Skip to main content

Be Social

Home

LEGALUPDATES.COM

Trusted Resources
X
  • Home
  • OUR TEAM
  • JOBs/Classifieds
  • Training Portal

User account menu

  • Login
  • Search

Editorials

The Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights and the Statute of Limitations

Robert Phillips
12 Mar 2023
CAE00022

The Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights and the Statute of Limitations
An Editorial By Robert C. Phillips, Deputy District Attorney (Ret).

Gov’t. Code § 3304(d)(1) of the Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act provides for a one-year statute of limitation, measured from the date of the alleged violation without taking into consideration any other over-lapping violations.

As a law enforcement officer, you may sometimes wonder whether anyone in the public or government sectors is watching your six, given the recent “defund the police” mentality and the California Legislature’s tendency to be overly concerned with lessening punishments on criminals while at the same time imposing more and more restrictions on law enforcement’s powers and duties. But you might take comfort in the knowledge that Cops’ Lives do Matter, as illustrated by the existence of the “Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act;” i.e., Gov’t. Code §§ 3300 et seq.  

One of the protections for law enforcement found in the list of rights provided for in the Act is Gov’t. Code § 3304(d)(1).  Under this section, a “statute of limitations” is mandated, limiting the time to one year between when an act of misconduct by a law enforcement officer is discovered and the resulting investigation is to be completed with an “Intent or Notice of Averse Action” issued to the officer.  This limitation is discussed in the recent case of Garcia v. State Dept. of Developmental Services (Feb. 21, 2023) 2023 Cal.App. LEXIS 109.  Although since depublished by the Court (and thus not available for citation), the rule of the Garcia decision, dealing with the length of time an officer’s employers can drag out an internal investigation, is still important. 

As previously noted by the California Supreme Court, a statute of limitations is important to you, as a law enforcement officer, in order “to ensure that an officer will not be faced with the uncertainty of a lingering investigation, but will know within one year of the agency’s discovery of the officer’s act or omission that it may be necessary for the officer to respond in the event he or she wishes to defend against possible discipline.” (Mays v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 43 Cal.4th 313, 322.)  Gov’t. Code § 3304(d)(1) serves that purpose. 

In the Garcia case, Sgt. Luis Garcia attempted to stretch the protections of an already limited Statute of Limitation even further than the statute seems to indicate.  As a supervisor for the State Department of Developmental Services (i.e., the “Department”), he was initially accused of manipulating the working assignments for himself and others to provide for unnecessary overtime hours, for the purpose of maximizing their overtime pay. Even after being warned to knock it off, Sgt. Garcia figured out a way around the restrictions placed on him in order to effect the same result.  When this was discovered, an internal investigation was initiated. During this investigation, several other acts of misconduct were discovered, one by one, generally involving his inappropriate treatment of some of his subordinates as well as the misuse of his office computer. The Department eventually issued a Notice of Adverse Action and disciplined him by demoting him to the rank of a regular officer.  In determining that most of Luis Garcia’s admittedly inappropriate actions were not barred by the statute’s one-year statute of limitations, the Court in Garcia refers us to the relevant portions of section 3304(d)(1):

“(N)o punitive action [against a public safety officer] … shall be undertaken for any act, omission, or other allegation of misconduct if the investigation of the allegation is not completed within one year of the public agency’s discovery by a person authorized to initiate an investigation of the allegation of an act, omission, or other misconduct. . . . In the event that the public agency determines that discipline may be taken, it shall complete its investigation and notify the public safety officer of its proposed discipline by a Letter of Intent or Notice of Adverse Action articulating the discipline that year . . . . The public agency shall not be required to impose the discipline within that one-year period.”  (Italics added.)

Appealing his demotion, Garcia argued that the one-year statute of limitations as imposed by Gov’t. Code § 3304(d)(1) should be measured from the date that the first offense was initially discovered, and then applied as well to all other acts of misconduct once the agency has initiated an investigation into any one of these acts.  The Department, on the other hand, argued that the limitations period for each offense should begin separately, each upon the discovery of that particular act of misconduct.

The Third District Court of Appeal determined in Garcia that the Department’s interpretation of Gov’t. Code § 3304(d)(1) was the correct one.  In other words, if you have a half dozen separate offenses alleged, the statute of limitations is separate for each offense; each beginning upon the discovery of the offense in issue.  This is necessary in order to avoid an absurd result. For instance, if Garcia’s argument was to be accepted, then once an investigation into one offense has been initiated, any subsequent offense must be investigated and an Intent or Notice of Averse Action issued before that year expires, even if the offense is not discovered until the day before the one year expires. 

The bottom line is that in this case, Officer Garcia’s authority over others in the Department has been appropriately limited due to his demotion, while at the same time other law enforcement officers are protected by insuring that their agencies initiate, investigate, and reach a conclusion in a very limited period.  Sounds like a win-win result to me.

Read More

P.O.S.T. Certified Law Enforcement recommended by Legal Updates!

TOP Rated training

PETALUMA POLICE DEPARTMENT IS SEEKING LATERAL OFFICERS

PETALUMA PD

TEHEMA COUNTY IS HIRING FOR DEPUTY SHERIFF AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

 

TehemaDS

 

Home

LEGALUPDATES.COM

Trusted Resources

LEGALUPDATES.COM
1968 S. Coast Highway
Laguna Beach, CA 92651

(877) 266-4003

support@legalupdates.com 

General Questions:  admin@legalupdates.com

Contact Us/Help

Reading Corner

  • Prior Issues
  • Prior Cases
  • Special Updates
  • Bulletins
  • Editorials
  • Memorials
  • FAQs
  • Agency List

Be Social

Resources

  • Donate/Support us
  • Advertise with us
  • Classifieds
  • Honorary Supporters
  • Our Plans
  • White List Us
  • Helpful Links
  • Testimonials

all rights reserved © Copyright protected | legalupdates.com® u.s.r. 6,260.924   | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer & Terms of Use                                                     
Click here to provide Feedback                           

 

  • Home
  • OUR TEAM
  • JOBs/Classifieds
  • Training Portal
  • Login
  • Search

Already have an account? Login Here

Sign up now for free access to this content

Enter your details below and stay ahead of the curve.

We need a little information about you to approve your subscription. We take your privacy seriously. Don’t worry we never share your information with anyone.

Notifications
CAPTCHA

This is to verify you are human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

We take your privacy seriously. As detailed in our Privacy Policy, we do not share your information with anyone. You will be able to update your communication preferences at any time. Please contact Legal Updates if you have any questions or need any assistance.

Login here to access the content

Forgot Password?
We take your privacy seriously. As detailed in our Privacy Policy, we do not share your information with anyone. You will be able to update your communication preferences at any time. Please contact Legal Updates if you have any questions or need any assistance.

We hope you have enjoyed your free trial Professional Membership subscription to Legal Updates. We invite you to continue to receive all our services by upgrading from our Basic to our Professional Membership. You can find a summary of all our plan benefits below. As always, we guarantee full satisfaction and will refund 100% of your payment if you are not satisfied.

Membership Plans

100% SATISFACTION GUARANTEE!

Plan Comparision

BASIC MEMBERSHIP
Complimentary
Limited Access
We still appreciate you!
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIP
Full Unlimited Access
$15.00/mo ($180.00/year)
Sale! Only $7.50/ mo. ($90.00/year)
Access to our Website
Access to our Website
Receive Updates and Case Alerts
Receive Updates and Case Alerts
Access our library of prior issues and special updates
Access our library of prior issues and special updates
Search Capability
Search Capability
Ability to post comments
Ability to post comments
Print/download/save material from our site
Print/download/save material from our site
Direct access to our authors
Direct access to our authors
Annual Statutes and Changes in the law update (100+ pages)
Annual Statutes and Changes in the law update (100+ pages)
Annual Miranda Update
Annual Miranda Update
Annual Search & Seizure and Fourth Amendment Update (1000+ pages) Our most comprehensive and popular update! A must have for Judges, prosecutors, and police supervisors
Annual Search & Seizure and Fourth Amendment Update (1000+ pages) Our most comprehensive and popular update! A must have for Judges, prosecutors, and police supervisors
Annual Professional Training Certificate (12 Hours of training in legal updates)*
Annual Professional Training Certificate (12 Hours of training in legal updates)*
KEEP CURRENT PLAN

NEWSLETTER

Enter your email and would like to subscribe to our monthly updates.

Stay informed - subscribe to our newsletter.
CAPTCHA

This is to verify you are human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.