A Solano County deputy sheriff facing termination for
his handling of a possible child molest complaint instead has walked
away from the case with nothing more than a letter of reprimand.
Deputy Thomas Gilson and another deputy were
dispatched last May to interview a woman reporting "something
funny" in the way her son talked about his babysitter's brother.
She told Gilson she wanted the brother "checked out," but
wanted no further investigation or complaint.
She even denied believing any child abuse or
molest was involved. Gilson, a veteran deputy, cleared the call without
further action based on the woman's statements, and reviewed the entire
incident with his sergeant at the end of his shift.
The case took a new twist that evening, however, when
the woman took her son to a Vallejo hospital for a medical examination.
Deputies were again dispatched to interview both the woman and her
child. The case eventually was referred to the District Attorney's
Office for prosecution against the brother.
The Sheriff's Office proposed to terminate Gilson for
failing to take a crime report or conduct a criminal investigation.
Gilson's panel attorney, Christopher W. Miller, of Mastagni, Holstedt
& Chiurazzi, reasoned the case against his client depended entirely
on the credibility of the complainant, the boys mother. Without reliable
testimony from the mother about what she had told Gilson, the department
could not terminate the deputy on the charge he had ignored facts
constituting a crime.
Miller demanded the department turn over its taped
interview of the complainant. The tape confirmed she did not wish to
report any criminal activity and simply could not articulate sufficient
facts supporting a reasonable belief a crime had occurred. Gilson had
won the credibility contest.
Miller argued at the pre-disciplinary hearing that
both the complainant's credibility problems and the fact the District
Attorney's Office had declined to prosecute justified a discipline less
than termination. He also pointed out Gilson's sergeant had not
questioned the deputy's decisions at the time of the incident.
Perhaps most persuasive, however, was the argument
Gilson's performance in the preceding year showed such a marked
improvement over a prior discipline incident that he deserved a lesser
penalty.
On February 18, 1998, the sheriff withdrew the
proposed termination and substituted a formal written reprimand.
Gilson's career was restored and his job saved because his employer was
persuaded termination would be a fundamentally unfair and indefensible
decision in his case.
