Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff's Association v. County of Sacramento (December 22, 2000)

* court: California Appellate

* public agency: County of Sacramento

* plaintiffs: Sacramento DSA 

* defendant: County of Sacramento

* trial court's decision: against plaintiffs

* Appellate Court: against plaintiffs

* issue area: assumption of risk, firefighter's rule, canine officer

Sacramento DSA Facts

* At the June 2, 1998 primary election, Sacramento County voters approved both Measure D and Measure E. 

* Measure D amended the Sacramento County charter to provide for final and binding arbitration for the non-supervisory law enforcement unit.  Measure D specifically provided that the decision of the arbitrator was to be self-executing and that no action by the Board of Supervisors or electorate was needed. 

* Measure E amended the charter to provide that, if Measure D was approved, then the results of Measure D arbitration would have to be approved by the voters in situations where (1) the Sheriff determined that the arbitration award would interfere with management's "prerogative to deploy or assign personnel" or (2) the Board of Supervisors determined that the award would require a tax increase. 

* Measure D was passed by 58 percent of the votes cast and Measure E by 54 percent.

* The Sacramento DSA filed a declaratory relief action to have Measure E invalidated. 

* Both the trial court and the appellate court decided against the DSA. 

Sacramento DSA ANALYSIS 

* The issue for the court is whether Measure E is in irreconcilable conflict with Measure D. 

* The court cited two old California Supreme Court cases, the 1913 Apple case and the 1924 Horn case, to show how courts have reconciled allegedly conflicting charter ballot provisions. 

* The ballot material, according to the court, made it clear to the voters that Measure E cut back on Measure D. 

* The language of Measure E "could not have been more clear" that it cut back on Measure D. 

* The court concluded that there was not any irreconcilable conflict between the two ballot measures.

LDF Home Page | Case Decision Archive

  Email Legal Defense Fund

Top of Page

Copyright © 2000 by Legal Defense Fund