Principles for Public Safety Employment

The Chief of Police terminated Musquiz as a result of the incident. Musquiz appealed his termination to the City’s civil service commission, and the commission recommended reducing the discipline to a two month suspension. The City Council did not accept the commission’s recommendation and instead upheld the Chief of Police’s decision to terminate. Musquiz filed a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, and the trial court denied his petition. Musquiz appealed, and the Court of Appeal held that the City Council did not abuse its discretion in determining that Musquiz’ excessive force warranted dismissal. iv. Conduct Unbecoming Many public safety agencies have a personnel rule or department manual provision which prohibits officers from engaging in conduct which is “unbecoming.” While “conduct unbecoming” has been challenged as too vague a standard, it has been upheld as valid by the California Supreme Court. 221 Whether conduct is “unbecoming” or not will depend on the specific facts of the case at hand, measured under an objective standard. For example, in Cranston v. City of Richmond, an off-duty police officer (Cranston) was driving with another off-duty officer in his sports car on a wet and slick city street at approximately 1:30 a.m. 222 The car’s lights did not work, and Cranston’s mechanic had warned him not to drive the car at high speeds because it had been in a previous accident. An on-duty city police officer spotted the vehicle, and tried to pull it over because its taillights were not working. The on-duty officer did not know that Cranston was driving the sports car. As the on-duty officer pulled up behind Cranston’s vehicle, Cranston accelerated and entered the freeway. The on-duty officer activated his lights, and a short chase ensued. Other units joined the 95 mph pursuit, and one unit almost crashed during the pursuit due to the wet and slick roads. Cranston eventually pulled over, and this was the first time the on-duty officers recognized Cranston as a co-worker. Cranston told the on-duty officer that the pursuit was a joke because he thought the first unit was a friend who recognized his car. Cranston was not cited or arrested, and he was allowed to drive home. But Cranston was terminated for “conduct unbecoming.” Cranston’s case made its way up to the California Supreme Court. The Court rejected Cranston’s argument that the “conduct unbecoming” rule was too vague because “[p]olice officers…will normally be able to determine what kind of conduct indicates unfitness to perform the functions of a police officer.” The Court then held that Cranston’s reckless driving was clearly “conduct unbecoming” since he “violated the very laws which, as a traffic officer, it was his job to enforce.” Similarly, in Parker v. State Personnel Board , a correctional officer employed by the California Youth Authority was terminated after he was arrested at his home for marijuana possession. 223 On appeal, the officer argued that his possession of marijuana was not conduct unbecoming because he was off-duty at the time of the arrest, and therefore there was no nexus to his job. The Court of Appeal rejected the officer’s challenges finding “it is now established law that correctional officers such as plaintiff may be disciplined as peace officers for violating laws they are employed to enforce.”

Principles for Public Safety Employment ©2022 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 74