Youngsville Police Civil Service Hearing Looms

Last week, the Youngsville community erupted over the impending police civil service hearing. That reaction followed several electronic billboard advertisements created expressly to accomplish that purpose. In fact, I’ve witnessed a recording implicating Youngsville Chief of Police JP Broussard, who had the chutzpah to personally contact the billboard company in an intimidating — but ultimately unsuccessful — attempt to have the artwork removed.

At the center of the controversy is a well-respected, sixteen-year veteran of the Youngsville Police Department who has allegedly been targeted and harassed by a recently elected Chief of Police.

Beneath that dispute lies a far older problem: the belief that political connections matter more than the law itself. That belief has twisted the Youngsville Police Department into the enforcer of an unconstitutional, titles-of-nobility system—one in which those who challenge the local caste structure are punished for doing so. And that is where this story truly begins.

A Civil Service Hearing Nears

As the civil service hearing for former Youngsville Police Captain John Davison approaches, two sharply different accounts of the same events have now been placed into the official record. Read separately, each filing tells only part of the story. Read together, they form a complete narrative—one that raises serious questions about duty, discipline, and whether obedience was demanded where the law required resistance.

Davison, a sixteen-year veteran of the Youngsville Police Department, was demoted four positions, from Captain to Patrol Officer, and suspended for ninety days without pay. According to his appeal filing, Davison’s alleged offense was not misconduct in the field, misuse of force, or neglect of duty. It was insisting that the law be followed—specifically, that a legally issued arrest warrant be executed. Notably, Davison was not the officer who executed the warrant.

The City’s response, filed on behalf of Police Chief J.P. Broussard, tells a different story. It frames the case as one of insubordination, unprofessional tone, and disrespect. What the City’s filing does not meaningfully address is the underlying event that gave rise to the dispute at all: a shooting, an arrest warrant, and a senior officer’s refusal to interfere with a judicial order.

An Oath, Not a Preference

At the center of Davison’s filing is a point that is both simple yet easily overlooked: commissioned peace officers are not free agents, nor are they instruments of political convenience.

Under Louisiana law, Capt. Davison and Officer Guidry were sworn peace officers and public officials of the State of Louisiana. Each took an oath under La. R.S. 42:141 to support the constitutions and laws of the United States and Louisiana, and to faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of office. That oath imposes an affirmative legal duty to uphold and enforce the law—not to set it aside at the request of a politically elected superior.

Louisiana law further provides that once a magistrate issues an arrest warrant based on probable cause, that warrant is a judicial command directed to peace officers for execution. It is no longer discretionary. It cannot be withdrawn, nullified, or suppressed because of supervisory discomfort or political considerations. An officer’s duty, once a warrant is issued, is to execute it in accordance with the law.

That legal framework is not disputed in either filing. What is disputed is what happened next.

The Shooting and the Warrant

The events giving rise to Davison’s discipline trace back to a June 2025 shooting involving Zachary Segura, a Carencro police officer and the son of former Youngsville officer Eric Segura. As the investigation developed, probable cause was established, and a warrant was issued for Eric Segura.

Davison, then a Captain, was supervising the investigation. According to his filing, he acted within his authority and consistent with his duty by directing that the warrant be executed. He further advised that any effort to delay or interfere with the warrant would be unlawful.

What followed, according to Davison, was Chief Broussard’s attempt to halt or delay a legal arrest. Davison refused. That refusal—and his warning that such interference would violate the law—marks the point at which the narratives diverge.

One Phone Call That Became Six Stories

The City’s case against Davison rests almost entirely on a single phone call between Davison and Chief Broussard. That call, the City contends, was insubordinate, threatening, and unprofessional. Davison’s filing draws attention to a critical problem with that account: Chief JP Broussard has provided at least six different versions of the same phone call to different audiences.

According to the filing, those versions conflict on basic facts, including where the conversation occurred, whether it was in person or by phone, what language was used, whether any threats were made, and how the conversation ended. In some accounts, Davison is said to have threatened the Chief with incarceration. In others, the exchange is described more vaguely as ‘argumentative’ or ‘disrespectful’.

What does not appear in any version is a recording of the call, a contemporaneous report, or corroboration from a neutral witness. No criminal complaint was filed. No independent investigation substantiated the claim that Davison threatened anyone. What remains consistent across the versions is that Davison warned the Chief that interfering with the warrant would be unlawful—and that he later repeated that warning to other officers.

Discipline Without the Underlying Facts

The City’s filing, prepared by counsel for the Chief, largely avoids the shooting, the warrant, and the legal duty imposed by Davison’s oath. Instead, it narrows the dispute to tone and chain of command. The City argues that, regardless of legality, Davison was obligated to comply with the Chief’s directive and to address disagreements privately.

That framing leads to the discipline imposed: demotion from Captain to Patrol Officer, a ninety-day suspension without pay, and the seizure of Davison’s badge and commission.

The filing treats this sequence as routine discipline. Readers of a certain age may recognize it as the familiar “badge and gun” moment from police dramas—where an officer’s insistence on following the evidence earns him removal from duty. In fiction, such scenes usually precede vindication. In Youngsville, they preceded a strong civil service appeal.

Notably absent from the City’s filing is any explanation of why a sixteen-year officer with no prior discipline warranted such severe punishment for speech related to legality, or why the legality of the order itself is irrelevant.

Vindication, With Consequences

Since Davison’s demotion, felony criminal charges have been filed against Eric Segura, stemming from earlier conduct. While the current felony charges against Eric Segura stem from an earlier incident, their filing nevertheless validates the concerns raised by officers who insisted that warrants be executed and misconduct not ignored.

That vindication, however, has not insulated them from professional consequences. Davison remains demoted and suspended, and his appeal remains pending. The chilling effect of his discipline is now part of the public record. As Davison’s attorney, Allyson Melancon, put it in stark terms: “In my 30 years of legal experience, this has to be the worst example of bad discipline I’ve ever seen.”

What the Board Must Decide

The Civil Service Board is not tasked with deciding whether Davison was polite or whether his tone could have been better. Its duty is narrower and more consequential: to determine whether discipline was imposed in good faith and for lawful cause.

At bottom, the Board must answer a simple question. When a commissioned peace officer believes a superior’s directive would interfere with a legally issued judicial order, is it his duty to obey—or to refuse?

If obedience to the politically elected supervisor is the standard, the oath becomes ceremonial. If the law is the standard, then discipline imposed for honoring that oath cannot stand. The hearing will test more than one officer’s career. It will test whether weaponizing discipline is acceptable, or if the law still means what it says.

###