Pasadena Police officers Assn. v. City of Pasadena

• Decision Date: 11 October 1990
• Docket Number: No. S007915,S007915
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 797 P.2d 608 PASADENA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF PASADENA et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Page 584

273 Cal.Rptr. 584

51 Cal.3d 564, 797 P.2d 608

PASADENA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF PASADENA et al., Defendants and Appellants.

No. S007915.

Supreme Court of California,

In Bank.

Oct. 11, 1990.

Victor J. Kaleta and Gary L. Gillig, City Attys., Martin J. Mayer and Irving Berger, for defendants and appellants.

Cotkins, Collins & Franscell, Anthony P. Serritella, De Witt W. Clinton, County Counsel, Los Angeles, Lester J. Tolnai and Gordon W. Trask, Deputy County Counsel, Louise H. Renne, City Atty., San Francisco, Burk E. Delventhal and Mariam M. Morley, Deputy City Attys., as amici curiae on behalf of defendants and appellants.

Green & Shinee, Helen L. Schwab and Richard A. Shinee, for plaintiffs and respondents.

Williams, Kelly, Polverari & Skelton, Richard J. Romanski, Anthony M. Santana, Benjamin C. Sybesma, Teresa M. Snodgrass, Stone & Healy, Michael P. Stone, Mary Ann Healy, Hank Hernandez and Patrick J. Thistle as amici curiae on behalf of plaintiffs and respondents.

KENNARD, Justice.

To keep the peace and enforce the law, a police department needs the confidence and cooperation of the community it serves. Even if not criminal in nature, acts of a police officer that tend to impair the public's trust in its police department can be harmful to the department's efficiency and morale. Thus, when allegations of officer misconduct are raised, it is essential that the department conduct a prompt, thorough, and fair investigation. Nothing can more swiftly destroy the community's confidence in its police force than its perception that concerns raised about an officer's honesty or integrity will go unheeded or will lead only to a superficial investigation.

This case concerns one important aspect of the procedures governing internal police department investigations into suspected officer misconduct. The narrow issue before us is whether subdivision (f) of Government Code section 3303 ¹ manifests a legislative intent to grant preinterrogation discovery rights to a peace officer who is the subject of an internal affairs investigation. After careful consideration of the language and the purpose of the statute, we conclude it does not.

The provision in question appears in the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (§ 3300 et seq.; hereafter the Act), which sets forth the basic rights that law enforcement agencies must provide to their peace officer employees. By devoting a substantial portion of the Act to internal affairs investigations, the Legislature has implicitly recognized the importance of such investigations.

The law enforcement agency conducting the investigation into alleged misconduct by an officer employee represents the public interest in maintaining the efficiency and integrity of its police force, which, in enforcing the law, is entrusted with the protection of the community it serves. The officer under investigation, on the other hand, has a personal interest in receiving fair treatment. The procedural protections that the Act affords in this regard reflect the Legislature's balancing of these competing interests. These considerations and our analysis of the statute's language and purpose lead us to conclude that, in allowing an officer under administrative investigation access to reports and complaints, the Legislature intended the right to such access to arise after, rather than before, the officer's interrogation.

BACKGROUND

This lawsuit arises from a labor dispute between the police department for the City Shortly thereafter, Officer Robert Ford, PPOA's vice-president, asked Commander Richard Emerson, a divisional supervisor for the Department, for a computer printout of the names and addresses of individuals designated as block captains in the Pasadena Neighborhood Watch program. ² Ford wanted the list for PPOA so it could send letters to the block captains to solicit their support for the wage package favored by the officers. Because the Department used the list solely to administer the Neighborhood Watch program, Emerson considered it confidential, and therefore denied Ford's request.

[797 P.2d 610] of Pasadena (the Department) and the Pasadena Police Officers Association (PPOA), which is the recognized bargaining agent for the Department's nonsupervisory sworn police personnel. In early 1986, the Department and PPOA were engaged in negotiations intended to produce a memorandum of understanding. Negotiations broke down, and an impasse was declared when the parties could not agree on a wage package.

In May 1986, apparently as the result of information from Officer Ford, the Department learned that Officer Dennis Diaz, PPOA's president, had obtained an "unauthorized" copy of the list. Diaz assertedly used the list to distribute a letter from PPOA to block captains of Neighborhood Watch soliciting their support for PPOA's proposed resolution of the wage dispute.

On May 26, 1986, the Department began an internal affairs investigation into the circumstances surrounding PPOA's use of the list to determine whether there was sufficient cause to charge Officer Diaz with insubordination. In the course of that investigation, Lieutenant Donnie Burwell interviewed Officer Ford. Burwell then notified Diaz to appear on June 5, 1986, for an administrative interrogation. Because Diaz was under investigation and the interrogation might lead to punitive action, Burwell complied with the Act by advising Diaz of the general nature of the investigation. (§ 3303, subd. (c).)

Officer Diaz appeared as scheduled, with counsel. Before Diaz would respond to questioning, however, he demanded to see the notes that Lieutenant Burwell had taken during his interview of Officer Ford. Relying on section 3303, subdivision (f), which allows officers who are subject to interrogation to have access to "reports or complaints made by investigators or other persons," Diaz maintained he did not have to submit to an administrative interrogation until the Department had given him access to its notes of the Ford interview. Based on his understanding of the requirements of subdivision (f) and the Department's policy, Burwell refused to turn over the notes.

Thereafter, Officer Diaz and PPOA filed this lawsuit to enjoin the Department from proceeding with the interrogation of Diaz until it had disclosed to him the notes of the Ford interview. In their complaint, they alleged these grounds for relief: (1) subdivision (f) of section 3303 requires disclosure of reports and complaints to an officer under investigation before interrogation; (2) although it had been the Department's practice to provide investigative reports and witness statements to officers before interrogation, it unilaterally changed that practice in this case, thus violating its obligation to "meet and confer in good faith" on a term or condition of employment (§ 3505); and (3) the Department's investigation into the purported misuse of the Neighborhood Watch mailing list constituted statutorily prohibited interference with, or intimidation of, a public employee engaged in protected labor activity (§§ 3502, 3506).

In opposing the request for an injunction, the Department argued that subdivision (f) of section 3303 required only postinterrogation disclosure of reports and complaints. In the alternative, the Department maintained that its notes of the Ford interview were confidential and therefore exempt The superior court interpreted subdivision (f) of section 3303 as requiring preinterrogation disclosure of reports and complaints, and issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Department from proceeding with the interrogation of Officer Diaz until it had provided him with its notes of the Ford interview. ³ (§ 3309.5, subd. (c).) The Department appealed.

[797 P.2d 611] from disclosure under subdivision (f). The Department also submitted declarations disputing the allegation that it had established a practice of disclosing investigative materials before interrogation.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order granting the preliminary injunction. It interpreted subdivision (f) of section 3303 as entitling "a public safety officer who is the subject of an internal affairs investigation ... to copies of nonconfidential reports or complaints ... prior to being interrogated." It rejected the Department's claim that the notes of the Ford interview were confidential, but it did not define the appropriate standard for determining confidentiality.

DISCUSSION

A. Legislative Intent to Provide for Postinterrogation Disclosure of Reports and Complaints

Courts have long recognized that, while the off-duty conduct of employees is generally of no legal consequence to their employers, the public expects peace officers to be "above suspicion of violation of the very laws [they are] sworn ... to enforce." (McCain v. Sheridan (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 174, 177, 324 P.2d 923; see also Cranston v. City of Richmond (1985) 40 Cal.3d 755, 770, fn. 13, 221 Cal.Rptr. 779, 710 P.2d 845; Cleu v. Board of Police Commissioners (1906) 3 Cal.App. 174, 176, 84 P. 672.) Historically, peace officers have been held to a higher standard than other public employees, in part because they alone are the "guardians of peace and security of the community, and the efficiency of our whole system, designed for the purpose of maintaining law and order, depends upon the extent to which such officers perform their duties and are faithful to the trust reposed in them." (Christal v. Police Commission (1939) 33 Cal.App.2d 564, 567, 92 P.2d 416.) To maintain the public's confidence in its police force, a law enforcement agency must promptly, thoroughly, and fairly investigate allegations of officer misconduct; if warranted, it must institute disciplinary proceedings.

The purpose of the Act was "to maintain stable employer-employee relations and thereby assure effective law enforcement." (Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles...