A police officer filed a lawsuit against the city and its police department regarding three incidents. In one incident, the officer told dispatch he was cancelling a vehicle pursuit, but continued the high-speed pursuit without lights and siren. The department investigated, and ultimately issued the officer a non-disciplinary educational reminder.
In the second incident, the officer encountered a jaywalker while the officer was outside the city. The officer allegedly saw the jaywalker put his hand in his waist band and take off running. The officer and his partner gave chase on foot and apprehended the jaywalker by force. The officer did not inform dispatch of their location, or the fact they had pursued the suspect, until after the officer and his partner had apprehended the jaywalker. After an investigation, the officer was issued a written reprimand. The officer initiated, and then abandoned an appeal of the written reprimand.
In the third incident, the police officer was a passenger in a vehicle pursuit that ended in a pursuit intervention. The officer claimed his role in the pursuit was investigated because he had earlier appealed the written reprimand and had attempted to appeal the educational reminder.
The officer then sued, alleging multiple violations of the Peace Officers’ Procedural Bill of Rights (POBR) and whistleblower retaliation (Labor Code section 1102.5). The city and police department moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the officer had offered no triable facts to support his claims.
As to the POBR claims, James and Nicholas highlighted that there were no violations as to the manner that the incidents were investigated. The city provided the officer with the required protections during the investigations, by informing him of his rights and the nature of the investigations, and providing him the required documents. The police officer was also provided the opportunity for an appeal hearing on the written reprimand, but he did not take that opportunity.
On the officer’s whistleblower claim, the judge agreed with James and Nicholas that the officer’s internal grievances did not rise to the level of whistleblower retaliation. In addition, the judge found that the officer could not establish that he was subjected to any adverse employment action as was required to support his whistleblower claim.
The California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles granted the city’s and its police department’s motion for summary judgment.