 |
Arbitrator Orders Terminated Rialto Officer Reinstated
By: Saku
E. Ethir
Lackie & Dammeier APC
City of Rialto Police
Officer THOMAS TURNER, was terminated from his position as Police
Officer, with the City of Rialto, on December 7, 2005. At the time of
his Termination Turner was an approximately seven (7) year peace officer
with the Department. The Chief of Police, at the time (now retired),
Meyers, notified Turner that his Termination was due to an on duty
incident, wherein the Department believed that his conduct resulted in
several violations of Rialto Police Department Rules General Orders
which included Neglect of Duty, Conduct Unbecoming, and Misleading
and/or false entries. An appeal of that Termination was appropriately
filed which resulted in two (2) days of Arbitration before a neutral
arbitrator during which the Author represented Turner. The City’s own
witnesses through their testimony at Arbitration, and actions during the
course of the Internal Affairs investigation, demonstrated that Turner’s
actions were consistent with the practices of the Department, to include
supervisors in the Department all the way up to the Chief of Police.
This on duty incident consisted of the following: On March 30, 2005,
Turner was working patrol and was dispatched to the station to contact a
female Civilian. Turner contacted the Civilian in the Lobby of the
Department. Turner later entered an interview room with the Civilian,
set up his laptop and began to interview her. As the Civilian related
an incident involving her spouse, Turner was typing the information into
what was going to be his report. According to the Civilian, the
incident had occurred the prior day, March 29, several days after her
spouse told her he was filing for divorce. The Civilian advised Turner
that when her husband asked to have sex with her she told him “no”
because he was going to file for divorce. She also told Turner that as
she walked past her husband, who was seated in a chair, he grabbed her
leg but she was able to break free of his grasp. According to the
Civilian she noticed later that she had a bruise on her leg. Turner
inspected and photographed the bruise.
The Civilian never alleged that her spouse struck her, attempted to rape
her, gouged her with a fingernail or threatened to kill her or harm
her. Later, during the Internal Affairs investigation, she alleged that
her husband committed all of those acts and that she reported them to
Turner. (Not true! The Arbitrator held that the female Civilian’s
testimony regarding what she told Turner was not reliable because her
account of what occurred changed in “some significant respects”.) The
female Civilian then told Turner something that put things in
perspective. She stated she did not care if her husband was arrested;
she just wanted to have her spouse removed from the residence (a home
her spouse owned before marriage). (The Civilian repeated this position
to various members of the Department.) Turner explained that he could
not do that, but provided her with information on how to obtain a
restraining order, provided her with the report number and also provided
her with information on women’s shelters, which she refused. Turner
subsequently completed and submitted his report to be forwarded to
Detectives for further investigation.
The female Civilian later that day spoke to a City Council
member (a friend of hers) about Turner’s refusal to obtain an order
removing her spouse from the residence. The City Council member
contacted a Lieutenant with the Department and an investigation of
Turner’s conduct began. The Department claimed that Turner was aware of
the terrorist threats and attempted rape and made misleading and false
entries in his Report when he failed to document that information; that
Turner failed to interview and arrest the spouse; and that Turner failed
to obtain an EPO and that Turner failed to recover weapons from the
spouse’s home.
A Sergeant with the Department spoke with the Civilian on
March 31, 2005 (the day after Turner) and again her request was for some
sort of order removing the spouse from the residence. Again, no mention
of threats, no mention of fear or physical harm, just I want him out of
the house and I want in. An attempt was made by the Sergeant to get her
spouse thrown out of the residence but a judge refused. That Sergeant
made no attempts to interview or arrest the spouse. The Internal
Affairs Sergeant interviewed the Civilian as part of his investigation.
At that time she alleged that during the March 29, 2005 incident, her
husband threatened to shoot her, attempted to rape her and gouged her
leg with his fingernail. Yet low and behold the Internal Affairs
Sergeant admittedly did not make any attempt to interview or arrest the
spouse or to recover weapons from the spouse’s residence. Yet Turner
was fired for the same alleged failures!
During the course of the investigation of Turner, the
Civilian reported to the I.A. Sergeant another incident involving her
spouse where she alleged he pointed a shotgun at her and threatened to
kill her. Although the I.A. Sergeant directed another officer to take a
report on the incident, neither the I.A. Sergeant, nor the Officer
taking the report attempted to interview or arrest the spouse or to
recover weapons from the spouse’s residence. Despite the fact that
these two Sergeants and an Officer committed the same acts Turner was
alleged to have committed, evidence proved, via Chief Meyers’ own
testimony, that they were not investigated or discipline.
The Arbitrator held that there was no evidence that Turner
made misleading or false entries in his Report, as there was no credible
evidence that the Civilian reported to Turner the threats of death, the
intentional fingernail gouge and the attempted rape. The Arbitrator
further held that Turner’s decision not to arrest or interview the
spouse, prior to his submission of his Report, was clearly not
misconduct and was certainly within the practices of the Department, as
others, including supervisors, with critical information which was not
provided to Turner, also chose not to interview or arrest the spouse and
were not investigated or disciplined. The Arbitrator found that
Turner’s decision not to obtain an EPO was also not misconduct, as the
information he was provided by the Civilian did not warrant such.
Lastly the Arbitrator held that there was no misconduct on the part of
Turner for not recovering weapons from the spouse’s residence as others
in the Department, including supervisors, were aware of the weapons the
day after Turner’s contact with the Civilian; and no serious attempts
were made by them to secure the weapons, and no discipline was even
considered for those individuals.
The Arbitrator held that the City failed to prove any
violation of policies as alleged and ordered Turner reinstated with full
back pay and benefits, including seniority. This has been a very
long and difficult journey for Officer Turner. Throughout it he has had
the love and support of his family, for which he is extremely thankful.
Officer Turner is of course thankful for the constant support of LDF and
Lackie and Dammeier and their steadfast belief in his case. |
