WARNING: THE CASE INTERPRETATIONS ARE MY OWN AND OTHERS MAY DIFFER IN THEIR OPINIONS. BE SURE TO CONTACT YOUR OWN COUNSEL BEFORE RELYING ON ANY OF THESE INTERPRETATIONS.
Case Name: Bagget v. Gates
Case Citation: (1982) 32 Cal. 3d 128
Quick Holding: POBRA may constitutionally be applied to charter cities such as Los Angeles. The stable employment relation between police officers and their employers is a matter of statewide concern. A decision to reassign a peace officer to a lower paying position is per se disciplinary, or punitive, in nature and requires an administrative appeal.
The Story:
Four LAPD officers had spent a number of years in the Departments Scientific Investigation Division specializing in the handling of firearms and explosives. Their positions were classified as “advanced paygrade assignments” because they were particularly hazardous. Their assigned ranks of P3+3 carried an extra salary of approximately $5,000 per year.
In July of 1979, the Department received allegations that these four officers and others had engaged in misconduct during working hours. The alleged misconduct included: drinking while on duty; shooting pellet or BB rifles inside the police premises and into the streets; mishandling evidence, including explosives; and various “pranks.” Internal Affairs launched an investigation.
The court noted that three of the officers were questioned ranging from 4 to 11 hours and past their end of watches. One officer was on vacation and was ordered in. He could not do so because of the illness of a family member. Internal Affairs responded to his home and questioned him for several hours until the interrogation ended due to the death of the family member.
Internal Affairs searched the officer’s personal desks at work with no effort to obtain their consent. IA also asked for consent to search their homes. Two officers gave permission and two refused. One home was searched.
The four officers were loaned out of Scientific Investigation Division (with pay) until the investigation was complete. The investigation failed to substantiate that some of the allegations had occurred and revealed that the remaining acts had occurred more than a year earlier. As a result, no formal charges were brought against the officers.
The Department, however, downgraded the four officers to P-2’s based on the LAPD Manual section that states when an officer clearly demonstrates his failure or inability to satisfactorily perform the duties of a position, he may be reassigned to a lower paygrade position. The officers requested an administrative hearing and it was denied. The officers then filed a petition for a writ of mandate under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA).
The Issues and Holdings:
The officers contended that that the Department could not reassign them to lower paying positions without affording them an administrative appeal as provided by section 3304 (b) of POBRA. The Department contended that POBRA could not constitutionally be applied to a charter city such as Los Angeles and furthermore there would not be a right to an administrative appeal under POBRA because the officers were not downgraded for purposes of punishment, therefore there was no punitive action against them.
The trial court agreed with the officers that POBRA applied to charter cities and that they were entitled to an administrative appeal. The Department appealed and the appellate court ruled that POBRA did apply to charter cities, but that the officers were not entitled to an administrative appeal because section 3304 (b) only applies when an officer is reassigned to a lower paygrade “solely or substantially for purposes of punishment.” The case then went to the California Supreme Court.
1. Does POBRA apply to charter cities?
Yes, said the California Supreme Court.
Although “home rule” allows a charter city to have ordinances or regulations relating to matters which are purely municipal to prevail over state laws covering the same subject, this does not apply to matters of statewide concern. The legislature expressly declared in section 3301 of POBRA that “the rights and protections provided to peace officers…constitute a matter of statewide concern.”
That can hardly be disputed, said the court, because the breakdown of relations between police officers and their employers are not confined to a city’s borders. Its absence would create a threat to thousands of nonresidents. Communities are highly interdependent in our society.
2. Was the transfer to a lower paygrade punitive?
Yes, said the California Supreme Court again.
“A decision to reassign a peace officer to a lower paying position is per se disciplinary, or punitive in nature.” Moreover, “looking through form to substance,” it is evident that the reassignments came about because of the officer’s alleged improper prior conduct.
What It Means to You:
Most importantly, it means that the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA) applies to you. It was ironic that POBRA, which was started and pushed by the Los Angeles Police Protective League, was deemed by the Department to not apply to LAPD. It was the testimony of LAPD officers to the legislature about Internal Affairs abuses that helped get the act passed initially. Again, ironically, it appears that the excesses by Internal Affairs in this investigation (particularly the interrogation of an officer until his relative died) as cited by the Supreme Court helped tip the decision to finally impose POBRA on the city of Los Angeles.
Secondly, substance was recognized over form. The Department’s decision not to label its actions as “punitive” is not decisive. A transfer to a lower paying position is per se punitive. The Department still maintains that downgrades are not for purposes of punishment, but because of this legal principle you are entitled to an administrative hearing to appeal the decision.
Subsequent Treatment:
As of 2012, this case has been referenced in other cases hundreds of times. As to the above holdings, it is still good law.
