ARBITRATOR OVERTURNS
TERMINATION OF TRINITY COUNTY DEPUTY
By Paul Q. Goyette
Goyette & Associates
Arbitrator C. Allen Pool
has overturned the Trinity County Sheriff’s Department’s termination
of Deputy Nick Tranquilla and ordered him back to work with full back
pay and back benefits. The arbitrator found on all counts that there was
no evidence that Deputy Tranquilla committed any misconduct.
At the time of his
termination, Tranquilla had served for almost 20 years and was serving
as a detective and training officer when the department terminated him.
The department terminated Tranquilla for numerous charges including
dishonesty in four cases that are described as: the Rogers case, the
Spurlock case, the Brown case, and the Price case.
The Rogers Case: The
department alleged Tranquilla did not submit a polygraph examination
report to the district attorney’s office and that he subsequently lied
about completing the report. In this case, the Department of Justice
administered a polygraph examination where the subject of the
examination failed. The DOJ polygraph examiner advised Tranquilla of the
subject’s failure. Tranquilla immediately advised the involved deputy
district attorney that the subject had failed. At hearing, the deputy
district attorney confirmed that Tranquilla reported that the subject
failed the polygraph examination. At the time of the hearing, the deputy
DA was still waiting for the DOJ report. The deputy DA testified that he
had not requested the report from Tranquilla contrary to the department’s
allegations. The arbitrator found that Tranquilla had completely
performed his duties and did not commit any type of misconduct.
The Spurlock Case: In
this case, the department alleged that Tranquilla failed to complete a
report in a timely fashion and failed to deliver a videotape to a deputy
DA pursuant to his request. The department also alleged that Tranquilla
lied about completing the report.
At hearing, the
department was not able to present any evidence that Tranquilla
committed misconduct. The deputy DA testified that he did not remember
ever requesting a videotape from Tranquilla. In addition, the evidence
showed that Tranquilla was not required to do a report because the case
settled by a plea bargain at a very early stage. The deputy DA testified
that on previous cases Tranquilla always completed those reports in a
timely fashion. The arbitrator concluded that Deputy Tranquilla again
committed no type of misconduct.
The Brown Case: In this
case the department alleged that Tranquilla was dishonest and neglected
his duties when he failed to complete a report in a fraud case. In this
case, Tranquilla received a postal fraud complaint from the local
Chamber of Commerce. Tranquilla conducted an initial investigation and
discovered that postal fraud cases fell under the jurisdiction of the
Postal Service inspector’s office. He immediately referred the case to
the Postal Service inspector’s office and discontinued his
investigation.
The department alleged
Tranquilla should have completed a report under the circumstances. Yet,
the department could point to no rule, regulation, or even past practice
requiring Tranquilla to do so. The arbitrator concluded that Tranquilla
was not required to complete a report after turning the case over to the
Postal Service inspector’s office.
The Price Case: By now
the reader may be wondering why the department tried to terminate a
20-year veteran based upon allegations with no evidence to support them.
Only the sheriff of Trinity County can answer that question. Yet, this
entire Internal Affairs investigation started the Price case.
In this case the
department alleged that Tranquilla committed perjury while testifying at
a preliminary hearing. Specifically, the department alleged that
Tranquilla lied when he testified that he had prepared a report when in
fact, according to the department, he had not.
Price was a parolee who
came under investigation for being in possession of a handgun. When
Price’s parole officer interviewed him, Tranquilla served as a backup
officer. The parole officer interviewed Price and Tranquilla listened to
the interview. Tranquilla did not participate in the interview, but he
took notes, as was his custom. Price was taken into custody and charged
with violating his parole by being in possession of a handgun. The next
day, Tranquilla wrote a two-page summary of his involvement in the
arrest of Price.
Several months later the
district attorney subpoenaed Tranquilla to testify at Price’s
preliminary hearing. At the preliminary hearing, the defense attorney
asked Tranquilla the following questions. His answers follow:
Did you prepare a report?
I have since prepared a report, yes.
And where is that? It’s
in my office.
Has it been submitted to
the District Attorney’s office? No, it has not.
Do you plan to submit it
to the District Attorney’s office? Yes.
Based on this series of
questions and answers the sheriff concluded Tranquilla had committed
perjury when he made the statement "I have since prepared a report,
yes."
At hearing, the testimony
of Sheriff Paul Schmidt was very revealing. The sheriff testified that
he terminated Tranquilla because he lied while under oath at the Price
preliminary hearing. When asked what the lie was, the sheriff responded
that Tranquilla made a false statement when he stated he had prepared a
report. When asked why it was a false statement since Tranquilla did
write a two-page summary of the arrest of Price, the Sheriff answered,
"What he prepared was not a proper police report."
The arbitrator found that
the appellant did not lie under oath. The arbitrator found that the
sheriff terminated Tranquilla based on the sheriff’s opinion that the
document Tranquilla prepared was not "a proper police report."
The arbitrator found that Tranquilla did prepare a report and truthfully
answered the questions at the preliminary hearing.
It is interesting to note
that in the Price Case, Tranquilla’s situation was aggravated by the
opinion of a deputy district attorney that Tranquilla may have created a
"Brady Issue" by the way he testified at the Price
preliminary hearing. The district attorney and all other deputy DAs did
not agree that Tranquilla created a Brady issue. Brady v.
Maryland requires the prosecution to inform a criminal defendant of
any exculpatory evidence, including any prior sustained acts of
dishonesty by officers who may testify.
The arbitrator also noted
that the termination of Tranquilla could not be upheld in part because
Tranquilla had a good employment record with the department and had
recently received a number of favorable performance evaluations.
Tranquilla presented evidence at hearing that the sheriff had attempted
to get Tranquilla’s sergeants to downgrade a pending performance
evaluation while the IA investigation was ongoing. Both sergeants
refused to change the performance evaluation and rated Tranquilla as
"outstanding" in his performance.
The Department Files A
Writ of Mandate: Even though the arbitrator ordered Tranquilla back to
work, the county and the department were not ready to accept him back
just yet. The county filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate under
California Code of Civil Procedure §1094.5. The county requested that
the Superior Court overturn the arbitrator’s decision and uphold the
department’s original termination of Tranquilla. Superior Court Judge
Balavage presided over the Writ hearing and, in a terse ruling from the
bench, denied the county’s Petition for Writ of Mandate.
The Writ of Mandate filed
by the county was totally without merit because the parties had agreed
that the arbitrator’s decision would be final and binding. The affect
of binding arbitration is that the arbitrator’s decision is truly
final. Neither party may appeal to the Superior Court under almost all
circumstances. Nevertheless, the county filed the Writ of Mandate and
delayed Tranquilla’s reinstatement for approximately six months.
Fortunately, Judge Balavage denied the county’s Petition for Writ of
Mandate and awarded Tranquilla full back pay and back benefits.
Tranquilla has now collected full back pay and back benefits in a case
that, in retrospect, can only be described as an abuse of the sheriff’s
authority to discipline members of the department.
Epilogue: The termination
of Tranquilla is a frightening reminder of how the powers of police
administrators and managers can be abused. Tranquilla was a 20-year
veteran of the Trinity County Sheriff’s Department. Yet, for reasons
that only the sheriff could disclose, the department tried to end
Tranquilla’s career on allegations of misconduct that could only be
described as ridiculous. What this case really came down to was the
sheriff concluded (at least in his own mind) that Tranquilla lied when
he testified at the Price preliminary hearing that he had prepared a
report. Tranquilla had in fact prepared a report, but that was not good
enough for the sheriff. As the sheriff testified, it was not a
"proper police report". The sheriff manufactured a petty
semantic misunderstanding into allegations of perjury. For those of you
who do not think that sheriffs or chiefs would abuse their authority so
extravagantly, take note of Deputy Tranquilla’s case.
Tranquilla has since
retired from the department and now works full time as a labor
representative for United Public Employees, California, Local 792, in
Redding.
About the Author:
Paul Q. Goyette is the managing partner of the law firm of Goyette
& Associates that specializes the representation of public safety
employee associations. Goyette & Associates has offices in
Sacramento, Redding and Modesto.
LDF Home Page | News
Article Index
