Superior court orders IA
materials removed from officers files: grants writ relief under POBR
By: Bob Krause
Law Office of Castle & Krause
Temecula, CA
Riverside Superior Court
Judge Jacquelyn D. Thomason recently granted a writ of mandate ordering
the removal of Internal Affairs materials from multiple officers’
personnel files at the Blythe Police Department.
In Timothy Wade, et al
v. City of Blythe Police Department, et al Judge Thomason found that
as to all petitioners, the police department (administration) had
violated Government Code Section 3304(d); and that entry of the untimely
materials was "punitive action" as defined under Government
Code Section 3300, et seq. and decisional progeny. Therefore, all
offending materials were ordered removed. I had the privilege of
representing all of the officers throughout these proceedings.
Background: Notwithstanding
numerous communications giving notice to Interim Chief Robert Grady of
the Blythe PD, he allowed five internal affairs investigations to linger
without disposition in excess of the recently enacted statute of limits
under the POBR, Government Code Section 3304(d).
Thereafter this office
issued a demand letter that any and all materials relating to the
Internal Affairs investigations be removed from all of the officers’
files. In response, Grady ordered the "raw" allegations
(ranging from excessive force to creating a hostile work environment) be
placed into the officers’ personnel files, most without findings.
The irony of this whole
mess was that, had the department brought charges on time, we could have
successfully defended the officers. They would have been cleared. Since
the department could not now bring charges, it chose to just put the
allegations in the files where any reader would only see the
"bad". Our position therefore was that the materials had to
go. If not, a 3304(d) violation would have no consequence to the
offending agency.
After consultation, the
Legal Defense Fund approved the court action leading to this decision.
The Legal Proceedings: With
a green light from the LDF to seek mandamus/injunctive relief, we filed
case BLC 002171 in the Superior Court, Riverside County, Blythe-Ripley
Division. We pled and briefed for relief under Government Code Section
3309.5 and California Code of Civil Procedure 1085 since, as we
successfully argued, the materials amounted to punitive action. Our
position was that the materials were punitive action even though there
were no "findings" as such. We did not argue for disciplinary
hearings, but rather sought expungement based on the court’s broad
powers to grant equitable remedies under Government Code Section 3309.5
for violations of the POBR. The court agreed with our position that
violation of the statute of limitations under 3304(d) gave it the
authority to grant the extraordinary relief that was sought.
The city argued
vigorously that it had an obligation to maintain the citizen complaints
under Penal Code Section 832.5(b). Judge Thomason basically said too
bad, next time obey the law.
The city then moved for a
60-day stay of execution of the order to explore appellate review. This
motion was granted. The saga continues, so stay tuned.
About the Author:
Bob Krause is a former (now retired) sergeant with the Oceanside
Police Department where he served many years as president and negotiator
with the OPOA. He is a partner in the Law Office of Castle & Krause,
Temecula, CA and has been representing the interest of public safety
officers for the past 17 years throughout southern California.
LDF Home Page | News
Article Index
