SUPERIOR
COURT ENJOINS DISCIPLINE OF MANHATTAN BEACH OFFICER DUE TO VIOLATIONS OF
AB301
By
Corey Glave
Goldwasser & Glave
Amidst
an environment of questionable practices by the administration of his
department, including “gag orders” and the attempts to intimidate
other witness officers, Manhattan police officer Robert Richmond took a
stand for truth and justice. As
a result, Richmond now has had his own rights trampled and is facing
discipline for not keeping his mouth shut about evidence that may have
helped keep an innocent police officer from going to jail.
The
facts, as stated in the pleadings filed on Richmond’s behalf by this
author are as follows: In
August 2002, Manhattan Beach police officer Eric Eccles was facing
criminal prosecution for using excessive force.
(He would subsequently be acquitted of all charges.)
I hired a private investigator to look into all aspects of the
charges and the witnesses against him.
Richmond supported Eccles and believed that he had an obligation
to insure that Eccles received the fair trial to which he was entitled.
He gave the private investigator a statement that included his
personal knowledge about police department employees who were slated to
be witnesses against Eccles.
The
statement included his personal belief that Sergeant Robert Cochran had
been caught lying in the past. Although
Richmond had made an earlier accusation against Cochran about
untruthfulness, he had never been interviewed by the department or told
the outcome of the investigation. Unbeknownst
to him, Cochran evidently had been found to have been untruthful and had
been disciplined by the department.
Eccles’ defense attorney purportedly used the information
obtained from Richmond and other officers to support the filing of a
“Pitchess Motion” seeking to review Cochran’s personnel file for
impeachment evidence.
In
September 2002, a local newspaper ran an article with information
believed to have been obtained from a review of the Pitchess Motion
identifying Cochran and noting the allegation that Cochran had been
untruthful in the past. To
retaliate, Cochran filed a personnel complaint against Richmond on
October 5, 2002. Though it
is believed that the department had knowledge of Richmond’s conduct
prior to October 5, it waited until Cochran filed his complaint to
initiate a personnel investigation against Richmond.
According to police department documents, the investigation was
to be completed by November 1, 2002.
Seven
months later, on May 26, 2003, Richmond was first notified that an
internal complaint had been filed against him and that he was to be
interviewed on June 11. He
was not told who the complainant was or when the complaint was filed.
Without this information, Richmond and his representative could
only guess the nature and scope of the investigation.
On
January 2, 2004, over six months after his interrogation and nearly 15
months after the initial complaint was filed, Richmond was served with a
notice that Chief of Police Klevesahl had determined that the charges
against him were sustained and that he was to be disciplined.
When
served, Richmond was not given all the documents reviewed and considered
as part of the internal investigation and the decision to sustain the
charges against him. Such
was the chief’s usual practice. Richmond
was not provided with a copy of his personnel file even though it was
referenced in the notice of intent to discipline, or with a copy of the
memorandum and reprimand for untruthfulness against Cochran, from which
he was accused of releasing information, or Cochran’s 1996 evaluation
in which the department contends confidential information from the
reprimand is currently maintained, or a copy of a December 1, 2001,
“Gag Order” issued by Klevesahl in an attempt to prevent officers
from discussing the criminal prosecution of Eccles.
On
January 15, 2004, Richmond and I met with Klevesahl for the
pre-disciplinary hearing. In
addition to responding to the charges, I raised the issue of the
violations of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights (POBR)
and asked that, in order to avoid litigation, Klevesahl comply with the
law. On January 31, 2004,
Klevesahl served his notice of disciplinary action and, knowing that
legal action was imminent, ordered that the disciplinary action be
implemented within three business days.
Fortunately,
the Legal Defense Fund authorized me to seek immediate judicial
intervention to enforce Richmond’s rights under AB301.
On February 4, 2004, Judge Hight of the Los Angeles County
Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the city
of Manhattan Beach, the Manhattan Beach Police Department, and the chief
of police, from moving forward with the proposed disciplinary action,
and ordered the city to show cause why a preliminary injunction should
not be granted.
On
February 18, after the city had the opportunity to submit evidence and
argument in opposition to the preliminary injunction, the court granted
my request for a preliminary injunction finding that it was likely that
Richmond would prevail on his claim that the defendants violated
Government Code §3303(c), by failing to properly notify him of the
nature of the investigation; Government Code §3303(g), by failing to
produced all documents obtained or reviewed during the internal
investigation; and Government Code §3304(d) by failing to complete and
serve a notice of proposed discipline within a one year period.
The
most surprising part of this case is not the conduct of the police
chief, since many Manhattan Beach officers have claimed that they have
suffered for speaking out. What
is amazing is that during oral argument at the hearing on the
preliminary injunction, after the judge indicated his tentative ruling,
the city attorney told him, on the record, that the city, police
department and chief would do the exact same thing again, even with the
court's ruling. Clearly,
they believe they are above the law and they are not going to allow a
judge to tell them that they are wrong.
As
the facts giving rise to the violations of the POBR have been admitted
to, Richmond and his attorney are now proceeding to prove that this is a
proper case for statutory damages and attorney fees.
Richmond will, in order to prevent other officers from having to
endure this type of ridiculous behavior, ask the judge to order the
chief to change the manner in which the department conducts internal
affairs investigations.
LDF Home Page | News
Article Index
