OFFICER VICTORIOUS OVER
CITY OF SANTA MARIA IN COURT OF APPEAL
The Court of Appeal,
Second Appellate District, Division Six, has recently affirmed the
decision of the Ventura County Superior Court to reinstate former Santa
Maria Officer Tom Radzyminski.
For those of you recently
tuning in, here is a recap of events. Tom Radzyminski, a former White
House marine and highly decorated LAPD officer, lateralled to Santa
Maria PD in 1995 with his wife, Officer Kellene Radzyminski. Then, one
ill-fated shift on July 25, 1997, Radzyminski and a fellow officer
became involved in an altercation with a suspect. During the melee,
Radzyminski struck his head on the pavement, having "his bell
rung". After apprehending the suspect, Radzyminski realized that
his ride-along for the day, a teenage explorer scout, also sustained
injuries. Radzyminski took the explorer to an emergency care facility
where he declined treatment for himself in lieu of giving comfort to his
ride-along as she was given medical attention. Due to his injuries,
Radzyminski was assigned to the station for the balance of his shift and
was not to go into the field unless an officer safety issue occurred.
Unfortunately, at 12:30
a.m., a "request for assistance" call was broadcast by Officer
Kellene Radzyminski, causing Tom Radzyminski and two other officers to
respond from the station. The officers thought Kellene was being
physically assaulted. While backing his unit out, and concentrating on
the radio broadcast to ascertain a location, Tom’s unit apparently
made slight contact with a mailbox causing very minor damage to the
unit. Tom Radzyminski was unaware of the contact. When he later noticed
the damage, he promptly reported it to his sergeant and took
responsibility for the damage, but was unable to report how it happened.
Immediately after, Tom
and Kellene Radzyminski went on their annual vacation. While they were
away, chips of paint transfer and tail light fragments were found near
the mailbox. The chief of police quickly opined, "There must be
more than this" as if Radzyminski was somehow withholding
information. When Tom and Kellene Radzyminski returned from vacation,
they found that a preliminary inquiry had been started by a commander
who told Radzyminski that he could "clear the matter up" with
no discipline and sent him to the lieutenant. When Radzyminski reported
to the lieutenant’s office, the lieutenant made a surreptitious tape
recording of the meeting. Radzyminski, not knowing how the damage
occurred, was unable to explain the damage, and again stated that he
accepted responsibility for the damage. Radzyminski was ultimately fired
for dishonesty, despite language in the investigative report
acknowledging that Radzyminski could have experienced "tunnel
vision" (which the investigator called "focused
attenuation"), and had not felt the slight collision.
The first impartial body
to review this matter was an administrative law judge in a hearing over
unemployment benefits. The ALJ found that the city’s motives were
questionable and found that Radzyminski had not committed misconduct.
Unfortunately, the
administrative review granted to Radzyminski by his union MOU did not
provide an impartial decision maker to serve as the hearing officer.
City manager Tim Ness heard the three-day hearing in this matter where
Bill Hadden and Howard Liberman represented Radzyminski. Not only did
Ness rubber stamp the chief’s termination decision, he found
Radzyminski to be a liar for minimizing his injuries sustained during
the altercation in order to attend to the injured explorer scout. The
MOU provided that the city council approves the city manager’s
decision, and it did, without even reading the record.
Ultimately, with the
backing of the Legal Defense Fund, Silver, Hadden & Silver appealed
to the Superior Court. There, Judge Zel Canter reviewed the matter with
a fair eye and found that Radzyminski had been "railroaded"
and that Ness should have been "a tobacco executive," based on
how he went out of his way to find an innocent officer guilty. Canter
called Ness "a corporate man, ready to sacrifice the individual’s
rights, in my opinion the worst kind possible to be in any position of a
judicial office of any sort." Canter not only found that the city
failed to meet its burden of proof, but found that Radzyminski was
factually innocent of the dishonesty allegation. Canter overturned the
city’s decision of termination. The city, in an attempt to prolong
Radzyminski’s unemployment, moved for a new trial. In an order denying
a new trial, Canter wrote:
"…it is
affirmatively found that [Radzyminski] was unaware of the cause of
damage to his police vehicle and accordingly did not lie to superior
officers. Petitioner is factually innocent of the charges brought
against him in the administrative hearing."
The city appealed to the
Court of Appeal, essentially prolonging Radzyminski’s unemployment for
yet another year. On April 11, 2001, Liberman successfully argued for
Radzyminski’s reinstatement. The Court of Appeal, in a decision by
Presiding Justice Gilbert, affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court,
finding, "The city’s case was based on circumstantial evidence to
show Radzyminski should have known that he hit the mailbox. Radzyminski’s
case, however, was based on his consistent testimony that he had no such
knowledge."
In strong language,
Justice Gilbert praised Radzyminski’s truthfulness throughout this
ordeal.
"He had no
motive to lie because [the commander] told him the incident was
minor and could be resolved without discipline. In all the
investigations his position was consistent. [The lieutenant’s]
report found that Radzyminski may not have been "cognizant of
the collision" due to "focused attenuation." With
this condition, "the officer is so focused upon critical issues
that he becomes oblivious of his immediate surroundings." From
this evidence, the court could reasonably infer that Radzyminski did
not know he hit the mailbox. He was focused solely on the distress
call from his wife. His actions showed candor, not deception.
The department in its
zeal to fabricate the dishonesty charge ignored Radzyminski’s candor,
which was so apparent to both Canter and the Court of Appeals justices.
The city manager, by his decision, and the city council, by its
inaction, perpetuated this injustice. Radzyminski and his attorneys were
forced to navigate through a "stacked deck" administrative
system before reaching judges who were truly fair and impartial.
The successful defense of
Tom Radzyminski was truly a team effort. Steve Silver, Bill Hadden &
Susan Silver joined in drafting the briefs in Superior Court and the
Court of Appeal. The city has accepted the Court of Appeal’s ruling
and Radzyminski is returning to work.
LDF Home Page | News
Article Index
