Principles for Public Safety Employment

Crawford v. City of Los Angeles 217 A police officer was investigated for allegedly assaulting and threatening his girlfriend. Before the one-year statute of limitations for the misconduct expired, the officer lied during the investigation about facts surrounding the assault. Although the officer was not notified of the intended discipline until after the statute of limitations for the underlying misconduct had expired, the California Court of Appeal held that the officer could be disciplined for making the false statement alone because he made the false statement within the statute of limitations to discipline for the underlying misconduct. Had the officer made the false statement after the one-year limitations period for the underlying misconduct had expired, the law enforcement agency would not have been able to discipline him for making the false statement.

Please see Section 8, B for information regarding the Brady rule and how a peace officer’s discipline based on dishonesty can be disclosed during a criminal defendant’s trial. ii. Insubordination The discharge of a peace officer for insubordination can be justifiable where the employee is orally discourteous, disloyal and abusive to his superiors. 218 Insubordination by peace officers is particularly intolerable because of the potential safety issues disobedience of orders can cause. Martin v. State Personnel Board is instructive. 219 In Martin, a correctional officer was ordered to work on the Thanksgiving holiday after she could not find a replacement. The officer was terminated after she did not report to work. The Court of Appeal affirmed the termination finding “Martin’s failure to report to work on Thanksgiving Day caused the correctional institution to run a position short on a day in which potential problems with inmates tend to run very high. While no problems with inmates directly resulted from Martin's unexcused absence…[t]he safety of inmates and personnel alike requires the adherence to rules and orders. Any breach of policies or the refusal to carry out an order by a subordinate would undermine the working of the institution, creating the potential for harm. Martin's insubordination in refusing to work her scheduled hours on Thanksgiving Day should not be tolerated. Where the scheduled appearance of an employee is necessary for the safety of persons and public property the punishment of dismissal for refusing to work as scheduled is not an abuse of discretion.” iii. Excessive Force In Musquiz v. City of Huntington Park , a police officer (Musquiz) was called to a retail store to pick up a suspect who had been apprehended by store security for suspicion of shoplifting a bottle of alcohol. 220 The suspect was under the influence of some substance, and, when Musquiz arrived, Musquiz recognized the suspect from prior dealings. As Musquiz (with the security guard’s assistance) escorted the handcuffed suspect out to his patrol car, the suspect kicked the security guard and spit in Musquiz’ face. Musquiz responded by punching the suspect in the face two to three times. The suspect then tried to butt Musquiz in the head, and Musquiz responded by hitting the suspect again so hard that he fell to the concrete floor and hit his head. While the suspect was on the ground, Musquiz yelled at him, kicked him, and hit him with his baton. The suspect had to be treated by paramedics as a result of the wounds he sustained in the altercation.

Principles for Public Safety Employment ©2022 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 73