JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — The Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office is asking a court to block a former SWAT officer from returning to work, after an unelected city board voted to reinstate him.
First Coast News report last week that the officer admitted reporting to weapons training at the city’s gun range with a blood alcohol level of .316 – four times the legal limit of .08. He was fired almost immediately, but appealed his dismissal to the city’s Civil Service Board, a volunteer board appointed by the Mayor, JEA and the School Board. It voted 4-2 to reinstate Officer Nicholas Gifford following a 90-day suspension.
Gifford has previously refused requests for comment.
JSO officials old First Coast News they planned to appeal the board’s decision in court. The formal petition asks the court to “quash” the board vote, arguing that board members' decision was made “without any evidence” when it decided the firing was “manifestly unjust.”
“Had the board relied on the evidence and followed the applicable law, it would have upheld Gifford’s termination for reporting to his job as a SWAT officer while intoxicated. Instead the Board incorrectly substituted its judgement for that of JSO and relied on information not in the record to support its finding that its termination was manifestly unjust,” the petition reads.
“The Board voted that the decision was manifestly unjust,” it continues. “Manifestly unjust means ‘shocking to the conscience,’ something that is fundamentally unfair and “possibly confined to a deprivation of due process. … Shocking to the conscience is synonymous with ‘unconscionable’ or ‘monstrously harsh.’ This is a very high standard.”
JSO argued that far from being “monstrously harsh,” termination was appropriate.
“A law enforcement agency terminating an officer who drove a city-owned vehicle 30 miles to the gun range, with a blood alcohol content almost four times the legal limit, is in no way unfair, shocking, or monstrously harsh. To the contrary, termination is expected under these circumstances. It is neither shocking to the conscience, nor fundamentally unfair, nor monstrously harsh to terminate the employment of a law enforcement officer who finishes drinking almost an entire bottle of vodka less than five hours before he goes on duty, then drives to work and performs his duty as a SWAT officer.”
The petition says Gifford’s conduct was “tantamount to a crime.”
“His own testimony that he was trying to “hide” his alcoholism demonstrates this was a choice. It is not manifestly unjust to terminate an employee who makes such a choice, particularly one involving alcohol, cars and guns.”
There is no hearing date set in the case. The Board has not yet responded to the petition.