Briefing Room
firm victory
Partner Scott Tiedemann And Associate Chase Booth Secure Police Officer’s Termination.
A police officer asked a colleague to access a confidential law-enforcement database. The officer sought information about the vehicle of a woman the officer suspected that her ex-boyfriend was seeing. While off-duty, the officer then used that information to find the woman in another jurisdiction. The women fought. Peace officers from the other jurisdiction responded. The officer failed to inform her superiors, as required by policy, about her off-duty contact with law enforcement.
The department placed the officer on administrative leave. While on leave, the officer contacted the colleague whom she had asked to access the confidential databases. The officer attempted to align their accounts to make it appear that the access was for a legitimate police purpose. Also, while the officer was on administrative leave, she attended a church service in her police uniform in violation of the terms of her leave.
The department completed an internal investigation and issued a notice of intent to terminate. The officer appealed.
During two days of hearings before an advisory hearing officer, LCW strategically handled the evidentiary record,
highlighted the officer’s credibility issues, and outlined the department’s disciplinary standards. The department’s witnesses testified as to the officer’s pattern of deception. Among them was the colleague officer who accessed the confidential database for the subject officer. He testified that the subject officer gave inconsistent explanations for requesting the confidential database information. He also testified that the subject officer contacted him during the internal investigation to attempt to align their testimony.
The hearing officer found that the city proved multiple policy violations by a preponderance of the evidence, including misuse of confidential law-enforcement databases for personal purposes, dishonesty and lack of candor during investigations, insubordination and failure to follow lawful orders, failure to report required law-enforcement contacts, and conduct that brought discredit to the department. The decision emphasized that honesty, judgment, and compliance with policy are core requirements for peace officers and that misuse of confidential systems and evasive conduct undermined institutional integrity.
The city manager reviewed the hearing officer’s advisory decision. He agreed that the officer’s conduct struck at the heart of what it means to serve as a peace officer and that her continued employment would pose unacceptable risks to departmental integrity, operational effectiveness, and public confidence.
Retaliation
Firefighter Did Not Have To Exhaust County Remedies To Pursue Whistleblower Lawsuit.
A County firefighter with more than 20 years of service raised concerns about safety violations related to the maintenance of fire extinguishers on County fire engines. After reporting these issues to his supervisors in 2020, the Department removed him from fire prevention duties. The firefighter believed that the action was retaliation for his whistleblowing. He filed internal complaints with the County’s Office of Human Resources and the Civil Service Commission. But later withdrew his appeal after being assured that the issues would be addressed.
In 2022, the County investigated the firefighter for alleged misconduct and terminated his employment for violations of County rules. The firefighter submitted a claim under the Government Claims Act, which the County denied, and sued the County for retaliation for his whistleblower activities.
The superior court granted the County’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court ruled that the firefighter could not pursue his whistleblower action because he did not exhaust available administrative remedies by first appealing his termination to the Civil Service Commission. The court also denied the firefighter leave to amend.
The California Court of Appeal reversed. No exhaustion of internal administrative remedies was required because the County’s ordinances and rules did not establish a clear procedure for presenting, investigating, and resolving whistleblower retaliation claims. The Court distinguished general disciplinary appeal processes from administrative remedies for discrimination or harassment, and found that the County had no comparable remedy for whistleblower retaliation. The Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the superior court. The decision clarifies that if an internal administrative remedy does not specifically cover a particular claim, exhaustion of that remedy is not a prerequisite to filing suit.
Romero v. County of Kern, (2025) 116 Cal. App. 5th 1189.
PUBLIC RECORDS
City Not Required To Preserve Records Withheld As Exempt From Disclosure.
The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, a nonprofit organization, requested public records from the City of Gilroy related to police involvement in homeless encampment cleanups. The requests included body-worn camera footage from the City’s Police Department. The City produced some records, withheld certain footage as exempt under the California Public Records Act’s (CPRA’s) law enforcement exemptions, and advised the Law Foundation that older footage had been destroyed pursuant to its standard records-retention policy.
The Law Foundation sued, alleging that the City violated the CPRA by, among other things, failing to preserve records that were exempt from disclosure. The City won this issue in the trial court, the California Court of Appeal, and finally in the California Supreme Court.
The California Supreme Court framed the records retention question as: When an agency responds to a CPRA request by asserting that the requested records fall under a statutory exemption from disclosure, does the CPRA require that
the agency retain the records for three years from the date the exemption is invoked? The Court answered no. The CPRA contains no express record-retention requirement tied to CPRA requests, and the Court declined to read such a duty into the law. Record retention and preservation obligations arise, if at all, from other statutes, regulations, or a public agency’s own retention policies.
City of Gilroy v. Superior Court, 2026 Cal. LEXIS 1 (Cal. Supreme Court 2026).
Retirement
No Voter Approval Needed For Charter City To Issue Pension Obligation Bonds.
The City of San Jose’s City Charter requires the City to maintain an actuarially sound retirement plan. The City chose to refinance a budget shortfall by issuing pension obligation bonds. The bonds were intended to reduce longterm costs by paying down the liability at a lower interest rate. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association challenged the plan, arguing that the bonds would create new municipal debt exceeding annual revenues, and therefore, the California Constitution required the plan be approved by two-thirds of the voters.
The superior court ruled for the City, finding that the unfunded pension liability was a legally imposed obligation exempt from the constitutional debt limit. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that the bonds did not create new debt because the obligation already existed.
The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that even if the bonds constituted a new debt, the City’s duty to fund its pension system is an obligation imposed by law rather than a voluntary one. As a result, the constitutional exception to the local debt limitation applied, and voter approval was not required. The Court emphasized that the debt limitation does not constrain the City’s choice of methods for meeting its legally mandated pension obligations.
City of San Jose v. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers, (2025) 18 Cal. 5th 1106.
new to the Firm!
Andrew Dorado joins LCW as Senior Counsel, bringing extensive experience in employee benefits, fiduciary compliance, and advising public and nonprofit organizations on complex regulatory and employment-related issues.
Corrigan Lewis is a new Associate whose practice focuses on complex litigation, civil rights, and disability law. She brings experience in state and federal courts, advising and litigating on behalf of individuals with disabilities, and supporting compliance with state and federal civil rights laws.
Did You Know?
Whether you are looking to impress your colleagues or just want to learn more about the law, LCW has your back! Use and share these fun legal facts about various topics in public safety.
• In September 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 627, which requires a California law enforcement agency to maintain and publicly post a written policy regarding the use of facial coverings by July 1, 2026. The policy must also include a requirement that all sworn personnel refrain from wearing facial coverings when performing their duties, subject to some exceptions. (Gov. Code section 7289.)
• This bill also adds section 185.5 to the Penal Code, which states a law enforcement officer shall not wear a facial covering that conceals or obscures their facial identity, except as specifically authorized in this law.
class consists of two
Consortium Call Of The Month
Members of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore’s employment relations consortiums may speak directly to an LCW attorney free of charge regarding questions that are not related to ongoing legal matters that LCW is handling for the agency, or that do not require in-depth research, document review, or written opinions. Consortium call questions run the gamut of topics, from leaves of absence to employment applications, disciplinary concerns and more. This feature describes an interesting consortium call and how the question was answered. We will protect the confidentiality of client communications with LCW attorneys by changing or omitting details.
Question:
Can employers seek information, such as prior arrests, from a person who applied to be a peace officer?
Answer:
Employers may obtain arrest and detention information for persons seeking employment as a peace officer, for persons already employed as a peace officer, and for persons seeking employment for positions in the Department of Justice or other criminal justice agencies. (Labor Code section 432.7.)
Harassment Prevention Training for Law Enforcement Agencies
Protect Your Department. Build a Culture of Accountability.
Is your agency compliant with California’s mandatory harassment prevention training laws?
LCW’s Harassment Prevention Training for Law Enforcement is designed exclusively for law enforcement agencies. Through police specific scenarios, legal insights, interactive discussions, and practical tools, we help officers and leaders build respectful, professional workplaces to stay legally protected.
• Meets all SB 1343 & SB 778 mandates under California Government Code section 12950.1
• 2-Hour Supervisory & 1-Hour Non-Supervisory Options
• Law enforcement specific content delivered by legal experts
• Available Live or On-Demand, with certification and LMS compatibility
Schedule Today: info@lcwlegal.com
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore