California Correctional Peace Officers Association v. State of California (July 18, 2000)

This case is very significant and the Legal Defense Fund played an important role by filing an amicus brief in support of CCPOA.

Court: California Appellate

Jurisdiction: State of California (Department of Corrections) (CDC)

Plaintiff's Job Class: Correctional Officers (COs)

Trial Court Decision: Mostly in favor of plaintiffs

Appellate Court Decision: Mostly in favor of plaintiffs

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Their Amicus:

Carroll, Burdick & McDonough (for CCPOA)
Silver, Hadden & Silver (for LDF)
Green & Shinee (for ALADS)

Issues: Preliminary injunction, AB 301, Public Safety Officer Procedural Bill of Rights, Lybarger

LDF's Role: LDF through its amicus brief helped to achieve a positive outcome in this important case

CCPOA Facts

* The corrections staff at Corcoran state prison was the subject of various investigations, including an investigation into the issue of an alleged inmate rape "set up" by corrections staff.

* On August 20, 1998, 20 correctional officers (COs) were:

* told they could not leave until they were interviewed;

* isolated by CDC special investigators prior to the interviews;

* not told what the subject matter of the investigation prior to the interviews;

* not told whether they were "witnesses" or "targets" prior to the interviews;

* not allowed to talk to a lawyer or a representative prior to the interviews;

* not allowed to consult with a lawyer even if they were identified as a target;

* threatened during the interviews with discipline if they did not answer; and

* told any tape recorders of the interviews that they made would be seized.

* DOJ employees conducted the interviews.

* CCPOA filed suit on August 24, 1998, four days after the interviews, alleging (1) section 1983 violations, (2) Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights violations, (3) MOU violations, and (4) a California constitutional right of counsel violation.

* The trial court issued a TRO and then a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiffs and requiring:

* 24-hour advance notice of an interview involving administrative or criminal misconduct;

* the advance notice must identify the CO as a witness or target;

* with respect to interviews about possible criminal conduct (i.e., not administrative conduct), a CO, whether a witness or target, must be allowed to consult a lawyer prior to the interview.

* The trial court's TRO and preliminary injunction did not require CDC to allow an officer to consult with counsel during the interview.

* Both sides appealed. CDC sought and the appellate court agreed to issue a writ of supersedeas to stay the preliminary injunction until the appellate court's ruling.

* The appellate court ruled in favor of CCPOA and upheld the trial court's granting of the preliminary injunction.

CCPOA Analysis

* On review of the granting of a preliminary injunction, an appellate court has to more or less accept the trial court's factual determinations. As to the legality of the injunction, an appellate court looks to see if a plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm and if the plaintiff is likely to win on the merits.

* CDC first argued that the whole case was moot, since CCPOA had won on all of these issues in an arbitration proceeding under the MOU between CCPOA and CDC. The court rejected this argument on the grounds that CCPOA's suit raised important issues of public policy that needed to be resolved.

* The Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights (PSOPBR) was enacted in 1976. CDC argued that PSOPBR did not apply to criminal investigations.

* The 1983 Velez case did hold that PSOPBR did not apply to criminal interrogations by agencies that were not the employer of the interviewed officers.

* The CCPOA court held that, notwithstanding the use of DOJ examiners, CDC acted in concert with the DOJ, since it delivered interviewees to the DOJ, threatened interviewees with discipline or arrest if they did not cooperate; guarded exits, and scheduled the interviews on the worksite during or immediately after work hours. Since CDC was so closely involved in the interviews, the Velez case did not apply and so the PSOPBR did apply.

* CDC next argued that, even if PSOPBR did apply, PSOPBR's sections 3303(i) (PSOPBR does not apply to criminal investigations) and 3304 (permitting employer to order officer to cooperate with other agencies doing criminal investigations) shielded CDC's action. The court rejected this argument. When the employer is significantly involved in the interviews, then sections 3303(i) and 3304 do not apply. As the court stated:

. . . we agree that the criminal investigations referred to in subdivision (i) of section 3303 and subdivision (a) of section 3304 must be ones conducted primarily by outside agencies without significant active involvement or assistance by the employer.

* The court found that CDC violated PSOPBR by: not telling COs who would be interrogating them, not giving prior notice of the subject matter of the interrogation, prohibiting COs from tape recording the interrogation, not allowing COs to talk with a lawyer before the interrogation, not allowing a "target" CO to have a representative during the interrogation, and not advising interviewees of their constitutional rights.

* As to the constitutional right issues, CDC did not give the required Lybarger warning, i.e., if the interviewee is ordered to answer questions but refuses to do so, he can be disciplined for insubordination and, if the interviewee does answer questions in response to an order to answer them, the answers cannot be used against him criminally, only administratively.

* The court rejected CDC's separation of powers argument in that PSOPBR permits injunctions against employers violating the Act. An injunction, however, could not lawfully be issued against DOJ.

Conclusion

This is an important PSOPBR case. It clarifies the limits of the criminal-investigation exceptions in PSOPBR. An employer cannot evade PSOPBR and hide behind PSOPBR's criminal-investigation exceptions by using an outside agency to do the IA interviews, where the employer does everything else. The Legal Defense Fund played a valuable role in achieving this positive outcome.

---

LDF Home Page | Case Decision Archive

  Email Legal Defense Fund