Binkley

Binkley v. City of Long Beach

Bad Law
16 Cal. App. 4th 1795·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 713·20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 903·93 Daily Journal DAR 8829·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5283
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 8, 1993B069234California5,107 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fukuto, J.

Appellants, the City of Long Beach (hereafter the City), and James C. Hankla, City Manager of the City of Long Beach (hereafter Hankla), appeal from the judgment of the superior court granting a peremptory writ of mandamus in favor of respondent, Lawrence L. Binkley, the embattled Chief of Police for the City of Long Beach. The writ set aside appellants’ directive of March 2, 1992, confirming an earlier decision by Hankla to remove Binkley from the position of chief of police effective February 14, 1992, and ordered appellants to grant respondent a new administrative appeal hearing in compliance with the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (hereafter the Act). (Gov. Code, § 3300 et seq.) The writ further prohibited Hankla from exercising any review authority over the administrative appeal hearing officer’s decision or findings of fact. Appellants contend that the administrative appeal process afforded to respondent, an at will employee serving at the pleasure of the city manager, fully complied with the requirements of the Act. We agree and reverse the judgment.

The Facts

The City is a charter city, governed by the “home rule” provisions of article XI,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.