 |
Department Found To Have Engaged In Witness Intimidation, Tampering And
Interference; Hearing Officer Recommends Terminated Officer Reinstated
By: Saku E. Ethir
Lackie & Dammeier
Los Angeles County
Police Officer Theodoros Anadolis was terminated from his position as a
County Police Officer as a result of an alleged traffic collision and
subsequent internal affairs investigation. The charges stemmed from an
incident on April 15, 2004, wherein Anadolis, at the end of his shift,
was entering a County parking yard to park his vehicle when he moved his
vehicle to avoid a rabbit in the yard (that parking yard was known for
having rabbits). Anadolis brought his vehicle to a complete stop. As
Anadolis slowly proceeded to move forward with the vehicle, he felt his
left front tire go up on top of the curb and then his left rear tire go
up on top of the curb. The vehicle rode the curb for a brief moment and
then the front left tire came down off of the curb followed by the left
rear tire. Anadolis did not believe any damage had been caused to the
vehicle as a result of his actions and the vehicles movements; and as
such, did not inspect the vehicle or report the incident to the
Department.
Anadolis’ Sergeant at
the time was also in the yard parking his patrol vehicle and did not
hear or see anything out of the ordinary. Another officer on Anadolis’
shift (an officer who had refused on a prior occasion to ride with
Anadolis due to an alleged personality conflict), after Anadolis parked
his patrol vehicle and left the parking yard in his personal vehicle,
advised the Sergeant present that he had heard Anadolis’ patrol vehicle
strike the curb and had then observed Anadolis exit the vehicle, fail to
inspect the vehicle, and leave without reporting the incident. Upon the
Department’s inspection of the vehicle, significant damage was found and
attributed to Anadolis. An internal affairs investigation ensued, which
resulted in Anadolis’ termination. Anadolis appealed his termination
and was represented at Hearing by the Author. Six days of Hearing
followed during which this case became more than just a Hearing about a
traffic accident, but expanded to include witness intimidation, witness
interference, and witness tampering by the Department, and an attempted
cover up of that conduct.
WITNESS TAMPERING, INTIMIDATION, AND INTERFERENCE:
During Hearing witnesses testified that after being
subpoenaed by Anadolis to testify in Anadolis’s case-in-chief, they
received an email from a Bureau Chief advising them to cooperate
fully with the Advocate (the Department’s representative in the
Hearing). The email was cc’d to numerous Sergeants, Lieutenants
and Captains (both in and out of their chain of command) in the
Department. The witnesses testified that the receipt of this email
intimidated them, as they did not receive a similar email when they
were subpoenaed, some three months earlier, by the Department (but
not used) for the same Hearing. The email was clearly sent to
intimidate them.
Those same
witnesses, while waiting in the lobby to testify, received a phone
call (orchestrated by a Department Civil Service Advocate) from an
Deputy Chief of the Department, who told them that they needed to
tell the truth, be forth coming and cooperate with the
“Advocate”. The witnesses testified that they felt that the
basis for the Bureau Chief’s call was one of intimidation. The
Bureau Chief, when called by Anadolis to testify, admitted that
during his career, he had never communicated the information he
communicated to Anadolis’ witnesses to any other officer. He
further admitted that the Department does not have a practice of
admonishing employees, who are about to testify in proceedings,
about telling the truth. This was clearly another form of
intimidation on the part of the Department. One of the witnesses
also testified that he was approached, while waiting in the lobby to
testify, by a Department Civil Service Advocate, who advised him
that she wanted to remind him where his loyalties should lie.
According to the witness, the Advocate told him that his loyalties
should be to the Department and the Chief, and not with any one
officer or individual. The witness testified that he felt
intimidated by the Advocates comments.
It did not end there. The intimidation tactics continued.
The Department’s only eyewitness to the alleged accident
began his testimony on the morning of Day 3 of Hearing. After
returning from lunch, the witness officer took the stand to continue
his testimony. Under cross-examination, the witness officer was
asked if any supervisor had contacted him regarding his testimony.
He testified that he had been contacted during the lunch break,
while he was in his office, by his Lieutenant (his immediate
supervisor, a Lieutenant in Internal Affairs), and was told by the
Lieutenant that he (the Lieutenant) had received information that
the line of questioning during the witness officer’s testimony,
prior to lunch, was vague and that his answers to the questions were
not specific enough. When called to testify the Lieutenant denied
making those statements telling the Hearing Officer that he had been
requested by the Department to sit in on the witness officer’s
testimony to make the witness officer feel more “comfortable”.
In his report, the Hearing Officer stated, “How the head of
Internal Affairs could allow himself to become involved in such a
flagrant attempt to tamper with, intimidate, and interfere with a
witness who was still on the stand and still under oath is nothing
short of appalling.”
It
didn’t stop there. During testimony by the Chief of Police, she
referred to a document she indicated she generally receives from her
administrator selected to conduct a Skelly Hearing (news to the
Association, who in all of their discipline cases had never received
a copy of this “Skelly Memo”). Upon hearing the Chief refer to such
a document, we requested that the Department produce the document.
This “Skelly Memo”, written by the Bureau Chief who conducted
Anadolis’ Skelly, demonstrates the miscarriage of justice that
occurred in the present case. In the memo, the Bureau Chief advises
the Chief that while reviewing the investigation, he came across
some questions that “…might need to be answered if the matter
proceeded to Civil Service”. The Bureau Chief listed the items as
follows:
1.
“There is no interview of the mechanic. The mechanic’s damage
report should have included the mechanic’s opinion on when the
damage to the vehicle had occurred (i.e. if the damaged parts had
concrete transfer marks, it would support the Witness Officer’s
account of the incident).” If the damaged parts did not have
concrete transfer marks (which they did not), it would support
Anadolis’ account of what occurred.
2. “The
person who drove the vehicle to the repair shop should have been
interviewed to verify that there were noticeable mechanical problems
with the vehicle consistent with the reported damage.” The
mechanic, who drove the vehicle to the shop testified at Hearing
that he did not observe any noticeable mechanical problems with the
manner in which the vehicle drove.
3.
The pictures of the curb do not support the Witness Officer’s account of
the
incident because
the pictures do not show any damage to the concrete (i.e. fresh
metallic or rubber marks in/on the concrete), which should be
present if the vehicle was damaged at this location and if striking
the curb damaged the metal and rubber parts of the vehicle’s
undercarriage.”
4.
“Lastly, none of the pictures taken show tire tread marks in the
dirt, as there should be if the vehicle drove over the curb.”
LACK OF EVIDENCE and DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE: During Hearing, the Department’s
Advocate/representative revealed that the Department had done a
video-taped re-enactment of the incident according to the Department’s
version of events and according to Anadolis’ version of events. The
only problem was the Department used the same vehicle that Anadolis was
involved in the alleged incident in to conduct the re-enactment. It
obliterated any opportunity for the Anadolis, his counsel, the Hearing
Officer, or an expert witness, to inspect and provide an opinion of the
damage to the vehicle and how it occurred.
The Department’s sole alleged eye-witness testified, much to
the Department and Advocates disappointment, that he never saw the
bottom, or under carriage of the vehicle, come into contact with the
curb. The Sergeant, after being told by the witness officer that
Anadolis had allegedly crashed a car and then left the area, failed to
secure the vehicle (a piece of evidence), failed to inspect the vehicle
that night, failed to photograph the vehicle that night, and failed to
inspect the curb that night. The mechanic who inspected the vehicle the
day after the accident testified that when he drove the vehicle, he did
not observe any mechanical problems.
The Sergeant admitted during testimony that his investigation
did not establish what marks on the curb, if any, were caused by
Anadolis’s vehicle. He also admitted that some or all of the marks
could have been caused prior to the alleged incident involving
Anadolis’s vehicle or after the alleged incident. The Sergeant stated
that when he finally inspected the curb area, he did not observe any
paint transfer consistent with the damage to the vehicle observed. The
Sergeant testified that when he finally inspected the curb area, he did
not observe any metal scrapings or scrapes consistent with the metal
undercarriage of the vehicle coming into contact with the curb, and
consistent with the alleged metal scrapping sounds heard by the witness
officer. He further testified that when he inspected the dirt area of
the island, he did not observe any tire tread marks consistent with the
Department’s account of what occurred.
The Sergeant admitted that between January of 2004 (when the
vehicle was last in the shop for maintenance) and April 6, 2004,
approximately 900 miles were put on the vehicle by drivers other than
Anadolis. Witnesses testified that the vehicles assigned to Anadolis’
station, when entering and exiting the driveway to the Station locker
room, strike the rear and front bumpers and scrape the under carriage of
the vehicles on a daily basis. Witnesses also testified that officers
at the Station Anadolis was assigned to are often times required, in the
normal performance of their duties (which includes patrolling County
Parks), to go up and over curb with their vehicles. Witnesses,
including the Chief, all testified that if an officer goes up and over a
curb, either intentionally or in error, and does not believe they have
caused any damage to the vehicle (i.e. they do not hear not sounds
consistent with damage), they are not required, by any Department
policy, to inspect the vehicle or report the incident.
The Hearing Officer issued a recommendation to the Los
Angeles County Civil Service Commission calling for the dismissal and
the reinstatement of Anadolis to his position of police officer with the
Department/County, to include making him whole as to wages and
benefits. The Hearing Officer stated, “These contacts by Department
Administrators and supervisors contaminated the entire process of this
case through the Civil Service System, and raise and appearance which is
highly repugnant to the very purpose of the system.” The Hearing
Officer further held, “The Department engaged in a wrongful,
significant, systematic process of witness tampering, intimidation and
interference, which caused stress, anxiety, apprehension and fear of
retaliation on the part of the witnesses involved, as well as on the
part of Appellant, and amounted to a denial of due process to the
Appellant.” The Hearing Officer further held that the Department
had violated Anadolis’ rights under Skelly v. State Personnel Board
primarily as a result of the contents of the “Skelly Memo”. The Hearing
Officer indicated that, were the Commission to elect not to dismiss the
case, a 30-day suspension (due to prior accidents) should be imposed
against Anadolis, dismissing some of the charges and upholding others,
finding that Anadolis conduct only caused “cosmetic” damage to the
vehicle, not the extensive damage alleged by the Department. After the
parties filed objections and responses to the Hearing Officer’s Report,
the Commission elected to overturn Anadolis’ termination and reduce it
to the 30-day suspension (due to prior accidents) and awarded Anadolis
\almost two years of back pay to include wages and benefits. The
Commission also agreed with the Hearing Officer’s finding of a Skelly
violation. During that meeting, the Chief and Deputy Chief attended and
were sternly admonished by the Commission for the Department’s conduct.
The Commission further expressed an expectation that the conduct of the
administrators and supervisors would be investigated and appropriate
action taken.
This has been a very long and difficult journey for Officer
Anadolis. Throughout it, he has had the love and support of his family,
for which he is extremely thankful. Officer Anadolis would also like to
thank the Los Angeles County Police Officers’ Association, who never
wavered in their support of him, support which included the President of
the Association, Scott Frayer, and other Executive Board members,
attending the Hearing. Officer Anadolis is of course thankful for the
constant support of LDF and Lackie and Dammeier.
. |
