San Mateo County Correctional Officer Prevails in Arbitration

In a disciplinary case submitted to final and binding arbitration, Correctional Officer Brian Haslinger prevailed in an arbitration which completely exonerated him of misconduct. Haslinger was represented by Dan Connolly of LDF Panel Firm Clisham & Sortor in San Francisco.

Haslinger, a correctional officer with the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office and assigned to the Maguire Correctional Facility, was charged with giving pod keys to an inmate. As a result of the alleged conduct, contraband was smuggled into the jail and disseminated to the inmates. The Sheriff’s Office charged Haslinger with violating boilerplate General Orders pertaining to performance and conduct. Haslinger was suspended for thirty days. Both parties agreed to submit the following issue to a panel of hearing officers, an arbitrator and a member designated by the Sheriff’s Department and a deputy sheriff’s association representative:

“Whether Officer Brian Haslinger gave a pod key or pod keys in the Maguire Correctional Facility to [an inmate] between January and August, 1995?”

The only evidence in support of the Sheriff’s Office’s case was the testimony of the inmate, a convicted felon, as well as the felon’s botched polygraph examination. The felon claimed he received pod keys from Haslinger and another deputy; although the other deputy testified at Haslinger’s arbitration that at times he did give the felon a key to open up a specific cell or supply closet on the upper tier, he carefully monitored the felon’s actions. That deputy retired on an industrial disability because of his debilitating knee injuries which compelled him to give a pod key to the felon, then an inmate worker, to climb to the upper tier to open a cell.

The Sheriff’s Office also relied on a polygraph examination administered to the felon which purportedly confirmed his veracity. However, upon cross-examination at Haslinger’s arbitration, the polygrapher conceded he had inappropriately framed one of the test questions: “Since February did both Deputy X and Officer Haslinger permit you to use the keys to pod 4 West?” The felon’s affirmative response was accurate as to Deputy X but inaccurate as to Haslinger and thus tainted the polygraph examination results. Equally important, though, was the test question: “Have you told any lies in this case to the San Mateo Sheriff’s investigators?” Despite the felon’s negative response, the polygrapher conceded that, during a pre-test interview, the felon denied that Haslinger allowed him to use the computer when he had previously advised the San Mateo investigators differently. In other words, he lied. Not surprisingly, the polygraph examination failed to detect his dishonesty. Finally, the polygrapher admitted during cross-examination that during the pre-test interview, the felon admitted to lying to his probation officer, his teachers, his attorney — even his wife!

Other than the felon (whose past crimes include credit card fraud and escape from the Marin County jail) and his polygraph examination results, the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office had no evidence to prove its case. No deputies, correctional officers or other inmates, for that matter, testified that they saw Haslinger give the felon a pod key or keys.

Testimony adduced at the arbitration also established the felon as a master manipulator, a schemer out to retaliate against Haslinger because Haslinger terminated his privileged status as an inmate worker. Also produced at the hearing were the felon’s correspondence with the Sheriff and the District Attorney asking for favored treatment (secure housing or lenient sentencing) in return for his snitching on other inmates.

In its unanimous decision, the arbitration panel (including the Sheriff’s Office representative) concluded the following:

“The burden of proving that [Haslinger] gave [the felon] the pod keys is squarely on the County. Even assuming that the County has presented sufficient evidence to shift the burden of coming forward with evidence to the grievant, [the felon’s] testimony has been successfully rebutted by [Haslinger’s] testimony. Unlike [the felon’s] testimony, [Haslinger’s] testimony was straightforward and consistent. [Haslinger’s] testimony has persuaded the panel that [Haslinger] has a keen awareness of jail security issues which predates the advent of these proceedings. This concern is reflected in his contemporaneous log entries that occurred prior to any charges of misconduct. Finally, the County was unable to ‘poke any holes’ in [Haslinger’s] version of events during cross-examination. Under the circumstances, the panel must conclude that [Haslinger’s] testimony is credible. …[Haslinger] may not be found guilty of the charges by association. Rather, the charges against him must be proved with specificity and by means of reliable evidence. In the unanimous opinion of the members of the panel, [the felon’s] testimony is not convincing or reliable when evaluated against the testimony of [Haslinger]. [The felon’s] motives are questionable and his testimony contains material inconsistencies …based on the independent judgment of the members of the panel, [Haslinger’s] testimony is found to be more credible and more persuasive than [the felon’s] testimony. In sum, the County has not presented the quality or quantity of evidence which would be required in order to sustain the charges against [Haslinger]. Therefore, it must be found that [Haslinger] did not give pod keys to [the felon] during the period from January to August of 1995.”

Fortunately, the PORAC Legal Defense Fund and the San Mateo County DST’s commitment to Haslinger gave him the resources and wherewithal to prevail at his arbitration and to clear his name. The charges and the thirty-day suspension will be removed entirely from Haslinger’s personnel file.