As we all know, it has become quite popular in recent years for law enforcement agencies to terminate officers for "untruthfulness," which often means that the officer said something different than the agency wanted to hear.  Although this concept of "untruthfulness" often serves as the anchor for a host of other charges upon which departments base their disciplinary actions, the management at the Riverside Police Department elevated this practice to new levels when it terminated two officers because their in-court testimony regarding a two-year old incident did not mirror their police reports, which Riverside management deemed indicative of an intent to lie and provide false testimony.

Recently, Lackie, Dammeier & McGill, successfully obtained the reinstatement of two Riverside Police Officers, as well as an award of back pay, benefits, and interest on lost earnings, stemming from the termination of the two officers.  The termination was based on the events of a routine traffic stop that occurred in 2004.  On that date, a Riverside Police Officer made a traffic stop, which led to a foot pursuit, and the arrest of the driver.  A fixed blade knife was located on the suspect during the post-arrest search, which was vaguely referenced in the arresting officer's report (Officer A), but not by the officer who found the knife (Officer M).  Almost two years later, both officers testified at the preliminary hearing in the matter.  The defendant did not challenge the testimony regarding the knife, and the defendant was convicted.

The defendant filed a complaint with internal affairs, alleging that the officers lied about finding the knife on the defendant's person.  During the ensuing internal affairs investigation, both officers were interviewed by Sgt. Williams and Lt Delarosa.  Officer A, who had indicated in court that he found the knife, told investigators that he came to that conclusion after reviewing his police report, which stated only that a "knife had been found" in the defendant's pocket.  Officer M told investigators that he had found the knife, and gave it to Officer A at some point during the arrest.  Both officers indicated that whatever inconsistencies existed between the event, their reports, and in-court testimony stemmed from poor memory of an old incident.  Nonetheless, the department terminated both officers for, among other things, engaging in criminal conduct (perjury), falsifying a police report, and conduct unbecoming of an officer.   

The arbitrator took great care in pointing out the serious problems with the process of the internal affairs investigation.  At the outset of the investigation, Officer A received an e-mail summoning him to internal affairs, and this so-called "notice" referenced only the defendant's name and case number.  Sergeant Williams further expanded on that by indicating that it was "about a knife."  Officer A and Officer M happened to meet in the department before their IA interviews to review their audio recordings.  Yet, this simple meeting between two officers who work in the same department was colored by Sgt. Williams and Lieutenant Delarosa to attempt to show that the officers conspired to lie.  The arbitrator, however, as any good investigator would - reviewed the facts and determined that "there was no persuasive evidence " that either officer knew with enough specificity what the subject of the complaint was so as to provide a credible motive or basis for coloring their statements during the IA interviews.

Moreover, the internal affairs investigation, and subsequent termination of both officers, relied heavily on digital audio records, which were unclear, at best.  Even the officers who were interviewed by Lieutenant Delarosa and Sergeant Williams indicated they were uncertain as to what they were hearing on the tapes.  This uncertainly extended into a memo written by Sgt. Williams regarding the findings of the investigation.  This memo indicated that the investigation conducted by Officer A and his subsequent report "suggests" that Officer A obtained the knife from the defendant's vehicle, and not from Officer M, as the IA interviews uncovered.  The memo also suggested that the level of conspiracy between Officer's A and M regarding their level of honesty during the IA interviews was "unknown," and that "one would have to speculate" as to whether they intended to commit a crime by lying regarding the incidents of the traffic stop. 

Finally, and probably most shocking, Sgt. Williams stated that the "reasons for the differences in statements provided by Officers...[A and M], when compared to [what] Officer Angulo testified to at the preliminary hearing, could not be determined."  The arbitrator recognized that these conclusions evidenced a less than stellar basis for termination, noting the "high degree of uncertainty" and "inadequate evidence" to support a conclusion that any of the alleged inconsistencies between the officers reports, statements, and testimony were the result of anything other than faulty memory attributable to the fact that the interviews were taking place more than seven months after the incident occurred.

Thankfully, there are arbitrators out there who, unlike some police managers, understand that there is a keen difference between a lapse in memory and intent to commit perjury.  Key to the arbitrator's decision was the fact that Officer A thought Officer M was going to cover the facts about how Officer M found the knife, and that Officer M did not include that he found the knife in the defendant's pocket in his report because he thought it would be mentioned in Officer A's report, as the arresting officer.  Moreover, because Officer A based his in-court testimony on a review of his police report, it was reasonable based on the vague reference in his report that the "knife was found" to conclude that he was the one that, in fact, found the knife.

As written by the Arbitrator, "the ultimate truth is that the knife was found on...[the defendant].  That meant...[the] testimony was not false...[and the Department] has no basis for sustaining...the charges that are the basis for [the officer's] termination."  Hopefully the management at the Riverside Police Department, and other law enforcement agencies, will take note of this decision, and be more thorough before deciding to end an officer's career.