TERMINATED
ONTARIO POLICE OFFICER REINSTATED
By
Saku E. Ethir
Lackie & Dammeier LLP
Fred
Ruiz was terminated from the city of Ontario Police Department in
January 2003. At the time
of his termination, Ruiz had been an officer with the Ontario Police
Department for approximately seven years.
An investigation of Ruiz resulted in sustained allegations, which
included neglect of duty and dishonesty.
The
department alleged that, on or about October 2002, Ruiz, after being
dispatched as a backing officer to two calls, outside of his
beat/sector, advised dispatch that he was “extended”, but failed to
immediately respond to the calls. Although
the handling officers ultimately canceled Ruiz from the calls, the
department alleged that Ruiz was dishonest to dispatch, as well as the
handling officers, when he indicated that he was “extended”, but
failed to move from his location. Ruiz, during the investigation, admitted that he did not
immediately move from his location, but added that in his experience,
almost always, if an officer were dispatched to a call outside of their
beat, as a backing officer, the handling officer, or dispatch, prior to
the backing officer’s arrival at the call, would cancel the backing
officer. In fact, evidence
was presented to the administration, prior to Ruiz’ termination, that
a practice of officers not immediately responding to calls outside of
their beat or sector, despite advising dispatch that they were en route,
did exist. Ruiz appealed
his termination, where this author, an LDF panel attorney, represented
him at arbitration.
With a
total of approximately 14 witnesses subpoenaed by the city and the
appellant, it appeared that the arbitration could span five or more
days. During the first day
of hearing, the city began and concluded presentation of its case by
calling the former chief of police and the investigating sergeant.
The chief admitted that when the investigation was initially
submitted to him, it did not include an allegation of dishonesty, but
that he directed the investigating sergeant to add the allegation. In addition, the chief further admitted that other officer(s)
approached him during the Ruiz investigation and advised him that it was
“common in practice” for officers to indicate they were en route to
a call, when in fact they were not.
The chief admitted that he did not initiate an investigation into
those officers for dishonesty, nor were any other officers disciplined.
On day
two of arbitration the appellant began presentation of evidence via
witness testimony. Witnesses
included a dispatcher who testified that other officers had indicated
they were en route to calls and not moved from their locations,
supervisors were advised, and no investigations or discipline resulted.
Other witnesses testified it would not be uncommon for an officer
to advise he or she was en route or extended.
Further, additional testimony by witnesses confirmed that backing
officers were almost always cancelled from calls outside of their beat
or sector.
After
the testimony of several appellant witnesses, but with numerous
witnesses to go, the arbitrator, Sarah Adler, asked to speak with both
counsels outside the presence of their clients.
The arbitrator advised the city’s attorney that based on her
extensive experience in police cases, she did not believe this case to
be one of dishonesty. She
indicated that she felt the city/department had reacted too quickly in
moving forward with termination and suggested that the parties enter
into settlement discussions. Settlement
discussions ensued over the remainder of the day and resulted in the
reinstatement of Ruiz to his position of police officer with the city of
Ontario, and the elimination of the charge of dishonesty.
Ruiz is very thankful to the officers who assisted him in his
hearing, his attorneys at Lackie & Dammeier, and the Legal Defense
Fund, who all stood with him through this very difficult time and
process.
LDF Home Page | News
Article Index
