 |
City To Pay Officer 1.5 Million Dollars In Wrongful Termination Case
By: Michael McGill
Lackie & Dammeier
The City
of Rialto was recently taught a valuable lesson in basic constitutional
law, costing the City 1.5 million dollars. The lesson included
principles of search and seizure and privacy rights—concepts that
officers are not all that unfamiliar with. However, for City of Rialto
administration, the principles seemed to be fairly novel concepts.
It all began on
October 15, 1999, with Rialto police officer Dennis Brazier, who had
been in a fierce custody battle with his ex-girlfriend, who appeared to
have set out to destroy his career with the Police Department. She had
been making excessive calls to the Department asserting unsubstantiated
claims of physical abuse. In fact, officer Brazier had just learned
that he was being investigated by internal affairs because of these
claims. To make matters worse, he had just recently been injured in a
traffic collision while on duty.
These incidents were
beginning to take its toll on officer Brazier, and he reached out for
emotional support. He contacted his attorney who had been representing
him at the time. Inexplicably, after speaking with Brazier, his
attorney telephoned Rialto’s Chief of Police, Michael Meyers. Brazier’s
attorney informed Meyers that he was concerned for Brazier’s welfare and
that Meyers should send someone over to check on him.
Meyers
sent two officers over to officer Brazier’s apartment, who attempted to
gain entry. The officers first knocked on the door and window
repeatedly. After receiving no response, the officers obtained a
passkey from the apartment complex manager, and unlawfully entered the
apartment. The two officers found Brazier inside his apartment and
asked whether he needed assistance. The officers also requested that he
hand over his gun, but Brazier refused. One of the officers lunged at
Brazier’s gun, but Brazier knocked his hands away. Eventually Brazier
did voluntarily relinquished his gun.
Although the
officers had planned to offer Brazier counseling, Chief Meyers ordered
the officers to take him into custody under Welfare and Institutions
Code section 5150. Brazier was transported to the hospital for a
72-hour hold and psychological evaluation.
Immediately after
officer Brazier was taken into custody, the Department ordered Brazier’s
residence to be searched, despite a lack of Brazier’s consent or a
search warrant. During the search, various items, including handguns,
equipment bags and a briefcase with personal items, were confiscated.
In addition, one of the items confiscated was a secret note, which was
folded and hidden under a large picture frame. The note, authored by
Brazier, expressed frustration with what had been occurring in his
custody battle, and indicated that the individuals involved had ruined
his life. The note was forwarded to the hospital for review by the
psychologist.
The psychologist
concluded that officer Brazier did not meet the criteria for detention,
i.e., he was not a danger to himself or others, and over the objections
of Chief Meyers, Brazier was released after only four hours. However,
Chief Meyers then directed that the note and its private contents be
disseminated to the public. Chief Meyers directed that the individuals,
including the judicial officers involved with Brazier’s custody battle,
be informed of the note’s content. Chief Meyers directed his staff to
apply for an emergency protective order for the individuals mentioned in
the note. In addition, Chief Meyers informed other law enforcement
agencies that Brazier was on the streets and may be “armed and
dangerous.”
Brazier was then
placed on administrative leave, and ordered by Chief Meyers to a fitness
for duty. At this point, Brazier sought new legal advice, and with
coverage provided by PORAC’s Legal Defense Fund, retained Lackie &
Dammeier for representation. After examination, the City’s doctor found
Brazier fit for duty. However, Chief Meyers contacted the City’s doctor
and convinced him to change his opinion. During the same time, Brazier
was found fit for duty by the Department’s counseling team, and by
another doctor. Brazier then scheduled an appointment to be examined
again by the City’s doctor, except the City cancelled the appointment.
Meanwhile, Chief
Meyers initiated an internal affairs investigation into officer
Brazier’s actions on October 15, 1999. Chief Meyers claimed that
Brazier was insubordinate to the officers, that Brazier had used
profanity, and had failed to treat the officers with respect, and had
behaved in a way that damaged the Department’s relationship with the
superior court—all this after the Department illegally entered Brazier’s
residence and seized his personal property, in violation of his civil
rights. Meyers then terminated Brazier’s employment.
Officer Brazier
appealed his termination, and on May 28, 2002, the arbitrator concluded
that the Department did not have just cause to terminate him. The
arbitrator noted that Brazier had every right to not open the door when
the officers knocked, and could properly demand that the officers later
leave his residence. The arbitrator found that Brazier did not lie, and
that the record did not indicate that Brazier was insubordinate.
The arbitrator’s
decision, which was advisory to the city manager, was disregarded.
Instead, the city manager simply decided the allegations were true, and
upheld the termination. The city manager noted that officer Brazier had
initiated the “crisis,” presumably by seeking out help, and that he was
entirely to blame for the incident. Brazier appealed the city manager’s
decision to the superior court and also filed a federal civil rights
action against the City and the Chief, for the unlawful entry into his
apartment, the illegal search and seizure of the note, and invasion of
privacy for disseminating its contents.
As to the petition
for writ of mandate, the superior court denied officer Brazier any
relief. However, Brazier appealed the ruling, and obtained a reversal
from the court of appeal on December 16, 2004. In the appellate
decision, the court found that most of the Department’s allegations were
not supported by the evidence, and that only a few were. The appellate
court recognized that the Department’s actions in entering Brazier’s
home and taking his note violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The
court remanded the matter to the City to determine the appropriate
penalty in light of the findings. However, the appellate court
suggested that termination was not appropriate, expressing “real doubt”
that the City would reach the same decision of termination, based on the
lack of evidence.
Notwithstanding the
Court’s doubt, two weeks after the appellate court’s decision became
final, the City again terminated officer Brazier, this time, based on
the few remaining minor allegations. Again, Brazier filed a petition
for writ of mandate. However, this time, the superior court agreed with
him and granted his writ. The superior court found that termination was
improper under the circumstances. The court found that there was no
harm to the public and that the chances of reoccurrence were slim.
Rather than abandon the sinking ship, the City appealed the decision.
Despite
its appeal of the state court decision, Brazier’s federal civil rights
lawsuit was gaining momentum and exposed the City to enormous
liability. Through the course of the federal lawsuit, the City began to
understand that its actions had caused irreparable injury to Brazier’s
reputation and his career. The City eventually realized that it was
fighting a losing battle, and decided to cut its losses. The City
agreed to pay Brazier 1.5 million dollars to resolve his disputes, and
put an end to this long-standing dispute. Although no amount of money
could ever rectify the damage that the City of Rialto’s actions caused,
Brazier is now much more financially stable then he had been, since his
termination seven years ago thanks to the steadfast support of LDF
throughout his struggle for vindication.
|
