JACKSON, Miss. (Legal Newsline) - An $11-an-hour officer who never graduated from the police academy isn’t a “law enforcement officer” for purposes of obtaining a probable-cause hearing over criminal charges he pepper-sprayed a youth, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled.
While one statute grants teachers and police officers the right to such hearings if they are charged over acts committed while they were on duty, the court ruled, another statute defines “law enforcement officer” as a qualified graduate of the police academy. The court rejected arguments anyone authorized to carry a gun and make arrests is an officer.
Matthew Wallace was hired by the Centreville police department in April 2020. In September 2021 he was dispatched with another officer to investigate multiple juveniles riding all-terrain vehicles within the town limits. At some point an altercation broke out, Wallace retrieved his pepper spray from the police car and sprayed one of the juveniles. Later, a juvenile and his mother sued Wallace for assault of a minor.
The court scheduled a probable cause hearing as required under Mississippi Code Section 99-3-28, which covers teachers and sworn law enforcement officers. Wallace said he had been an officer for 18 months but didn’t graduate from the law enforcement academy and he wasn’t a certified officer.
The court ruled he wasn’t entitled to a probable cause hearing because he wasn’t a law enforcement officer as defined in another part of the code. Wallace then moved for a hearing anyway, which the state opposed. In November 2021 the court rejected his motion and Wallace appealed.
The Mississippi Supreme Court wasn’t sympathetic. In a May 4 decision, the court noted Section 99-3-28 refers to Section 45-6-3, which defines a “law enforcement officer” as someone who is “duly sworn and vested with authority to bear arms and make arrests.” But another statute says no one can be appointed to the post without being “certified as being qualified.”
Wallace argued he met the definition of an officer under Section 99-3-28 and the other law was irrelevant. He was always accompanied by a certified officer, moreover, and that gave him the authority to make arrests and carry a gun. The court disagreed, saying it must consider how a statute meshes with other laws.
“Though Section 45-6-3’s definition of a law enforcement officer does not distinguish between certified and noncertified officers, the court is not free to simply ignore other relevant statutes,” the court ruled.