Retired Parole Officer Fred Owens won his case against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in the California Court of Appeal, 2^nd Appellate District with help from his attorneys at LACKIE, DAMMEIER & MCGILL, APC. Owens fought a long and hard battle against the Department to hold a “good cause” hearing to review the denial of Owens’ application for carrying a concealed weapon endorsement (CCW).  The Honorable Appellate Court Judges remanded Owens’ case back to the trial court with instructions to require a good cause hearing under Penal Code section 12027.1 or order the CDC to provide the CCW retiree identification.

In 1999, the Department revoked Fred Owens license to a carry a firearm. Later, the Department and Owens came to an agreement whereby Owens retired honorably and the Department agreed to remove any adverse actions from his personnel file. Thereafter, in 2002, Fred Owens filed an application for a CCW endorsement and it was denied. Owens’ then-attorney wrote a letter requesting the reversal of the denial but the Department did not respond. After, in 2004, Owens again applied for a CCW and it was again denied in 2005. Owens appealed the denial and it was denied by the Department stating “good cause” for the denial. Owens then submitted a letter for reconsideration which was again denied. Later in 2005, Owens submitted a letter requesting a “good cause” hearing be conducted under the Penal Code section 12027.1, before a three person panel. The Department granted Owens request for a good cause hearing—however, the Department unilaterally postponed the hearing. In 2007 and 2008, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, on behalf of Owens, requested (on two separate occasions) a CCW endorsement and a good cause hearing. The Department denied Owens CCW endorsement and also stated that the Department had no obligation to provide Owens with a good cause hearing.

 Fred Owens filed a petition for writ of mandate in the trial court seeking to compel the Department of Corrections to hold a good cause hearing under the penal code for the denial of Owens application for a CCW. Represented by a different firm, the trial court denied Owens’ writ petition on the grounds that it was barred by the doctrine of laches. Fred Owens then came to LACKIE DAMMEIER & MCGILL to appeal the trial court’s decision. On appeal, Owens and his attorneys argued that the Department failed to make a requisite showing of prejudice in support of their laches defense. The Court of Appeal agreed and opined that the trial court erred in denying Fred Owens’ writ petition. The Court reaffirmed the principle that a party who asserts laches as a defense must show an unreasonable delay plus either that the other party acquiesced to the act complained of, or prejudice to the party resulting from the delay. See Vernon Fire Fighters Assn. v. City of Vernon (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 710, 717; People v. Koontz (2002) 27 Cal.4^th 1041, 1087-1088.

Despite the Department’s numerous denials and misleading assertions regarding Owens’ CCW application – Fred Owens is one step closer to getting what he wanted. LACKIE, DAMMEIER & MCGILL refuses to take no for an answer and continue to fight for officers rights in the realm of appeals, litigation, writs, negotiations, etc.