Deputy Sheriff Wins Job Back, Back Pay and Benefits Included

Hearing Officer Lou Zigman wrote the words we love to hear after presiding over the hearing in the termination of San Bernardino County Deputy Sheriff Chris Leahy. Those words were, “That the imposition of disciplinary action, i.e. termination, was clearly inappropriate and not justified” and, “That the appellant is reinstated to his former position with full back-pay and benefits. That the disciplinary action is reduced from termination to one day off without pay….”

This recommendation was later adopted in total by the full Civil Service Commission. Attorney Bob Krause, Law Office of Castle & Krause, in Temecula, represented Leahy throughout all phases of his case.

Leahy’s nightmare began on June 11, 2000, when he responded to another deputy’s request to assist in regaining control over disruptive inmates at the West Valley Detention Center in San Bernardino County. This deputy, who had functional supervision over these inmates, had the audacity to insist that the inmates obey the facility rules and be courteous to staff. In that regard, Leahy and others were summoned for back-up and control purposes.

The Charges: The department saw the deputies getting together to enforce facility rules as a conspiracy to commit mass discipline. When certain inmates continued to disobey orders and were passively and physically resistant, Leahy and other deputies applied compliance/control holds as needed. The department saw these actions as unnecessary force (while having to admit under cross-examination by Krause that the deputies had few options).

When harsh language was used against one of the more resistant inmates in an effort to gain control and command authority, the department viewed this as verbal abuse towards this kicking, screaming, non-compliant, but otherwise innocent fellow. Then, this same nice guy started an altercation in the infirmary and had to be taken down once again, this time by other deputies.

Now, notwithstanding the fact that Leahy was standing right next to the deputy that called the sergeant to report the use of force, Leahy was further charged with failing to report the use of force. Oddly enough, so was the deputy who made the call! The department’s theory, which was wholly rejected by the hearing officer, was that the call simply wasn’t fast enough. It was within minutes of the end of the final altercation.

Hearing Officer’s Findings: These excerpts from the 21 pages written decision will demonstrate how the hearing officer viewed this tragic case.

Mass Discipline: “After having considered the evidence and contentions of the parties and while I acknowledge that considerable deference should be accorded the opinion of the board of chiefs, nevertheless on the record before me, I found the arguments of the appellant’s counsel as quite persuasive. In this respect, I found the appellant’s arguments to the effect that there was essentially no evidence, other than supposition, that the appellant organized a mass discipline of inmates was persuasive.”

In its extraordinary attempt to justify this charge the department relied on the jail commander, Captain Ripley. That, to say the least, backfired. Zigman wrote: “I also found the evidence persuasive, that there was no discipline taken against any of the inmates, except for Robinson. While Captain Ripley stated that there was disciplinary action taken, I note that he appeared to struggle somewhat in explaining exactly what constituted the “mass discipline”, and after additional questioning, he did concede that the lining up of all of the inmates would be considered as a very low form of mass discipline.”

The reader should note that the good captain joined in the decision to fire Leahy anyway. Zigman then summarily dismissed that charge.

Three Counts Of Unnecessary Force

To this Zigman added: “Turning next to the second specific charges 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) concerning the use of unnecessary force, I found the arguments of appellant’s counsel persuasive to the effect that the department failed to establish, through a preponderance of the evidence, that the appellant violated section 14/100, et al, which deal with the use and amount of force. In this regard, the weight of the evidence demonstrated that all three inmates did refuse to follow the directives given by lead deputy [name deleted] and after admonitions by the appellant the inmates continued in their refusal to obey.

Indeed, in the absence of any of the inmates to refute the testimony of the deputies, and given my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses and the consistency of their recollection of the events, I found that the weight of the evidence did demonstrate that each of the three inmates exhibited a defiance which created a situation that had to be dealt with and dealt with at that particular moment.”

Zigman likewise dismissed these charges.

Failure to Report Use of Force: This, probably the most ridiculous of the charges brought, was handled summarily by the hearing officer as follows:

“. . . the fact is that there was no attempt to cover the incident up and the fact is that Sergeant Paterson was made aware of that incident within minutes after he arrived to begin his investigation. Furthermore, the evidence disclosed that the appellant freely discussed the incident with Sergeant Paterson.

The fact that appellant did not specifically call Sergeant Paterson was not considered as particularly significant in as much as the appellant was standing right next to [deputy] when [deputy] called Sergeant Paterson. And, even if [deputy] didn’t tell Sergeant Paterson about the incident the fact remains that he was told of it very shortly after it occurred.

For all of these reasons, I found the appellant’s arguments persuasive that the department failed to establish through a preponderance of the evidence that the allegations in the third charge have been established with sufficiency to justify anything more than a reminder to report the use of force immediately and/or as soon as practicable.”

4. Verbal Abuse: Zigman observed: “And finally, with respect to charge 2(d), concerning verbal abuse, while I note testimony that the use of four-letter words is not unheard of in a jail setting, nevertheless I found the department’s contentions persuasive that appellant did engage in verbal abuse in the barbershop. However, such conduct would not justify severe disciplinary action, much less termination.”

Any Lessons Learned by the Department? “I doubt it”: In closing, Krause stated, “I doubt it”, specifically because he has just completed yet another case of termination by the same department leading to reinstatement with back pay and benefits of a veteran deputy. That is an article for another edition.