A deputy began work for a county sheriff’s department in 2018. While he was a field deputy, his supervisors identified a pattern of poor judgment, inadequate investigations, and policy violations. Following an internal audit of his calls for service, the department found he often failed to investigate crimes, made false statements, turned off his body-worn camera, or dissuaded victims from pursuing legitimate complaints, particularly in domestic violence cases.
The department issued a notice of intent to terminate the deputy. After a Skelly conference, the county terminated the deputy for dishonesty, neglect of duty, incompetence, and conduct unbecoming a peace officer. The deputy appealed his termination through the administrative arbitration process.
The arbitrator upheld the county’s decision to terminate the deputy, finding that the county had just cause for discharge based on multiple and serious rule and conduct violations. The arbitrator reviewed body-worn camera footage, reports, and testimony covering a six-month period, and found that the deputy repeatedly failed to properly perform his duties, was dishonest in his interactions with the public, and acted unprofessionally on several occasions.
Among the most serious incidents, the arbitrator found that the deputy failed to investigate a domestic violence victim’s report of being choked. The deputy turned off his body camera and filed no report, effectively concealing the victim’s report. In another case, he knowingly relayed false information from a suspect to a victim during a vandalism investigation. The arbitrator also determined that the deputy discouraged victims from pressing charges, failed to write required reports, treated citizens rudely, made inappropriate comments about a person’s nationality, and argued with members of the public. In addition, he violated emergency driving rules by speeding with lights or sirens activated without required supervisor approval.
The arbitrator concluded that this conduct reflected a pattern of dishonesty, neglect, and poor judgment, rather than isolated mistakes. Based on the evidence, the arbitrator found that the county had ample justification to terminate the deputy for “significant” violations that risked the department’s credibility and the public’s trust.