LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORT POLICE OFFICER
REINSTATED WITH FULL BACK-PAY AND BENEFITS BASED ON DEPARTMENT’S
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE § 3304 (d)
By
Stephen J. Horvath, Esq.
Stone Busailah, LLP
On
February 9, 2002, Los Angeles World Airport (LAWA) Police Officer, Darin
Block, was traveling on an airport taxiway in his patrol unit. Traveling with Block was an officer from another agency who
was observing LAWA’s operations.
En route to the station, Block heard radio calls from a fellow
officer who was engaged in a traffic stop.
Monitoring the radio, Block later heard that the officer was
requesting back-up as he was going to make an arrest of the driver for
an outstanding felony warrant and that the vehicle had several other
passengers.
Block
responded by immediately accelerating in the direction of the officer
requesting back-up. As he
was traveling down the taxiway, an airport cargo tug pulled out in front
of Block’s unit resulting in a violent collision. As
a result of the collision, all parties, including the tug driver,
sustained serious injuries.
Despite
the fact that department policy requires an outside agency to
investigate traffic collisions involving LAWA officers, the
investigation into the accident was conducted by LAWA officers.
The traffic collision report indicated that the accident was the
result of Block traveling at an excessive rate of speed.
The report failed to mention that the tug driver failed to yield
the right of way to Block. Nonetheless,
on February 13, 2002, the traffic collision report was presented to the
captain. The captain is a
person authorized to initiate an investigation and therefore the statute
of limitations period began to run.
On
October 7, 2002, Block was a named defendant in a civil action brought
by the parties involved in the accident.
The civil action was settled out of court.
As a result of the settlement, a dismissal was filed on April 27,
2004, releasing Block from all civil liability.
More importantly, he was no longer a “party defendant” in the
civil litigation, which triggered the tolling provision.
On
February 2, 2005, nearly three years after the accident, LAWA served
Block with a Notice of Intent to terminate.
I was assigned the case. During
a Skelly hearing I presented several viable defenses to the decision
to terminate, including a violation of § 3304 (d) of the Public Safety
Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA).
This argument was based on the fact that LAWA failed to complete
the investigation and notify Block of the proposed disciplinary action
within one year.
LAWA
responded by asserting that the limitations period was tolled under
POBRA § 3304 (d) (6) because Block was named as a “party defendant”
in the civil litigation. In
response, I presented the following analysis of the relevant dates.
1. The § 3304 (d) limitations period began to run on
2/13/2002, because that is the date that the captain received and
discovered the findings contained in the traffic collision report.
2. The one-year period began to toll on 10/7/2002, because
Block is named as a “party defendant” in a civil action.
§ 3304 (d) (6) provides for a tolling period “while a civil
action is pending.”
3. The one-year tolling period ended on 4/27/2004, because
the case in which Block was named as a “party defendant” was
dismissed pursuant to a settlement reached between the parties.
4. The investigation was completed on 2/2/2005 when the
Notice of Intent was served on Block.
5. The statute of limitations ran from 2/13/2002 to
10/7/2002 for a total of 235 days.
6. The statute tolled from 10/7/2002 to 4/27/2004.
7. On 4/28/2004, the statute began to run again, leaving
only 130 days for the department to complete its investigation.
8. The department took
281 additional days to complete its investigation.
This was 151 days over the statute of limitations period.
Although
this point-by-point analysis was presented at the Skelly hearing, LAWA went forward with the termination.
A request for a civil service hearing was filed on behalf of
Block to appeal the termination. In addition, I requested authorization from the PORAC Legal
Defense Fund to file a Petition for a Writ of Mandate pursuant to
Government Code § 3309.5 in the Superior Court, and seek a permanent
injunction prohibiting the department from taking disciplinary action
against Block for his involvement in this incident based on LAWA’s
failure to comply with POBRA § 3304 (d).
The Legal Defense Fund authorized the action.
In
a final effort to resolve the matter short of litigation, I contacted
LAWA officials seeking to open settlement discussions.
At this point, the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office reviewed
the matter and agreed that LAWA had violated POBRA § 3304 (d).
Facing the likelihood of a loss in Superior Court, LAWA agreed to
reinstate Block in good standing with full back pay and benefits, and to
remove all references to the termination from his personnel files.
Without
the certainty of facing the LDF-backed litigation, it is unlikely the
department would have been willing to entertain settlement discussions
involving reinstatement of Block. As
such, Block would like to offer many thanks to the Legal Defense Fund
and Stone Busailah, LLP, for their unwavering support and advocacy
throughout the pendency of this matter.
About
the author: Stephen
J. Horvath is an associate at
the LDF panel firm of Stone Busailah, LLP of Pasadena and Riverside, and
is part of the firm’s police litigation unit. The firm limits its practice to the representation of
federal, state and local law enforcement members and agencies in civil,
criminal, administrative and appellate matters in state and federal
courts.
LDF Home Page | News
Article Index
