Richardson v. City & County of San Francisco Police Commission
154 Cal. Rptr. 3d 145
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Richardson, a San Francisco Police Inspector, was terminated for misconduct from three incidents (Antioch incident, unauthorized CLETS searches, and check fraud).
- CLETS: 48 unauthorized searches (2006–2007) of a confidential database involving Richardson’s girlfriend and others; agency treated as administrative violations, not criminal prosecutions at that time.
- Check fraud: Richardson participated in a scheme involving checks from a third party, leading to substantial alleged losses; multiple jurisdictions investigated; district attorney declined prosecution in December 2008; tolling of statute of limitations.
- Antioch incident: June 7, 2007, Richardson’s Antioch home was entered by police; dispute over whether she obstructed officers or behaved unprofessionally; later events included Tasering and arrest procedures.
- Disciplinary action: Commission sustained Antioch, CLETS, and check-fraud specifications; petition for writ of administrative mandamus denied; San Francisco Superior Court affirmed; Richardson appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of CLETS and check-fraud charges | Richardson | San Francisco | Charges timely under §3304(d)(2) tolling |
| Antioch incident—exclusion of evidence | Richardson | San Francisco | Exclusionary rule not applied; specifications sustained |
| Conflict of interest in mandamus proceeding | Richardson | San Francisco | Screens valid; no due process violation; declaration admissible in mandamus |
| Whether termination was excessive | Richardson | San Francisco | Termination not excessive; check-fraud alone justified termination |
| Use of first-entry profanity in findings | Richardson | San Francisco | Findings supported by second-entry conduct; no need to rely on profanity issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Parra v. City and County of San Francisco, 144 Cal.App.4th 977 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (describes PSOBRA tolling and purposes)
- Breslin v. City and County of San Francisco, 146 Cal.App.4th 1064 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (criminal investigation tolling and limitations analysis under §3304(d)(2)(A))
- Gikas v. Zolin, 6 Cal.4th 841 (Cal. 1993) (exclusionary rule in civil/administrative proceedings—balancing test for deterrence and integrity of process)