SHASTA DEPUTY HAS
DISCIPLINE REVOKED ON POBR VIOLATION
On February 6, 1997,
Shasta County Deputy Steve Courtney requested time off work to attend a
previously scheduled medical appointment. While seemingly a routine
matter, Courtney's sergeant began to inquire into the nature of
Courtney's medical problems.
As the questioning became
more persistent, Courtney became concerned that his sergeant was
inquiring into areas that were protected by his privacy rights. As the
questioning continued, the sergeant threatened Courtney with
disciplinary action if he did not divulge the information the sergeant
was requesting.
At this point, Courtney
requested to have a representative, pursuant to his rights under the
Peace Officers' Procedural Bill of Rights (POBR). The sergeant refused
to allow Courtney an opportunity to contact his representative.
The interview continued
and ultimately Courtney had to divulge some information related to his
medical appointment.
As a result of this
interview with his sergeant, Courtney received a letter of reprimand
that alleged he committed acts of untruthfulness, insubordination, and
poor judgment.
Courtney and his
representative, Steve Allen, asked for an Internal Affairs investigation
over the alleged acts. The department did so and their investigation
sustained only the insubordination claim and a new letter of reprimand
claiming such.
At this point, the
Legal Defense Fund trustees, using the affirmative relief provision of
the plan, authorized legal action by Paul Q. Goyette, of Goyette &
Adams. He immediately demanded that the Shasta County Sheriff's
Department withdraw the letter of reprimand.
Courtney's sergeant's
conduct was a clear violation of Government Code Section 3303(l).
Section 3303(l) states in part that whenever a public safety officer is
under investigation and subjected to an interrogation and that
interrogation focuses on matters that are likely to result in punitive
action, the officer is entitled to a representative of his choice to be
present upon his request.
In Courtney's case, his
sergeant repeatedly stated that he was facing potentially significant
disciplinary action. Courtney repeatedly requested to have a
representative present during the course of the interrogation.
After Goyette threatened
to file a lawsuit, the department withdrew the letter of reprimand and
issued a so called .non-disciplinary counseling statement. Goyette
stated that "Deputy Courtney's case is a good example
of how a department's respect for an officer’s rights under
POBR can steadily erode, unless those rights are consistently and
vigorously enforced.
"Courtney was placed
in a very hostile situation with his immediate supervisor. In the midst
of that, Courtney had the wherewithal to request a representative to
assist him.
"Unfortunately for
Courtney, that basic right was denied him. Fortunately, we were able to
undo the disciplinary action the department brought against
Courtney."
LDF Home Page | News
Article Index
