 |
Newsletters
Alhambra POA Wins Injunction
Against City and
Chief to Stop Peace Officer Bill of Rights Violations
Between the months of October 1998 and March 1999, management for the Alhambra Police Department violated several
officers' rights during internal affairs investigations. These violations ranged from unlawful locker searches to interrogating officers without representation after officer-involved shootings.
In October 1998, a citizen's complaint was made against an officer in regard to alleged misconduct while off-duty at a high school football game. Shortly after the complaint was filed, the investigating lieutenant contacted the officer on the telephone and interrogated him but disguised his remarks as small talk. The lieutenant made friendly inquiries such as, AI heard of a
spitting' incident that occurred at a high school football game and he was just
wondering if the POA member happened to be there. The lieutenant failed to the tell the POA member that he was under investigation and the nature of the investigation prior to interrogating him, as required by Government Code sections 3303(b) and (c). The lieutenant later claimed that he was not aware of the complaint at the time of the telephone conversation, however, did not explain how he knew of the
a spitting allegation which was in the citizen's complaint and in fact did not occur. The investigation later was determined to be unfounded.
In November, 1998, a POA member, while off-duty, was involved in a shooting which resulted in no injuries or property damage. The off-duty officer reported the incident to the
sheriff's department and then called his watch commander. A police lieutenant and sergeant immediately responded to the off-duty
officer's girlfriend's house where he was staying in the early morning hours. The lieutenant and sergeant immediately began questioning the off-duty officer without advising him of his rights under the Bill of Rights Act. (The statements made at this interrogation were later determined to be unusable by the Department.)
In December 1998, POA members lockers were searched without their knowledge or consent and without a valid search warrant. The Department claimed that equipment needed to be removed from the lockers for maintenance. Locker searches without consent, advance notice, the presence of the officer or a valid search warrant is in violation of Government Code section 3309.
The final straw for the Police Officers' Association came in March 1999, when an officer subject to a
citizen's complaint investigation was interrogated without his demanded representation. The lieutenant investigating the matter scheduled the interrogation for a Friday evening. The attorney requested by the POA member, Michael D. Lackie of Lackie & Dammeier LLP, contacted the lieutenant and explained that he was not able to be there at that date and time and attempted to reschedule the matter within the next few days. The lieutenant said he would reschedule it to Saturday evening and that would be as far as he would go. The lieutenant then ordered a sergeant to conduct the interrogation on Saturday evening even though the POA
member's chosen representative could not be present, in violation of Government Code section 3303(i).
A letter was sent to Chief Burrus on behalf of the POA by Lackie. In the letter Mr. Lackie expressed the POA's very serious concern over violations. He requested that Chief Burrus put a stop to the violations and that the POA would be willing to work with him to that end. There was no response to this letter which was sent in November 1998, and the violations continued.
On April 12, 1999, a Complaint for Injunctive Relief was filed in Pasadena Superior Court by Lackie & Dammeier LLP, on behalf of the individual officers involved and the Alhambra Police
Officers' Association. In conjunction with that Complaint, a request for a temporary restraining order was made to put a halt to the violations pending the outcome of the case. On April 15, 1999, Judge William Dodson granted a temporary restraining order against Lieutenant Donald Craton, the lieutenant that went ahead with the interrogation without the demanded representation. The restraining order prohibited Lieutenant Craton from taking any punitive action against the named plaintiffs in the case and required him to inform officers under interrogation that they had a right to have a representative present with them.
At the same time the temporary restraining order was issued by the Court, the Court ordered the Police Department and the City of Alhambra to show good cause to the Court why a preliminary injunction should not be issued against them to restrain future violations of the Act. The Court heard argument on May 7, 1999. Lackie successfully argued that the clear and admitted violations were serious and that there was no sign of change by police management. The Court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the
City of Alhambra and City of Alhambra Police Department and their agents, servants, employees and
representatives from:
-
Interrogating, interviewing or otherwise questioning, orally or in writing, a peace officer member of the Alhambra Police Department in violation the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act.
-
Opening, searching or inspecting any locker or belonging assigned to a peace officer member of the Alhambra Police Department without complying with Government Code section 3309.
-
Advising, counseling, recommending, interfering or otherwise suggesting that a peace office of the Alhambra Police Department does not or should not have a representative present during questioning if the officer is entitled to such representative under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act.
While violations of this nature occur regularly in police departments, the Alhambra Police
Officers' Association had enough and decided to put a halt to the violations to protect the rights of their members. The Act is there to protect police officers and violations should be taken very seriously and acted upon accordingly.
|
