A superior court recently overturned the termination of a Los Angeles County police officer, reinstating him with full back pay and benefits.  In addition, the court ordered the County to remove all discipline from the officer's personnel file finding that the County violated the one-year statute of limitations under the Public Safety Officer's Procedural Bill of Rights Act ("POBR").  

Officer Eric Wafer, a member of Los Angeles County's Office of Public Safety for over eighteen years, had been experiencing fatigue and body pains for some time, and was later diagnosed with sleep apnea.  On July 16, 2006, he fell asleep while sitting in a chair in the dispatch center.  A dispatcher noticed this and immediately notified a sergeant that same day. 

The sergeant was concerned that Officer Wafer's actions constituted misconduct, and he immediately began a unit level personnel investigation.  The sergeant questioned the dispatcher as to what she had observed, and ordered her to document her observations of the alleged misconduct.  The sergeant then began to formalize the complaint by documenting what he had been told. 

The sergeant later forwarded this information to a captain, and on July 27, 2006, the captain determined that a full-blown internal affairs investigation should be initiated.  Despite there being only one witness to interview and Officer Wafer's candor in admitting he fell asleep, the investigation dragged on.  On July 21, 2007-one year and five days after the incident-a sergeant telephoned Wafer at 9:00 p.m. on his day off, and ordered him to "go home" and receive a package from a courier dispatched to his house.  Officer Wafer complied and about 10:00 p.m. that night received a notice of intent to terminate based upon the July 16, 2006 incident. 

Officer Wafer immediately contacted Lackie, Dammeier & McGill and LDF for legal representation.  Officer Wafer's counsel attempted to explain to the County that under the POBR, an investigation into misconduct by a public safety officer must be completed and the officer notified of the misconduct within one year.  However, the County contended that, pursuant to the County's personnel rules, the one-year statute of limitations did not start to run until after the alleged misconduct was discovered by a lieutenant or above, and that only these individuals have the authority to initiate a formal internal affairs investigation.  The County argued that, under County policy, the sergeant's discovery of the misconduct did not trigger the one year statute. 

Recognizing that the County's position was dubious at best, LDF granted special coverage to file a petition for writ of mandate before Officer Wafer's termination hearing.  A petition was then filed, and the issue was straightforward.  In order for the one year statute of limitations to commence, does the POBR require discovery of misconduct by an individual with the authority to initiate any investigation, or must it be by someone able to commence a formal internal affairs investigation.  In Officer Wafer's case, if the sergeant was able to trigger the statute, then the notice of intent would be untimely.  However, if the County was correct, the notice of intent would be upheld. 

As the case progressed, the County admitted that sergeants, as first line supervisors, upon being notified of potential misconduct, are responsible for interviewing the involved witnesses and gathering evidence.  The County admitted that these sergeants are then charged with turning the results of their investigation over to their lieutenants, who then make a decision as to whether an internal affairs investigation is necessary. 

Ultimately, the superior court analyzed the plain language of the POBR and decided that it should not read into the statute anything more than what had been written.  The court disregarded the County's attempt to redefine an investigation as an internal affairs investigation.  The court found that discovery of potential misconduct by any individual who has the authority to initiate any type of an investigation is sufficient to start the one-year clock. 

Accordingly, the superior court granted Officer Wafer's petition for writ of mandate and ordered that he be reinstated with full back pay and benefits.  In addition, the court ordered that the discipline, and all references to the discipline, be removed from his personnel file.  Officer Wafer is now back at work after having been terminated, and is thankful to his attorneys for his legal victory and to the Legal Defense Fund for their support.