Doolittle v. City of Los Angeles
A police officer was accused of failing to process a citizen complaint against a fellow officer and then lying about it to her superiors and to internal affairs investigators. She was timely served with a personnel complaint containing the specific accusations against her. The complaint stated the officer was being demoted from her position as a Sergeant I to Police officer III pending a hearing before and decision by a Board of Rights on the charges. After a hearing, the Board of Rights recommended her removal from the police force and the chief of police accepted the Boards recommendation. The officer filed a petition for writ of mandate, claiming the Boards guilty findings were not supported by the weight of the evidence. She also argued she did not receive a fair hearing in the penalty phase because termination was the expected and thus predetermined discipline for all officers ordered to a Board of Rights by the chief of police. The trial court found the officers claims without merit and denied her petition for a peremptory writ of mandate. On appeal, the officer expressly abandons the arguments she made in the trial court. She instead contends the order of termination must be reversed because she first received notice of removal as the proposed discipline outside the one year limitations period for providing such notice. Court conclude she has forfeited her right to make this claim for the first time on appeal by failing to raise her statute of limitations (lack of notice) defense in either the administrative proceedings or in the trial court. Accordingly, Court affirm.
Comments on Doolittle v. City of Los Angeles