QUIHUIS v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal Feb 26, 2008 No. B196367Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a personnel complaint merely referencing a city charter's general disciplinary authority does not satisfy the requirement under Government Code section 3304, subdivision (d) to notify an officer of the specific proposed disciplinary action.

Issues

Whether a personnel complaint referencing general disciplinary authority satisfies the notice requirement of Government Code section 3304, subdivision (d).
Whether an officer must exhaust administrative remedies before raising a statute of limitations defense under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Subdivision (d) of section 3304 requires timely notice of the "proposed disciplinary action." The personnel complaint did not identify any proposed disciplinary action at all, so it did not satisfy the statutory requirement.”

“subdivision (d) of section 3304 "requires the [City] to notify the officer of the specific disciplinary action that is being proposed, not merely to advise the officer that some disciplinary action is being contemplated."”

71 Cal.Rptr.3d 552 (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 443 Robert QUIHUIS, Plaintiff and Appellant,

CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents.

No. B196367. Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division One.

January 28, 2008. As Modified on Denial of Rehearing February 26, 2008. [553] Diane Marchant, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorney, Claudia McGee Henry, Senior Assistant City Attorney, Kim Rodgers Westhoff, Gail D. Peterson and Gerald M. Sato, Deputy City Attorneys, for Defendants and Respondents.

JACKSON.[*]

INTRODUCTION

Following a hearing before the Board of Rights, appellant Robert Quihuis (Quihuis) was removed from his position as a police officer for the City of Los Angeles (City). Quihuis petitioned the superior court for a peremptory writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. He argued that the City violated his right to receive notice of the proposed disciplinary action against him within the one-year statute of limitations contained in Government Code section 3304, subdivision (d).[1][554] The trial court disagreed and denied the petition. We reverse.

BACKGROUND

On November 18, 2003, detectives from the San Bernardino Sheriffs Department responded to a report of domestic violence involving a possible hostage situation. Quihuis, who lived in the vicinity, returned home after running errands to find an unmarked police car parked in front of his garage. Quihuis asked Detective Robert Emmerson (Emmerson), who was in the process of conducting interviews, to move the police car blocking his garage. Emmerson told Quihuis that he was conducting police business and that the car would be moved as soon as possible. The detective resumed his interviews. Quihuis interrupted Emmerson two more times and persisted in his requests that the car be moved. Emmerson admitted to cursing at Quihuis in the course of their interactions. When Quihuis indicated to Emmerson that he was a police officer, Emmerson told him that he should know better than to interfere during an investigation. Eventually, the police car blocking Quihuis' garage was moved. Emmerson did not arrest Quihuis.

QUIHUIS v. City of Los Angeles

AI Brief

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOTES

AI Brief