Principles for Public Safety Employment

Conduct unbecoming need not rise to the level of a violation of criminal law. In Orlandi v. State Personnel Board , for example, a Court of Appeal held that the California Highway Patrol was justified in terminating a CHP officer who tried to “fix” a ticket for a business associate. 224 The Court reasoned that the officer’s conduct was unbecoming because “[t]he department cannot operate if its officers are to ‘fix tickets;’ the very integrity of the department and its members would be gone and the morale of the patrolmen destroyed. Inherent in the position of a patrolman is his knowledge, without being told, that ‘fixing a ticket’ is a violation of good behavior and one which would bring discredit upon himself and the department.” A different type of unbecoming conduct was at issue in City of San Diego v. Roe . 225 In City of San Diego , a police officer (Roe) was terminated for conduct unbecoming after his sergeant inadvertently discovered that Roe had been selling videos on the on-line auction site “eBay” which depicted him masturbating in a police uniform. 226 Although Roe covered his face and used a non-City police uniform in the videos, Roe’s sergeant discovered that Roe was the one producing the tapes by the email address Roe used to sell the videos and other police paraphernalia (e.g., official City uniforms) on the eBay website. Roe challenged the termination in federal court alleging the City violated his free speech rights under the First Amendment. The trial court granted the City’s motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that Roe’s claimed protected speech did not relate to a “matter of public concern.” Roe appealed, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Roe’s activities were private protected speech because the conduct occurred while Roe was off-duty. The United States Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that Roe’s speech was not protected under the First Amendment because it did not address a matter of “public concern” and because it was detrimental to the City’s image. As these cases demonstrate, what constitutes “conduct unbecoming” will depend on the unique facts and circumstances in a particular case. If a reasonable officer should know that other peace officers would not likely engage in the conduct at issue, it is likely the employer may regulate that conduct through the disciplinary process. 227 v. Neglect of Duty In Cate v. California State Personnel Board (Norton 228 ) , the Court of Appeal affirmed a decision granting the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s petition for a writ of mandate overturning the State Personnel Board’s decision to reduce the penalty for correctional officer Thomas Norton from a termination to a 30-day suspension. Norton had been employed as a correctional officer with the Department at the California Institute for Women, and worked first watch at a Support Care Unit (SCU) where mentally ill inmates were housed. In May of 2007, Norton was issued a notice of adverse action dismissing his employment based on 12 separate allegations, including that on November 23, 2006, Norton was negligent by failing to report or respond to a suicidal statement by an inmate who later went on to attempt suicide. The allegations were as follows: (1) that on November 23, 2006, an inmate stated to Norton that she was going to hang herself, and in response Norton stated “go ahead” or “go ahead and hang yourself”; (2) Norton repeatedly refused the inmate’s requests to turn on her cell light when she stated she was scared of the dark and seeing things; (3) Norton intimated his partner who was a

Principles for Public Safety Employment ©2022 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 75