Police reform dodges a bullet

In this George Floyd era, the country at large is grappling with many areas in which police reform is needed, including use-of-force policies, disciplinary practices, overly technical legal impediments to holding errant officers accountable, and the traditional cloak of secrecy that protects public safety wrongdoers from public scrutiny. In California, one of the many areas under scrutiny is the generous procedural protections in the Public Safety Officers Bill of Rights (PSOBR). While well-intended, the protections can damage public employers’ ability to address officer misconduct effectively. Recent legislation has already cured some of the more glaring procedural aspects of the PSOBR, but a recent case shows that creative lawyers representing public safety personnel continue to explore potential loopholes in the statute. Although the court’s decision wasn’t ground-breaking, a contrary decision would have added a notch to the equipment belts of lawyers representing errant public safety officers—to the detriment of reform efforts.

Facts

Under the PSOBR, employers have “one year from the date they discovered misconduct to investigate and give the employee a Letter of Intent or Notice of Adverse Action articulating the discipline.” On or around May 24, 2018, Luis Garcia’s employer learned he had engaged in serious misconduct by manipulating colleagues’ work schedules to bypass overtime restrictions placed on him by the department. This started the one-year “clock” for issuance of a formal accusation.