ANOTHER
LA COUNTY POLICE SUSPENSION OVERTURNED BY
ARBITRATOR
By Saku Ethir
Lackie & Dammeier
The
Los Angeles County Employer Relations Commission recently overturned a
five-day suspension imposed against Los Angeles County Police Officer
Steven Bell. It was another
loss for a department that has had a spike in discipline since the
arrival of Chief Margaret York.
On
July 20, 2004, Los Angeles County Police Officer Steven Bell was
suspended for five days without pay for alleged violations of the
department’s property procedures and for failing to perform to
standards. The suspension
revolved around an incident that occurred while Bell was assigned to
patrol at a Department of Social Services facility, on October 27, 2003.
Bell had been assigned to the facility prior to this incident and
while there had taken various items from patrons of the facility
including drugs, weapons, pepper spray, knives, razors, and needles.
On
October 27, 2003, Bell was working the security clearance area alone.
He was required to have people screened, as well as to watch
patrons at windows to ensure everyone’s safety.
A civilian attempted to enter the facility without employee
identification and without going through the metal detector and a proper
search of his bag. Bell advised the civilian he would have to wait in line and
after some argument the civilian did so.
Bell performed a required search of the civilian’s bag and
located a can of restricted pepper spray.
He offered the civilian, on at least three occasions, the
opportunity to take the spray to his car or leave it with a friend
outside (consistent with the practices of the department).
The civilian never agreed. The
civilian continued to argue with Bell, causing a disturbance, causing
the line of patrons waiting to enter the facility to back up, and
causing Bell to have to repeatedly divert his attention.
Concerned
for the safety of the patrons and employees of the facility, Bell
directed the civilian to leave the building in order to contact an
administrator to make a decision regarding the civilian’s access. The civilian became verbally abusive towards Bell, called
911, and attempted to get other employees to sneak him into the
building. The administrator
that Bell contacted made a final decision that the civilian would be
barred as a security risk.
Bell’s
supervisors responded to the location and Bell told both about his
actions on that date. Neither
supervisor documented the incident at that time or initiated an
investigation. Some two
months later, the civilian filed a complaint against Bell.
An investigation ensued and resulted in Bell receiving the
five-day suspension without pay. Bell
appealed the suspension, and was represented at hearing by this author.
The
evidence established that department administrators themselves were
confused about the department’s property procedures at this type of
facility. Moreover, the
department failed to establish that the policy section Bell was alleged
to have violated, and which was introduced at hearing, was even in
effect on the date of the incident.
A bureau chief testified that he was not sure if the policy
section introduced was in place at the time of the incident, or at the
time he made his recommendation. Several
witnesses, including Bell, testified that if someone brings in a
restricted item to a DPSS facility, they are given the option to take
the item out of the facility. Bell testified that for those who elect not to take the
restricted item out of the facility, the item is placed in a container,
either a metal trashcan or a metal drawer, and is not returned to the
patron. The hearing officer
stated in his award that the department failed to produce any evidence
to dispute Bell’s testimony.
The
bureau chief claimed during his testimony that per policy, officers are
required to issue patrons a receipt or claim check to retrieve property
being held for them. However,
when he was shown the policy section, he agreed that the policy said
nothing about claim checks or receipts.
The policy required that officers provide the patron with an
envelope of sufficient size to store the item with a stamped information
block for the patron to write their name, the date, their address and
their telephone number. The departments own witnesses testified that envelopes are
not provided to the facilities in order for officers to comply with the
policy. The bureau chief
could not explain how an officer is to comply with a policy section when
the department does not provide them with the resources necessary to
comply with the policy. If
the department does not provide the resources and are aware they do not
provide them, it reasonable to believe that the department is fully
aware that officers are not complying with the property procedures
policy.
The
award held that the Property Procedure Policy Bell was charged with was
“…somewhat confusing and was largely inconsistent with the practice
at Wilshire Special, and probably other DPSS locations as well, at the
time.” It further stated
that the department could not sustain its burden of proof regarding the
Property Procedure Policy violation and overturned the five-day
suspension. His department has since made Bell whole.
Bell was pleased with the outcome of the case and is thankful for
the constant support of his association (LACPOA), the LDF, as well as
his attorneys at Lackie & Dammeier.
LDF Home Page | News
Article Index
