Bacilio v. City of L. A., 28 Cal. App. 5th 717

On March 30, 2011, LAPD officers Bacilio and Escobar responded to a call; allegations later arose that Escobar sexually assaulted a resident and Bacilio may have aided by falsifying his DFAR entries.
The LAPD Internal Affairs opened both administrative and criminal investigations into Escobar, Bacilio, and a third officer; the lead investigator presented the matter to the LA County District Attorney (DA) on June 3, 2013.
On August 6, 2013, a deputy DA orally told the LAPD investigator she "most likely" would not file charges and said it was okay to conduct administrative interviews; the investigator recorded that the prosecutor said she was not going to file.
On October 3, 2013, the DA’s office issued a signed Charge Evaluation Worksheet formally declining to file charges against all three officers, citing insufficient evidence and statute-of-limitations concerns.
The LAPD served Bacilio with POBRA notice in September 2014 and later sustained one administrative charge; Bacilio challenged timeliness under POBRA, arguing tolling ended with the DA’s August oral comment rather than the October written declination.
The trial court and appellate court held that tolling under POBRA continued until a final determination not to prosecute (the October 3 declination), so the administrative action was timely; judgment affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does tolling under Gov. Code § 3304(d)(2)(A) for a criminal investigation end?	Tolling ends when the prosecutor orally advised the investigator (Aug 6) that she was not going to file charges.	Tolling ends only when there is a final determination not to prosecute (e.g., formal written declination).	Tolling ends when a final determination not to prosecute and to close the criminal investigation is made (Oct 3 written declination).

Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. State Personnel Bd., 247 Cal.App.4th 700 (2016) (statutory interpretation standard and tolling context)
Daugherty v. City & County of San Francisco, 24 Cal.App.5th 928 (2018) (tolling covers entire duration of pending criminal investigation)
Lucio v. City of Los Angeles, 169 Cal.App.4th 793 (2008) (agency log or formal end indicating lack of criminal prima facie ends tolling)
Richardson v. City & County of San Francisco Police Com., 214 Cal.App.4th 671 (2013) (rejecting an "active investigation" test as unworkable; emphasizing formal end)
Breslin v. City & County of San Francisco, 146 Cal.App.4th 1064 (2007) (tolling continues until criminal investigation formally ended)
Jackson v. City of Los Angeles, 111 Cal.App.4th 899 (2003) (POBRA’s purpose: speedy investigation and employee protections)
Parra v. City & County of San Francisco, 144 Cal.App.4th 977 (2006) (tolling continues as long as alleged misconduct remains the subject of criminal inquiry)
Mays v. City of Los Angeles, 43 Cal.4th 313 (2008) (policy supporting prompt resolution to avoid lingering investigations)