In Sanchez v. City of Los Angeles (2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6604, Cal.App. 2 Dist., May 26, 2006), a California Court of Appeal considered whether a police department violated Government Code Section 3304 when it notified a police officer of his punishment more than a year after learning of his misconduct.
The Court found that the language of the statute, commonly referred to as the Public Safety Officers Bill of Rights, clearly barred the Department from disciplining the officer unless it had notified him of the intended discipline within a year of discovering the misconduct. It further ruled that the department’s administrative appeal process violated the officer’s right to due process, because of the police chief’s dual roles of initially authorizing punishment and then acting as final decision-maker on appeal.
Facts
Ronald Sanchez (“Sanchez”) was a police officer for the Los Angeles Police Department (“Department”). On September 8, 1998, the Department discovered and began investigating alleged misconduct by Sanchez: directing another officer to falsify information on his daily activities report, and conducting personal business while on duty.
On August 25, 1999, less than one year later, Sanchez was notified that his recommended punishment would be a 20-day suspension without pay. On September 8, 1999, exactly one year after the discovery date, then-Police Chief Bernard Parks rejected the punishment as too lenient, and referred the matter to a Board of Rights for hearing and decision. On October 13, 1999, more than 13 months after the discovery, Sanchez was notified that his recommended punishment now included a transfer, a demotion and a cut in pay. On December 8, 1999, Chief Parks approved that punishment.
The Board of Rights heard testimony at hearings in 2000 and 2001, and found Sanchez not guilty of falsification, not guilty of one count of conducting personal business on duty, and guilty of four other counts of conducting personal business on duty. It ordered Sanchez suspended for 22 days, and he served the suspension. He also pursued an administrative appeal of his demotion, which was rejected by Chief Parks.
Sanchez filed a lawsuit, claiming that the Department had not notified him of his punishment within a year after discovering the alleged misconduct, in violation of Section 3304. He also said his administrative appeal lacked fairness because the Chief both initially authorized the punishment and made the final decision on appeal. The trial court ruled for the Department and denied Sanchez’ petition. Sanchez appealed.
Decision
The Court noted that Section 3304 provides that no punitive action may be taken against an officer “if the investigation of the allegations not completed within one year of the public agency’s discovery” of the misconduct. Further, if the agency determines that discipline is warranted, “it shall complete its investigation and notify the public safety officer of its proposed disciplinary action within that year.”
Within a year after discovering Sanchez’ misconduct, the Department proposed only a 20-day suspension. It did not, within that year, propose demoting him or cutting his pay. Therefore, the Court concluded, his punishment was illegal and Sanchez was entitled to reinstatement at his former rank.
As to Sanchez’ due process claim, the Court ruled that this issue was settled by Brown v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 102 Cal.App. 4th 155, in which the court held that the Department’s appeal procedure violated due process because it “violates the requirement that the decision maker be neutral because the chief of police initially authorized the punitive action and is also the final decision maker on the administrative appeal.”
The trial court judgment was reversed, and Sanchez was ordered reinstated to his higher rank and salary.
Legal Alert Email Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.