Cal State University Police Score Superior Court Victory in
Case of Violation of Peace Officer Bill of Rights
By Stuart D. Adams
The Statewide University Police Officers Association (SUPA) scored a
victory against the California State University (CSU) in San Diego
Superior Court for the placing of adverse comments in a file used
for personnel purposes without first showing the comments to the
officer or giving him the opportunity to respond to them. The
Superior Court specifically found that police administrators
violated the provisions of California Government Code Sections 3305
and 3306.
The case was somewhat unique in that the affected officer had been
released for failure to meet departmental standards during his
probationary period. After his separation, he requested to review
his personnel file. At first he was told that his file was “none of
his business” but he persisted. He was finally allowed to review the
files in the Human Resources offices. Upon review he found 23
documents previously undisclosed, which contained allegations of
misconduct.
He demanded that the documents be removed and that he be given
copies, but CSU administrators refused the request. He did not
initially seek union representation and therefore the Legal Defense
Fund was not aware of his situation. He tried on his own for five
months by hiring two different law firms at his own expense.
Unfortunately, the firms requested the materials under the
California Public Records Act rather than following the provisions
of POBR. The requests were ignored.
After the fifth month of trying unsuccessfully to obtain the
documentation, the officer contacted SUPA President Jim Procida and
told him about his case. Procida immediately contacted this author,
LDF panel and SUPA general counsel, of Adams, Ferrone & Ferrone, and
informed him of the officer’s problem.
I sent a letter to SDSU Chief of Police John Carpenter, informing
him that the materials were placed in the file in violation of 3305
and 3306. I also demanded that, pursuant to 3306.5 the illegal
documents be immediately removed and that the officer receive a
complete copy of all personnel documentation. Under 3306.5, Chief
Carpenter had 30 days to respond. He never did.
After the 30 days had expired, affirmative relief was sought from
LDF. The trustees voted to authorize coverage for a mandatory
injunction seeking a court order for a finding that the rights had
been violated and for injunctive relief. The action was filed in San
Diego Superior Court and served on the CSU administration. Only
after the suit was filed did the administration turn over the
documentation.
When the matter went to court, CSU argued that they had turned over
the documents, therefore the case was over. Further, they argued
that the file was not a personnel file, therefore there was no
violation. The judge rejected both arguments and sided with my
finding that it was a file “used for personnel purposes” and that
there had been a violation of 3305 and 3306.
The judge ordered that the documentation be turned over and that the
officer be given an opportunity to respond. While the judge found
that there was no malice with the intent to injure precluding an
award of money damages under 3309.5, he cautioned CSU administrators
that if a matter such as this were to come before him a second time,
he would come to the opposite conclusion.
“This case needed to proceed to conclusion by judgment, not
settlement,” Procida stated. “We needed to send a message to the
administrators of the CSU throughout the state, not just San Diego,
that the rights given to police officers under the bill of rights
are real and not just a paper tiger, and that we will enforce those
rights on behalf of our officers. We appreciate the assistance of
the Legal Defense Fund in helping us send this clear message.”
The unique feature of the case lies in the fact that the officer was
able to enforce the POBR after he was separated from employment.
This demonstrates that officers can enforce their rights for
violations which occur during their employment, even if the
violations are discovered after some form of separation of
employment such as termination, retirement or lateral to another
agency.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Stuart D. Adams, Esq. has been an LDF panel
attorney since 1990. Adams, Ferrone & Ferrone represents public
safety agencies throughout California in the areas of Legal Defense
Fund matters, workers’ compensation, labor and personal injury. He
may be contacted at:
Stuart D. Adams, Esq.
Adams, Ferrone & Ferrone
660 Hampshire Rd. Ste 204
Westlake Village, Ca. 91361
Toll Free (866)373-5900
sadams@adamsferrone.com
