QUIHUIS

QUIHUIS v. City of Los Angeles

Good Law
159 Cal. App. 4th 443·71 Cal. Rptr. 3d 552
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 26, 2008B196367California1,398 words

Opinion

Opinion

JACKSON. [*]

Following a hearing before the Board of Rights, appellant Robert Quihuis (Quihuis) was removed from his position as a police officer for the City of Los Angeles (City). Quihuis petitioned the superior court for a peremptory writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. He argued that the City violated his right to receive notice of the proposed disciplinary action against him within the one-year statute of limitations contained in Government Code section 3304, subdivision (d). [1] The trial court disagreed and denied the petition. We reverse.

On November 18, 2003, detectives from the San Bernardino Sheriffs Department responded to a report of domestic violence involving a possible hostage situation. Quihuis, who lived in the vicinity, returned home after running errands to find an unmarked police car parked in front of his garage. Quihuis asked Detective Robert Emmerson (Emmerson), who was in the process of conducting interviews, to move the police car blocking his garage. Emmerson told Quihuis that he was conducting police business and that the car would be moved as soon as possible. The detective resumed his interviews. Quihuis interrupted…

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.