Hopson v. City of Los Angeles
Decision Date | 24 January 1983 |
Parties | Edward M. HOPSON and Lloyd W. O'Callaghan, Jr., Petitioners and Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Respondents. Civ. 63261. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Cotkin, Collins, Kolts & Franscell and Steven Lincoln Paine, Los Angeles, for petitioners and appellants.
Ira Reiner, City Atty., Frederick N. Merkin, Senior Asst. City Atty., and Catharine H. Vale, Asst. City Atty., for respondents.
On August 20, 1982, this court filed its opinion in this matter. Thereafter, on October 21, 1982, the Supreme Court granted petition for hearing, transferred the cause to that court and retransferred the case to this court, calling attention to White v. County of Sacramento (1982) 31 Cal.2d 676, 683, 183 Cal.Rptr. 520, 646 P.2d 191, and to Baggett v. Gates (1982) 32 Cal.3d 128, 185 Cal.Rptr. 232, 649 P.2d 874. Thereafter, the matter was briefed by the parties on those issues and reargued in this court.
We adopt the statement of the case and statement of facts from our prior opinion and repeat them here, indicated by the use of brackets.
Appellants, Edward M. Hopson and Lloyd W. O'Callaghan, Jr., both police officers employed by the City of Los Angeles, appeal from a judgment in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, denying appellants' petition for peremptory writ of mandate and injunctive relief in connection with the use of Part I of a written report issued by the Board of Police Commissioners ("Commission") of the Los Angeles Police Department ("LAPD" or "Department") entitled: "Report of the Board of Police Commissioners Concerning the Shooting of Eulia Love and the Use of Deadly Force" ("Report"). 1 Appellants contend that the Commission's issuance of the written Report, specifically, Part I, amounted to a written condemnation of them. Appellants further contend that the Commission's further threatened (but as yet unexecuted) entering of copies of Part I of the Report into their personnel files constitutes imposition of discipline and "punitive action". As such, appellants urge that pursuant to Government Code section 3300 et seq. they are entitled to a full trial-type "administrative appeal" hearing in conformity with Government Code section 3304, subdivision (b) and the procedures set forth in Los Angeles City Charter section 202.
A hearing was held on November 20, 1980, and judgment denying all relief requested by appellants on the belief that the Commission's actions did not constitute discipline, punitive action, or harm to appellants was entered on January 6, 1981. This timely appeal followed.
At all times in question, appellants were sworn employees of the City of Los Angeles Police Department, entitled to all of the protections afforded by the Los Angeles City Charter.
On January 3, 1979, Mrs. Eulia Love was shot to death by the appellant LAPD officers during an on-duty confrontation. In the aftermath of that tragic and highly publicized event, the Commission undertook a comprehensive inquiry into the facts surrounding the shooting. It conducted a series of public "hearings" at which citizens, particularly representatives of the black community, expressed extreme criticism and distrust of the Department's evaluations of incidents involving officers' use of deadly force and of its adjudications of allegations of police misconduct and improper tactics.
In addition to receiving such public comment, the Commission "completed an independent examination of the circumstances and reevaluated the Department's previous determination [that the officers' conduct was consistent with policy governing use of firearms] in light of additional factual information." In reaching its conclusion, the Commission scrutinized investigative reports prepared by the Department's specialized "Officer Involved Shooting" team ("OIS"), the district attorney and the internal "Shooting Review Board ('SRB')." The Report also discloses that the Commission considered other factors, such as specific time lapses, developed from departmental records, and accorded different weight and drew different inferences from reported accounts under consideration.
Ultimately, the Commission determined "that the actions taken by the officers violated the policies of the Los Angeles Police Department concerning the use of firearms and deadly force, and that the officers made serious errors in judgment, and in their choice of tactics, which contributed to the fatal shooting of Eulia Love." These findings were announced in Part I of the Report, released to the public in October 1979.
In Part I, the Commission also commented upon the prior decision of the Chief of Police to initiate no disciplinary action. Recognizing that the chief's decision, by charter, "constituted a final determination regarding the issue of discipline", that determination remained undisturbed. The Commission directed, however, that copies of Part I be entered into the officers' personnel files....]
Is the proposed entry of the Report of the Commission into the personnel files of appellant officers per se disciplinary or punitive in nature, for purposes of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Gov.Code, § 3300 et seq.) so that appellants were entitled to an administrative appeal under Government Code section 3304, subdivision (b)?
Government Code section 3303 provides, in part, "For the purpose of this chapter, punitive action is defined as any action which may lead to dismissal, demotion, suspension, reduction in salary, written reprimand, or transfer for purposes of punishment."
Section 3304, subdivision (b) provides, "No punitive action, nor denial of promotion on grounds other than merit, shall be undertaken by any public agency without providing the public safety officer with an opportunity for administrative appeal."
The Supreme Court in White v. County of Sacramento, supra, 31 Cal.3d 676, 183 Cal.Rptr. 520, 646 P.2d 191, construed sections 3303 and 3304, subdivision (b) to provide for the right to an administrative appeal in the instance of a reassignment to a lower paying position, because such action is per se disciplinary in nature. The Court stated, in part, (31 Cal.3d at p. 683, 183 Cal.Rptr. 520, 646 P.2d 191.)
Our focus, then, must be on the impact, if any, placing the Report into their personnel files may have on appellants Hopson and O'Callaghan.
The Report states in Part I:
"The Department's investigation and evaluation of officer-involved shooting incidents, unlike those of the District Attorney and the United States Attorney, is not undertaken for the purpose of resolving issues relating to criminal prosecution of the officers. Rather the Department's task is to analyze the existing Department policies and apply them to the facts of each case so that it may properly evaluate the conduct of its officers and determine what administrative action, if any, is required.
The Report states in Part IV, under the heading, "Discipline":
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gordon v. Horsley
...for advancement in the Sheriffs Department. In this respect, the present case is similar to Hopson v. City of Los Angeles (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 347, 188 Cal.Rptr. 689 (Hopson). There, Los Angeles police officers shot and killed a citizen in an on-duty incident. The shooting review board con......
-
Conger v. Cnty. of L. A.
...in the future, even if they do not result in immediate discipline. We summarize them below.In Hopson v. City of Los Angeles (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 347, 188 Cal.Rptr. 689 ( Hopson ), the Board of Police Commissioners, after an investigation and series of public hearings regarding a highly pub......
-
L. A. Police Protective League v. City of L. A.
...are not reflected on this list. To support a broader reading of the statute, appellants point to Hopson v. City of Los Angeles (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 347, 188 Cal.Rptr. 689 ( Hopson ) and Caloca v. County of San Diego (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1223, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 660 ( Caloca ), as holdin......
-
L. A. Police Protective League v. City of L. A.
...are not reflected on this list. To support a broader reading of the statute, appellants point to Hopson v. City of Los Angeles (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 347, 188 Cal.Rptr. 689 (Hopson ) and Caloca v. County of San Diego (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1223, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 660 (Caloca ), as holding ......