State Personnel Board Orders Reinstatement of Porterville Peace Officer
Third Porterville Officer Ordered Returned to Work in Past Three Months
At its meeting on July 13, 2005, the State Personnel Board (SPB) issued a long-awaited decision ordering the reinstatement of Daryl Stone, a Department of Developmental Services (DDS) Peace Officer assigned to the Porterville Developmental Center. This decision comes only months following the SPB’s order to reinstate two other Porterville PO’s, in a separate case, which was reported previously on this site.
In spite of Officer Stone's flawless employment record and prior commendations, he was dismissed, effective January 30, 2004, based on allegations by two clinical staff members and a janitor that he angrily chased after and shoved the janitor who was passing through the sallyport into the Secured Treatment Area (STA) of the facility. Officer Stone, who is well respected by his co-workers and supervisors as being professional, courteous, and exceptional at problem solving, and has been recognized repeatedly for providing effective, and courteous assistance in crisis situations, denied the charges.
DDS Senior Investigator, Robert Friedman (who astonishingly served as both the criminal and internal affairs investigator of the charges), acting with the consent of his superiors, ardently pursued prosecution of criminal charges against Offcer Stone for assault under color of authority. Despite the fact the Tulare County District Attorney's Office initially declined prosecution, Friedman lobbied the D.A.'s Office and the case was ultimately filed. Friedman also instructed a D.A. Investigator he did not want the case plead down. Had the criminal charges been upheld, or a standard nolo contendre plea been entered, DDS would have had the means to justify dismissal based on the criminal matter alone.
In preparation for the SPB hearing, DDS appeared smug in its expectation of being able to rely on the criminal matter, along with an unemployment decision denying Officer Stone benefits, as a guarantee the SPB would uphold the dismissal, regardless of whether or not DDS could prove the factual allegations against him. However, the department, and Investigator Friedman, did not get their ‘easy-out’ here.
Joseph Arnold, the CAUSE LDF Panel Attorney representing Officer Stone in the criminal matter, was able to plead the case to a misdemeanor disturbance with no factual admission of guilt. Note: On August 17, 2005 Arnold petitioned the Court and Officer Stone's plea was set aside and the original criminal complaint was withdrawn. Officer Stone once again has a clean criminal record.
I was then able to successfully argue the criminal plea was legally barred from use in the SPB case. Similarly, I was able cite authority which prevented DDS from introducing the unemployment decision.
Forced now to justify the merits of dismissal of an officer with no prior discipline or complaints, and excellent performance reviews, DDS adopted an extreme view of the incident which even the janitor "victim" believed was overblown.
There was no dispute that some confusion occurred while the janitor and a co-worker were exchanging chits for keys at the sallyport prior to entering the STA, and that at some point the janitor made a wise-crack toward Officer Stone along the lines of “you guys went to school for this?” However, there was substantial dispute regarding Officer Stone's conduct when he then followed the janitor toward the STA to address his lack of respect for the security policies and the officers.
Two clinical staff members dubiously claimed the janitor’s wise-crack was not at all disrespectful and that Officer Stone was “out of control”. They reported he stormed out of the sallyport building, yelled rudely at the janitor, forcefully shoved him backwards several steps, and was abusive to one of them when she attempted to intervene. It was essentially this version of events that was set forth in the Notice of Adverse Action.
Over the course of the hearing, I was able to prove DDS' claims were not supported by the evidence. Ultimately, the SPB agreed DDS' portrayal of the incident was “overblown”, and not indicative of Officer Stone's performance.
In a futile attempt to show a pattern of out of control behavior by Officer Stone, DDS resurrected an incident from several months prior where he had spoken profanity while dealing with a disruptive client. Department officials had previously reviewed the incident and determined no corrective action was called for, however, they now claimed the conduct was a blatant violation of DDS' client abuse policy, and further evidence Officer Stone was “a loose cannon”. The SPB did not agree, and held that while they could not condone any use of profanity, Officer Stone's conduct was neither angry nor abusive and was merely an attempt to diffuse the situation with the client.
DDS' remaining attack was to include the charge of dishonesty. Knowing that regardless of the outcome of the other charges, an allegation of dishonesty is critical to the career of a peace officer, DDS claimed Officer Stone was dishonest during his investigative interview when he denied pushing the janitor. DDS also claimed he was dishonest immediately following the incident when he reported to his supervisor a confrontation with the janitor and a clinical staff member, but did not report he had pushed the janitor. After considering the evidence, the SPB summarily rejected DDS' claims, and dismissed all charges of dishonesty.
Ultimately, the SPB determined that DDS' version of events was not supported by the evidence and that Officer Stone's conduct did not justify dismissal. He was ordered back to work, with appropriate back pay and restoration of accrued benefits. Yesterday we learned Officer Stone has returned to work prior to his August 3, 2005 anticipated start date to work an overtime shift.
Officer Stone should be credited for his patience and professionalism throughout this matter. He endured several tedious days of hearing only to have the Board reject the Administrative Law Judge's proposed decision in order to hear the case itself. This meant an additional hearing before the Board and a frustrating delay in getting the Board’s final decision.
Finally, I would like to note that in preparation for this hearing I was struck by the abundance of support for the officer. Numerous PO's testified on his behalf, and many others appeared but did not testify after the ALJ acknowledged on the record that their testimony would be substantially similar to those already heard. This is indicative of Officer Stone's excellent service, and of the character of the PO’s at Porterville. It is clear their testimony was instrumental to the Board’s determination. I greatly appreciate the time and effort given by each of these individuals.
Officer Stone has expressed his appreciation for the efforts of his CAUSE LDF Panel Attorney as well as the CAUSE Legal attorneys who who represented him. His letter of thanks is attached at the link below.
Third Porterville Officer Ordered Returned to Work in Past Three Months
Source: Linda M. Kelly, Legal Counsel
Date: 8/8/2005
In spite of Officer Stone's flawless employment record and prior commendations, he was dismissed, effective January 30, 2004, based on allegations by two clinical staff members and a janitor that he angrily chased after and shoved the janitor who was passing through the sallyport into the Secured Treatment Area (STA) of the facility. Officer Stone, who is well respected by his co-workers and supervisors as being professional, courteous, and exceptional at problem solving, and has been recognized repeatedly for providing effective, and courteous assistance in crisis situations, denied the charges.
DDS Senior Investigator, Robert Friedman (who astonishingly served as both the criminal and internal affairs investigator of the charges), acting with the consent of his superiors, ardently pursued prosecution of criminal charges against Offcer Stone for assault under color of authority. Despite the fact the Tulare County District Attorney's Office initially declined prosecution, Friedman lobbied the D.A.'s Office and the case was ultimately filed. Friedman also instructed a D.A. Investigator he did not want the case plead down. Had the criminal charges been upheld, or a standard nolo contendre plea been entered, DDS would have had the means to justify dismissal based on the criminal matter alone.
In preparation for the SPB hearing, DDS appeared smug in its expectation of being able to rely on the criminal matter, along with an unemployment decision denying Officer Stone benefits, as a guarantee the SPB would uphold the dismissal, regardless of whether or not DDS could prove the factual allegations against him. However, the department, and Investigator Friedman, did not get their ‘easy-out’ here.
Joseph Arnold, the CAUSE LDF Panel Attorney representing Officer Stone in the criminal matter, was able to plead the case to a misdemeanor disturbance with no factual admission of guilt. Note: On August 17, 2005 Arnold petitioned the Court and Officer Stone's plea was set aside and the original criminal complaint was withdrawn. Officer Stone once again has a clean criminal record.
I was then able to successfully argue the criminal plea was legally barred from use in the SPB case. Similarly, I was able cite authority which prevented DDS from introducing the unemployment decision.
Forced now to justify the merits of dismissal of an officer with no prior discipline or complaints, and excellent performance reviews, DDS adopted an extreme view of the incident which even the janitor "victim" believed was overblown.
There was no dispute that some confusion occurred while the janitor and a co-worker were exchanging chits for keys at the sallyport prior to entering the STA, and that at some point the janitor made a wise-crack toward Officer Stone along the lines of “you guys went to school for this?” However, there was substantial dispute regarding Officer Stone's conduct when he then followed the janitor toward the STA to address his lack of respect for the security policies and the officers.
Two clinical staff members dubiously claimed the janitor’s wise-crack was not at all disrespectful and that Officer Stone was “out of control”. They reported he stormed out of the sallyport building, yelled rudely at the janitor, forcefully shoved him backwards several steps, and was abusive to one of them when she attempted to intervene. It was essentially this version of events that was set forth in the Notice of Adverse Action.
Over the course of the hearing, I was able to prove DDS' claims were not supported by the evidence. Ultimately, the SPB agreed DDS' portrayal of the incident was “overblown”, and not indicative of Officer Stone's performance.
In a futile attempt to show a pattern of out of control behavior by Officer Stone, DDS resurrected an incident from several months prior where he had spoken profanity while dealing with a disruptive client. Department officials had previously reviewed the incident and determined no corrective action was called for, however, they now claimed the conduct was a blatant violation of DDS' client abuse policy, and further evidence Officer Stone was “a loose cannon”. The SPB did not agree, and held that while they could not condone any use of profanity, Officer Stone's conduct was neither angry nor abusive and was merely an attempt to diffuse the situation with the client.
DDS' remaining attack was to include the charge of dishonesty. Knowing that regardless of the outcome of the other charges, an allegation of dishonesty is critical to the career of a peace officer, DDS claimed Officer Stone was dishonest during his investigative interview when he denied pushing the janitor. DDS also claimed he was dishonest immediately following the incident when he reported to his supervisor a confrontation with the janitor and a clinical staff member, but did not report he had pushed the janitor. After considering the evidence, the SPB summarily rejected DDS' claims, and dismissed all charges of dishonesty.
Ultimately, the SPB determined that DDS' version of events was not supported by the evidence and that Officer Stone's conduct did not justify dismissal. He was ordered back to work, with appropriate back pay and restoration of accrued benefits. Yesterday we learned Officer Stone has returned to work prior to his August 3, 2005 anticipated start date to work an overtime shift.
Officer Stone should be credited for his patience and professionalism throughout this matter. He endured several tedious days of hearing only to have the Board reject the Administrative Law Judge's proposed decision in order to hear the case itself. This meant an additional hearing before the Board and a frustrating delay in getting the Board’s final decision.
Finally, I would like to note that in preparation for this hearing I was struck by the abundance of support for the officer. Numerous PO's testified on his behalf, and many others appeared but did not testify after the ALJ acknowledged on the record that their testimony would be substantially similar to those already heard. This is indicative of Officer Stone's excellent service, and of the character of the PO’s at Porterville. It is clear their testimony was instrumental to the Board’s determination. I greatly appreciate the time and effort given by each of these individuals.
Officer Stone has expressed his appreciation for the efforts of his CAUSE LDF Panel Attorney as well as the CAUSE Legal attorneys who who represented him. His letter of thanks is attached at the link below.
Downloads:
| contactus@cslea.com | (800) 551-1414 | 2029 H Street • Sacramento, CA 95811 |