A former Bellevue police officer is suing Dayton’s mayor and police chief because of a letter the two sent to the former officer’s employer, banning him from the Dayton City Building and the Dayton Police Department.
Marc Chapman, the former officer, filed a complaint for slander, libel, and defamation because he said the letter sent to his employer and the city by Dayton Mayor Ben Baker and Dayton Police Chief David Halfhill contained false allegations against him.
Chapman claims the letter came after a 2018 incident involving his rifle being left unattended during a response call to a Dayton residence; however, Halfhill and Baker deny the letter had anything to do with that incident.
In his deposition, Halfhill said he sent the letter, which banned Chapman from the Dayton City Building and the Dayton Police Department, because he was losing officers and as a person in a leadership role felt he was “being knocked down.”
“I was protecting the City of Dayton, protecting my officers, protecting the safety of the citizens of Dayton, because I felt like I wasn’t being heard with my complaints,” Halfhill said in his deposition.
The complaint was filed on May 20, 2021, and also names the Dayton Police Department and the City of Dayton, along with Halfhill and Baker.
Chapman’s complaint states the letter caused severe injury to his reputation in the community and with potential employers. Chapman is seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
According to Chapman’s counsel in a Nov. 9 response to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment filed in the Campbell County Circuit Court, the letter was sent by Halfhill and Baker on Jan. 15, 2021 — years after the Jan. 24, 2018 incident — to “harass and belittle” him.
Halfhill and Baker deny the letter had anything to do with the 2018 incident.
In a Nov. 15 reply to that response, the councel for Halfhill and Baker said, “there is no merit to Chapman’s assertion that Jan. 15, 2021, the letter had any connection to the Jan. 24, 2018, event.”
The 2018 incident involved both Dayton and Bellevue police responding to a Dayton residence after a drunk man had attacked his father in his father’s home and then fired a gun into the air. During negotiations with the drunk man, Chapman handed his gun off to Dayton Police officer Brett Lockman.
Lockman was then waved over to the suspect’s home during the negotiation and placed Chapman’s rifle on the ground, leaning it against a car, where it was unattended for several minutes.
Halfhill’s complaints in his deposition include Chapman making infidelity accusations regarding Halfhill’s marriage, Chapman encouraging officers to leave the Dayton Police Department, and causing personnel turnover within the Dayton Police Department by making false allegations about prearrangement (of Halfhill’s hiring as chief.)
The defendants asked for a summary judgment on Oct. 25 of this year. A summary judgment can be filed by a party that believes the undisputed facts rule in their favor. If the facts are not disputed, there is no need for a trial. A trial’s purpose is to have a judge or jury decide what the facts are.
In August, a court granted summary judgment to the defendants for all but two of Chapman’s statements. The court ruled there was a question in the defendant’s statements that Chapman was encouraging officers to leave the Dayton Police Department and had caused personnel turnover within the Dayton Police Department by making the false report of prearrangement.
A jury trial is set for Feb. 6, 2023.
The jury will decide whether or not the defendants exceeded the scope of their conditional privilege by sending the Jan. 15, 2021, letter for a malicious purpose unrelated to their employment.
Conditional privilege is a privilege that protects a defendant from a lawsuit only when the privilege is properly exercised by a legal or moral duty.
The jury trial comes after Chapman requested that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment be overruled.
“For no reason at all and without the use of an attorney, Defendant Halfhill and Defendant Baker, Mayor of the City of Dayton, sent a letter to the employer of Plaintiff (Chapman) in an attempt to harass and belittle the plaintiff,” councel for Chapman said in the response.
According to Chapman’s response, the letter accused Chapman of malicious actions and banned him from the City of Dayton. It also stated that the letter was sent to other city members, claiming “it was done solely with malice and was not about notifying the Chief of Bellevue about behavior.”
The response also accuses Halfhill of being upset that his officer left a rifle unsupervised and then blamed Chapman for making his agency look bad.
In reply to that response, the councel for the defendants stated there is no evidence to support that Halfhill was upset with Chapman because of the event on Jan. 24, 2018.
The defendant’s reply said that Chapman does not cite any evidence to support the motive to “harass and belittle” him. Nor does he cite any evidence to demonstrate that the defendants sent the letter for any reason other than to communicate their decision to Bellevue officials and to explain what led to the decision.
The reply also claims it is undisputed that Baker and Halfhill decided to take the only recourse they had by banning Chapman from entering any city-owned property and claims it is undisputed that the defendants sent the letter to notify and explain their decision to Bellevue officials.
The reply letter states that Under Kentucky law, a person has a conditional privilege to make a statement that could be defamatory if done so in the course and scope of their employment, including someone else who has a related interest.
Their reply argues that although Chapman complains that the letter was sent to Bellevue officials other than Estepp, he does not and cannot contest the fact that Bellevue officials are interested in controlling the conduct of police officers who act on behalf of the City of Bellevue.
