Firing Of Atlanta Officer Who Shot Rayshard Brooks Reversed
Garrett Rolfe will remain on administrative leave until the criminal charges against him are resolved, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms said.
KATE BRUMBACK and JEFF MARTIN
ATLANTA (AP) The firing of the former Atlanta police officer who’s charged with murder in the shooting death of Rayshard Brooks was reversed after a review panel found the city failed to follow its own procedures for disciplinary actions.
Garrett Rolfe was fired last June, a day after he shot the Black man in the parking lot of a fast food restaurant. The Atlanta Civil Service Board on Wednesday released its decision on Rolfe’s appeal of his firing.
Former Atlanta Police Department officer Garrett Rolfe, charged with murder in the fatal shooting of Rayshard Brooks, has been reinstated by the city’s Civil Service Board.
Atlanta Officer Who Fatally Shot Rayshard Brooks Is Reinstated
The officer, Garrett Rolfe, faces murder and aggravated assault charges, but officials determined that his firing violated his due process rights.
A memorial outside the Wendy’s restaurant where Rayshard Brooks was shot and killed last June.Credit.Joshua Rashaad McFadden for The New York Times
May 5, 2021Updated 2:53 p.m. ET
ATLANTA Garrett Rolfe, the Atlanta Police officer who was fired from his job after fatally shooting a Black man, Rayshard Brooks, in a fast-food parking lot, was reinstated Wednesday by the city’s Civil Service Board, which found that Mr. Rolfe’s firing violated his due process rights.
Atlanta Officer Who Shot And KIlled Rayshard Brooks Reinstated After Appeal
Garrett Rolfe’s termination was reversed by the Civil Service Board which determined the city failed to provide due process in his arrest.
Published 3 weeks ago
Garrett Rolfe, the fired Atlanta policeman who shot and killed
Rayshard Brooks after a confrontation in a parking lot last June, was reinstated Wednesday after filing an appeal, saying he was terminated unjustly.
The city’s Civil Service Board voted to reinstate him saying procedures revolving around giving him due process were not followed. “Due to the City’s failure to comply with several provisions of the Code and the information received during witnesses’ testimony, the Board concludes the Appellant was not afforded his right to due process,” the board said, according to the