|
Newsletters
PANEL ORDERS RETIRED OFFICER'S CCW PRIVELEDGE REINSTATED
Jeffrey Cox worked for the Baldwin Park Unified School
District Police Department from 1985 to 1996 when he medically retired
from an on-duty injury. At
that time his Police Chief issued him a retired identification card
indicating that he was “CCW Approved” which also included an
expiration date of November 1998. In
1999, based on the expiration date placed on the identification card, Cox
went to the department to seek an updated card.
He was informed at that time that the District would “look
into” the matter and get back to him.
After two years of delays and excuses by the District, Cox sought
legal assistance, which was obtained from Dieter Dammeier of Lackie, Dammeier & McGill.
Pursuant to Penal Code §12027.1 peace officers “who are
authorized to, and did, carry firearms during the course and scope of
their employment as peace officers, shall have an endorsement on
the identification certificate stating that the issuing agency approves
the officer’s carrying of a concealed and loaded firearm.”
§12027 specifically indicates that he identification card must be
stamped “CCW Approved.” The operative language in the statute is shall
which is sometimes ignored by smaller or non-traditional agencies.
The only provision allowing an agency to deny or revoke a CCW
endorsement to a retiree is where it is able to prove “good cause” for
doing so. Good cause is
defined as a violation of “any departmental rule, or state or federal
law that, if violated by an officer on active duty, would result in that
officer’s arrest, suspension or removal from the agency.”
It is important to note that this action must be post retirement
activity. Something, for which the officer was already disciplined for
when employed by the agency is not sufficient.
In Mr. Cox’s case, the District had trouble coming up with
anything that would satisfy the “good cause” requirement for denial.
In fact during the two years they were “looking into” the
matter they were unable to come up with any incidents that they could use
to deny the renewal. Two
years later, in late 2001, the District found something they attempted to
twist into “good cause”. Mr.
Cox, while using a rental vehicle, left in it his badge and expired
retiree identification. Since it had an expiration date on it, Mr. Cox
usually carried it in a bag and not on his person.
As such, he did not immediately realize that he had lost it.
When he did learn of it he did back step his whereabouts and
contacted the car rental agency who did not have a report of finding it.
Mr. Cox felt that he lost it either in his home or in the rental
car and felt that it would turn up. Approximately
sixty days later, the rental car agency did find it and turn it into the
District. Even though this
was two years after Mr. Cox had been seeking a renewal, the District used
this incident as the “good cause” to deny the request.
The District claimed that him leaving his identification card and
not reporting it to the Department for sixty days was enough to deny the
renewal. Mr. Cox, though his
attorney, demanded an appeal hearing pursuant to §12027.1 which consists
of a three member panel. On
selected by the retiree, one by the agency and a neutral selected by both
parties. Mr. Cox selected
PORAC Board Member Joe Flannagan to serve as his selection on the panel. The District selected Police Captain Steve Bayn and the
parties mutually selected an arbitrator from the State Mediation and
Conciliation Service.
At the hearing, it was established that the District’s true
reason for its initial delaying of the renewal and its continual denial in
1999 and 2000 was based on “liability” concerns by the District
Superintendent. At no time during the two years of “looking into” the
matter did anyone indicate that Cox was not deserving of the endorsement.
Further evidence was introduced that no officer in the past fifteen
years had been suspended for any misconduct, including an accidental
discharge in the locker room. A former officer who testified that he had lost his badge and
identification card and did not report it to the department for
approximately three weeks indicated that he had received no discipline in
the matter. Since “good
cause” requires an act of misconduct that would normally result in a
“suspension,” this evidence was introduced to establish that no
suspension would result in simply loosing ones badge and I.D. and not
reporting it to the Department
The hearing panel deliberated and then ordered the District
to renew Cox’s identification card with a “CCW Approved” with no
expiration date.
About
the Author:
Dieter C. Dammeier is a partner with the law firm of Lackie, Dammeier & McGill, who specialized in representing police officers and police
associations throughout California.
|
