Robert F. Lumpkin – Lafayette Police Department

In 1998, Robert F. Lumpkin, the Public Safety Director of the Lafayette Police Department, was terminated from his position. He filed a lawsuit alleging that city officials failed to follow established procedures requiring notice and a hearing before his termination, claiming a violation of his due process rights. The court found that Lumpkin’s claim fell within the rule set forth in Parratt v. Taylor and Hudson v. Palmer, requiring him to demonstrate the absence of a meaningful state post-deprivation remedy to make out a procedural due process violation. The court concluded that Alabama courts were available to hear Lumpkin’s claim that the city officials failed to follow established procedures, and thus, his due process rights were not violated. The case was dismissed on October 27, 1998. [Source: Lumpkin v. City of Lafayette, Ala., 24 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (M.D. Ala. 1998)]

## Officer Forum Links:
– [Robert F. Lumpkin](https://watchaudits.com/forums/topic/robert-f-lumpkin/)

Forum Links

Posted in Audits Law Enforcement Agencies: Officer Names: States:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Welcome to Police Accountability Database

Our Mission

We're building a comprehensive database of police interactions to promote accountability and transparency in law enforcement.

How You Can Participate

  • View the Blog: Read about documented police interactions
  • Share Your Experience: Submit your own police interaction story
  • Browse the Forums: Check if your local law enforcement has been documented

Important Community Guidelines

It is strictly against our rules to:

  • Make threats of any kind
  • Share private information such as personal emails, home addresses, or phone numbers

Violation of these rules will result in immediate content removal and possible account suspension.

Why This Matters

By organizing this data, we can potentially demonstrate when officers were previously aware of laws they later claim ignorance of, challenging qualified immunity defenses and promoting accountability.