Police Officer Saul Romero became a police officer with the City of Barstow on July 17, 2006. Prior to becoming a police officer Romero attended and successfully completed twenty-three (23) weeks at the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Academy.  The City hired Romero after Romero submitted to a full and complete background investigation, conducted by member(s) of the City of Barstow Police Department.  Part of that background investigation, as with most Departments, involved Romero seeing a psychologist, selected by the City, for an evaluation to determine if he was in fact psychologically fit to perform the duties of a police officer. Romero was found to be fit for duty and was hired by the City. 

            During the months of November of 2006 through June of 2007, Romero was a proactive officer often times with one of, if not the, highest number of arrests, calls for service, reports taken, traffic stops and civilian contacts.  On or about April 19, 2007, Romero received a “Barstow Police Department Performance Appraisal Report” (hereinafter referred to as “Appraisal Report”) for an Appraisal Period beginning July 21, 2006 and ending January 21, 2007. The Appraisal Report rated Romero overall as “Exceeds Standards”.  In addition to the Appraisal Report, between June of 2006 and October of 2007, Romero received various commendations and/or awards for his commitment to and/or actions as a police officer for the City. 

            On August 12, 2007, Romero was involved in the incident that resulted in the arrest of a juvenile suspect and his termination.  On or about February 11, 2008, Chief of Police Dianne Burns issued to Romero a “Notice of Intent to Dismiss” him from his position as police officer with the City citing as a basis discourteous treatment (use of profanity), excessive use of force, and withholding information and/or falsification of a report.  Following a Skelly Hearing, a Settlement Agreement was executed by the Parties (the City and Romero) which called for Romero to be suspended without pay for fifteen (15) days and to pass a psychological evaluation.  Romero at the time was represented by another attorney.  

     Romero, as required by the Settlement Agreement went to see Dr. Steven Garman (selected by the City) on April 16, 2008, for the fitness for duty exam.  Evidence introduced at Arbitration established that following Romero’s visit to Garman, Garman telephoned Burns and either spoke to her or left her a voicemail indicating he had already done the examination of Romero, and he (Garman) wanted further insight from one of Romero’s prior supervisors. Burns then tasked a Sergeant with contacting Garman to provide Garman with additional “insight and concerns” regarding Romero.  Following contact by the Sergeant, Garman issued his report finding Romero was unfit.  (Evidence introduced by Romero’s attorney at Arbitration provided evidence, obtained from the Medical Board of Psychology, that Garman had his license revoked, then stayed, and then he was placed on five (5) years probation and served a forty-five (45) days suspension for violations of the Business and Professions Codes §§2960(j)(n).) 

            On or about May 15, 2008, Romero was served with an “Amended Notice of Intent to Dismiss.”  Romero was subsequently issued a Notice of Termination.  An appeal was filed pursuant to the applicable rules and regulations and governing MOU.  Several days of Arbitration ensued, during which Romero was represented by Saku E. Ethir from Lackie, Dammeier & McGill. 

It is important to note that following his dismissal, and during the course of the Arbitration, with the financial assistance of the Barstow Police Officer Association (despite Burns’, after finding out that the POA was going to assist Romero with the expenses involved in getting an evaluation from two police psychologists, going to the POA and advising the POA that they were not under any obligation to assist Romero financially), Romero went to be psychologically evaluated by two well-known police psychologists, Dr. Lawrence N. Blum (hereinafter referred to as “Blum)” and Dr. Robert J. Postman (hereinafter referred to as “Postman”).  On December 22, 2008, Dr. Postman issued Correspondence stating that he found Romero FIT for duty as a police officer. On December 22, 2008, Dr. Blum evaluated Romero.  On January 13, 2009, Dr. Blum documented that Romero was FIT for full and regular duties as a police officer

.

That day Romero and another Officer were dispatched to a domestic incident call, between a brother and sister, 

reported via a 911 call.  Romero testified at Arbitration that when he approached the suspect’s residence he over

heard a male and female arguing, using profanity, and using derogatory and aggressive words towards one 

another. According to Romero when he made contact with the female (the reporting party) he observed the 

injuries to her lip, eye and ear.  Romero recalled that the female was bleeding from her lip area.  The female 

identified for Romero that it was the suspect that caused her injuries.  The victim indicated that the suspect had 

kicked and punched her all over her body.  Romero testified that it looked as if the victim had been “pummeled”.  The suspect was being argumentative admitted hitting the victim and challenged Romero about what Romero was going to do about it.  The other officer arrived on scene and took the victim out of the residence in an attempt to speak with her and diffuse the situation.  According to testimony, Romero then turned his attention to the suspect who continued to make comments to Romero that Romero was not going to do anything.  Romero begins to attempt to obtain information from the suspect regarding his identity and the suspect continues to be argumentative and uncooperative.

At the point of these exchanges, Romero is approximately eight (8) to ten (10) feet away from the suspect.  

Romero then starts walking towards the suspect giving him verbal commands to stand up, turn around and place 

his hands behind his back.  According to testimony, the suspect did not comply. Romero repeats the commands 

and the suspect fails to comply.  Romero gets to within a foot and a half to two feet of  the suspect and stops.   

Romero testified that he has been trained to always maintain distance from a suspect, never to stand directly in 

front of them, and to always place himself in a position where he was offset to the subject.  Romero further 

testified that during the Academy, he was trained to “…ask, tell, and make them do it.”  The verbal commands 

had not been complied with, so, consistent with his Academy training, Romero placed his hand on the suspects 

left wrist and again asked the suspect to stand up. The suspect then yanked away from Romero with force and 

immediately stood up in a threatening manner, said, “What the f****?” and threw the video remote controller he 

had in his hand to the ground.  Romero testified he saw the suspect as a credible threat.  Romero believed at t

hat point that the suspect was going to try to fight.  Romero, in order to regain control of the situation, feeling as 

if he was at a position of disadvantage to the suspect used his (Romero’s ) left hand to push the suspect back 

down on the couch.  Romero then attempted to grab the suspect’s hand with his (Romero’s ) right hand to put 

the suspect in a control hold but was unsuccessful because the suspect was resisting and pushing Romero’s 

body around with the suspect’s body.  The suspect was flopping around and resisting.  As A. Cuevas continued 

to resist, Romero’s hand went towards the suspect’s upper chest area.  Romero was attempting to gain 

immediate control of the situation 

               According to evidence introduced at Arbitration, the other office on scene hears the commotion and 

comes back inside the residence.  The other officer seeing the suspect fighting and resisting strikes the suspect 

in the leg area with his baton. The strikes did not have any effect on the suspect.  The suspect continues to fight 

and resist so the other officer strikes the suspect twice more in the leg area, having no effect (It is important to 

note that the other Officer’s force was deemed by the Department to be within policy and reasonable).  

            Based on the suspects failure to comply with orders to stop resisting, his continued struggling and resisting, and the lack of effect of the baton strikes, Romero made the decision to deploy his taser.  Following the first cycle, the suspect continues to pull away from the officers and continues to refuse to comply and continues to resist.    The suspect is tased by Romero a second time.  Evidence introduced at Arbitration established that the suspect then rips out the taser barbs from his torso and begins walking at a fast pace towards the hallway of the residence.  Romero tackles the suspect and takes him into custody.

City alleged that Romero, during the incident in question used discourteous, abusive and obscene language, uncivil behavior.  Romero admitted during his initial interrogation with the Department, the psychological evaluation with Dr. Postman, and during his testimony at Arbitration, that he called the suspect an “offensive” term and further admitted that it was inappropriate and unprofessional for him to make the remark under the circumstances that existed at the time. The Arbitrator, because there was no dispute that the remark was made, referenced Romero’s acceptance of responsibility for the comment and repeated reassurances that similar conduct would never occur.  The Arbitrator went on to state that there was no evidence that the remark caused the suspect to be more defiant or justified the suspect’s resistive behavior. 

 The City also alleged Romero used force that was excessive during the incident.  The suspect and his family members present during all or some of the incident all provided inconsistent testimony at Arbitration as to the facts surrounding the incident on August 12, 2007.  The Arbitrator in her decision held that two of the civilian witnesses at Arbitration, one of which was the suspect “dishonest” and their dishonesty rendered all of their testimony “suspect and not credible”.  The officers on scene however both provided consistent testimony as to their observations and actions that day and were found by the Arbitrator to be credible.

               During Arbitration the other Officer present testified consistently with Romero explaining his use of

 force (the baton strikes to the suspect) and further testified that due to the resistance being put forth by the 

suspect, and the suspect’s failure to follow commands, the Officer decided to taser the suspect.  The Officer

 testified that he tugged at the taser that was holstered on Romero’s leg but was unsuccessful in retrieving it.  

He further testified stated that based on the conduct and actions of the suspect, had he been successful in 

removing Romero’s taser from the holster, he would have tased the suspect.  The Arbitrator in her decision 

held that Romero relied on his academy training during the incident to ask, tell and then force compliance.  

She further credited Romero’s testimony finding that the City failed to meet its burden of proving Romero 

engaged in force that was excessive. 

            The Department also charged Romero with deliberately withholding information related to work from supervisors or others requiring the information, failure to disclose material facts, and the making of any false or misleading statement on any official document of the City.

Romero testified that following his return to the station with the suspect, he and the other offers both reported to the on duty supervisor what had occurred. That supervisor communicated to Romero that the suspect was going to be released and no charges submitted to the District Attorney’s office for filing.  Romero testified at Arbitration that both he and the other officer expressed their concern with that decision based on the felony crime committed by the suspect in essentially pummeling the victim (causing significant and visible injuries) and based on the resistance and failure to comply by the suspect.  The suspect was in fact released and no charges were ever filed.  The Sergeant ordered Romero to prepare a report on the incident. The other officer also prepared a report on the incident.  Romero prepared a Report outlining the incident and the force used.  The Report was thorough, with the narrative portion taking up two and one half pages.  The Report was never given back to Romero by a supervisor with the Department for corrections, as is the practice at the Department if there are corrections needed to a Report or if information is lacking or missing.

               As to this charge, the Arbitrator found that it was “UNTRUE”. The Arbitrator held as follows:  “…the evidence is not convincing that he deliberately withheld information related to work from supervisors or others requiring the information and failed to disclose material facts.

            In closing the Arbitrator found, after careful consideration of the evidence, that the City did not have just cause to terminate the employment of Romero and further ordered him reinstated and made whole as to wages and benefits, less a fifteen day suspension for the inappropriate remark.  The Arbitrator also order the City to remove and destroy any and all references on Romero’s personnel records to the incident, the resulting discharge from employment, the defunct Settlement Agreement and any psychological reports except his pre-hire psychological evaluation. Romero has since been reinstated and has been made whole in the form of wages and benefits.  This was a very difficult time and process for Romero, who thanks his family, the Bartow Police Officers Association and the Legal Defense Fund for their constant support and vigorous defense of him