EL CAJON POLICE OFFICER IS
REINSTATED
After a long struggle
involving multiple legal defense cases, police officer Jeffrey Stine is
extremely pleased that he was reinstated to the El Cajon Police
Department.
Stine’s saga began last
year when a call for service was broadcast while he was meeting with
fellow officers in the field. The call for service was not directed at
any particular officer and neither Stine nor the other officers heard
the initial broadcast. Stine was then directly dispatched to the call
for service where he provided routine backup for another officer.
Following the incident,
Stine was questioned by his department as to whether he heard the
initial call for service, even though the other officers didn’t hear
the broadcast. Stine asserted that he was not aware of the initial call
for service and that his attention was drawn to the request only after
the dispatcher called his unit number and he was specifically directed
to respond. The department believed that Stine was not only negligent in
his duties, but was lying about the incident as well and recommended his
termination.
After a Skelly
hearing with the chief of police, the chief was not convinced that Stine
was lying about the incident. Instead, the chief upheld the remaining
charge and reduced the termination to a 40-hour suspension. The city
manager upheld the modified discipline.
In Stine’s appeal to
the personnel appeals commission, he presented evidence demonstrating
that he and his fellow officers never heard the initial call for
service. In addition, several of Stine’s peers presented a letter of
support at the commission hearing. The commission not only upheld the
40-hour suspension, but stated that they believed Stine’s testimony
was untruthful and that they would have sustained the termination had it
been brought before them. In El Cajon, the commission acts in an
advisory position to the city council. After a further appeal to the
city council, the 40-hour suspension was upheld.
Stine’s problems began
on his first day back from over two months of administrative leave. At
that time, a sergeant alleged that Stine returned a report, that was
previously returned to him for corrections, to the sergeant’s "in
box". However, the sergeant alleged that he told Stine to put the
report directly into the sergeant’s hand and not into the "in
box". As an aside, the sergeant admitted that Stine properly made
the corrections requested of him.
Stine was then charged
with insubordination for not following the direction allegedly given to
him by the sergeant. After Stine denied any recollection of the specific
direction to return the report directly to the sergeant, the sergeant
said that he could not believe that Stine did not remember the direction
allegedly given to him. No other witnesses corroborated the department’s
position that Stine was not telling the truth. Instead, the department
relied completely on the statement of the sergeant and on the sergeant’s
belief that Stine could not have forgotten the direction he had no proof
he gave to Stine.
Charged again with
untruthfulness, the termination was upheld after appeals to the chief of
police and the city manager before making its way to the personnel
appeals commission.
Because the commission
had previously commented on Stine’s voracity at his first commission
appeal, Bradley Fields, of the law offices of Everett Bobbitt, made a
motion to recuse those commission members. As untruthfulness was alleged
and that Stine’s credibility was at issue, it would have been most
inappropriate for commission members who heard Stine’s first appeal to
make a determination at the second appeal hearing. Despite the motion,
only one member of the commission recused himself. Not surprisingly, the
commission upheld Stine’s termination.
The most interesting
aspect of this story is what happened after the commission’s findings
were forwarded to the city council for review. At the city council’s
deliberation of his fate, Stine was given the opportunity to present
witnesses, including his pastor and his former academy instructor. In a
move that has been considered unprecedented in El Cajon’s history, the
city council reversed the termination.
When a city council or
civil service commission reviews the recommendations of a hearing body,
they have the autonomy to disagree and overturn unjustified disciplinary
action. When these decisions are made at the city council level,
witnesses can and should be called because they can have a profound
effect on the outcome of the hearing. In Stine’s case, there is little
doubt that the testimony of his pastor, a prominent figure in the
community, was instrumental to the city council’s decision.
LDF Home Page | News
Article Index
