Paterson

*1396 Opinion

Appellants Robert and Scarlett Paterson (hereafter R. Paterson or S. Paterson, respectively) are Los Angeles police officers, married to each other. In December 2004,R. Paterson called in sick. A supervisor, Lieutenant Raymond Garvin, suspected that he was not sick, but was abusing sick time. Garvin instructed Sergeant Adrian Legaspi to go to the Paterson home to find out. Legaspi spoke to both appellants, and both were the subject of internal LAPD (Los Angeles Police Department) misconduct complaints alleging that they had made false and misleading statements to Legaspi. Both were temporarily relieved from duty, but were later exonerated by the board of rights. They were reinstated and received backpay for the time of the suspension.

They sued the City of Los Angeles (City), Legaspi, and others. 1 As to the City, the cause of action was violation of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Gov. Code, §§ 3300-3313), 2 which “requires that law enforcement agencies throughout the state afford minimum procedural rights to their peace officer employees.” (Pasadena Police Officers Assn. v. City of Pasadena (1990) 51 Cal.3d 564, 572 [ 273 Cal.Rptr. 584 ,…

I concur.

The question of whether a “sick check” or question asked constituted an investigation or interrogation subject to the protections of Government. Code section 3303 was not a ground upon which the summary judgment motion was made or the summary judgment was rendered. On appeal, the City of Los Angeles seems to suggest that a sick check automatically falls under the exemption provided for in Government Code section 3303, subdivision (i) (Gov. Code, § 3303 rights do “not apply to any interrogation of a public safety officer in the normal course of duty ... or other routine . . . contact with . . . any other public safety officer”).

*1406 As the facts submitted by plaintiff show, this suggestion is not correct. But not every “sick check” qualifies as the type of investigation or interrogation that would make applicable the rights under Government Code section 3303. Whether there was a violation in this case, and, if so, what the appropriate remedy should be are matters to be determined by the trial court. (See Gales v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1596, 1602 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 460 ]; DiPirro v. Bondo Corp. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 150 [ 62 Cal.Rptr.3d 722 ].)

ARMSTRONG, Acting P. J. —

Appellants Robert and Scarlett Paterson are Los Angeles police officers, married to each other. In December 2004, R. Paterson called in sick. A supervisor, Lieutenant Raymond Garvin, suspected that he was not sick, but was abusing sick time. Garvin instructed Sergeant Adrian Legaspi to go to the Paterson home to find out. Legaspi spoke to both appellants, and both were the subject of internal LAPD (Los Angeles Police Department) misconduct complaints alleging that they had made false and misleading statements to Legaspi. Both were temporarily relieved from duty, but were later exonerated by the board of rights. They were reinstated and received backpay for the time of the suspension.

They sued the City of Los Angeles (City), Legaspi, and others. [1] As to the City, the cause of action was violation of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Gov. Code, §§ 3300-3313), [2] which "requires that law enforcement agencies throughout the state afford minimum procedural rights to their peace officer employees." ( Pasadena Police Officers Assn. v. City of Pasadena (1990) 51 Cal.3d 564, 572 [ 273 Cal.Rptr. 584 , 797 P.2d 608 ], fn. omitted.) In…