Principles for Public Safety Employment

potential witness in an Internal Affairs investigation, and referred to his partner as a “a snitch,” “a rat,” and “a punk,” and asked him if he was “a pussy;” (4) Norton falsely accused his partner of lying; (5) Norton attempted to unduly influence the Internal Affairs Investigation by encouraging other officers to document the inmate’s behavior because he told them “she was a problem;” and (6) Norton left his post without permission in order to document his version of the inmate’s suicide attempt on the inmate’s bed card, and then lied to a sergeant about the reason he left his post. The Court found that the ALJ’s recommendation in her decision that serious consideration should be given to not assigning Norton to work with vulnerable mentally ill inmates in the future was tantamount to a determination that Norton’s misconduct might be repeated, and that such misconduct would likely result in harm to the public service. Citing to the high standard of conduct to which peace officers are held, the Court further noted that, even if the Department had failed to prove that Norton had told the inmate to go ahead and hang herself, the other allegations of misconduct that were sustained by the ALJ would independently support the penalty of discharge. vi. Prohibited association The court upheld termination for violation of a prohibited-association policy where a Sheriff’s deputy engaged in a personal relationship with a known prostitute in Bautista v. County of Los Angeles. 229 The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has a prohibited-association policy which bars employees from maintaining a “personal association with persons who are under criminal investigation or indictment and/or who have an open and notorious reputation in the community for criminal activity, where such association would be detrimental to the image of the Department, unless express written permission is received from the member’s unit commander.” In 2002, Deputy Emir Bautista, while on duty, engaged a woman standing on a street corner in conversation. Deputy Bautista knew her to be a prostitute and started the conversation in an attempt to get to know her and understand the reasons she had resorted to prostitution, in the hopes that he could help assist her in leading a crime-free life. During their on-going association, Deputy Bautista gave the woman his home phone number and often drove her to dinner, to her home after she had finished working the streets, and to a methadone clinic where she was receiving treatment for an admitted heroin addiction. Deputy Bautista did not report his friendship with the prostitute to the Department. In 2003, Deputy Bautista was warned on two occasions by members of the Gardena Police Department, after being found in the company of the prostitute while off-duty, that his association with her was not a “smart idea” and that it “could cost him his job.” Shortly thereafter, Deputy Bautista moved in with the prostitute and they later married. Deputy Bautista was eventually terminated for violating the Department’s prohibited-association policy. He filed a petition for writ of mandate in the superior court challenging his termination on the ground that the prohibited-association policy violated his constitutional right to freedom of association and his federal civil rights. The superior court denied his petition and he appealed. The Court of Appeal held that the prohibited-association policy did not infringe upon his right of intimate association, marriage in this case. Applying the “rational basis” test after finding that an

Principles for Public Safety Employment ©2022 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 76