Hawkins v. City of Los Angeles

Filed 7/18/06 Hawkins v. City of Los Angeles CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 SEVEN

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. David P. Yaffe, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.

Diane Marchant for Petitioner and Appellant.

Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorney, Claudia McGee Henry, Senior Assistant City Attorney and Gerald M. Sato, Deputy City Attorney, for Respondents.

___________________________

A Los Angeles police officer was suspended for 22 days without pay after a board of rights found him guilty of charges involving domestic violence. The officer contends the guilty findings are based solely on inadmissible hearsay evidence. Accordingly, he argues the findings must be reversed for insufficient evidence as they contravene section 363.40 of the board of rights manual specifying no finding of guilt may be based on inadmissible hearsay evidence alone. We agree and reverse.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

Appellant, Windle Hawkins, joined the Los Angeles Police Department in 1988. Appellant started work in the Rampart Division, transferred to the 77th Street Division and from 1993 had been working in the Southeast Division in vice and gang details. In 1996 he attained the rank of Police Office III and became a training officer.

On June 7, 2003 appellant and his wife of then seventeen years, Elisha Rankins, got into an argument which ultimately involved a police response. After an internal affairs investigation appellant was charged with four counts of misconduct as follows:

â€