|
|
Shelton v. City of Manhattan Beach9/28/2004
rnal affairs investigations were active and before plaintiff had been interviewed in connection with them, Chief Klevesahl spoke to Captain Marshall. Chief Klevesahl expressed a desire to terminate or demote plaintiff based on one or more of the investigations.
First, while plaintiff was out on medical leave in the fall of 2001, Chief Klevesahl initiated an investigation. The investigation examined plaintiff's use of a department Visa credit card to buy dinner for some recruits. Plaintiff declared it was ordinary practice for the department to pay for business meals. On two occasions plaintiff had used the department credit card to pay for meals at after-hours meetings with recruits. On both of those occasions a lieutenant had approved such use of the department's credit card. Plaintiff declared, "I explained to Captain Marshall that it was ordinary practice for the department to pay for business dinners, and that they had routinely been approved in the past by my supervisor . . . ." Ordinarily, the decision whether to open an internal affairs investigation was made by agreement among Captain Marshall, as head of the department's administrative and investigation division, another captain, and Chief Klevesahl. Captain Marshall would then assign an investigator and monitor the investigation's progress. Captain Marshall believed the internal affairs investigation of plaintiff's Visa card use was unwarranted. There were no clear guidelines or firm policies on use of the credit card. Captain Marshall believed plaintiff should simply have been counseled about the appropriate use of the credit card. Captain Marshall so advised Chief Klevesahl. However, Chief Klevesahl decided to initiate a formal investigation. Captain Marshall testified: "I was confused by the decision to move forward on this. I didn't agree that it needed an internal affairs investigation."
Second, in August 2001, Officers Sellan and Eccles accused plaintiff of harassing them. Captain Marshall did not believe a formal investigation was warranted. Nor was Captain Marshall involved in the investigation. Further, contrary to department policy governing one officer's complaint against another, plaintiff was not notified within 72 hours. Plaintiff was not advised he was the subject of this formal investigation until September 2002. As noted above, at the conclusion of the investigation, the investigating lieutenant found plaintiff had threatened or attempted to intimidate Officers Sellan and Eccles on more than one occasion.
III. DISCUSSION
A. The Trial Court's Evidentiary Rulings
Defendants asserted evidentiary objections to 179 specified portions of plaintiff's evidence including: plaintiff's declaration; a declaration of a former department employee; and the deposition testimony of seven other individuals. Defendants asserted multiple grounds of objection as to each of the 179 items. The trial court specifically
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Show All Case Laws California PEO
|