Shun Shafer, a deputy sheriff for the County of Los Angeles since 1991, sustained a foot injury while on duty. As a result of this injury, Shafer was placed on IOD status. As is common in workers' compensation cases, a surveillance of Shafer was conducted twice in May 1999. He was observed mowing his front lawn without displaying signs of discomfort to his injured foot. On June 29, 1999, Shafer was called at home by his sergeant. Without telling Shaffer he was being investigated or that he had been surveilled, his sergeant asked questions about his ability to perform certain activities and even asked if he had been able to mow his lawn. Deputy Shafer responded that he was still in severe pain and needed crutches most of the time. He went on to say that he did mow his lawn and it took him approximately two and a half hours to do the back yard. Apparently, the Sergeant felt that Shafer was lying to him on the phone. Shafer was subsequently charged with making an untruthful statement to his supervisor. This allegation, coupled with other administrative charges surrounding the workers' compensation case, was the Department's basis for initiating termination proceedings against Deputy Shaffer.

Deputy Shaffer, a LASPA member, covered by POLICE Insurance, obviously appealed his termination. Dieter Dammeier and Michael Morguess of Lackie, Dammeier & McGill APC, POLICE panel attorneys requested POLICE to cover the seeking of an injunction to prohibit the Department from charging Shafer with the untruthfulness allegation from his telephone conversation with his sergeant. Since Deputy Shafer was facing other charges, it was felt that suppressing this evidence and eliminating this significant charge would significantly help Shafer's position in the administrative hearing before the Civil Service Commission. A Writ of Mandate was sought in the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Pursuant to the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, where a supervisor realizes an officer may be subject to discipline, prior to interrogating that officer, the supervisor must inform him of the nature of the investigation. Government Code §3303(c). See also City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1506. Had Shafer been made aware of his rights under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act such as a right to representation and a right to record the interrogation, he may have invoked such rights and avoided any making any misperceived statements. 

Since the Sergeant, when he was speaking to him on the telephone, was well aware that Deputy Shafer was being surveilled and investigated, he was obligated to inform Deputy Shafer that he was under investigation and the "nature of the investigation." Since he failed to do so, the Superior Court ordered that Deputy Shafer could not be charged with anything resulting from this conversation with the Sergeant. The Court further ordered that this alleged untruthful statement would not be allowed into evidence at the administrative hearing in regard to Deputy Shafer's appeal from termination.

At the date of the printing of this article, Deputy Shafer is still in the process of appealing his termination with the Civil Service Commission and if needed thereafter, the Courts. With the aggressive representation provided by LASPA and POLICE, Deputy Shafer has one less significant charge to overcome.