Oldenburg v. City of South Gate
Filed 3/29/06 Oldenburg v. City of South Gate CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| LANCE OLDENBURG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF SOUTH GATE, Defendant and Respondent. | B182050 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS087615) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, George H. Wu, Judge. Affirmed.
Lackie & Dammeier, Dieter C. Dammeier and Michael A. Morguess for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Jackson Lewis, Edward P. Zappia and Sherry L. Swieca, for Defendant and Respondent.
I. Introduction
Plaintiff, Lance Oldenburg, appeals from an order denying his Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 mandate petition. Plaintiff's petition was filed after he was terminated as a police officer. We affirm the order denying the petition.
II. Background
A. The Applicable Standards, Regulations, and Statutes for Hiring a Peace Officer
The Penal Code provides that municipalities such as defendant can receive state funds for specified law enforcement purposes. As a condition of receiving such funds, a municipality such as defendant must agree to recruitment and training standards established by the Quality Assessment Bureau of the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (the commission). (Pen. Code, §§ 13500, 13510, 13522.) In 1962, defendant adopted ordinances which require compliance with the commission's regulations. (South Gate Mun. Code §§ 1.37.010, 1.37.020.[1]) In order to raise the level of competence of local law enforcement officers, the commission has adopted minimum standards for peace officer recruitment and training. (Pen. Code, § 13510[2], 13522, 13523.) A participating city is subject to examination and inquiry to ensure compliance with minimum state standards. (Pen. Code, § 13512[3]; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 11, § 1010.) Failure to adhere to the commission's minimum standards disqualifies a city from receiving state aid for police training. (Pen. Code, § 13523[4]; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 11, § 1010, subd. (g)[5].)
Two minimum standards at issue in this case are. The first issue involves defendant's failure to conduct a thorough and complete background investigation prior to hiring plaintiff as a police officer. (Gov. Code, § 1031, subd. (d); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 11, § 1002.) The second issue involves the mandatory 12-month probationary period for a peace officer. (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 1012, subd. (a)[6].)
With respect to the background investigation question, Government Code section 1031 specifies: â€
