SUPERIOR COURT ORDERS REINSTATEMENT OF SACRAMENTO POLICE OFFICER By Kasey Christopher Clark and David E. Mastagni On December 19, 2002, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Talmadge Jones ordered the reinstatement of Sacramento Police Officer Dan Farnsworth. The ruling is a significant step toward Farnsworth’s reinstatement to the Department where he last worked in July 2000. The alleged bases of Farnsworth’s termination were failure to properly report an onduty vehicle accident, commingling of evidence, permitting an informant to drive without a license, alleged insubordination in internal affairs, and dishonesty in the preparation of a number of search warrants. On May 15, 2001, the City of Sacramento Civil Service Board adopted a proposed decision upholding Farnsworth’s termination despite eliminating all charges except those involving search warrant preparation. Farnsworth sought superior court review of the administrative decision through a petition for writ of mandate. Though the City of Sacramento ultimately conceded the allegations unrelated to the search warrants were no longer in dispute, Farnsworth argued the bogus nature of the charges was demonstrative of a malicious intent to separate him from employment at all costs. Before he was fired, the Department likewise failed to provide Farnsworth all materials upon which the disciplinary action was based. Farnsworth was able to obtain a copy of a “red file” (informant file) and internal investigation summaries in the midst of the administrative hearing. However, the hearing officer concluded he was not entitled to the opinions and analysis (“o’s & a’s”) of the IA case or the recommendations of his chain of command as to the propriety of discipline and level of punishment. In anticipation of superior court review, Farnsworth was able to obtain the o’s & a’s and recommendations by relying on the unpublished case of Wyley v. City of Sacramento, which was decided after Farnsworth’s administrative hearing. Wyley held Government Code section 3306.5 obligates the Sacramento Police Department to disclose all documents used in conjunction with discipline. The o’s & a’s and recommendations in this case revealed police managers were equivocal as to whether the investigation proved Farnsworth was dishonest in the preparation of the warrant affidavits in question. A deputy chief recommended Farnsworth be suspended and transferred from Narcotics, a recommendation apparently ignored by the chief. At the administrative hearing the lead internal investigator testified he had exhausted every avenue in gathering evidence which would prove or disprove Farnsworth’s guilt. The IA sergeant represented he had conducted a detailed search of all warrants written by Farnsworth from 1995 through September of 1998 and had located 40 warrants. Of these, the sergeant claimed nine were accompanied by affidavits which specified a window period contradicting the date of the actual narcotics informant buy. The Department argued more than 20 percent of Farnsworth’s warrants were defective. The hearing officer ruled two of the warrants in question were valid but concluded the seven remaining warrants were the product of dishonesty rather than carelessness or neglect. He upheld Farnsworth’s termination. Subsequent to the administrative hearing Farnsworth conducted his own review and was able to locate 68 total warrants, which markedly reduced the margin of error. Farnsworth also obtained a declaration from a supervising district attorney who advised the defective warrants would not have jeopardized the criminal prosecutions on which they were based. At oral argument, Kasey Christopher Clark argued the additional evidence and o’s & a’s/recommendations mitigated against a finding of dishonesty. Clark also pointed out two of the warrant affidavits specified a shortened window period, which was inconsistent with a dishonest motive. In his decision Judge Jones declined to admit as evidence the after-acquired warrants obtained by Farnsworth and the declaration of the supervising DA. The Court did allow in the material reviewed by the Department in conjunction with the imposition of discipline. In ruling on the warrant affidavits the Court stated: The Court is not persuaded that the nature of the discrepancies indicates dishonesty. Significantly, it appeared from the evidence that the discrepancies would not necessarily have invalidated the search warrants. The discrepancies were not major. In virtually all of the cases the date of the actual ‘buy’ was only one day outside the period stated on the affidavit. While this put those ‘buys’ outside the seven-day period that the Department required as a matter of policy, the actual ‘buys’ were still within the period of time in which, under applicable Constitutional standards, a search warrant could have been granted. Moreover, in some cases the date of the actual ‘buy’ was within the Department’s usual period of seven days, but the discrepancy occurred because [Farnsworth] erroneously stated a six-day ‘buy window’ in his affidavit. Furthermore, the evidence also demonstrated that a ‘buy’ that had become ‘stale’ under Department policy could be ‘refreshed’ without any particular difficulty. Therefore, the Court is not persuaded that [Farnsworth] had any motive to lie in the affidavits, or that there was any particular benefit to him for doing so. Based on this finding, the Court ordered Farnsworth reinstated with back pay and benefits subject to any suspension the Civil Service Board might impose on remand. Farnsworth’s reputation for honesty and integrity and the fact he had no prior history of discipline were to be considered by the Board on remand. Rather than accept the Court’s decision, the City of Sacramento appealed to the Third District Court of Appeal. Mastagni, Holstedt & Amick is seeking Farnsworth’s immediate reinstatement pending a decision on appeal. Kasey Christopher Clark represented Dan Farnsworth. Mr. Clark is a senior associate attorney with Mastagni, Holstedt & Amick. David E. Mastagni is corporate counsel for the Sacramento Police Officers Association and an associate with Mastagni, Holstedt & Amick.