THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, August 23, 1996 TAG: 9608230048
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B7 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY SUSIE STOUGHTON, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: SUFFOLK LENGTH: 65 lines
Two police officers have sued the city for overtime pay they say they earned for the care, feeding and training of dogs in Suffolk's former K-9 corps.
The suit, filed Wednesday in Norfolk's federal court, alleges that the city violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying the officers, said their lawyer, Michael F. Imprevento of Norfolk.
The K-9 corps was disbanded shortly after the officers - Paul G. Burch and Charles A. Duck - asked to be paid for caring for the animals, Imprevento said.
``They were for quite some time the primary dog handlers for the Suffolk police,'' he said in an interview this week.
``They were performing a lot of tasks relating to the training and upkeep on the animals that have long been recognized as compensable as police work,'' he said.
The suit asks that the officers be paid at a rate of one and a half times their regular pay for work done beyond their normal police assignments. They have not calculated the amount, since the city has their payroll records.
Many police departments compensate their K-9 officers by arranging their schedules to allow them an hour with pay to care for the animals, Imprevento said.
The Suffolk policemen, however, took care of the dogs at their homes after working a full day's shift, according to the lawyer.
About four years ago, the police department compensated previous K-9 officers for handling the animals, but for some reason stopped doing the compensation, Imprevento said.
When Burch and Duck asked for the same arrangement, they were told the department would no longer have a K-9 corps, he said.
The problem is twofold, Imprevento said. The disbanding of the corps was ``very ill-advised'' and could jeopardize public and police safety, he said. Also, the officers had been performing work without being paid.
``After the officers complained, the city did some calculations and attempted to tender some payment to the officers,'' he said. ``We feel the amounts owed are far more substantial.''
The city's decision to stop using the dogs is a central reason for filing the lawsuit, Imprevento said.
The Suffolk Police Department, which has a good reputation, needs ready access to dogs to sniff for drugs or to search for a missing person or escapee, he said.
Now local police must rely on a neighboring jurisdiction or Virginia State Police when they need a bloodhound or drug dog. Calling for help from Portsmouth or Chesapeake could mean an unnecessary delay, he said.
``The city is changing and growing at such a pace that I hate to see the department take steps backward,'' he said.
Handling the dogs is not expensive, Imprevento said. ``If they save a single life, it is worth the cost of keeping a couple of labs and a German shepherd in a department,'' he said.
Suffolk's crime rate may not be as high as that of Norfolk or other larger cities, but ``it's not far behind,'' Imprevento said.
The lawsuit asks for two years of back pay with interest for the officers and for an equal amount as ``liquidated damages.'' An additional year could be added if the plaintiffs show that the city willfully violated the federal labor act.
Maj. W.A. Freeman, acting police chief, said he had no knowledge of the suit and could not comment on any pending litigation. A lawsuit tells only one side of a story.
KEYWORDS: SUFFOLK POLICE DEPARTMENT LAWSUIT OVERTIME PAY by CNB