Benach v. County of Los Angeles

FRANCISCO BENACH, Appellant v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Respondent C.A. 2nd, Div. 3, No. B110001 S067274 California Supreme Court Filed March 11, 1998
        Respondents' petition for review DENIED.
        Kennard, J., is of the opinion the petition should be granted.
        The Reporter of Decisions is directed not to publish in the Official Appellate Reports the opinion in the above-entitled appeal filed December 5, 1997, which appears as modification at 60 Cal.App.4th 637. (Cal. Const., art VI, section 14, rule 976, Cal. Rules of Court.)



(Editor Note - For your convenience we reprint below the Daily Journal's Ruling Column brief that summarized the earlier decision of the lower court.)



GOVERNMENT

Failure to Disclose Taped Interviews Conducted For Deputy's Disciplinary Proceeding Violates Statutory Duty and Precludes Immunity.
        The C.A. 2nd had determined that the failure to disclose copies of interviews taped during an investigation of a deputy sheriff, violated the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, and that the county of Los Angeles was not immune from suit for the violation.
        Francisco Benach became a deputy sheriff with the county in 1973. In 1993, Benach was an air observer and helicopter pilot for the department. While flying a mission with another deputy, Scott Osborne, an argument ensued. When the helicopter landed, Osborne assaulted Benach. Both men blamed each other for the incident. Pending an investigation, Benach was suspended but Osborne was not. During the investigation, the department conducted interviews of Benach, Osborne, and others which were audio-taped. Benach was not given copies of the tapes even after he requested them. The department terminated Benach on the basis of Osborne's statements. A Civil Service Commission (CSC) review was conducted. The department continued to allege that the audio tapes of the interviews had been lost. However, when the hearing officer stated that the loss of the tapes was a serious matter, the tapes were "found" within 20 minutes. Benach discovered that portions of the tapes were missing and more tapes were produced by the department. A forensic expert testified for Benach that portions of the tapes had been deliberately and permanently erased. On the final day of the CSC hearing, the department introduced false testimony and misleading records. Benach learned for the first time that over 40 letters of commendation were missing from his personnel file. The CSC recommended Benach be suspended for 10 days rather than terminated. Benach filed a claim against the county for damages based on the failure to produce the tapes and the destruction of favorable material from his personnel file. Benach contended the department's actions violated the Act, his First Amendment rights of free speech, and his substantive and procedural due process rights. The trial court sustained the county's demurrer without leave to amend under governmental immunity.
        The C.A. 2nd reversed. Government Code Section 821.6 immunizes government employees who institute and prosecute administrative disciplinary proceedings against other public employees. Such immunity applies even to conduct that is unlawful, such as wrongfully failing to disclose evidence or destroying Benach's commendations. However, Benach had a statutory right under the Act to obtain copies of the tapes. "Because the Act imposes such specific duties on public employees, governmental immunity pursuant to section 821.6 will not apply to shield [the county] from liability for violating them." However, Benach was not entitled to damages, but only injunctive relief for the violation of the Act. Benach could amend his complaint to state causes of action for violations of his civil rights.
        Benach v. County of Los Angeles, C.A. 2nd, No. B110001, Filed December 31, 1997, by Croskey, J.
        The full text of this case appears in 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 85, January 6, 1998.