Broken Molding Leads to Termination; Civil Service Commission Overturns All Charges

Posted by Jason Jasmine Brian Parino Carroll

Several years ago, the Fresno County Civil Service Commission significantly reduced discipline that had been imposed against Fresno Deputy Sheriff Ivan Janssens by the Fresno County Sheriff’s Department. That case, in which Deputy Janssens admitted to some wrong doing, focused on the relatively innocent nature of Deputy Janssens’ mistakes and his efforts to correct those mistakes. The Civil Service Commission agreed that the initial discipline was inappropriate and imposed lesser discipline. Since that case, Deputy Janssens has been the model employee, obtaining excellent performance evaluations and handling himself in an exemplary manner.

Deputy Janssens – along with many other deputies, and several supervisors – attended an off-duty event at a local bar, celebrating deputies who were moving from the Court Services Unit to Patrol. The bar was crowded, noisy, and featured a live band that night. During the event, and after several drinks, some deputies began roughhousing with each other, and during this roughhousing, one of the deputies struck Ivan in a playful manner, causing Ivan to stumble back and put his hands on a piece of molding located on a pillar behind him, to gain his balance. When he did this, the already loose molding fell to the ground.

Deputy Janssens immediately informed the bartender about the molding falling. She believed that she asked him to wait there until she found her manager, but due to the noise, Deputy Janssens did not hear the bartender ask him to stay. Because he had prior commitments early the next morning, and he already did what he thought was necessary by informing the bartender of the broken molding, he decided to go home and get to bed.

None of the other three deputies who were standing next to Ivan heard or saw the bartender come up to him and ask him to stay. However, the Department believed that Ivan heard the request for him to stay and that he intentionally chose to ignore it – apparently to get out of replacing the five-dollar molding which was already loose or broken before Deputy Janssens touched it.

As he was walking out, the bartender informed the bouncer what had happened and went to go get the manager. The bouncer (who is a convicted felon) then located Ivan, who was already in his car, and wrote down his license plate number as he was driving away.

The manager then called the Sheriff’s Department to report the damage to the bar. A Sergeant responded to the bar and took a report, which included interviews with the bartender and the bouncer. The bouncer indicated that he made eye contact with Deputy Janssens after Janssens got into his car, and “raised his hands upward, as if asking what was going on.”

The bouncer, who was later interviewed by Internal Affairs as part of the administrative investigation, was interviewed from the Fresno County Jail. During this interview, he changed his initial story and now stated that he actually spoke to Deputy Janssens in a loud voice, in an effort to get him to stay, but indicated that he did not yell at Deputy Janssens.

The Internal Affairs interview with the bartender was not recorded, but the summary of the interview represented that she told Internal Affairs that she had asked Deputy Janssens to wait while she found her manager and he affirmatively responded, “sure no problem.”

The Order for Discipline did not just disregard the bouncer’s first story, but actually exaggerated the second inconsistent story and reported that the bouncer yelled at Deputy Janssens to get his attention. The Order also relied on the bartender’s alleged statement that she asked Deputy Janssens to stay and that he replied in the affirmative. The Order contended that Deputy Janssens was dishonest because he denied noticing either of these alleged requests that he stay, and instead fled the scene to avoid responsibility for the broken molding.

The Order also contained charges for which there was no evidence, including an allegation that Deputy Janssens may have intentionally broken the molding. The Order also alleged that Deputy Janssens confirmed that his memory was not impaired due to the alcohol he had consumed, when in fact he stated in his Internal Affairs interviews that his memory was absolutely impaired due to alcohol.

When conducting our investigation for the Skelly hearing, we contacted the bartender and told her what the lead Detective wrote in his summary of their interview. She immediately denied making any statement to the detective that Deputy Janssens replied to her after she asked him to stay, and also stated that it was very loud in the bar at the time and she had no way of knowing whether Deputy Janssens heard her or not. She signed a sworn declaration stating that she did not hear Ivan respond in any way to her when she asked him to stay, and that she never made any such representations to Internal Affairs.

At the Skelly hearing, we presented the sworn declaration from the bartender, as well as another declaration, and other evidence and argument that challenged the accuracy of many aspects of the investigation. Unfortunately, less than an hour after the conclusion of the Skelly hearing, we had already received a response, upholding the discipline (termination), all of the causes for discipline, and all of the supporting facts – even those that were indisputably false.

Ultimately, the Sheriff gave thoughtful and truthful testimony at the Civil Service Commission hearing, in which she acknowledged the flaws in the County’s case. She even acknowledged that during the Skelly hearing, she gave no weight to the bartender’s sworn declaration. The bartender also confirmed what she had put in her declaration – contradicting the representations made by the Department about what she had allegedly said. She also testified that at the beginning of her interview by Internal Affairs, the Detective conducting the interview attacked Deputy Janssens’ character and indicated he was a “bad cop.” The bouncer came to the hearing and changed his story yet again – leaving the Commissioners shaking their heads.

Thankfully, the Commission took this matter very seriously, evaluated all of the evidence and determined that none of the charges against Deputy Janssens could be sustained. The Commission reinstated Deputy Janssens and awarded full back pay for the entire period of time between his termination and his reinstatement.

Deputy Janssens is grateful to the Legal Defense Fund for its support in this matter, and looks forward to returning to work.

Jason Jasmine is a Partner in Carroll, Burdick & McDonough LLP’s Sacramento office. He represents peace officers and peace officer associations throughout Northern and Central California. Brian Parino is a Labor Representative in CB&M’s Sacramento office. Jason and Brian represented Deputy Ivan Janssens throughout the administrative process.