Principles for Public Safety Employment

context of an officer’s potential right to discovery prior to a second or latter interrogation.

3. T IMING OF THE I NTERROGATION Government Code section 3303(a) provides that an interrogation must be conducted “at a reasonable hour, preferably at a time when the public safety officer is on duty, or during the normal waking hours for the public safety officer, unless the seriousness of the investigation requires otherwise.” Similarly, Government Code section 3253(a) provides that an interrogation of a firefighter must be conducted “at a reasonable hour, at a time when the firefighter is on duty, unless an imminent threat to the safety of the public requires otherwise.” The Court of Appeal in Quezada v. City of Los Angeles held that the seriousness of an investigation into the drunken, random firing of firearms by off-duty officers mandated that the Department conduct its investigation at the earliest opportunity while the officers’ memories were still the freshest. 145 The incident occurred slightly after 2:00 a.m. and the officers were kept awake until approximately 2:30 the next day before interrogation. The fact that the officers were awake for many hours before being interrogated was because the incident occurred after the officers had been on duty for many hours and not because of the Department. Sections 3303(a) and 3253(a) also require that a public safety employee be paid for time spent during an interrogation if the interrogation occurs while off-duty. Overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or department policies may accrue when applicable. Government Code sections 3303(d) and 3253(d) provide that the interrogating session “shall be for a reasonable period taking into consideration the gravity and complexity of the issues.” The Acts also require that the subject employee be given the opportunity to attend to his or her own personal physical necessities. 146 In Quezada , the Court held that section 3303(d) was not violated where the officers were occasionally denied access to food and water, where the officers did have access to food, water, and restrooms during the process. 147 If an interrogation continues for an unreasonable amount of time, the subject employee later claims that fatigue caused a variety of responses that he/she now deems are inaccurate. Periodic inquiries into an employer’s ability to continue with a lengthy interrogation should be made in order to protect the validity of the record. a. “Subject” versus “Witness” Employees Government Code section 3303(i) states that, “[u]pon filing of a formal written statement of charges, or whenever an interrogation focuses on matters that are likely to result in punitive action against any public safety officer, that officer, at his or her request, shall have the right to be represented by a representative of his or her choice who may be present at all times during the interrogation.” Government Code section 3253(i) provides firefighters with the same right to representation during an interrogation except that, while public safety officers are entitled to representation if the interrogation is “likely to result” in punitive action, firefighters are entitled 4. T HE R IGHT TO R EPRESENTATION

Principles for Public Safety Employment ©2022 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 51