TOWN OF AMITE CITY

INVESTIGATIVE AUDIT ISSUED MARCH 12, 2014

LOUISIANA LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR 1600 NORTH THIRD STREET

POST OFFICE BOX 94397 BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70804-9397

LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR DARYL G. PURPERA, CPA, CFE

DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATIVE AUDIT AND ADVISORY SERVICES

ROGER W. HARRIS, J.D., CCEP

Under the provisions of state law, this report is a public document. A copy of this report has been submitted to the Governor, to the Attorney General, and to other public officials as required by state law. A copy of this report is available for public inspection at the Baton Rouge office of the Louisiana Legislative Auditor and at the office of the parish clerk of court. This document is produced by the Louisiana Legislative Auditor, State of Louisiana, Post Office Box 94397, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9397 in accordance with Louisiana Revised Statute 24:513. Two copies of this public document were produced at an approximate cost of $7.54. This material was produced in accordance with the standards for state agencies established pursuant to R.S. 43:31. This report is available on the Legislative Auditor’s website at www.lla.la.gov. When contacting the office, you may refer to Agency ID No. 2213 or Report ID No. 50130039 for additional information. In compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance relative to this document, or any documents of the Legislative Auditor, please contact Elizabeth Coxe, Chief Administrative Officer, at 225-339-3800.

LOUISIANA LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR

DARYL G. PURPERA, CPA, CFE

1600 NORTH THIRD STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 94397 • BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70804-9397

WWW.LLA.LA.GOV • PHONE: 225-339-3800 • FAX: 225-339-3870

March 12, 2014 THE HONORABLE JERRY TRABONA, CHIEF OF POLICE TOWN OF AMITE CITY Amite City, Louisiana

We have audited certain transactions of the Town of Amite City (Amite). Our audit was conducted in accordance with Title 24 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes and consisted primarily of inquiries and the examination of selected financial records and other documentation. The scope of our audit was significantly less than that required by Government Auditing Standards.

We received an allegation that Chief of Police Jerry Trabona is improperly approving

payments to police officers for court appearances when the officers do not appear in court. This letter presents our finding and recommendation as well as management’s response.

Witness Fees Paid in Violation of State Laws

La. R.S. 15:255 (A) (1) states, in part, that “Whenever a law enforcement officer is required to be present, in his official capacity, as a witness … in any district or parish court … during any time he is not required to report to work or perform the duties of his office, the law enforcement officer shall be paid the sum of fifty dollars for each day per case, but not more than one hundred fifty dollars in any one day.…”

According to Town records, from April 4, 2012 to October 16, 2013, Chief Trabona

submitted time sheets to the Town Clerk, indicating that officers were to receive payment of witness fees in accordance with La. R.S. 15:225. Based on our review of documents and interviews conducted, we determined that Chief Trabona paid 25 officers witness fees totaling $18,000 for 360 court appearances in which officers were not present in court.

We spoke with Chief Trabona about the process he uses to determine how officers were

paid witness fees. According to the Chief, after the city court holds its arraignment procedure for defendants, he obtains a copy of the arraignment docket from Mr. Terry Ryals, City Court Administrator. He then reviews the docket to determine which defendants pled guilty to a moving violation. For each guilty plea, the Chief notates which officer issued the traffic ticket. The chief examines the entire docket, totals all guilty pleas, and submits his notation to his staff to be entered on the “court paid” column of the officers’ time sheets. At the end of the pay period, the Chief approves the time sheet and submits it to the Town Clerk for payroll processing.

Town of Amite City

2

According to Chief Trabona, officers only receive witness fees if they were off duty during the time of arraignment and can only receive up to $150 in witness fees per day. According to Mr. Ryals, officers are not present at arraignments nor would they be needed as witnesses. When asked why officers receive witness fees for court arraignments when they do not appear and are not needed as witnesses, the Chief stated that a few years ago, the court held the arraignment and trial together; therefore, officers were present. Since then, the trial is separate from the arraignment; however, he did not change his process and continued to pay the officers from the arraignment docket despite the officers not appearing in court.

Because Chief Trabona appears to have understood state law governing the payment of

witness fees and materially misrepresented police officers’ time sheets, Chief Trabona may have violated La. R.S. 15:255A and La. R.S. 14:133.B We recommend that the Town of Amite City pay its police officers in accordance with La. R.S. 15:255.

If you have any questions about this letter report, please call Dan Daigle at 225-339-

3800. This is a public report. Copies of this report have been delivered to the District Attorney of the Twenty-first Judicial District of Louisiana and others as required by law.

Respectfully submitted, Daryl G. Purpera, CPA, CFE Legislative Auditor

DGP/ch APD 2014

cc: Members of the Town of Amite City Council

A La. R.S. 15:255, Witness fees to off-duty law enforcement officers

A.(1) “Whenever a law enforcement officer is required to be present, in his official capacity, as a witness in any criminal case or delinquency adjudication in any district or parish court or any court exercising juvenile jurisdiction, during any time he is not required to report to work or perform the duties of his office, the law enforcement officer shall be paid the sum of fifty dollars for each day per case, but not more than one hundred fifty dollars in any one day, regardless of the number of cases for which he is required to be present or whether he actually testified in the case…”

B La. R.S. 14:133, Filing or maintaining false public records A. Filing false public records is the filing or depositing for record in any public office or with any public official, or the maintaining as required by law, regulation, or rule, with knowledge of its falsity, of any of the following:

(1) Any forged document. (2) Any wrongfully altered document. (3) Any document containing a false statement or false representation of a material fact.

APPENDIX A

Management’s Response

February 24, 2014

Mr. Kunta Osberry, M.B.A Louisiana Legislative Auditor Post Office Box 94397 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9397

y ;rry ;}l;;&,nrr, ?fJ'!tir/ r:f@'{lir•p 10 I Oaf.. (Jrrr'd

· )J;,~ik. ~·ttt;ikflla 7 0-1 ::!::!

RE: Audit Inquiry on Court Payment to Officers Dear Mr. Osberry:

'}fl'', r 28 < L\.d , -

In January 2005 , I became Chief of Police and upon taking office all arraignments and trials were held at the same time and same date by the Magistrate. The Court did not subpoena the officers during this time because all proceedings were done in one night therefore making it necessary for all officers who had a case on the docket to be present. After court, I would submit the names of officers, who had cases on the docket, for payment for their court appearance. Only those officers who were not on duty and had cases on the docket were paid.

In April2012, the Town of Amite City hired a prosecutor to manage the arraignments and trials. At this time, I explained to the prosecutor how I submit the names of officers for payment for their court appearance. I was advised by the prosecutor to continue as I had in the past. This continued for eighteen months. Additionally, I was never instructed or informed by our auditor, Lee Gray, that I was doing anything inappropriate or wrong.

Your consideration in this matter is appreciated.

Respectfully,

• •. I ~ .. t

A.1