages
including racial slurs and threats of violence against minorities. (Oct. 7 Tr. 132-35).
Mr. Davis advised that these infractions alone may not justify a sanction against
Walters’s certificate but encouraged the Board to consider them in tandem. (Oct. 7 Tr.
132-35). Mr. Davis then asked the Board to consider whether Walters should be
sanctioned for violating the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics and the public trust and,
if so, to determine what that sanction should be. (July 22 Tr. 60; Oct. 7 Tr. 132-35).

II. Conclusions of Law

1. The Board has jurisdiction here under Mississippi Code Annotated §§ 45-
6-7 and 45-6-11.

2. Walters received due, proper, and timely notice of his right to request a
hearing and the time and place of the hearing set. (July 22 Tr. 4-5). He also received
due, proper, and timely notice of his rights to counsel and to present testimony and
documentary evidence during the hearing—which he exercised. (July 22 Tr. 4-5).

Page | 10
 3. These proceedings were properly convened, and all substantive and
procedural requirements under the law have been satisfied. This matter is thus
properly before the Board.

4. The Board may certify, regulate, and discipline people who apply for or
hold certification as law-enforcement officers. To further that purpose, Section 45-6-7
authorizes the Board to promulgate rules and regulations for the administration of
the Law Enforcement Officers Training Program. Rule 4.2 of the Board’s policies and
procedures provides:

1. The Board may reject any unqualified applicant for

certification by a classification of not eligible for
certification. Further, the Board reserves the right to
reprimand, suspend or cancel and recall any certificate
when:

***

D. The holder has committed an act of malfeasance or has

been dismissed from his employing law enforcement agency;
E. Or other due cause as determined by the Board.

***

2. Any condition, conduct or action that would breach the

established minimum standards, violate the Law
Enforcement Code of Ethics or would greatly diminish the
public trust in the competence and reliability of a law
enforcement officer would be actionable as due cause for
reprimand, suspension (under conditions), recall or
cancellation of a certificate.

5. Put differently, a law-enforcement officer’s professional certificate may

be canceled following (1) his dismissal from an agency; (2) his violation of the Law
Enforcement Code of Ethics; or (3) conduct that would greatly diminish the public
trust in the competency and reliability of a law-enforcement officer. Any of these
conditions, standing alone or considered together, justifies the cancelation of a law-
enforcement officer’s professional certificate. See Rule 4.2.

6. Based on the evidence produced at the hearing, the Board finds by clear
and convincing evidence that Walters’s professional certificate should be canceled for
those three reasons. First, Walters resigned from OBPD “in lieu of termination.” (Oct.
7 Tr. 19). Walters committed two separate policy violations while employed by
OBPD—each within mere months of the other. OBPD first determined that Walters

Page | 11
used excessive force against a suspect, and Walters later admitted to copying OBPD’s
dash-cam footage onto his personal cell phone and sharing those videos with people
outside the department. (July 22 Tr. 14, 27; Oct. 7 Tr. 46). Once he admitted this
second policy infraction, OBPD requested his immediate resignation, which Walters
supplied. Both policy violations were substantiated by credible evidence, adduced
during two internal-affairs investigations by OBPD. (Ex. 1 at 3-32). The Board finds
that both incidents were thoroughly and properly investigated by OBPD, and that
neither investigation was tainted by or stemmed from any nefarious intent—including
inter-departmental rivalry, as suggested by Walters’s attorney at the hearing. (Oct. 7
Tr. 129-30).

7. Second, Walters violated the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics in four

respects identified by Mr. Davis at the hearing. Walters violated “the regulations of
[his] department,” as outlined above. (See Ex. 6). That is, he employed “unnecessary
force or violence” in the line of duty and revealed OBPD videos to unauthorized
personal, thus violating the confidence implicit in his office. (See Ex. 6). Walters also
sullied his private life by engaging in an altercation with his fiancée’s ex-husband,
leading to his arrest for simple assault. (See Ex. 6; July 22 Tr. 54). And Walters
allowed “personal feelings, prejudices, [and] animosities” to drive conversations with
others (see Ex. 6), as evidenced by the text messages presented for the Board’s
consideration (Ex. 3). These text messages reveal prejudice against a targeted
minority community and the propensity for violence against members of that
community.

8. The Board makes no determination on whether these text messages were

obtained by OBPD in violation of the Fourth Amendment because its policies and
procedures provide that “all oral and written material presented at the hearing”
should be considered. See Rule 4.3(1)(J)(2) (emphases added). The Board thus made
no factual findings relevant to the Fourth Amendment analysis—i.e., whether
Walters voluntarily surrendered his personal cell phone and the security code to it or
whether criminal charges had been threatened against him when his personal cell
phone was surrendered. Regardless, the Fourth Amendment’s Exclusionary Rule does
not generally apply in administrative proceedings like these. See Immigration and
Naturalization Serv. v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1031, 1050-51 (1984) (holding that
evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment “need not be suppressed in
an INS civil deportation hearing”); United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 447 (1976);
United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347 (1974).

9. Third, Walters’s conduct risks greatly diminishing the public trust in the
competence and reliability of the law-enforcement profession—also for the four
reasons Mr. Davis identified at the hearing. Though one of these reasons alone may
be insufficient to justify canceling an officer’s professional certificate, the Board finds
that four infractions in one year represents an alarming trend in professional
misconduct. It makes no difference that Walters has not been formally sanctioned

Page | 12
since his case came to the attention of Board Staff; any logical person facing the
potential loss of his professional certificate would behave while his case is under
review.

10. The Board does not find Walters’s documentary evidence sufficient to
overcome Mr. Davis’s substantial evidence against him. For example, it is undisputed
that Walters twice jeopardized his personal safety to save the lives of others.
(Unnamed Exs. 9-10). Though commendable, these occurrences do not negate
Walters’s policy violations, subsequent arrest, and use of racially motivated and
threatening language in text messages. Likewise, letters of recommendation suggest
that Walters is now performing well at his job (Unnamed Ex. 11) but provide no proof
that the allegations against him are false. And the Order of Expungement on his 2019
arrest for simple assault (Unnamed Ex. 12) does not negate the fact that the
altercation and arrest occurred.

11. What’s more, the testimony presented on Walters’s behalf was provided
by witnesses not fully informed. Sheriff Rasco is in the unenviable position of having
to hire and retain deputies. His testimony—and the testimonies of other DCSD
personnel—was complementary of Walters’s character and the benefits that he has
brought the department. Though loyalty to their colleague is commendable, none of
these witnesses appears willing to objectively consider any facts that would disturb
their opinions of a valued employee. The Board finds Sheriff Rasco and his personnel
are sincere in their positive comments about Walters, but none of them provided
direct evidence to refute the detailed evidence presented by Mr. Davis for the Board’s
consideration. That is, as with the documentary evidence, none of these testimonies
provides a scintilla of proof that Walters did not commit the infractions now levied
against him.

12. The Board thus finds that clear and convincing evidence was presented
to show that Jordan R. Walters (1) resigned in lieu of dismissal from an agency; (2)
violated the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics; and (3) committed conduct that would
greatly diminish the public trust in the competency and reliability of a law-
enforcement officer.

13. The Board voted 4-1 to cancel certificate number 25019 in the name of
Jordan R. Walters for these reasons. (Oct. 7 Tr. 138-39). Constable McKay was the
only member to vote against the cancelation.

14. The Board finds and concludes that the following order and discipline is
just and appropriate under the circumstances.

III. Final Order

Page | 13
 1. Certificate number 25019 in the name of Jordan Walters is canceled
effective Thursday, October 7, 2020.

2. This written opinion is the Final Order of the Board and is conclusive
evidence of the matters described in it.

3. Under Rule 4.3(L) of the Board’s policies and procedures, Walters “may
file an appeal to the chancery court of the county in which [he] was employed.”
Written notice of his intent to appeal is due to the Board within 30 days of the date of
this Final Order.

4. This action and order of the Board will be a public record and may be
shared with other licensing Boards (in- and out-of-state) and to the public. This action
will be spread upon the Minutes of the Board as its official act and deed.

SO ORDERED, this 30th day of November, 2021.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Sheriff Johnson made a motion to adjourn, it was
seconded by Mrs. Coleman and passed without opposition. The meeting was
adjourned at 1:32 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Director, Board on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Training

Page | 14