State Parks Peace Officer Supervisor Vindicated in CCW Denial Appeal

VANESSA MUNOS
Associate
Mastagni Holstedt, APC

Unexpected Consequences of Retiring Before an Investigation Ends

After more than two decades of distinguished service, California State Parks Peace Officer Supervisor (Ranger) James Valdez retired believing his exemplary record would remain intact. He had previously delayed his retirement, and shortly before submitting for retirement he was served with notice of what appeared to be a relatively minor Internal Affairs investigation. He cooperated fully, attending the interview and responding to all questions asked. Confident that the matter would not impact his standing with the agency, he retired, believing he was doing so honorably. Unbeknownst to him, his decision to retire before the investigation concluded resulted in findings that would be used to justify the denial of his Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) endorsement on his retirement badge, tarnishing his otherwise unblemished and honorable career.

This case illustrates how retiring with pending allegations can lead to unexpected consequences and why retired officers must understand their rights, including the narrow, time-sensitive path to challenge such decisions.

A Distinguished Career Unjustly Stained

Valdez served California State Parks in numerous roles, including leading the special events program for large-scale festivals outside and within the Los Angeles State Historic Park. While this was just one of his duties, it became central to the serious allegations against him.

Due to security concerns, Valdez attended a festival at the Los Angeles State Historic Park near the end of his career, an event he had long supervised, ensuring safety and minimizing issues like noise. It was a program he spearheaded from its inception, for which he was given awards of recognition. He submitted a request for a couple of overtime hours for his presence at the event. The Department questioned his attendance and approval to be at the festival, claimed he attended without prior overtime approval and denied the overtime.

Despite believing he was entitled to that overtime, Valdez did not pursue the overtime claim further and was never paid. Nonetheless, the Department alleged that his attendance at the festival without prior approval and the request for overtime constituted dishonesty, incorporating it into the broader findings of the Internal Affairs investigation. Because he had retired before the investigation was completed, he lost the ability to appeal or challenge the findings.

These findings were then used to assert that he had retired dishonorably, undermining his career and resulting in a denial of his retirement ID with a CCW endorsement and ineligibility to purchase his duty weapon.

RAM and PORAC LDF: Critical Support After Retirement

Soon after learning Valdez had retired, I advised him to immediately join PORAC as a retired associate member (RAM). He acted quickly, and this proved critical when he later learned of the devastating findings and received formal notice that his CCW endorsement had been denied.

Thanks to his RAM membership, the PORAC Legal Defense Fund (LDF) fully covered the cost of his legal representation for the hearing. Without that coverage, defending his reputation would have been a significant financial burden.

All retiring peace officers are strongly encouraged to join RAM through PORAC LDF upon retirement to ensure they have legal protection for post-retirement challenges like this one.

How to Appeal if Your CCW Endorsement Is Denied

Under California Penal Code § 26310, officers who are denied a CCW endorsement must request a hearing within 15 calendar days of receiving the notice. The hearing governed by § 26320 allows for informal presentation of testimony, records and other evidence — often the only forum to clear an officer’s name after retirement.

The panel consists of:

• • One member appointed by the department
  • One member chosen by the officer
  • One neutral third party selected jointly

In this case, both parties chose their own representatives, but we could not agree on the neutral panelist. The Department ultimately funded a neutral arbitrator, ensuring a fair process.

What You Need to Know About CCW Denial Hearings Under Penal Code § 26320

When a peace officer is denied a CCW endorsement upon retirement, California Penal Code § 26320 provides for a hearing to challenge that decision. However, these hearings are informal, with no official rules of evidence, no judge and no formal guidelines. These hearings are usually best described as a “free-for-all.” The process is governed by a three-member panel — one appointed by the agency, one by the officer and a neutral third mutually agreed upon. The parties can present and argue almost anything to the panel. And the panel can essentially decide whatever they want.

Because the process is so informal and discretionary, departments often rely on uncontested Internal Affairs findings to support their denial, with a minimal burden of proof. They typically argue the officer retired dishonorably, thereby justifying the endorsement denial. Retired officers have limited procedural protections, and the agency can effectively act as both accuser and part of the decision-making body regarding CCW endorsements. While these hearings provide an opportunity to respond, they often lack due process safeguards, leading some to characterize them as resembling a “kangaroo court.” Experienced legal counsel is critical.

Proving an Honorable Retirement

The heart of the case was the Department’s contention that Valdez had not retired honorably due to the dishonesty finding. At the hearing, Valdez testified, explaining his time and achievements with California State Parks, his extensive role with the special events program and his justified presence at the festival in question. He also clarified the overtime issue — confirming that he had never been paid and that there was no dishonesty involved.

We also presented testimony from another employee familiar with the festival operations who directly contradicted the Department’s version of events, supporting Valdez’s presence at the festival, based on past practice and necessity.

Our panel representative — a retired California State Parks supervisor — brought decades of agency experience to the table. His insight helped the neutral panelist understand the realities of the Department’s operations and the unfairness of the allegations. His perspective was critical, as the Department’s panel member unwaveringly supported the Department’s stance.

The Outcome: CCW Endorsement Restored, Name Cleared

After deliberations, the panel ruled two to one in favor of Valdez. His retirement badge was reissued, along with the CCW endorsement. While, unfortunately, the Internal Affairs investigation itself remained unchallenged due to his post-retirement status, the hearing allowed him to present his rebuttal, secure his retirement ID issued with the CCW endorsement, have the ability to purchase his duty weapon and feel vindicated.

More importantly, the outcome reasserted that his retirement was honorable and deserving of the same recognition and rights afforded to his peers.

What Retiring Officers Need to Know

This case illustrates how quickly a routine retirement can be overshadowed by unresolved allegations — especially when departments use those claims to portray a career as dishonorable.

If you are nearing retirement or facing similar circumstances:

• • Do not delay. If your CCW endorsement is denied, you have only 15 days to request a hearing.
  • Enroll in RAM through PORAC LDF immediately upon retirement. This is the best way to ensure you’ll have legal defense if issues arise.
  • Be prepared to prove you retired honorably, even if the agency tries to imply otherwise.

If you or someone you know is facing a CCW endorsement denial — or is retiring under uncertain circumstances — don’t face it alone. Understanding your rights and acting swiftly can make all the difference.

About the Author

Vanessa Munos is an associate in the Labor and Employment Department at Mastagni Holstedt, APC. She represents public safety employees in administrative and disciplinary investigations, hearings, critical incident investigations and criminal defense matters. She has extensive experience handling administrative licensing hearings, along with over 16 years of experience representing clients in the investigation and prosecution of misdemeanor and felony accusations, including but not limited to DUI, domestic disputes and murder.