Pinto v. City of Visalia Part II
In reviewing city's termination of police officer for failing to report sexual abuse of minor, trial court correctly treated officer's duty under department policy to be coextensive with statutory duty to report such abuse if he learned of it while on duty or otherwise acting in a professional capacity, absent showing that department intended its policy to apply more broadly. Evidence that officer, after learning in private capacity of sexual relationship between adult and minor, gave advice to minor as to how to handle relationship did not establish that officer was acting in a professional capacity when he gave that advice and thus did not undermine trial court's finding that officer was not obligated to report relationship to department. Termination of officer was an abuse of discretion where only finding of misconduct sustained by trial court after independent review of the evidence was that officer lied during course of a criminal investigation, department policy did not mandate termination for lying, officer had no prior disciplinary record, officer retracted false statement and told truth before conclusion of interview in which he initially lied, department never relied on false statement for any purpose, and it was unlikely--based on police chief's testimony--that department would have terminated officer had it not made the additional findings of misconduct that were rejected by trial court. Award of attorney fees to terminated peace officer under Government Code Sec. 800 need not be accompanied by factual findings to support trial court's determination that termination was arbitrary or capricious unless employer requests statement of decision, and where officer awarded fees under that section prevails on appeal, fees should normally be awarded for the appeal.
Comments on Pinto v. City of Visalia Part II