Atlanta police investigate whether their officer had sex with federal judge in the judge's chambers

ATLANTA (AP) — Atlanta police say they've opened an investigation to determine whether the “high-ranking law enforcement officer” found to have had sex with a federal judge in the judge's chambers is a member of their department.

A federal judge in the 11th Judicial Circuit, which includes Alabama, Florida and Georgia, received a “private reprimand” after a court investigation found that the judge had “sexual intercourse in the judge’s chambers during business hours within hearing distance of staff” with a high-ranking uniformed police officer.

The names of the judge and the officer were not included in the investigative report, nor was the court location within the 11th Circuit where the judge serves. The Associated Press has been unable to independently confirm the names.

Reached by phone, William Pryor, the chief judge of the 11th Circuit, who appointed a committee to investigate the allegations that surfaced in a complaint from one of the judge's law clerks, declined to comment or to confirm the name of the judge.

In addition to the extramarital sexual affair, the judge was also found to have attended a partisan political event. The judge's initial reaction when confronted with the allegations last fall was to falsely deny them, calling them “outrageous” and “baseless.”

Despite the serious nature of the misconduct, the Judicial Council of the 11th Judicial Circuit chose in a February order to impose a private reprimand that kept the judge's name secret. The Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States last week affirmed that order.

“We need a lot of reform on who judges the judges when they act badly,” Georgia State University law school professor Eric Segall said. “Judges will protect judges.”

Federal judges are protected from serious consequences because they have a lifetime appointment and can only be removed if they are impeached by Congress, which argues in favor of publicly naming them when they are disciplined, he said.

"I’m not one who likes to publicly embarrass people, but what else can we do?” Segall said.

After initially denying the allegations, the judge later admitted wrongdoing and spoke candidly about what had happened, the investigative committee wrote in its report. The judge also ended the relationship with the officer, meaning a repeat of the behavior was unlikely, the committee found. Those factors, along with the judge's “otherwise exemplary service to the court,” prompted the committee to recommend a private reprimand rather than a public one, the report says.

The judge also agreed to write apology letters to six former law clerks, not to accept the position of chief judge of the district when eligible and to refrain from serving on any Judicial Conference committee.

But that misconduct will continue to be an “elephant in the room” until the judge publicly acknowledges a mistake in judgment, Segall said.

"When you have a public position of deciding cases and controversies between adverse parties, your judgment and your character are very much in play,” he said. “The very first thing I tell my students is all of you will make mistakes in practice. You own it, you admit to it, you try your best to fix it and only then is it possible to move on.”