SUPERIOR COURT ORDERS WOODLAND POLICE OFFICER REINSTATED
By David J. Garcia

City of Woodland Police Officer Gina Bell has returned to work after a convincing victory in the Yolo County Superior Court. The reinstatement came after the city's Personnel Board cleared Officer Bell of alleged failure to properly investigate a traffic accident and dishonesty.

In a 25-page decision, the Board exonerated Officer Bell and recommended the City Manager drop all charges and reinstate Officer Bell. Despite the Personnel Board’s findings and recommendation, the City Manager arbitrarily decided to terminate Officer Bell. The City Manager’s decision to terminate Officer Bell forced her to file a writ of mandate in Superior Court in order to obtain reinstatement.

The allegations against Officer Bell arose when the mother of an accident victim complained to the Police Department that the other driver had not been arrested even though he was "obviously" intoxicated. Officer Bell, a new officer, had written a report erroneously describing her efforts to determine whether the driver was under the influence as "a series of field sobriety tests." She based her determination the driver was not impaired on observations and an E-PAS test, but not on other "standard" FSTs. She cited, but did not arrest, the driver.

Officer Bell Conducted a Competent Investigation

Ignoring the Personnel Board's lengthy findings supporting Officer Bell's conduct, the City Manager minimized Officer Bell’s investigation and assessment of the driver’s impairment. The Court criticized the City Manager’s decision and found that Officer Bell performed a competent investigation. The Court focused on several areas including that Officer Bell observed the driver for objective signs of impairment and determined that the driver was not impaired, that the slight odor of alcohol was the only symptom of possible impairment that Officer Bell had observed, Officer Bell used the E-PAS device to confirm her observations and to eliminate the possibility of impairment, and officers within the Woodland Police Department, including those holding the rank of detective and sergeant, testified that they and other officers used investigation techniques similar to those Officer Bell used on June 26, 2003.

The Court also relied on Woodland Police Department General Order 624.10.B to expose the Department’s ambiguous guidelines for DUI related investigations. The Court found that even in the context of a DUI investigation, the general order does not require an officer to administer the standardized FSTs in every circumstance or that FSTs must be conducted at an early stage in an officer's investigation. On its face, the general order permits officers to use the alcohol breath screening device to assist with determining impairment. This is exactly what Officer Bell did on June 26, 2003.

Officer Bell Was Not Dishonest

The Court disagreed with the City Manager's unsupported finding that Officer Bell was dishonest in her report when she included the phrase, "I administered a series of filed sobriety tests." The Court focused on the fact that Officer Bell relied on the Statewide Integrated Reporting System (SWITRS) Manual for the operative phrase. Officer Bell had copied the phrase nearly verbatim from the SWITRS manual. As a result, there was no evidence to establish that Officer Bell deliberately lied in her report when describing her actions during the investigation.

Likewise, the Court found the preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Officer Bell after her internal affairs interview ended. The Court found it "troubling" that a statement which was crucial to the investigation was not recorded. Without a clear record, it was impossible to determine what Officer Bell said. The Court also criticized the internal affairs Lieutenant's investigation for failing to record other witness interviews. The Court found the Lieutenant's recollection of the IA interviews "problematic" because the interview summaries omitted the bulk of the substance of the conversations with various witnesses. The interview summaries left the Court to guess what was actually said by several witnesses in the investigation.

The Court found that the preponderance of the evidence did not support any of the city manager's findings against Officer Bell. As a result, Officer Bell was reinstated with full back pay as a police officer with the City of Woodland Police Department. Officer Bell is grateful to the PORAC Legal Defense Fund for the support in filing the writ of mandate to enforce her rights and to the Woodland Professional Police Employees Association for assisting with her defense.

David J. Garcia is an associate labor attorney at Mastagni, Holstedt & Amick and represents law enforcement officers throughout California. He represented Gina Bell in her administrative appeal and petition for writ of mandate.