A Big Win for California Peace Officers

STEVEN W. WELTY
Senior Associate
Mastagni Holstedt, APC

Court Says Dishonesty Is Serious — But Not Automatic Termination for Isolated, Low-Chance-of-Recurrence Cases

The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, issued a ruling on March 3 that delivers meaningful protection to peace officers across the state facing disciplinary charges involving dishonesty. The court upheld the State Personnel Board’s decision to reduce the California Highway Patrol’s termination of a sergeant to a one-year suspension. I, Steven W. Welty of Mastagni Holstedt, APC, represented the sergeant.

The sergeant began his career with the California Highway Patrol in 1996 and maintained an exemplary record over more than two decades of service. The misconduct at issue consisted of a single instance on April 17, 2017, in which he claimed 30 minutes of unearned overtime related to a voluntary traffic safety detail while riding home in uniform on his Department-issued motorcycle and available for callback. This resulted in approximately $48.65 in unearned compensation. Although the California Highway Patrol terminated him in 2019, the State Personnel Board carefully examined the full context after a multiday evidentiary hearing.

The Board sustained all charges but found dismissal disproportionate. It weighed the sergeant’s long and dedicated service, the isolated nature of the offense, the absence of any charged pattern despite his frequent participation in these details and his profound remorse demonstrated during testimony. The administrative law judge described how the sergeant expressed sincere regret, concluding that he had learned from the mistake and posed a low risk of future misconduct. A one-year suspension, resulting in the loss of a full year’s salary, was deemed just and proper under the totality of the circumstances.

After extensive briefing and oral arguments, the Court of Appeal affirmed this outcome. Applying the well-established standard from Skelly v. State Personnel Board, the court explained that administrative penalty decisions receive substantial deference and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. The overriding consideration remains the extent to which the employee’s conduct harmed, or, if repeated, is likely to harm, the public service, along with the surrounding circumstances and the likelihood of recurrence.

While the court recognized that peace officers are held to higher standards and that dishonesty can seriously injure an agency’s integrity, it firmly rejected the notion that every act of dishonesty requires termination irrespective of mitigating factors. The court distinguished the present case from prior decisions involving far more egregious or repeated misconduct and emphasized that each case must be assessed individually under the totality of the circumstances.

This decision carries substantial value for California peace officers, their unions and the organizations that represent them. It confirms that the disciplinary process must remain proportionate and individualized rather than mechanical. Officers who commit an isolated, relatively minor act of dishonesty after years of faithful service, particularly when accompanied by genuine remorse and no pattern of misconduct, retain strong arguments against career-ending penalties. The ruling reinforces the importance of thorough advocacy at the State Personnel Board level, where evidence of long-term performance, character and rehabilitation can make a decisive difference.

This Court of Appeal decision was unpublished by order of the court. PORAC and the PORAC Legal Defense Fund provided support to seek publication of the decision, but, unfortunately, the court denied the efforts, and it remains unpublished.

However, even though it cannot be cited in typical briefing or oral argument in court, lessons and guidance can still be taken from it. In addition, the implications extend beyond disciplinary proceedings with the employer. Although Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (POST) decertification under Senate Bill 2 addresses serious misconduct separately, including specific categories of dishonesty tied to crime reporting, investigations or officer misconduct probes, the principles of proportionality articulated here align with the Commission’s observed practice of low overall revocation rates despite thousands of reported allegations. Agencies and POST reviewers may draw guidance from this affirmation that context and mitigating circumstances continue to matter, supporting arguments that not every instance of dishonesty automatically triggers career-ending consequences in either employment or certification contexts.

Mastagni Holstedt congratulates the sergeant on this hard-fought victory and remains steadfast in defending the rights and careers of California’s public safety professionals. Peace officers and union representatives confronting disciplinary investigations or proposed terminations involving allegations of dishonesty or similar misconduct should seek experienced counsel without delay. Early and strategic representation can preserve options, present mitigating evidence effectively and secure outcomes that reflect the full measure of an officer’s service and character. Our attorneys stand ready to protect our clients’ livelihoods and reputations, which they earned through years of dedicated service to the people of California.

About the Author

Steven W. Welty is a senior associate at Mastagni Holstedt, APC, where he focuses his practice in labor and employment law representation, fitness for duty and disability retirement litigation. He is lead counsel for several law enforcement associations statewide and is an experienced litigator in peace officer discipline matters and appeals. Steven was also Police Officer of the Year for Yuba City in 1990 and was president of the Yuba City Police Officers Association from 1991 to 1992.