 |
Another
LA County Police Suspension Overturned By Arbitrator
Arbitrator Robert Steinberg recently overturned a five (5) day
suspension imposed
against Los Angeles County Police Officer
Steven Bell. Another loss for a Department that has had a spike in
discipline since the arrival of Chief of Police Margaret York.
On
July 20, 2004, Los Angeles County Police Officer Steven Bell was
suspended for five (5) days without pay for alleged violations of the
Department’s property procedures and for failing to perform to
standards. The suspension revolved around an incident that occurred
while Bell was assigned to patrol at a Department of Social Services
Facility in Wilshire (DPSS), on October 27, 2003. Bell had been
assigned to the Wilshire Facility prior to this incident and while there
had taken various items from patrons of the Facility including drugs,
weapons, pepper spray, knives, razors, and needles.
On
October 27, 2003, Bell was working the security clearance area alone.
Bell was required to have people screened, as well as keep an eye on
patrons at windows to ensure the safety of employees and patrons. A
civilian attempted to enter the facility without employee identification
and without going through the metal detector and a proper search of his
bag. Bell advised the civilian he would have to wait in line and after
some argument the civilian did as requested of him. Bell performed a
required search of the civilian’s bag and located a can of restricted
pepper spray. He offered the civilian, on at least three (3) occasions
the opportunity to take the spray to his car or leave it with a friend
outside (consistent with the practices of the Department). The
civilian never agreed. The civilian continued to argue with Bell,
causing a disturbance, causing the line of patrons waiting to enter the
facility to back up, and causing Bell to have to repeatedly divert his
attention.
Concerned for the safety of the patrons and employees of the Facility,
Bell directed the civilian to leave the building in order to contact an
administrator to make a decision regarding the civilian’s access to the
Facility. The civilian became verbally abusive towards Bell, called
911, and attempted to get other employees to sneak him into the
Facility. The Administrator Bell contacted made a final decision that
the civilian would not be returning at all to the facility because he
was a security risk.
Bells
Supervisors respond to the location and Bell told both about his actions
on that date. Neither supervisor documented the incident at that time
or initiated an investigation. Some two months latter the civilian
filed a complaint against Bell with Bell’s Department. An investigation
ensued and resulted in Bell receiving the five (5) day suspension
without pay. Bell appealed the suspension, and was represented at
Arbitration by this author.
Property Procedures: The evidence at Arbitration established that Department
administrators themselves were confused about the Department’s property
procedures at the DPSS facilities. More importantly, the Department
failed to establish that the policy section Bell was alleged to have
violated, and which was introduced at Arbitration, was even the policy
in effect on the date of the incident. A Bureau Chief testified that he
was not sure if the policy section introduced at Arbitration was in
place at the time of the incident or at the time he made his
recommendation. Several witnesses, including Bell, testified that if
someone brings in a restricted item to a DPSS Facility, they are given
the option to take the item out of the facility. Bell testified that
for those who elect not to take the restricted item out of the facility,
the item is placed in a container, either a metal trashcan or a metal
drawer, and is not returned to the patron. Arbitrator Steinberg stated
in his award that the Department failed to produce any evidence to
dispute Bell’s testimony.
The Bureau Chief claimed during his testimony that per
policy, officers are required to issue patrons a receipt or claim check
to retrieve property being held for them. However, when he was shown
the policy section at Arbitration, he agreed that the Policy said
nothing about claim checks or receipts. The policy presented at
Arbitration required that officers provide the patron with an envelope
of sufficient size to store the item with a stamped information block
for the patron to write their name, the date, their address and their
telephone number. The Department’s own witnesses testified that
envelopes are not provided to the facilities in order for officers to
comply with the policy. The Bureau Chief could not explain how an
officer is to comply with a policy section when the Department does not
provide them with the resources necessary to comply with the policy. If
the Department does not provide the resources and are aware they do not
provide them, it reasonable to believe that the Department is fully
aware that officers are not complying with the property procedures
policy.
In his
award, Steinberg held that the Property Procedure policy Bell was
charged with was “…somewhat confusing and was largely inconsistent with
the practice at Wilshire Special, and probably other DPSS locations as
well, at the time.” Steinberg held that the Department could not
sustain its burden of proof regarding the Property Procedure Policy
violation and overturned the five (5) day suspension. His Department
has since made Bell whole. Bell was pleased with the outcome of the
case and is thankful for the constant support of his Association (LACPOA),
the LDF, as well as his attorneys at Lackie & Dammeier. |
