Upland Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Upland

Good Law
111 Cal. App. 4th 1294·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1407·2003 Daily Journal DAR 10389·4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 629·173 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2367
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 11, 2003E032607California5,821 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hollenhorst, J.

The Public Safety Officers Procedural Biff of Rights Act (Act) (Gov. Code, § 3300 et seq.) gives a peace officer who is under investigation the right to a representative of his or her choice under certain conditions. (§ 3303, subd. (i).) The first-impression issue presented by this case is whether this right of representation is limited in any way.

The trial court granted a preliminary injunction “prohibiting [the Upland Police Department] from proceeding with an interrogation of an officer if the representative of his or her choice is unavailable.” As described below, the preliminary injunction was subsequently made permanent to facilitate this appeal.

The City of Upland and its police department (collectively, the City) appeal the issuance of the injunction, contending that the statute must be read to include a reasonableness requirement. Otherwise, an officer could prevent any interrogation by choosing a representative who is temporarily or permanently unavailable.

We agree with the City and amici curiae and reverse the trial court’s granting of the preliminary injunction.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 20, 2001, Sergeant Adams of the Upland Police…

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.