A police sergeant’s patrol vehicle was damaged during his shift. The sergeant denied knowing how the damage occurred. Following the department’s internal investigation, the police chief issued a notice of intent to terminate the sergeant for: violating the department’s ethics and conduct policies; causing the damage to the vehicle; failing to report the damage to his supervisor; attempting to conceal the damage; and dishonesty concerning the damage. The sergeant appealed the discipline to the civil service board.
The civil service board upheld the termination despite the sergeant’s arguments that: he did not know how the patrol car was damaged; he only noticed the damage when he was washing the car; the damage was insufficient to prove that he backed the patrol car into a pole; and because he did not know the cause of the damage to the patrol car, he was not dishonest in denying he caused the damage.
Bolanos and Bui presented evidence establishing the sergeant’s dishonesty and non-compliance with the department’s policies. The evidence showed that the sergeant washed the car in the dark; moved another patrol vehicle so he could park his damaged patrol vehicle in an area away from the security cameras; and looked at the damaged areas of the patrol car several times during his shift. Following its review of the record, the civil service board upheld the city manager’s determination that the officer’s misconduct established just and sufficient cause for termination.