Fired Veteran Dope Cop
Vindicated and Reinstated
By: Harry S. Stern
Rains, Lucia & Wilkinson LLP
Background: Arbitrator
Paul D. Staudohar has reinstated Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriff Sean
Yates with full back pay and benefits, ruling that the county had
insufficient proof when it fired him based on an allegation that he
stole $5,000 while searching the home of two drug dealers.
Yates began his law
enforcement career as a deputy assigned to the Custody Division back in
1989. Yates eventually made it to the streets where his proactive work
ethic earned him a coveted spot in the sheriff’s office’s Narcotics
Unit.
On March 9, 1999, Yates
was scheduled to testify in court, but agreed to assist the Pittsburg
Police Department Narcotics Team with a probation search in their city,
after he learned that court had been postponed.
The Pittsburg officers
had information that an unmarried couple was dealing substantial
quantities of cocaine from their flat in a rough-and-tumble section of
their city. Since the female half of this "dynamic dope duo"
was on felony probation from a previous narcotic sales case, the
officers’ plan was to conduct a probation search of the home.
After the standard
pre-operation briefing, the assembled group of officers descended on the
target address. Yates quickly located an ounce of crack cocaine located
in the flat’s bedroom. Once the drugs had been collected, Yates went
to the garage to assist another officer.
The garage was a single
car affair with a small laundry room located at the back of the garage
proper. Yates briefly poked around the laundry room and found an
electronic scale typically used for weighing drugs. Yates shouted out
his discovery and summoned the case officer and the designated
"finder." Yates, who has allergies, began hacking because of
the dusty conditions inside the laundry room.
Yates decided to change
out of his raid gear, which was now covered with dust and debris, and so
he grabbed the car keys from his partner.
What ensued was a bizarre
series of events that, given the drug dealers’ later claim that money
was missing from the laundry room, led the sheriff’s office to
mistakenly believe that Yates had helped himself to approximately
$5,000.
As Yates approached his
partner’s unmarked car, he noticed that a group of bystanders were
congregated around the car watching the action. As Yates drew closer,
the group dispersed. Yates took off his mesh utility vest, bulletproof
jacket and gun, and placed them in the trunk. In so doing, Yates managed
to lock the keys in the small space between the trunk lid and the
bumper. Yates enlisted the help of a near-by man who was working on his
car. This "Good Samaritan" lent Yates a small pry bar to lift
up the trunk lid enough to retrieve the keys.
As is standard practice,
Yates moved the car closer to the suspect’s flat. As Yates got out of
the car, one of two men who were washing a car across the street shouted
out that there was money on the ground and that it was theirs (the car
that the men were washing had been parked in the spot now occupied by
the unmarked police car).
Thinking nothing of it,
Yates picked up the two bills and handed it to one of the men. Yates
exchanged some lighthearted banter with the men and questioned one of
them about the drug suspects. Yates eventually directed the case officer
to speak with one of the men who had some useful information about the
activity at the address.
Once the search was over,
the officers piled into their cars and prepared to leave. One of the
officers discovered a bill lodged in the area between the hood and the
car’s front windshield. Further examination revealed a second bill on
the other side of the windshield. The officers were puzzled and, having
no rational explanation for the presence of the bills, simply booked
them into evidence as found property.
The male drug dealer
first mentioned the missing money two or three days later in a telephone
call with the case officer. Given the dealer’s casual reference to the
money, the case officer thought he was joking. However, the female drug
dealer’s uncle made a formal complaint to the Pittsburg Police
Department’s Investigation Unit who, in turn, notified the District
Attorney’s Office.
The District Attorney’s
Office launched a full-scale criminal investigation, which finally
produced a comprehensive 127-page report. The report cleared Yates, and
the senior deputy district attorney who reviewed the case opined that
the case "had more questions than answers", despite the
Herculean efforts of the assigned investigators.
The Internal Affairs
Investigation: Unfortunately, Yates’ trials and tribulations were far
from over. The sheriff’s office opened its own internal investigation.
The internal affairs investigation relied almost exclusively on the work
of the criminal investigators, re-interviewing three or four of the 15
or so witnesses in the criminal case. However, the internal affairs
investigation had a dramatically different result: The sheriff’s
office sustained the allegation against Yates, finding that he had
committed grand theft and was untruthful when he denied committing the
theft during the internal affairs interview. Accordingly, the sheriff’s
office terminated Yates in October 1999.
The Legal Defense Fund
and the board of trustees gave Yates their full support, including the
go ahead to seek a Writ of Mandate in order to thwart the sheriff office’s
efforts to use certain evidence against Yates. For an in-depth
description of the Writ proceedings, see Alison Berry Wilkinson’s
article in the April 2002 edition of PORAC News.
The Hearing: Once the
Writ proceedings were concluded, Yates’ case finally moved to a
hearing before Arbitrator Paul D. Staudohar in December 2001. The
hearing was exciting and dramatic, complete with surprise testimony and
shocking revelations, worthy of a made-for-TV-movie. The county leveled
two other alleged "independent" theft allegations against
Yates, and over my objections, allowed testimony concerning them.
However, in the final analysis, the arbitrator held the allegations to
be unworthy of consideration.
As to the underlying
allegation, a number of critical facts came to light that tended to show
that, if there was indeed any money stolen, it was stolen by someone
other than Yates. In fact, during the course of the hearing, the
identity of the true culprit in the theft was likely exposed.
First, the testimony at
the hearing established that the couple were drug dealers, whose
relationship was violent and tumultuous. A short time before the theft
allegation, the male drug dealer learned that the infant that bore his
name was not, in fact, his child. The county’s own witnesses testified
about frequent outbursts of domestic violence between the two.
Furthermore, it turned out that the girlfriend was arrested a month or
so after the raid on their home for attempting to run over the boyfriend
with a car.
Some of the other county’s
witnesses described the girlfriend’s prior criminal history, which
included assaults, shootings, drug dealings, and street robberies.
The key evidence that
showed Yates’ innocence concerned the garage door. When the officers
arrived at the couple’s flat, the girlfriend gave the officers the
only key to the garage so they could search it. One witness officer
(called by the county) testified that he had inadvertently left the key
inside the garage when he had closed and locked the garage at the
completion of the search.
Both dope dealers
testified that the woman had telephoned the man when she was released
from jail to tell him about the raid. The boyfriend blurted out,
"Did they find the money?" to which the girlfriend replied,
"What money?" In response, the boyfriend explained that there
was money hidden in the garage.
When the boyfriend
returned home several hours later, he found that the garage door had
been broken open and that his money was missing. The boyfriend assumed
that the police had broken open the garage door. Thus, the girlfriend
had ample opportunity to help herself to the money once she learned
about its existence. The arbitrator found that the girlfriend had,
"motive [and] opportunity, because ample time elapsed between when
[she] learned about the money and when [the boyfriend] returned home
from work...that someone broke the lock to the garage cast suspicion on
[the girlfriend], because there was only one set of keys and she knew
the money was in the garage."
As to the "flying
money," the county’s civilian witnesses either completely
contradicted themselves or gave testimony that supported Yates’ case.
Reflecting on the "flying money," the arbitrator stated that,
"It is odd that money was found on the windshield of the white car
as the officers were preparing to depart the scene. There is simply no
logical explanation for this. It is virtually certain, however, that the
grievant [Sean Yates] did not place the money there."
Sheriff Rupf himself
testified that Yates had no prior discipline in his 9 ½ years at the
department, and that, apart from the theft allegation, Yates was a
"good, productive deputy sheriff."
At the conclusion of the
hearing, and after receiving extensive post-hearing briefs discussing
the facts and procedural issues, Arbitrator Paul D. Staudohar issued a
25-page Opinion and Decision.
Staudohar explored the
important procedural question of the applicable standard of evidence.
The departments own witnesses had conceded that the evidence of
"guilt" rose, in their minds, to the level of a
"preponderance of the evidence." Furthermore, the county’s
witnesses acknowledged that in previous cases concerning criminal
allegations, the department had always used the "clear and
convincing evidence" standard to determine culpability. Staudohar
found that the application of a lesser standard in Yates’ case was
"arbitrary." Staudohar commented that even under the lesser
standard the county’s case "is not proven."
As a result, the
arbitrator found that, "The county did not sustain the burden of
proof in demonstrating that the grievant was guilty of dishonesty or
theft. Accordingly, it did not have cause to discharge the grievant.
After careful consideration of all written and oral evidence presented
by the parties, the discharge of the grievant is overturned. He is
ordered reinstated to his former position with full back pay and
benefits."
At the end of the day
(and the case), a number of factors combined for a victorious outcome.
Yates’ excellent record and reputation was given significant
consideration, as well it should have. But above all else, this case
signifies a commitment by a long-time, respected arbitrator to the
concept that a veteran cop should not be jettisoned from the profession
without legally sufficient proof of misconduct.
LDF Home Page | News
Article Index
