The retirement YOU work hard for needs to be protected. Please cast your ballot in support of the candidate who will work to back our interests!
VOTE FOR JOHN ROBINSON, FOR SAFETY RETIREMENT FCERA TRUSTEE
John Robinson has been a Fresno County Deputy Sheriff for 23 years, and he owned his own business for 6 years. His business grew so large that he had to choose the business or the Sheriff’s Department because he could not keep up with the demand of working 6 days a week at his business and 4 days a week at the Sheriff’s Office, so he chose to stay with the Sheriff’s Office.
John is fourth generation of law enforcement. He has a strong passion to take care of the people he works with or others in the same field. He believes that we should be taken care of after we put 20-30 years into this job. The jobs related to safety retirement are very stressful and demanding, on us and our families. This is why John is running for this seat. He wants to do what he can to ensure that we are taken care of after we put our time keeping our communities safe. John will work to see that the decisions that are made are in the best interest of the retirees, those soon to retire, and future retirees.
Vote John Robinson for Fresno County Employees’ Retirement Association
A few months ago, I reported to you all about the controversial ruling in Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court of County of Los Angeles (Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department). This is regarding the sending of information unprovoked to the District Attorney’s Office without any inquiry from their office.
Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court granted the Sheriff's Department's petition for review. The extent of the court of appeal ruling surprised many of us. It prohibited employers of peace officers from voluntarily sharing any Brady information with prosecutors or public defenders outside of a full Pitchess process -- even if it involved a potential witness in a pending criminal prosecution. The court of appeal decision was a split 2-1 decision.
Usually, after the losing party in the court of appeal petitions the Supreme Court for review, and answering and reply briefs are filed -- including any amicus curiae (friends of the court) letters supporting or opposing review -- the Court will rule within its statutory deadline, at times even extending its own deadline (as it is authorized to do). Nonetheless, in this case, the Supreme Court granted review the day following the parties' last filing.
The Supreme Court has asked the parties to brief only the question of whether the law enforcement agency may disclose the names of officers who are potential witnesses in a pending criminal prosecution or whether such disclosure may only occur if a court order issues following a properly filed Pitchess motion. This suggests that the Supreme Court does not necessarily disagree with the court of appeal's conclusion that departments cannot simply create lengthy Brady lists and voluntarily release them outside of the Pitchess process without regard to any specific pending criminal prosecution.
We will be participating in the amicus curiae on this case that Messing, Adam, & Jasmine will be writing and sending to the California Supreme Court – responding to their question to the Court of Appeals.
Early morning rain didn’t put a damper on the 11th Annual FDSA Memorial Golf Tournament on Friday, October 20th. The wind and showers cleared out, just in time for an incredible day on the rolling hills at Eagle Springs Golf Course.
We were able to accommodate 200 golfers for a sold out event! The day was filled with great raffle prizes, food and fun! Sportsman’s Warehouse brought out guns this year, and a lot of players shelled out many dollars investing in the chance to win a weapon! We have so many dedicated community partners who help make this tournament a successful one. All proceeds go to support families of fallen deputies in Fresno County and law enforcement officers around the state. In addition, we also send several deputies to Sacramento and Washington D.C. every year to honor the service and sacrifice of those killed in the line of duty. We are so grateful for those organizations and people- who year after year commit to the cause, which is so important to us. With each tragedy, and officer lost- we promise to never forget their lives and their deaths. The funds we raise ensure we can honor them in many ways for years to come.
Written by Jason Jasmine (Messing, Adam, &Jasmine)
The Fourth District Court of Appeal made a significant interpretation of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (“POBR”) (Gov. Code § 3300 et seq.) in the case of Santa Ana Police Officers Association v. City of Santa Ana, 2017 WL 2879796 (2017) that has the potential to impact many administrative investigations of peace officers. In the underlying case, the officers were surreptitiously recorded during an undercover raid of a marijuana dispensary and were investigated for allegedly inappropriate comments made while collecting and logging evidence.
After the initial interviews of two officers, the Department wanted to interview them a second time, and the POA claimed that the Department, pursuant to Government Code section 3303(g), was required to give the officers “a transcribed copy of any notes made by a stenographer or … any reports or complaints made by investigators or other persons except those which are deemed by the investigating agency to be confidential,” in addition to the recording of the first interview prior to the second interview. The Department refused to hand over the materials before the second interview, and the POA brought suit.
The trial court sustained the City’s demurrer without leave to amend. On appeal, the Court concluded that both the plain language of the statute and the decision in Pasadena Police Officers Association v. City of Pasadena, 51 Cal.3d 564, 572 (1990) required reversal of the trial court’s decision.
The Pasadena decision has historically stood for the proposition that an officer has no pre-interrogation discovery rights and that Government Code section 3303(g) requires a department to give an officer a recording of the first interview prior to the second interview. The Santa Ana Court concluded that interpreting the Pasadena decision and the statute together, if an officer is entitled to the recording, the statute language renders the right to notes/reports/complaints coextensive with the right to the audio. This means that the officer is entitled to both the audio and the writings prior to any subsequent interview.
At first glance, the Santa Ana decision seems inconsistent with the Pasadena decision. However, the Pasadena decision really only says that an officer is not entitled to the notes/reports/complaints until after an interrogation. The Santa Ana court appears to reconcile Pasadena by interpreting it as meaning after the FIRST interrogation.
The Santa Ana decision has major implications for administrative interrogations of peace officers because usually a department does not conduct a second interview unless the officer is suspected of being dishonest in the first. Now, the officer (and his or her representative) may be able to see the investigator’s analysis and other witness statements before giving the second interview – which will significantly assist in a more meaningful defense for the officer. The decision will also impact investigations of firefighters under the Firefighter Bill of Rights Act, which has the same language as POBR in this regard.
We are joining forces with the Fresno Police Officer’s Association to show a movie called the Fallen Project. The goal is to show the public what happens when a law enforcement goes through a traumatic event on the job.
Tentative dates of the showing are going to be December 7th or December 14th. We will send out more details as the date approaches. Educating the community about our jobs is important and we are pleased to join forces with FPOA on this event.
Hope you are enjoying this season of cooler weather! As always, take care of yourselves and your partners.