The termination of a Bell Garden’s police officer was overturned on by Assistant City Manager, Philip Wagner, the designated hearing officer in this case.  The officer was terminated over eight months ago while he waited for his appeal hearing date.  The officer was terminated for alleged intentional submission, on two separate dates, for court overtime he did not earn.

The officer, in my opinion, fell victim to a growing systemic problem involving allegedly troubled southern California police departments and a former chief’s promise to rid the department of “problem” officers to save face with a vocal community demanding change in the department’s culture. Despite an absence of evidence in this case, the officer was terminated for alleged dishonesty.

The Bell Garden’s officer was assigned to a graveyard shift when he received court subpoenas to attend court on two different cases.  In both instances he attended court, was placed on-call and subsequently submitted overtime for his court appearance obligations under the department’s collective bargaining agreement.  A department audit identified possible inconsistencies between the overtime submitted in comparison to when the court cases resolved.

The department launched an investigation conducted by an outsourced private investigation firm staffed by retired police detectives.  The investigation consisted of interviews of possible percipient witnesses who in most cases were not interviewed until about eight months after the court dates in question.  With the exception of one interview, none of the interviews were recorded and all notes of the interviews were destroyed. The investigation did not conclusively, even remotely, resolve a number of keys facts needed to reach a decision in this case.  Most significantly, none of the witnesses had personal knowledge of what the accused officer’s conduct and actions were on the dates he appeared in court nor could any of the district attorneys provide any details regarding their instructions to the officer regarding the different cases.  The investigations raised only questions but offered no answers.

During the appeal hearing, the department introduced sworn witness testimony and investigative statements and exhibits. The acting chief of police testified that he was certain of the accused officer’s nefarious intent in this case and made no room for legitimate error or negligence.  When questioned about the basis of his opinion, he said he relied on the investigative report and officer’s work history, which for the most part was exemplary.  When asked how many times he observed or met the accused officer, he replied, “never.”  In contrast, three Bell Garden’s sergeants testified on the officer’s behalf and applauded him for his hard work and demonstrated integrity.

Under cross-examination, both private investigators admitted no notes existed to support their interviews.  This became important when two witnesses called to testify disputed the content of their paraphrased statements.  One of the investigators in his statement said he audited a courtroom where the accused officer appeared and testified.  The investigator made it seem as though he never left the courtroom.  This investigator even bragged he did not need notes; however, it was established that he took at least one break and he added under cross that after the officer left the courtroom he checked for the officer throughout the court and even the district attorney’s office on the “first” floor.  Unknown to the witness, I have been at the courthouse in question many times and knew the district attorney’s office was located on the third floor and pointed out what he claimed was physically impossible.  The investigator’s ad lib seriously affected his credibility and undermined the investigation. 

The hearing officer agreed with our position that the investigation in this case was seriously lacking and offered no more than supposition.  While the hearing officer did find the accused officer did not follow established overtime reporting guidelines, his conduct was a product of oversight and not intentional.

The hearing officer concluded termination in this case was “too severe,” and recommended training consistent with his findings.  Of course, the terminated officer was very happy with the results of the case and thankful to all of those who supported him in his cause.