A police officer’s wife worked as a real estate agent. One of the wife’s clients claimed to have up to $90 million to purchase a home. The client was dating another officer at the department.
The officer, his wife, and the other officer met for lunch and discussed how they were suspicious that the client was not who she claimed to be. While at lunch, the officer texted his former trainee and asked her to run the client’s license plate. In the text message, the officer falsely stated that the plate was for a suspicious car in his neighborhood. The former trainee sent the officer the return which showed that the car was registered to the client and another man at a specific address. The officer shared that information with his wife and the other officer. The wife looked up the man’s name online and told the other officer that he was the client’s husband. The other officer was angry because he believed the client was pregnant with his child.
Later, the client filed a complaint with the police department alleging that the other officer was harassing her, had run her DMV information, and had showed up at her in-laws’ residence. She was afraid and was in the process of obtaining a TRO. The Department conducted an investigation and determined the officer intentionally lied to his former trainee while off duty in order to obtain access to confidential information for a personal reason, which he knew he did not have a right to obtain. He then disclosed that information to the other officer, who used it to harass a third party.
The officer was terminated for his dishonesty and CLETS misuse. He appealed. After three days of arbitration, the arbitrator recommended that the officer should only receive “an 80-hour suspension without pay holding 45.71 hours in abeyance.” The arbitrator concluded the Department did not establish that it was harmed by the officer’s lie. The arbitrator explained that even though the officer lied, he “could be rehabilitated with his otherwise spotless record.”
The City Council disagreed and decided to uphold the termination because the Department was harmed by the officer’s dishonesty. The officer filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate.
The superior court judge concluded, “the weight of the evidence supports the City Council’s findings of harm” and that the City Council acted within its discretion to terminate the officer. The superior court judge explained that the officer’s request to his former trainee was based on a lie that set off a series of events that harmed the reputation of the Department: a citizen complaint of harassment; a criminal investigation into the other officer’s conduct toward the client; and the loss of trust between the officer and his former trainee by having her run the license plate under false pretenses; and the fact that the officer’s conduct placed other officers in violation of policies designed to ensure the confidentiality of DMV databases. The superior court judge also recognized that the Department could lose access to CLETS if it is misused.