As an ex-Marine (although there really is no such thing), I find this next story personally offensive. I cannot go into any of the details of the alleged offense because it is a confidential personnel matter, but the details are not the point of my objection. In short, an officer was accused of an offense and the Department decided that he was guilty and should go to a Board of Rights. Before that determination was made, the officer was activated by the military and sent to Iraq.
No matter to the Department. They dropped the paperwork sending the officer to the Board of Rights in the mail and proceeded with the disciplinary action. Their rationale was that they believed he was guilty, so the process should not stop just because he was in Iraq.
Believing that an officer is guilty is always the case when an officer is sent by the Department to a Board of Rights (I hope, anyway). However, many officers are found not guilty by a Board of Rights and sometimes, even when a Board finds the officer guilty, a court reverses the decision.
So the issue here is not the guilt of the officer, but the ability of the officer to defend himself/herself. The actual trial before the Board will wait until the officer has returned to duty as an LAPD officer, but the officer’s pay stops 30 days after being ordered to the Board. The practical effect is that when the pay stops, the medical, dental, life insurance and other payments also stop unless the officer starts cutting personal checks to the insurance company and includes the City’s contribution. This is hard to do from a bunker 8,000 miles away.
Reinstatement was requested for the officer pending the Board, but it was denied by the Department. The officer is now off duty without pay.
Why is this happening? I can’t say. There is no need to start the procedure while the officer is in Iraq because the statute of limitations does not apply while the officer is unavailable. The Department routinely sends other officers home with pay while they investigate and begin criminal prosecutions because they do not want to share discovery with the officer prior to a criminal trial.
It is not unheard of for reinstatement to be granted while an officer is awaiting a Board of Rights, for a variety of reasons. It would seem that going to a war to protect our country would fit in there somewhere as a valid reason.
In addition, the City is only paying the difference between military pay and officer pay, so the reinstatement decision would be less costly than reinstating a non-military police officer. From a legal standpoint, the Department has been advised by the city attorney that what they are doing is permissible. However, legally permissible and the right thing to do are different concepts.
It seems that the former LAPD meanness is returning in full force. The League is now forced to resort to the courts to get the officer reinstated and is in the process of doing so as I write this article. The League believes that the Department is violating the Servicemember’s Civil Rights Act of 2008 and the Uniform Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act of 1994.
A judge will eventually decide who is legally correct, but who is in the right is already apparent. Whatever the Department has in store for an officer who has been activated to serve his or her country can wait until the officer returns home. May this officer return safely and receive a fair hearing.
Website Revised
Just as snail mail is no longer fast enough for our modern lifestyles, Blue Line articles are also subject to lag time between the occurrence of an issue and the printing of warnings and opinions. To help in spreading Warning Bells information and advice in a timelier manner, I am updating my website at www.WarningBells.com to provide a more rapid response to issues as they are arising and to explore them in more depth than is allowed in a space-limited article such as this one. As I get more proficient in managing a website, I hope to open areas for constructive discussion of police issues. Visit me online. Who knows what can be accomplished? This website is my own and does not necessarily reflect the views of the LAPPL.
Be legally careful out there.
