Lawful exercise of rights; insubordination; administrative appeal; limitation period for investigations; exceptions; effect of predisciplinary response or grievance procedures; reopening investigations

"(a) No public safety officer shall be subjected to punitive action, or denied promotion, or be threatened with any such treatment, because of the lawful exercise of the rights granted under this chapter, or the exercise of any right under any existing administrative grievance procedure.

Nothing in this section shall preclude a head of an agency from ordering a public safety officer to cooperate with other agencies involved in criminal investigations. If an officer fails to comply with such an order, the agency may officially charge him or her with insubordination.

(b) No punitive action, nor denial of promotion on grounds other than merit, shall be undertaken by any public agency against any public safety officer who has successfully completed the probationary period that may be required by his or her employing agency without providing the public safety officer with an opportunity for administrative appeal.

(c) No chief of police may be removed by a public agency, or appointing authority, without providing the chief of police with written notice and the reason or reasons therefore and an opportunity for administrative appeal.

For purposes of this subdivision, the removal of a chief of police by a public agency or appointing authority, for the purpose of implementing the goals or policies, or both, of the public agency or appointing authority, for reasons including, but not limited to, incompatibility of management styles or as a result of a change in administration, shall be sufficient to constitute "reason or reasons."

Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to create a property interest, where one does not exist by rule or law, in the job of Chief of Police.

(d) Except as provided in this subdivision and subdivision (g), no punitive action, nor denial of promotion on grounds other than merit, 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. This one-year limitation period shall apply only if the act, omission, or other misconduct occurred on or after January 1, 1998. 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 disciplinary action within that year, except in any of the following circumstances:

     (1) If the act, omission, or other allegation of misconduct is also the subject of a criminal investigation or criminal prosecution, the time during which the criminal investigation or criminal prosecution is pending shall toll the one-year time period.

     (2) If the public safety officer waives the one-year time period in writing, the time period shall be tolled for the period of time specified in the written waiver.

     (3) If the investigation is a multijurisdictional investigation that requires a reasonable extension for coordination of the involved agencies.

     (4) If the investigation involves more than one employee and requires a reasonable extension.

     (5) If the investigation involves an employee who is incapacitated or otherwise unavailable.

     (6) If the investigation involves a matter in civil litigation where the public safety officer is named as a party defendant, the one-year time period shall be tolled while that civil action is pending.

     (7) If the investigation involves a matter in criminal litigation where the complainant is a criminal defendant, the one-year time period shall be tolled during the period of that defendant's criminal investigation and prosecution.

     (8) If the investigation involves an allegation of workers' compensation fraud on the part of the public safety officer.

(e) Where a predisciplinary response or grievance procedure is required or utilized or utilized, the time for this response or procedure shall not be governed or limited by this chapter.

(f) If, after investigation and any predisciplinary response or procedure, the public agency decides to impose discipline, the public agency shall notify the public safety officer in writing of its decision to impose discipline, including the date that the discipline will be imposed, within 30 days of its decision, except if the public safety officer is unavailable for discipline.

(g) Notwithstanding the one-year time period specified in subdivision (c), an investigation may be reopened against a public safety officer if both of the following circumstances exist:

     (1) Significant new evidence has been discovered that is likely to affect the outcome of the investigation.

     (2) One of the following conditions exist:

          (A) The evidence could not reasonably have been discovered in the normal course of investigation without resorting to extraordinary measures by the agency.

          (B) The evidence resulted from the public safety officer's predisciplinary response or procedure.

(h) For those members listed in subdivision (a) of Section 830.2 of the Penal Code, the 30-day time period provided for in subdivision (e) shall not commence with the service of a preliminary notice of adverse action, should the public agency elect to provide the public safety officer with such a notice.

See also:

Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles (1985) 221 Cal. Rptr. 529, 40 Cal. 3d 822, 701 P. 2d 329

Riveros v. City of Los Angeles (App. 2 Dist. 1996), 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 238, 41 Cal. App. 4^th 1342, modified on denial of rehearing

Runyan v. Ellis (App. 2 Dist. 1995) 47 cal. Rptr. 2d 356, 40 Cal. App. 4^th 961, rehearing denied, review denied

Stiesberg v. State of California, C.A. 9 (Cal.) 1996, 80 F. 3d 353

Caloca v. County of San Diego (App. 4 Dist. 1999), 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 660, 72 Cal. App. 4^th 1209, rehearing denied, review denied

Riveros v. City of Los Angeles (App. 2 Dist. 1996), 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 238, 41 Cal. App. 4^th 1342, modified on denial of rehearing

Caloca v. County of San Diego (App. 4 Dist. 1999), 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 660, 72 Cal. App. 4^th 1209, rehearing denied, review denied

Runyan v. Ellis (App. 2 Dist. 1995) 47 Cal. Rptr. 2d 356, 40 Cal. App. 4^th 961, rehearing denied, review denied

Stanton v. City of West Sacramento (App. 3 Dist. 1991), 277 Cal. Rptr. 478, 226 Cal. App. 3d 1438

Doyle v. City of Chino (App. 4 Dist. 1981), 172 Cal. Rptr. 844, 117 Cal. App. 3d 673

Haight v. City of San Diego (App. 4 Dist. 1991), 278 Cal. Rptr. 334, 228 Cal. App. 3d 413, rehearing denied, review denied