Judge James C. Chalfant, Case Number: 22STCP01361, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Petitioner Ryan Maddex (“Maddex”) seeks a writ of mandate directing Respondent Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission (“Commission”) and Real Parties-in-Interest County of Los Angeles (“County”) and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (“LASD” or the “Department”) to set aside his discharge as deputy sheriff.

The court has read and considered the opening brief, opposition, and reply, and renders the following tentative decision.

Petitioner Maddex filed the verified Petition on April 15, 2022, alleging a cause of action for administrative writ of mandate. The Petition alleges in pertinent part as follows.

Maddex was a deputy sheriff with LASD. On March 3, 2016, the Department served Maddex with a Letter of Intention to discharge him for violations of Manual of Policy and Procedures (“MPP”) sections 3-01/050.10; 3-01/030.05, 3-01/000.13, 3-10/050.20, 3-01/030.10, and 3-01/100.35. In a letter dated March 31, 2016, the Department notified Maddex that it was imposing the discipline of discharge, effective March 30, 2016.

Maddex requested an evidentiary hearing to contest his discharge. The Commission’s hearing officer held a hearing on January 19 and 20, 2017, and over several months in 2019. On May 29, 2020, the hearing officer submitted his proposed decision, finding that LASD had established the underlying allegations. Instead of discharge, the hearing officer recommended a 30-day suspension.

The Commission issued a new proposed decision that imposed discharge. Maddex submitted timely objections. The Commission overruled the objections and adopted the final decision. The notice of the final decision did not include an affidavit or certificate of mailing, and it was not properly served upon Maddex as required by CCP section 1094.6(b), (f).

Maddex seeks a writ of mandate vacating the Commission’s decision and compelling the Commission, County, and LASD to rescind his discharge, reinstate him, and restore all emoluments of employment related to such improper actions. Maddex also will seek attorney’s fees and costs.

On April 29, 2022, Maddex served the County with the Petition and Summons by substitute service, effective May 9, 2022.

On May 2, 2022, Maddex served the Commission with the Petition and Summons by substitute service, effective May 12, 2022.

On May 4, 2022, Maddex served LASD with the Petition and Summons by substitute service, effective May 14, 2022.

On May 19, 2022, the Commission filed notice of no beneficial interest in the outcome of this case.

CCP section 1094.5 is the administrative mandamus provision which structures the procedure for judicial review of adjudicatory decisions rendered by administrative agencies. Topanga Ass’n for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, (“Topanga”) (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-15.

CCP section 1094.5 does not on its face specify which cases are subject to independent review, leaving that issue to the courts. Fukuda v. City of Angels, (“Fukuda”) (1999) 20 Cal.4th 805, 811. In cases reviewing decisions which affect a vested, fundamental right the trial court exercises independent judgment on the evidence. Bixby v. Pierno, (“Bixby”) (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 143; see CCP §1094.5(c). The independent judgment standard of review applies to administrative findings in cases involving a law enforcement officer’s vested property interest in his employment. Barber v. Long Beach Civil Service Comm’n, (1996) 45 Cal.App.4^th 652, 658.

Under the independent judgment test, “the trial court not only examines the administrative record for errors of law but also exercises its independent judgment upon the evidence disclosed in a limited trial de novo.” Bixby, supra, 4 Cal.3d at 143. The court must draw its own reasonable inferences from the evidence and make its own credibility determinations. Morrison v. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles Board of Commissioners, (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 860, 868. In short, the court substitutes its judgment for the agency’s regarding the basic facts of what happened, when, why, and the credibility of witnesses. Guymon v. Board of Accountancy, (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 1010, 1013-16.

“In exercising its independent judgment, the trial court must afford a strong presumption of correctness concerning the administrative findings, and the party challenging the administrative decision bears the burden of convincing the court that the administrative findings are contrary to the weight of the evidence.” Fukuda, supra, 20 Cal.4th at 817. Unless it can be demonstrated by petitioner that the agency’s actions are not grounded upon any reasonable basis in law or any substantial basis in fact, the courts should not interfere with the agency’s discretion or substitute their wisdom for that of the agency. Bixby, supra, 4 Cal.3d 130, 150-51; Bank of America v. State Water Resources Control Board, (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 198, 208.

The agency’s decision must be based on a preponderance of the evidence presented at the hearing. Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Superior Court, (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 860, 862. The hearing officer is only required to issue findings that give enough explanation so that parties may determine whether, and upon what basis, to review the decision. Topanga, supra, 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-15. Implicit in CCP section 1094.5 is a requirement that the agency set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order. Id. at 115.

An agency is presumed to have regularly performed its official duties (Evid. Code §664), and the petitioner therefore has the burden of proof. Steele v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission, (1958) 166 Cal.App.2d 129, 137. “[T]he burden of proof falls upon the party attacking the administrative decision to demonstrate wherein the proceedings were unfair, in excess of jurisdiction or showed prejudicial abuse of discretion. Afford v. Pierno, (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 682, 691.

The propriety of a penalty imposed by an administrative agency is a matter in the discretion of the agency, and its decision may not be disturbed unless there has been a manifest abuse of discretion. Lake v. Civil Service Commission, (“Lake”) (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 224, 228. The Commission’s decision must be “an arbitrary, capricious, or patently abusive exercise of discretion” to be overruled by the trial court. If there is “any reasonable basis to sustain it,” the penalty should be upheld. County of Los Angeles v. Civil Service Com. of County of Los Angeles, (“Montez”) (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 871, 877. “Only in an exceptional case will an abuse of discretion be shown because reasonable minds cannot differ on the appropriate penalty.” Ibid.

In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the court must examine the extent of the harm to the public service, the circumstances surrounding the misconduct, and the likelihood that such conduct will recur. Skelly v. State Personnel Board, (“Skelly”) (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, 217-18. Neither an appellate court nor a trial court is free to substitute its discretion for that of the administrative agency concerning the degree of punishment imposed. Nightingale v. State Personnel Board, (“Nightingale”) (1972) 7 Cal.3d 507, 515. The policy consideration underlying such allocation of authority is the expertise of the administrative agency in determining penalty questions. Cadilla v. Board of Medical Examiners, (“Cadilla”) (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 961.

A detective sergeant is responsible for having every case assigned to the station detectives reviewed to determine if it has been appropriately classified as Active or Pending. AR 336 (MPP §4-01/020.20). All cases will be reviewed a second time regardless of the initial classification. AR 336 (MPP §4-01/020.20).

The detective sergeant will be responsible for identifying, collecting and reporting data for managerial purposes on each case assigned to a detective unit. AR 336 (MPP §4-01/020.20). Detective and patrol sergeants share the responsibility of improving and maintaining the quality of preliminary investigations. AR 336 (MPP §4-01/020.20).

Supervisors of LASD investigative units should develop a method of recording cases that will facilitate the review process. AR 338 (MPP §4-01/020.55). Monthly, supervisors should determine if cases are being closed out or being made inactive in a timely manner. AR 338 (MPP §4-01/020.55).

Field Operations Directive 11-01 (“FO 11-01”) states that investigators shall retain copies of all LASD letterhead correspondence in each case file. AR 524. LASD supervisors shall review the contents of their subordinates’ cases files and personally approve each case closure. AR 524. Supervisors shall personally initial the case closure report forms, next to their printed name, indicating approval of the Los Angeles Regional Crime Information System (“LARCIS”) case clearance codes, suspect codes, evidence disposition, proper notifications being made, and case closure procedures being followed. AR 102, 524. The approving supervisor shall also sign the case journal, indicating concurrence with the case outcome and the reasonableness of time, effort and diligence devoted to the case by the investigator. AR 102, 524.

Supervisors shall ensure proper diligence and justification to keep each case open beyond 30 days. AR 524. Cases may remain “active” upon concurrence of the supervisor. AR 524. Each supervisor’s review shall be noted on the investigator’s corresponding case journal. When a case is to remain active in excess of 60 days from the date of assignment, the investigator shall provide the team supervisor with justification to keep the case open. AR 524. Supervisors shall review at least once every 30 days cases that are open in excess of 60 days. AR 524. If a case remains active in excess of 90 days, the investigator shall submit a supplemental report or memorandum to the detective supervisor documenting the latest status of the investigation and justification to keep the case open. AR 525. Supervisors shall brief the detective commander every 30 days with the latest case status update for any cases that remain open beyond 90 days. AR 525.

FO 11-01 charges supervisors with ensuring that all case assignments to detectives are entered into LARCIS without unnecessary delay. AR 525. Only cases assigned to and investigated by Detective Bureau shall be assigned to investigators in the corresponding “Detective Bureau Team” (“Detective Bureau Team”) in LARCIS. AR 525. The Detective Bureau Team in LARCIS shall not reflect case assignments to “Patrol.” AR 525.

Supervisors shall review the LARCIS “active/assigned” report at least twice per month and ensure that only currently assigned detectives have cases that are active. AR 525. Detective supervisors shall reconcile the active/unassigned management report in LARCIS at least once per week. AR 525. Team members who leave a detective bureau shall be made inactive in LARCIS by the detective supervisor, or his/her appointed designee, without unnecessary delay. AR 525.

Case clearance codes shall be consistent with suspect codes used to clear each case, and only approved codes shall be used. AR 525. Code 120 is an inactive case with no further workable information. AR 2176. Code 200 is a case that was cleared with an adult arrested. AR 2176. Code 214 is an exception for clearing a case where the victim refused to prosecute. AR 2176.[1]

On March 14, 2012, LASD Lieutenant Lawrence Del Meese (“Del Meese”) reported a 2011-2012 inspection of Carson Station Detective Bureau (the “Detective Bureau”) operations. AR 473. The report confirmed that the station met all expectations except for case management and court deputy procedures. AR 473. Case files met the expectations outlined in FO 11-01. AR 475.

The report noted that Carson Station detectives used CLEATS to manage their cases. AR 475. It is important that all detectives both continue to use CLEATS for case management and monitor time expended not investigating a case. AR 475.

Maddex was hired in 2002. AR 101. After his service as a patrol officer, he was promoted to detective and assigned to the Carson Station Detective Bureau. See AR 101.[2] He began his assignment at Carson Station in June 2012. See AR 101. At Carson Station, Maddex received some training on LARCIS and CLEATS from Detective Gustavo Ramirez (“Ramirez”). See AR 108-09.

Maddex’s 2012 performance evaluation was “outstanding.” AR 416. The evaluation stated that he had excellent work habits and worked well with his peers, professional staff, and supervisors. AR 419. In his first three months as a detective, he handled 66 cases with a 94.5% sole rate. AR 419. Sergeant Dan Holguin reported that Maddex was an invaluable asset who quietly and confidently conducted high-quality investigations without fanfare. AR 419.

Maddex’s 2013-2014 performance evaluation was “very good.” AR 413. The evaluation stated that he adjusted his workdays and hours as needed for the mission of the OSS team. AR 414. He generally exercised sound judgment when setting his priorities. AR 414. As to adaptability, Maddex continued to improve in his ability to shift his focus on a variety of investigative situations and accustomed himself to the task and mission that required the most attention. AR 414.

Since his employment, Maddex received four public, and nine unit commander, commendations. AR 542. Maddex’s only prior discipline is a written reprimand on September 9, 2014, for off-duty misconduct. See AR 101.

On August 31, 2014, Sergeant Jose J. Ramos (“Ramos”) was assigned to Carson Station. AR 2152. During a review of monthly case management reports, he discovered four cases that were assigned to Maddex and had been open for over 90 days. AR 2152. Ramos spoke with Maddex’s OSS Sgt. Francis Espeleta (“Espeleta”). AR 2152. Sgt. Espeleta said that Maddex’s OSS workload at times hindered his ability to complete other open cases, and also that Maddex took too long to close cases because he struggled to multitask when investigating. AR 2152.

After the identified cases remained open for two more months, Sgt. Ramos reiterated his concerns to Sgt. Espeleta. AR 2152. Sgt. Ramos had a brief conversation with Maddex in September 2014, who explained that he carried these cases over after his transfer to OSS. AR 2153.

On March 10, 2015, Maddex asked to meet with Sgt. Ramos. AR 2153. He informed Ramos that he had seven more outstanding cases. AR 2153. These were not open 2014 cases but rather seven cases open from 2013. AR 2153-55. When Ramos checked on LARCIS, six of these cases were marked as closed for various reasons. AR 2153-55. Maddex made clear that he felt compelled to complete these cases on his own without burdening other detectives by asking for help. AR 2155. However, he was unable to handle them or his current OSS cases in a timely manner. AR 2156. Maddex said that OSS Sgt. Espeleta constantly reminded him to finish his pre-OSS cases. AR 2156.

LASD’s Internal Affairs Bureau (“IAB”) began an investigation into Maddex’s performance. Pertinent statements during 2015 are as follows.

Sgt. Mike Austin (“Austin”) was Maddex’s former supervisor. Austin found Maddex to be a quiet, hard-working detective who was very thorough and methodical. AR 1068. In the one performance review, Austin rated him as outstanding. AR 1068.

His standard practice was to monitor open cases on LARCIS at least once every two weeks. AR 717. Austin would review at least bi-weekly the LARCIS 30-, 60-, and 90-day case reports and contact the detectives about any issues. AR 717. When an investigator closes out a case on LARCIS, it no longer appears on these reports. AR 717.

Requests for case extensions beyond 60 days were oral and extensions past 90 days were in writing to the lieutenant. AR 716. Austin wanted to look at the written memo first, but it was not a fast requirement. AR 716. Most cases were finished by the 120-day mark, except when the case sat in court as a misdemeanor for another 60-90 days. AR 716. Every detective, including Maddex, understood that LASD wanted to get cases done as quickly as possible, and that any case that took over 60 or 90 days would face scrutiny. AR 740.

At the 90-day mark of any open case, Austin would seriously examine the case status and order the detective to finish the case. AR 716. Although Austin did not always tell the detective this to his or her face, he would put a copy of the biweekly report on the detective’s chair to show how many cases were over 90 days old. AR 740.

A pending case does not appear on the biweekly report. AR 735. When a case is pending, Austin would sometimes give it to a case investigator to do some field work and determine if there’s anything that would activate the case. AR 734. Austin trusted the investigators to reactivate cases in LARCIS if they found something. AR 734.

An average investigator’s case load was between 9 and 16 cases. AR 738. They were mostly investigating robbery/assaults. AR 740. Maddex’s caseload at the Detective Bureau was mostly within this range. AR 740. He sometimes had domestic violence cases that increased his workload. AR 740. When that happened, Austin would assign new domestic violence cases to other detectives so that Maddex could reduce his caseload to manageable levels. AR 740.

When Maddex transferred to OSS in April 2014, Austin thought he had six to nine open Detective Bureau cases. AR 737. Austin went over them with Maddex and was confident that he was close to finishing them and could do so while with OSS. AR 737. Austin did not assign new cases to Maddex during the last month before his transfer and told Maddex to focus on finishing the cases he had. AR 738. Maddex would occasionally pick up an in-custody case because he felt he owed it to his partners, but Austin chastised him for it. AR 738.

Austin did not know that Maddex had 51 open cases. AR 737. That is an unfathomable number, and he would have never let Maddex transfer to OSS with that many open cases. AR 738. No detective would be allowed to get to that point if management knew about it. AR 738.

Maddex never told Austin that he was falling behind on his outstanding Detective Bureau cases after his transfer to OSS. AR 738.

When Bergner supervised him, Maddex appeared to be a hard-working individual who was diligent with cases and always willing to help others. AR 745.

Bergner did not remember an August 20, 2013 memo from Maddex that Case No. 1 had exceeded the 90-day threshold. AR 746. Bergner would always initial and stamp such a memo, and the initials on that document are not his. AR 746.

Bergner also never received memoranda from Maddex that Case Nos. 2 (AR 747), 3 (AR 748), 4 (AR 749), 5 (AR 750), 11 (AR 751-52), 12 (AR 752), 14 (AR 752-53), 15 (AR 753-54), or 16 (AR 754) were open for more than 90 days. Although copies of memoranda exist for some of the cases, they lack Bergner’s stamp or initials to show he saw them before the investigation. AR 751-53. For Case No. 15, Berner would not receive such a memorandum if the case was pending rather than active. AR 753-54.

Sgt. Fred Binion (“Binion”) investigated four cases assigned to Maddex. AR 1158-59. In Case No. 1, the victim still wanted to prosecute when Binion talked to her. AR 1160. She said Maddex last told her that a warrant had been issued for the suspect but that it might take time to arrest him. AR 1160. By the time Binion reviewed the case, it was over two years old and outside the statute of limitations. AR 1160. Binion did not think Maddex’s investigation was thorough. AR 1160.

Case No. 3 concerned a minor who sent threatening Facebook messages to the victim in July 2013. AR 1160. When Maddex spoke to the victim in March 2015, she said she wanted to prosecute. AR 1161. Binion determined that the crime was a misdemeanor. AR 1161. Because the perpetrator was 15 or 16 years old and lived in San Diego County when she sent the messages from her mother’s house, she did not have the ability to commit any acts of violence. AR 1161.

Maddex explained that he used case closure codes in LARCIS to project how he believed a case would be concluded and he did not realize that he actually closed the cases on LARCIS. AR 1191. Investigators noted that Maddex closed multiple cases on LARCIS on September 19, 2013, and he responded that he did not know that others would think the cases were closed when they checked LARCIS. AR 1191.

When Maddex first became a detective, he had a literal mindset. AR 1214. It seemed impractical to have to stand in front of the sergeant every 30 days to tell him a case was still open, given how many cases would be open for up to 90 days. AR 1214. He asked his mentor, Sgt. Ramirez, if he actually had to notify his supervisors every 30 days that a case was active. AR 1214. Ramirez replied “No” and that CLEATS has a drop-down menu. AR 1214.

This made the drop-down menu seem like a formality that had to be present before a detective closed the case out. AR 1214. Maddex thought that the point of the 90-day memo was not to make the station look bad. AR 1215. Maddex has submitted cases without the 90-day memorandum. AR 1214. When those cases were kicked back to him, he just did the math, added the 90-day memo, and resubmitted it. AR 1214.

Aside from the cases under investigation, he has submitted other cases that the case journal showed were open for up to 330 days. AR 1214. The fact that the submission was a formality is why most of his cases show notifications on exact 30-day increments. AR 1214.

LARCIS’s case closure screen shows that Maddex closed Case No. 1 on May 8, 2014. AR 1206. The case status code is 214, and the description says that an adult was arrested. AR 1206. LARCIS also said that Austin approved the closure. AR 1206. However, the case closure date says September 19, 2013. AR 1206.

Maddex explained that he used the September 19, 2013 entry date as a tool in LARCIS to police his 90-day cases. AR 1207, 1260. The LARCIS screen shows that as of that day, he planned to arrest an adult at some point before the case ended. AR 1207. When he filled the form out this way, his intent was not to deceive anyone. AR 1207. The 214 code -- the victim refused to cooperate -- was the actual result. AR 1207-08. Maddex updated that when the case closed on May 8, 2014. AR 1208. He forgot to hit Tab to move to the description from adult arrested so he could change that to match victim refused to cooperate. AR 1207-08.

Austin had recently told detectives to not use the code 120 for cases because it means “no further workable.” AR 1223, 1225. He said to close out 90-day cases and make sure 90-days memos were in the case files. AR 1223, 1225. Maddex took both statements literally. AR 1223. He asked if detectives were allowed to monitor their own 90-day cases with these entries, and Austin said yes. AR 1223.

Because of this, on September 19, 2013, Maddex reviewed the cases that were close to 90 days old and projected his predictions of where he thought those cases would go. AR 1223, 1225. This would take the cases “off the radar,” and he thought this was OK. AR 1223. He thought other detectives had been doing the same thing, and that Austin just did not want them to use code 120 when they did that. AR 1223. This way, his entries showed that cases had further workable information. AR 1223-24. He considered what he did “closing” the cases. AR 1225.

Maddex did not personally benefit when he closed out a case in LARCIS because CLEATS would still show the case is open. AR 1224. A detective’s oldest open case would appear on the top of his CLEATS log. AR 1224. His actions on LARCIS only kept cases off the radar with a temporary closure. AR 1224. A sergeant could always look at Maddex’s cases both through LARCIS or through the paper copies Maddex kept on his desk. AR 1224.

Case Nos. 6 and 11’s handwritten and CLEATS case journal list various supervisory notifications to Austin, but Maddex never actually notified him. AR 1236-37, 1252-53. The LARCIS screen for Case No. 11 shows code 220, but the description reads that a felony was filed, and a warrant obtained against an adult suspect. AR 1253. This was the description for a code 120. AR 1253.

Maddex never wanted a case to be open for more than 90 days because he knew it would receive higher scrutiny. AR 1260. He intended to close one of the September 19, 2013 cases when he first transferred to OSS, but his new responsibilities kept him from doing that. AR 1260.

On March 3, 2016, LASD issued a Letter of Intention to Maddex based on violations of MPP sections (1) 3-01/050.10, Performance to Standards; (2) 3-01/030.05, General Behavior; (3) 3-01/000.13, Professional Conduct—Core Values; (4) 3-10/050.20, Duties of All members; (5) 3-01/030.10, Obedience to Laws, Regulations and Orders, specifically as to FO 11-01—Standardized Procedures for Detective Unit Operations; and (6) 3-01/100.35, False Information in Records. AR 506-14.

The Letter of Intention stated that Maddex had failed to investigate pending criminal cases in accordance with standard established for LASD detectives. AR 506. He also caused embarrassment to LASD and failed to be diligent and professional in his deeds. AR 506. The Letter of Intention identified 12 cases for which Maddex entered a false case status code, closure date, or description and recorded that he notified his supervisors the case was open when he did not. AR 507-13. The recommended discipline was discharge. AR 506.

On March 31, 2016, LASD sent Maddex a Letter of Imposition upholding its recommended discipline of discharge based on the Letter of Intention’s allegations and violations of MPP sections (1) 3-01/050.10, Performance to Standards; (2) 3-01/030.05, General Behavior; (3) 3-01/000.13, Professional Conduct—Core Values; (4) 3-10/050.20, Duties of All members; (5) 3-01/030.10, Obedience to Laws, Regulations and Orders, specifically as to FO 11-01—Standardized Procedures for Detective Unit Operations; and (6) 3-01/100.35, False Information in Records. AR 487-94.

Maddex appealed his discharge to the Commission. Hearing Officer Samuel Reyes (“Hearing Officer”) held hearings on various days in January 2017 and across several months in 2019. AR 97. Pertinent testimony is as follows.

From 2012 to 2014, Austin was supervisor for Carson Station’s Crimes Against Person Team, which investigates assaults, robberies, and domestic violence cases. AR 2630. As a detective supervisor, Austin assigned cases to detectives and supervised to ensure that they completed the investigations. AR 2631. He would also review the completed cases. AR 2631.

LARCIS is a database with several levels. AR 2633. It is an investigative database detectives can use to search for cases related to a person or vehicle. AR 2633. It also is how detective sergeants manage assigned caseloads. AR 2633. Austin received supervisor training in LARCIS. AR 2773. Detectives had to attend an eight-hour LARCIS training course within a year of their assignment to the Detective Bureau, and Austin was in charge of that LARCIS training. AR 2773.

A case in LARCIS is assigned a status of “active”, “pending”, or “inactive”. AR 2631-33. “Active” means active, workable information. AR 2632. “Pending” means that a crime occurred but there is no workable information. AR 2632. “Inactive” is a case that does not need investigation. AR 2632.

When a detective makes an arrest, he presents the case to the district attorney. AR 2639. If the district attorney files charges, the detective will prepare the paperwork and update the case status to inactive on LARCIS. AR 2639-40.

When a case is closed, the detective will also enter on LARCIS the name of the supervisor who would clear the case out. AR 2640. The form with that information will eventually be at the front of the investigative file. AR 2640. The detective then leaves the case journal and case file on Austin’s desk. AR 2640. He would review the cases when he could, usually between four to ten at a time. AR 2640. Austin would give the case to the secretary if the file was good and back to the detective if the file needed any changes. AR 2641. A case closed in LARCIS would not appear on the biweekly report. AR 2651.

Once every two weeks, Austin would check the cases active on LARCIS. AR 2641. The biweekly report told him which cases were over 30, 60, and 90 days old. AR 2641. If a case was almost 90 days old, Austin would tell the detective to visit him to discuss the case. AR 2641-42, 2787. Usually, such a case was waiting for filing consideration at the district attorney’s office. AR 2788. When the detective needed to take some action, Austin would discuss that future action and tell the detective to log that information and write a memo to the lieutenant about it. AR 2789.

When a case was only 60 days old, the discussions were less formal. AR 2791. 75-85% of those cases were waiting for filing consideration at the district attorney’s office. AR 2791.

CLEATS is a multifaceted-use system designed to assist investigators and supervisors with case tracking. AR 2654. As a supervisor, Austin never used CLEATS. AR 2654. Everyone in the Detective Bureau was trained in the system upon rollout, but Austin was not a detective or detective sergeant at the time. AR 2654. No one received training after that. AR 2654. No one ever offered CLEATS training classes. AR 2774. Detectives learned how to use it through their mentors. AR 2774. LASD never fully implemented the use of CLEATS. AR 2655. CLEATS is a secondary program that cannot be trusted to have all reports in place. AR 2655. All reports are input by secretaries into LARCIS. AR 2655.

Austin only used CLEATS to ensure that detectives had their cases assigned to them so that they could use its paperwork functions. AR 2654. One of these functions allows detectives to keep a case journal of predetermined memos that the detective could fill out and the system auto-filled the rest. AR 2654. Austin then could log on and see what his detectives uploaded to their CLEATS case journals. AR 2774-75.

Austin did not cross-reference cases that did not appear in LARCIS with CLEATS. AR 2655. CLEATS did not have all the necessary report systems. AR 2655. When LASD generates a report, it inputs the report into LARCIS. AR 2655.

The MPP requires all detective sergeants to review every case assigned to one of its detectives. AR 2782-83. Austin would first review a case to ensure that it was properly classified as active or pending. AR 2783. He then would review cases a second time, regardless of initial classification. AR 2784. He read the LARCIS case report and checked the screening factors that distinguish an active case from a pending one. AR 2784-85.

The MPP requires that supervisors develop a method for recording cases that facilitates review. AR 2786. Austin would first make sure a case is assigned to the right detective on LARCIS and that the detective has access to CLEATS to use the things available on that database. AR 2786. He then regularly reviewed for cases that were 30, 60, or 90 days old. AR 2786.

FO 11-01 allows use of electronic journals on CLEATS for documentation purposes. AR 2800. It requires a supervisor to review a subordinate’s case files and approve any case closure. AR 2800. Once a case is closed, the physical file was required to be placed on Austin’s desk. AR 2801. Austin determined which cases were closed by whether it appeared on the LARCIS reports of open cases and which it was on his desk for review. AR 2801. If the case was closed on LARCIS but Austin did not have the case file on his desk, he would wait until he received the file. AR 2802. Detectives gave him the files as soon as they could, but he did not rush them. AR 2802.

Based on FO 11-01, a detective could close out a case in LARCIS but still conduct investigative work on it and incorporate findings in a supplemental report. AR 2803. Austin would sometimes tell a detective to close a case but keep it on his desk in case anything came up. AR 2803, 2816.

He may have the ultimate responsibility, but he did not read the MPP as a requirement that he close out cases himself. AR 2815. Detective sergeants rarely work cases themselves under FO 11-01, and they delegate responsibility just like the sheriff does. AR 2815-16. Detectives and subordinate detectives close out their own cases and turn them over to the supervisor, who then can amend any incorrect case closure codes on LARCIS. AR 2817. Austin often made those changes. AR 2817.

Before Austin transferred out of Carson Station in mid-April 2014, he had no indication that Maddex was not properly investigating cases or closing them in LARCIS without his approval. AR 2639, 2646. The investigation revealed that Maddex closed cases without Austin’s authorization. AR 2642. There were closures where Maddex listed Austin as the closing supervisor on LARCIS after Austin had already left the unit. AR 2643.

Austin has never tried to go into LARCIS, track closed cases, and correlate them to what case files he actually received for review. AR 2643. That would take too much time because of how many cases go through the Detective Bureau. AR 2644. Detectives did not get to spend the full 40-hour workweek on detective work because they were tasked with patrol work to save money. AR 2644-45.

Austin assumed that his detectives knew the procedures and would follow them because a mentor had trained them in those procedures. AR 2644. Maddex had closed cases before and properly presented them to Austin for review. AR 2646. He never told Austin he did not know how to close cases in LARCIS. AR 2646.

Before Austin transferred out of Carson Station, he had no information about the cases at issue that suggested he should go back and check if he actually reviewed them for closing. AR 2645.

Austin was the officer who recommended that Maddex be placed on loan to OSS as a juvenile investigator. AR 2648. Maddex would still officially be assigned to Carson Station. AR 2649. Maddex had at least two weeks’ notice before the transfer. AR 2649. During that time, Austin did not assign him new cases. AR 2649, 2810. They also reviewed Maddex’s six to nine open cases and agreed that the remaining work on them was doable. AR 2649, 2809. Maddex never told Austin that he did not think he could finish those cases before his transfer. AR 2810.

The LARCIS file for Case No. 1 says that Maddex notified Austin when the open case was 120 days old, 150 days old, and at recurring intervals until the case was 330 days old. AR 2656-57. Austin does not remember being notified on September 13, 2013 that the case was 120 days old and he would have scrutinized the case very closely if he had been. AR 2656. There are no log entries or sign of work done on the cases between those 30-day notifications. AR 2657-68.

The case was a workplace violence battery. AR 2667. On May 8, 2014, Maddex wrote a contact letter to the victim. AR 2665. When attempts to visit victims and contact them on the phone fail, the detective will send them a copy of this letter and put another in the case file. AR 2665. Another May 8, 2014 entry in the case log shows that Maddex would close the case if the victim refused to cooperate. AR 2666. The same day, Maddex prepared a supplemental report case closure for victim’s refusal to cooperate. AR 2666. Austin did not see or approve this, and it seems premature to close the case the same day that Maddex wrote the letter. AR 2666. The victim had positively identified the suspect and desired prosecution. AR 2667. Maddex should have presented the case to the district attorney’s office to see if it wanted the case filed. AR 2668.

Case No. 3’s LARCIS file shows that Maddex also closed the case on September 19, 2013. AR 2677. The closure code, 244, was for a misdemeanor filed and a warrant obtained for an adult suspect with whereabout unknown. AR 2677-78. If that was so, the case file should have had a court case number and ID number, the list of charges filed, and other information, all of which was absent. AR 2678. There is nothing in Maddex’s case journal indicating that he ever brought the case to the district attorney. AR 2678. The case journal also says Maddex notified Austin when the case was 120 and 150 days old. AR 2678. Austin did not receive such notice. AR 2678.

Maddex closed Case Nos. 1 and 3 in LARCIS on September 19, 2013. AR 2675, 2679. After that date, those cases would not have appeared on the biweekly report. AR 2675, 2679. They were off Austin’s radar. AR 2679. Once the case was closed, Maddex should prepare the file, turn the case in, and no longer investigate that case. AR 2675-76.

Austin did not initial or otherwise approve the case closures for the cases at issue. AR 2660-61, 2666, 2679, 2680-81, 2687, 2696.

Binion was the Detective Bureau sergeant when Maddex was assigned to OSS. AR 2837. Because Maddex was still be assigned to the Detective Bureau and just on loan to OSS, he could take the Detective Bureau cases with him. AR 2877-78. Maddex did not tell Binion that he was falling behind on his Detective Bureau cases. AR 2837.

As a detective sergeant, Binion’s duties included review of detective case files. AR 2837-2838. LARCIS was the case management tool that he used. AR 2838. Binion received no formal training on CLEATS and rarely used it as a detective when it was new. AR 2838. He did not use CLEATS as a case management tool while a detective sergeant. AR 2838.

When Binion reinvestigated Maddex’s cases, he contacted the county social worker who was a battery victim in one case. AR 2822. The report included her contact information, and he called her before he visited her home. AR 2822. She still wanted to prosecute the suspect. AR 2822. Binion asked if she had spoken to Maddex. AR 2823. She told Binion that Maddex had told her that there was a warrant for the suspect but it might take time to contact him. AR 2825. Maddex wrote a May 8, 2014 letter to the victim to warn her that he would close the case if she did not respond. AR 2878. He closed the case that day, which is not enough time. AR 2879. Binion could not file this case with the district attorney because the case was past the statute of limitations. AR 2825-26.

Another case involving harsh and threatening words to the mother of the person she was dating exceeded the statute of limitations by the time Binion reinvestigated it. AR 2837.

Ramos was assigned to Carson Station as a detective sergeant in August 2014. AR 2887. As a detective sergeant, Ramos uses only LARCIS to track the cases of his subordinate detectives. AR 2889. He never received any training for CLEATS as a detective or a detective sergeant, so he never used it. AR 2889.

In 2015, Maddex asked to meet with Ramos. AR 2884. Ramos thought this was about the four outstanding cases that he already identified in Maddex’s workload and which he had told Maddex to just finish in a timely manner. AR 2884. Instead, Maddex disclosed seven additional open cases but did not ask for help on them. AR 2884. Ramos told Maddex that he (Ramos) needed to speak with the Detective Bureau lieutenant. AR 2884.

LASD Commander April Tardy (“Tardy”) was the Detective Bureau lieutenant beginning in March 2014. AR 2899, 2929. She never heard of detective sergeants telling detectives that, for a case open for over 90 days, they can just place the 90-day memo in the file without the lieutenant’s approval. AR 2929. She would have had a problem with anyone saying that because she is required to review cases still open for that long. AR 2929, 2931. A case over 90 days old that is closed on LARCIS does not appear on the report for her review of cases. AR 2929.

Tardy noted that, in his IAB interview Austin explained that the detective must write a memo to the Detective Bureau lieutenant for a case over 90 days. AR 2932-33. The memo needs to explain why the case is still open, how long it would remain open, and what must occur before it can close. AR 2933. Austin wanted this memo in the 90-day files so if any supervisors came around, they could see that the detective had made the proper notification with an explanation of what needed to be done and how long the case would remain open. AR 2933. Austin did not say that the Detective Bureau lieutenant has to sign the memo. AR 2933. Tardy did not interpret Austin to be saying that the lieutenant does not need to sign or review those memos. AR 2935.

Stephen Gross (“Gross”) is Chief of the LASD South Patrol Division, which includes Carson Station. AR 2967-68. He was once a gang detective with OSS. AR 2999-3000.

The first charge against Maddex is that he failed to investigate criminal cases in accordance with the standard established for his position. AR 2983. Pursuant to the standard, a detective is assigned cases by his sergeant. AR 2984. The detective should make an investigative plan. AR 2983. He should document the actions taken in the case journal. AR 2983. Detectives conduct investigations by working with the victims and identifying suspects. AR 2983. The whole goal is to serve the community and ensure that victims receive the proper attention. AR 2984. The information is memorialized in a case file given to the sergeant. AR 2984.

CLEATS is a newer system that helps a detective manage his internal case journal. AR 2984. Putting accurate information in the LARCIS case file and CLEATS case journal is part of the standard of performance. AR 2984. Maddex did not input accurate information. AR 2984. In his interview, Maddex did not dispute this fact and instead tried to explain it. AR 2985. He said he put knowingly false information into LARCIS. AR 2985. This turned off the system’s alarms to notify supervisors when cases are over 30, 60, or 90 days. AR 2986. Maddex said that he had every intention to finish his cases but he put inaccurate information into the system as a tool. AR 2986.

The standard is to finish cases within 30 days. AR 2986. Because LASD knows that it cannot finish every case in 30 days, it requires detectives to give oral notice when a case is open after 30 or 60 days. AR 2986. 90 days is the hard deadline for finishing cases, and detectives must write a 90-day memo to explain the reasons a case is still open and how long it will be. AR 2986-87. All this would be documented in the case journal. AR 2987. The detective would then give the 90-day memo to the supervisor and lieutenant for approval. AR 2987.

The lieutenants never saw the memos because Maddex said his understanding was that they just needed to be in his files for administrative purposes. AR 2987-88. This statement is confusing; nothing goes into the files just for administrative purposes or an inspection. AR 2988. This was not accurate recordkeeping because the purpose of the memo is to inform the supervisor, which Maddex did not do. AR 2988-89.

LARCIS is a tracking database. AR 2990. Nothing is supposed to go into LARCIS without a source document to explain what occurred. AR 2990. Maddex made false LARCIS entries about clearances because he put in what he anticipated would happen, which did not always pan out. AR 2991. Some of the cases went out of the statute of limitations. AR 2991.

Maddex said he was trying to do the right thing and forecast a conclusion that had not occurred. AR 2991. That makes the information in LARCIS false because it had not happened. AR 2991-92. The case closures also turned off any notification to the supervisors that the case was still open. AR 2992. A supervisor is not required to take any action on a case that does not appear on the biweekly report. AR 3078-79.

Maddex did not conduct timely investigations for the cases he was assigned. AR 2992. Some of the cases went out of the statute of limitations and could no longer be presented to the district attorney. AR 2992. A supervisor looks for “investigative sufficiency” from a detective, not a specific result. AR 299-93. This means that the detective turned in all leads and addressed all investigative matters. AR 2993. Maddex did not demonstrate investigative sufficiency because supervisors had to reinvestigate his cases. AR 2993.

The second charge against Maddex is falsification of records. AR 2993-94. Gross determined that this allegation was true for the same reasons as the first charge. AR 2994.

When Gross considered the appropriate discipline, he knew that Maddex had an outstanding record. AR 2995. He tried to understand the explanations Maddex gave. AR 2996. It did not make sense for Maddex to use LARCIS as a case management tool when he had CLEATS to do that. AR 2996. LARCIS is a tracking system for supervisory purposes, per FO 11-01. AR 2996, 3003. CLEATS is a management system to track investigative facts. AR 3004.

Gross put a lot of thought into the discipline decision and tried to understand that Maddex was overwhelmed but LASD has a mission to serve the public and victims of the crimes. AR 2996. LASD failed the victims at issue because some of the cases were outside of the statute of limitations. AR 2996-97.

Gross wanted to find mitigating factors to justify a discipline less than discharge, and he looked for them. AR 2997. He just could not explain some of the decisions at issue. AR 2997. When a detective says they arrested someone that they have not, that a case has been filed when it has not been, or a warrant is in effect when there is none, that is self-serving because it skews the case closure stats. AR 2998.

Richard Torres (“Torres”) is an LASD sergeant assigned to Carson Station. AR 3114. A sergeant is supposed to approve a case file for closure, and it requires a number of signatures to properly close out. AR 3126. The sergeant initials the case journal, a supplemental report, and has to sign the actual case folder, which is closed out in LARCIS. AR 3126.

The file for Case No. 3 does not have the sergeant’s initials. AR 3126. CLEATS entries for Case No. 3 show that Maddex notified his supervisor every 30 days the case was open. AR 3126. A lieutenant must approve every 30-day extension after 90 days, and the memo is supposed to have their initials. AR 3127-28. Any case can be held beyond the 90-day limit if there is active additional information to investigate. AR 3128. The case file shows supervisory review six separate times. AR 3128.

Some of the CLEATS journals for the cases at issue suggested that the case was open. AR 3180. If a case is closed in LARCIS, it should be closed in CLEATS as well. AR 3180. A detective can only investigate a case closed in LARCIS if he receives additional information that merits reopening it. AR 3180.

When the parents of one victim spoke with Torres about Maddex’s cases, they were upset and asked why it took so long to investigate the case. AR 3138. Torres did present those cases to the district attorney. AR 3139. LASD arrested the suspect in that case for unrelated charges, but the charges at issue were outside the statute of limitations. AR 3139-40.

In another case for assault with a crowbar, Torres contacted the victim’s family members. AR 3146-47. The family members were scared to proceed. AR 3147. The mother was upset with how LASD had handled the case because of how much time had passed. AR 3147.

Detective supervisors are supposed to monitor cases at 30-, 60-, and 90-day evaluation points. AR 3234. A case closed on LARCIS would not appear on the biweekly report. AR 3235.

Bergner stood by every answer he gave during his IAB interview. AR 3240-41. This includes the assertion that he did not receive any of the 90-day case memos Maddex addressed to him. AR 3240.

CLEATS is one of several LASD tracking systems. AR 3246. Supervisors have access to CLEATS and can use it to monitor case activity alongside LARCIS. AR 3246. LASD policy does not require officers to use CLEATS, and Bergner did not use it. AR 3254.

When Sgt. Ramirez trained Maddex, he did not discuss case management policies and procedures with Maddex. AR 3492. Ramirez told Maddex to ask when he needed help but otherwise left him alone. AR 3492. If Maddex brought a question about case closure to Ramirez, they would discuss certain things in CLEATS and LARCIS. AR 3492.

At the end of his training with Ramirez on October 18, 2021, Maddex initialed that he was competent in all the areas in which Ramirez mentored him. AR 3491. This included case management. AR 3493. He never told his superiors he needed more training. AR 3491. By the end of his mentoring program, Maddex had investigated 60 cases. AR 3491.

Maddex did not change the procedures he used to close cases between the end of his mentorship and his transfer to OSS. AR 3493. He was trained to prepare a case closure supplemental report when he closed a case, and to present the case to the detective sergeant for review after he entered a case closure code in LARCIS. AR 3493. He understood that the detective sergeant must approve the case closure code Maddex entered. AR 3493. Detective sergeants do this by signing their name or initials on a case closure supplemental report. AR 3494.

Ramirez never trained Maddex to prepare a case closure supplemental report when a case requires additional investigative work. AR 3496. Ramirez never trained him to write on a case closure supplemental report that he had presented a case to the district attorney for filing consideration when he had not. AR 3496.

Sgt. Austin did not become Maddex’s detective sergeant until July 2013. AR 3494. By then, Maddex had been a Carson Station detective for about a year. AR 3494. Maddex followed the same procedure for closing cases with Austin that he had under the last sergeant. AR 3495. He obtained Austin’s initials on closure supplemental reports to indicate that Austin approved them. AR 3495.

At a meeting in mid-September 2013, Austin told detectives that they needed to close out 90-day cases and not use the 120 code to do it. AR 3332-33. Maddex understood this to mean that he needed to close cases with other available codes. AR 3333.

Austin never said that detectives could enter closure codes in LARCIS based on what they predicted would be the case’s ultimate disposition, but it was implied in the meeting. AR 3500-01. Maddex did not get permission from a supervisor to use this practice to temporarily close 90-day-old cases. AR 3509-10. Maddex never told Austin that he was doing so or that he was investigating cases after he input a closure code in LARCIS. AR 3510. He eventually presented Case Nos. 1 and 12 and a takeover robbery case file to Austin, but not within a month of when he entered their predicted closure codes in LARCIS. AR 3503.

When Maddex entered a projected closure code, he printed out the LARCIS screen and added it to his case file. AR 3502. Nothing on this sheet said it was just a projection of how the case would close. AR 3504. Maddex thought Austin would understand that based on his instructions in the September 2013 meeting. AR 3503. If any officers had a question upon seeing the printout in the case file, they could ask Maddex. AR 3504.

On cross-examination, Maddex was asked how someone who looks at a standard form case closure supplemental report could tell it was a mere projection of the case’s disposition. AR 3505. For example, Case No. 1 has the closure code 214 and a description of “no workable information.” AR 3507. Maddex testified that someone looking at the form would see that it did not have a named suspect, a courthouse name, a court case number, or the name of the approving sergeant. AR 3507-08. Therefore, the viewing person would see it is still being investigated. AR 3508. He conceded that the viewer could also think that Maddex just failed to identify the suspect and chose not to present the case to the district attorney. AR 3508.

In another case, Maddex used the LARCIS closure code for “warrant obtained.” AR 3575. He did not have a warrant and had no factual evidence to suggest that a judge would sign a warrant in that case. AR 3575-76. This was a projection only. AR 3576. Based on his experience as a detective who had closed 150 cases, he believed that a judge would sign one. AR 3575-76.

Maddex had said during the investigative interview that these temporary closures took cases “off the radar” of supervisory scrutiny. AR 3576. That comment referred only to the scrutiny cases with the 120 code faced under Austin. AR 3576-77.

Maddex did not know that when he uses projected closure codes to temporarily close cases in LARCIS, the system would show that the case was closed and keep supervisors from tracking it. AR 3512. Maddex never noted in the LARCIS case file or told his supervisor that the case closure was temporary. AR 3577. He never asked a supervisor if the case still appeared as active on their screens and assumed that it would. AR 3514. In Maddex’s view, the case was not closed because it was open in CLEATS. AR 3512.

Maddex knew that any open case over 90 days old would receive heavy scrutiny. AR 3516. Whenever Austin gave him his section of the LARCIS report of open 30, 60, and 90-day cases, Maddex did not pay attention to whether the cases for which he had entered temporary closure codes were on that list. AR 3516-17. Austin never gave Maddex a CLEATS printout of his active assigned cases during these monthly or bimonthly check-ins. AR 3526-27. None of the relevant MPP sections mention CLEATS or say that a supervisor must use CLEATS as a case management tool. AR 3528.

The Detective Bureau was required to keep a copy of each detective’s handwritten case log at his desk. AR 3540. Austin did not spend time trying to correlate Maddex’s open LARCIS cases with the handwritten case log. AR 3540.

When Maddex transferred to OSS, he still had an active Detective Bureau case file. AR 3365. He had 51 outstanding cases and was actively investigating all of them. AR 3365. Maddex requested that Austin reassign those cases, but Austin denied the request. AR 3365. The request was oral and never documented. AR 3490.

Maddex never documented in case logs or supplemental reports that he had that many cases open. AR 3486. However, CLEATS did that for him insofar as it generates a living document of all his active cases. AR 3486-88. The list for September 30, 2013 showed 29 open cases. AR 3488. A CLEATS printout of that list was not in any of his case files. AR 3488.

Maddex never discussed the status of Case No. 1 with Austin before he filed the 90-day memo. AR 3423. He did not personally or in writing notify Austin that Case Nos. 1-6 and 11-16 were ongoing every 30 days, like the CLEATS journal says he did. AR 3429, 3550, 3570. He never gave the 90-day memo for each case to Austin because he thought entry of the memo into CLEATS satisfied the notice requirement. AR 3550-51.

Maddex closed Case No. 1 because the victim refused to cooperate. AR 3442. An investigator must perform due diligence to ensure that a victim does not want to cooperate, and Maddex felt he did that here. AR 3442. Before the letter, he called the victim multiple times. AR 3443. He felt she was the kind of victim to call him back or to contact him after the letter. AR 3443. When Maddex wrote the letter to the victim on May 8, 2014, he still had 12 days before the statute of limitations expired. AR 3443. He believed that the victim would call him with enough time to present the case to the district attorney. AR 3443. The letter gave the victim until May 31, which was after the statute of limitations expired. AR 3444. He closed the file the same day he prepared the letter. AR 3444.

Maddex understood that he had to follow FO 11-01. AR 3446. He understood that he needed to make supervisory notifications when the case was open for 30, 60, and 90 days. AR 3446. Sgt. Ramirez never emphasized to Maddex that he needed to provide justification to keep the case open. AR 3446. Maddex never received files back from his supervisor that said the case logs did not have the justification. AR 3447.

Maddex also understood that FO 11-01 required him to write and submit a memorandum to the Detective Bureau sergeant to justify when the investigation was open for more than 90 days. AR 3448. Sgt. Ramirez never trained Maddex that this memorandum was a mere formality. AR 3496. Neither Ramirez nor Austin ever told Maddex that he did not actually have to present the memo to the Detective Bureau lieutenant for an approving signature. AR 3496-97, 3499. Maddex did not present to Austin for review the 90-day memos in the case files addressed to Lt. Bergner. AR 3448.

A printout from LARCIS on December 29, 2014 showed that Maddex had eight active OSS cases. AR 3489.

After Austin left Carson Station in April 2014, Maddex asked other supervisors for advice on how to proceed with his open cases. AR 3564-65. He did not document any of the conversations before his March 10, 2015 talk with Ramos. AR 3564-65.

Del Meese is a LASD Chief. AR 3876. Supervisors have access to CLEATS along with their detectives. AR 3881. They can use this to enter complaints about a detective’s actions on a case. AR 3881. CLEATS shows supervisors whether a case has been assigned to a detective for 30, 60, or 90 days. AR 3898. Detectives should use CLEATS to keep at least one version of the case journal so the supervisor can access it. AR 3914. They should add details soon enough that the details are accurate. AR 3914-15. They should not wait until the case is almost over, up to a year and a half later, to journal everything that happened. AD 3915.

When LASD conducts audits, it looks at both CLEATS and LARCIS. AR 3883. It first uses LARCIS to learn what detectives are assigned to a team, how many cases each one has assigned, and how many cases in that team are pending assignment. AR 3883. If a supervisor is looking at a detective’s report of active cases on LARCIS, that supervisor can reconcile it with CLEATS records. AR 3898. If the case is on one but not the other, the supervisor can tell whether the detective is still assigned to the case. AR 3898.

Policy requires that Detective Bureau lieutenants and sergeants review subordinates’ active assigned cases twice a month. AR 3907. Cases closed on LARCIS no longer appear on the LARCIS report of open cases. AR 3906-08. This is why a supervisor should not share the LARCIS login code with the detectives, as happened in this case; it is akin to giving students access to their final grade. AR 3907. Del Meese thinks it breaches some policy, insofar as FO 11-01 requires supervisors to reconcile a case file with its closure form. AR 3919-22.

If a case is closed on LARCIS, a supervisor would not reassign the case or take any other action unless a victim or witness complains or something else draws their attention to that case. AR 3918. In this regard, taking a case off the radar means to remove a case from the database so it is no longer trackable and avoid supervisory scrutiny. AR 3927-28.

In theory, a detective should not enter a closure code into LARCIS until the investigation is complete. AR 3907. However, a detective would not be responsible for that unless he was also trained on supervisor responsibilities. AR 3907. Because the sergeants gave away that responsibility, they have no way of knowing if the LARCIS records are accurate when they conduct their own review. AR 3910-11.

FO-11 requires LASD supervisors to review the contents of their subordinates’ cases files and personally approve each case closure. AR 102. Supervisors shall personally initial the case closure report forms and sign the case journal, indicating concurrence with the case outcome and the reasonableness of time, effort and diligence devoted to the case by the investigator. AR 102.

Supervisors shall ensure proper diligence and justification to keep each case open beyond 30 days. AR 103. Cases may remain active upon concurrence of the supervisor. AR 103. Each supervisors’ review shall be noted on the investigator’s corresponding case journal. AR 103.

When a case is to remain active for over 60 days from assignment, the investigator shall provide the team supervisor with justification to keep the case open. AR 103. Supervisors shall review cases that are open for over 60 days, at least once every 30 days. AR 103. If a case remains active for over 90 days, the investigator shall submit a supplemental memorandum to the detective supervisor documenting the latest status of the investigation and justification to keep the case open. AR 103. Supervisors shall brief the detective commander every 30 days with the latest case status update for any cases that remain open beyond 90 days. AR 103.

FO 11-01 charges supervisors with ensuring that all case assignments to detectives are entered into LARCIS without unnecessary delay. AR 103. Supervisors shall also review the LARCIS “active/assigned” report for the Detective Bureau at least twice per month and ensure that only currently assigned detectives have cases that are “active”. AR 103. Case clearance codes shall be consistent with suspect codes used to clear each case, and only approved codes shall be used. AR 104.

MPP No. 4-01/020.55 requires that supervisors develop a method of recording cases that will facilitate the review process. AR 104. Supervisors should monthly determine if cases are being closed out or made inactive in a timely manner. AR 104. They should endeavor to close cases when filed, when the expectancy of additional workable information and subsequent investigation is not feasible, or after a preliminary hearing or misdemeanor trial. AR 104.

Many of the allegations concern Maddex’s entries on LARCIS and CLEATS. AR 105. While detectives enter pertinent case information and closure information into LARCIS, they use CLEATS to prepare case journals and case-specific documents. AR 105. Both systems can generate reports of all active cases for each detective and the number of days each case is open. AR 105.

Maddex, Austin, and Torres’s testimony agree on the customary and proper process at Carson Station. AR 107. The Detective Bureau’s supervising sergeant had to approve all case closures, so he reviewed the physical case file with copies of the LARCIS case closure screen, CLEATS case journal, and the case closure supplemental report on the top. AR 107-08. Detectives would themselves close the cases in LARCIS, make the closure entries in case journals, and complete the case closure supplemental reports. AR 108. The detective needed to input accurate information and closure codes into LARCIS and copy the closure screen for submission to the sergeant. AR 108. The sergeant initialed or signed the case journal copy to signify review and approval of the case disposition. AR 108.

Aside from the cases at issue, Maddex closed cases consistent with proper closure procedures. AR 108. This showed that he knew the proper procedures. AR 108.

Maddex learned basic investigative and case-handling techniques in his training with Ramirez from May 27 to October 19, 2012. AR 108. This included tips to use LARCIS and CLEATS and to close a case on them. AR 108-09. Maddex also attended an eight-hour LARCIS training program, but it focused on the system’s investigative, not case-tracking, uses. AR 109.

Maddex testified that Ramirez told him that he had to write in the case journal that he had notified supervisors when cases remained open after 30, 60, and 90 days, as well as every 30 days thereafter. AR 109. When Maddex asked, Ramirez said he did not have to actually notify the supervisors, he just needed to make the note in the file. AR 109.

Maddex also testified that Maddex told him to add a memorandum addressed to the lieutenant to each case file that remains open for more than 90 days. AR 109. This was in case the lieutenant wanted to review progress in that case. AR 109. Maddex understood this memo as a formality for when there was an audit. AR 109. He always “notified” his superiors by adding notes to the file, and no one told him that was wrong. AR 109.

On April 20, 2014, Maddex was assigned to OSS on loan such that he was still a Detective Bureau member. AR 110. Maddex had three to four weeks’ notice. AR 110. When he received notice, he met with Austin to discuss his remaining Detective Bureau caseload. AR 110. Austin testified that Maddex has six to nine cases left with minimal additional investigative work. AR 110. Both believed Maddex could finish them before he transferred to OSS. AR 110. Maddex did not tell Austin that he actually had 30 open cases. AR 110.

Maddex testified that when he reported to OSS, he told Sgt. Espeleta that he had a lot of open Detective Bureau cases and asked if they could be reassigned. AR 110. Espeleta refused. AR 110. In his interview, Espeleta stated that he approved some of Maddex’s supplemental closure reports. AR 110.

Maddex entered pertinent information in the CLEATS journal as investigations progressed. AR 112. He kept papers copies of case files on his desk organized into stacks based on whether the case was over or under 30, 60, or 90 days. AR 112. He also kept a printout of active cases in CLEATS on his desk. AR 112.

On March 10, 2015, Maddex presented Sgt. Ramos with seven Detective Bureau cases closed on LARCIS but that Maddex was still investigating. AR 113. Ramos told him to stop working on them. AR 113.

Maddex’s failure to hit “Tab” or “Enter” to update LARCIS descriptions after entering closure codes was a mistake. AR 138. Every other entry in his case files, LARCIS, and CLEATS was knowing and willful. AR 138.

For ten of the cases at issue, Maddex failed to notify the Detective Bureau lieutenant, Bergner or Tardy, that the case exceeded the 90-day deadline and failed to notify Sgt. Austin of the 60-day mark and every other 30-day deadline thereafter. AR 152. He admitted that he did not notify these supervisors of these notifications. AR 139.

He denied entering false information in the file and referred to his case journal entries as electronic notifications. AR 139. This is unpersuasive. AR 139. The language in Maddex’s journals states that he notified his superiors, and he did not do so. AR 139. Nothing corroborates his testimony that Ramirez instructed him during training that the file notification was sufficient. AR 139, 152. Even if Ramirez said as much, it does not make the instruction correct. AR 139, 152.

FO 11-01 and Carson Station custom dictate that a detective send a memorandum to a Detective Bureau lieutenant when a case is about 90 days old to obtain approval to keep the case open. AR 139-40. For the ten cases, Maddex did not physically provide this memorandum to Bergner. AR 139. As with the 30-day notifications, Maddex asserted that Ramirez told him that a file notification was sufficient. AR 140. Nothing corroborates this testimony, and Ramirez’s instructions would not make the policy correct. AR 140.

Maddex investigated eight of the cases at issue beyond the closure date on LARCIS. AR 140, 152. Closure of these cases was not reflected in the case journals and case closure supplemental reports were not prepared at the time of purported closure. AR 140. These false closure dates removed the cases from supervisory scrutiny even though they were open for over 90 days. AR 140. Austin testified, and Maddex concedes, that he did not seek supervisorial approval to close them in LARCIS. AR 140. These false closing dates constitute false statements in LASD records. AR 141.

Maddex explained that he entered the false LARCIS closing dates because Austin instructed detectives in September 2013 to close out their 90-day cases and not use LARCIS closure code 120 (no workable information) to do so. AR 141. Based on this order, Maddex started closing cases on LARCIS at the 90-day mark with the code that he forecasted would become the actual closure code. AR 141. During his interview, Maddex said that he figured this “formality” would keep those cases “off the radar.” AR 141. He added a printout of the temporary closure to each physical case file and planned to replace it upon the true closure of the case. AR 141. His actions in two of the cases (Cases No. 1 and 16) are consistent with this approach. AR 141.

Austin testified that the point of the September 2013 meeting was to emphasize that the 120 closure code should be used sparingly because cases typically have workable information. AR 142. If a detective could not solve a case, a designation of pending may be a better option. AR 142. He never told the detectives to use an inaccurate code, prematurely close cases, or make inaccurate entries in case files. AR 142.

The Hearing Officer found Austin’s testimony more credible than Maddex’s. AR 142. It was more detailed and consistent with LASD policy. AR 142. Austin did not direct or even suggest that Maddex prematurely close cases or make inaccurate entries. AR 142. It was Maddex who decided to forecast how he would close cases and made file entries that he understood would take cases off the radar. AR 142.

Maddex asserts that he did not mean to deceive anyone. AR 142. He projected the closure codes at the 90-day mark and corrected them upon final case closure. AR 142. When the physical file was reviewed, the supervisor could approve the temporary closure as well. AR 142. Before he closed the case, his case-related actions were also easily reviewable by supervisors in CLEATS, his case log, and the case files. AR 142-43.

Maddex input incorrect LARCIS closure codes – e.g., victim’s refusal to cooperate -- in five cases. AR 143. These entries were false information. AR 143. However, the evidence suggested that two of these entries were mistakes and not knowing or willful. AR 143.

Maddex failed to take appropriate and diligent investigative actions in all twelve of the cases. AR 143-44.

Maddex used the volume of work and the pressure of higher priorities to justify his inability to close cases faster. AR 145. He testified that the cases at OSS after his transfer were difficult, time-consuming, and a higher priority. AR 145. This explains in part why he delayed certain investigative actions and felt the need to lower the profile of some cases. AR 145.

Del Meese testified that he trains supervisors to track case handling activities through CLEATS. AR 145. He also testified that, when a detective transfers, he should not carry cases form his old unit to new assignments. AR 145. It diminishes a supervisor’s ability to monitor cases and is unfair to the employee. AR 145. He also testified that only Carson Station allows detectives to close cases in LARCIS, which violates policy. AR 145.

Discipline for most charges follows a progressive-step method, which attempts to correct misconduct at the lowest, most effective level that the manager can reasonably anticipate will be effective. AR 147. The maximum penalty for violations of MPP sections 3-01/050.10, 3-01/030.05, 3-01/000.13, and 3-01/100.35 is discharge. AR 147-48.

Conduct which the employee should have reasonably known was unacceptable without specific notice from the LASD, or which is generally socially unacceptable, does not follow progressive discipline. AR 147. This conduct includes dishonesty. AR 147. These acts can result in harsh discipline, including discharge. AR 147.

Maddex violated multiple policies across 12 cases and 18 months. AR 149. His conduct for the record entries was knowing and willful because he intended to make the entries that he did. AR 149. He understood that LARCIS closure lowers supervisor scrutiny of cases. AR 149. This had significant impact and sometimes made prosecution impossible because the statute of limitations lapsed during the delay of an investigation. AR 149.

As for mitigation, the 12 cases at issue are a small percentage of the cases Maddex handled. AR 149. The volume of Maddex’s work and presence of higher-priority assignments limited his ability to investigate the cases. AR 149. His transfer to OSS and the assignment of new and more time-consuming cases compounded the problem. AR 149. Maddex did not hide that he was still working on the closed cases. AR 149. Supervisors could have reviewed and tracked his work through CLEATS or physical inspection of Maddex’s case log or case files. AR 149. He cooperated in the investigation and did not hide his deficiencies, which suggested that he accepted responsibility for the misconduct. AR 149. There was no evidence of prior discipline except for one minor incident. AR 149.

While substantial discipline is appropriate, discharge is not. AR 149-50. The Proposed Decision recommended a 30-day suspension. AR 150.

On July 17, 2020, the Commission gave notice that it planned to accept the Proposed Decision. AR 159.

On August 5, 2020, LASD filed objections to the Proposed Decision. AR 193. LASD asserted that discharge was the appropriate discipline. AR 189. On November 18, 2020, Maddex filed a response to LASD’s objections. AR 197.

On January 29, 2021, the Commission gave notice of a new proposed decision. AR 218. The new proposed decision sustained LASD’s objections, rejected the Hearing Officer’s Proposed Decision’s reduction of discipline, and announced a decision to impose discharge. AR 218-20. The new proposed decision adopted all the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Hearing Officer’s Proposed Decision with the exception of Conclusion of Law 7 that LASD did not establish discharge as the appropriate discipline, adopting a new Conclusion of Law 7 that discharge is the appropriate discipline. AR 220.

On February 17, 2021, Maddex filed objections to the new proposed decision. AR 221-40. On January 20, 2022, the Commission overruled the objections and adopted the final decision of discharge (“Final Decision”). AR 282-83.

Petitioner Maddex seeks to set aside the Commission’s Final Decision on the grounds that (1) he had no intent to deceive and (2) the penalty of discharge is a manifest abuse of discretion.[3]

FO 11-01 and Carson Station custom require the detective to send a memorandum to a Detective Bureau lieutenant when a case is about 90 days old. AR 139-40. For ten of the 12 cases at issue, Maddex failed to notify the Detective Bureau lieutenant (Bergner or Tardy) that the case exceeded the 90-day deadline and failed to provide the 90-day memo. He also failed to notify Austin at the 60-day mark and every 30-day deadline thereafter. AR 152.

The Hearing Officer rejected Maddex’s contention that his case journal entries in CLEATS functioned as electronic notifications to his supervisors because his journal expressly and falsely stated that he had notified his superiors. AR 139. No evidence corroborated Maddex’s testimony that Ramirez instructed him during his training that a notification in the file was sufficient. AR 139, 152. Even if Ramirez said as much, that would not make the instruction correct. AR 139, 152.

Maddex continued to investigate eight of the cases beyond the closure date he inputted on LARCIS. AR 140, 152. The closure of these cases was not reflected in the case journals and case closure supplemental reports were not prepared. AR 140. The false closure dates on LARCIS removed the cases from supervisory scrutiny even though they were open for over 90 days. As such, they constituted false statements in LASD records. AR 140-41.

Maddex testified that he entered the false LARCIS closing dates because Austin instructed detectives in September 2013 to close out their 90-day cases and not to use LARCIS closure code 120 (no workable information). AR 141. Based on this order, Maddex started closing cases at the 90-day mark on LARCIS, using the closure code that he forecasted would become the actual closure code. AR 141. He added a printout of the temporary closure to each physical case file and planned to replace it upon the true closure of the case. AR 141. During his interview, Maddex said that he figured this “formality” would keep those cases “off the radar.” AR 141. His actions in two of the cases (Cases No. 1 and 16) are consistent with this approach. AR 141.

In contrast, Austin testified that the point of the September 2013 meeting was to emphasize that the 120 closure code should be used sparingly because most cases have workable information. AR 142. If a detective cannot solve a case, a closure designation of pending may be a better option. AR 142. Austin never told the detectives to use an inaccurate code, prematurely close cases, or make inaccurate entries in case files. AR 142.

The Hearing Officer found Austin’s testimony more credible than Maddex’s. AR 142. Austin did not direct or even suggest that Maddex prematurely close cases or make inaccurate entries. AR 142. Rather, Maddex decided to forecast how he would close cases and made file entries that he understood would take the cases off the radar. AR 142.

Maddex accepts the Hearing Officer’s findings that he falsified records but contends that he did not intend to deceive his supervisors. Maddex argues that he followed the plan as he thought Austin directed in mid-September 2013. He closed cases with projected closure dates and reasons on LARCIS and, as the Hearing Officer found, acted pursuant to his stated practice. AR 141-42. Pet. Op. Br. at 15.[4]

There is no doubt that Maddex input knowingly false information. Gross explained that the standard is to finish cases within 30 days. AR 2986. Because LASD knows that it cannot finish every case in 30 days, it requires detectives to give oral notice when a case is open after 30 or 60 days. AR 2986. The 90-day deadline is the hard deadline for finishing cases, and detectives must write a 90-day memo to explain the reasons why a case is still open at that deadline and how long it will take to conclude. AR 2986-87. Maddex input false information into LARCIS which turned off the system’s alarms to notify supervisors when cases are over 30, 60, or 90 days. AR 2986. The lieutenants never saw memos from Maddex. Maddex’s case closures further turned off any notification to the supervisors that the case was still open. AR 2992. A supervisor is not required to take any action on a case that does not appear on the LARCIS biweekly report. AR 3078-79.

Maddex made false LARCIS entries based ono what he anticipated would happen, which did not always pan out, and some of the cases went out of the statute of limitations. AR 2991. Maddex said that his understanding was that the information just needed to be in his files for administrative purposes, but nothing goes into the file just for administrative purposes. AR 2987-88.

Maddex’s argument that he did not intend to deceive is wholly dependent on his alleged training by Ramirez and the September 2013 direction from Austin. The Hearing Officer rejected Maddex’s contention that Ramirez directed him to make journal entries in CLEATS that would function as electronic notifications because the journal language falsely stated that he notified his superiors. 139, 152. The court agrees and adds that there is no evidence that Ramirez instructed Maddex to use false language in his journal entries that his superiors were informed.

The Hearing Officer also correctly rejected Maddex’s version of the September 2013 direction from Austin. Austin testified that the point of the September 2013 meeting was to emphasize that the 120 code should be used sparingly because cases typically have workable information. AR 142. If a detective could not solve a case, a designation of pending may be a better option. AR 142. He never told the detectives to use an inaccurate code, prematurely close cases, or make inaccurate entries in case files. AR 142.

Maddex’s contention that Austin instructed detectives to close out their cases at the 90-day mark makes no sense. AR 141. A direction to simply end a case after 90 days and continue it as an open-ended investigation would not benefit the Department or the public. There would be no easy way for supervisors to comply with their duty to ensure prompt investigation, and for the public to have timely justice. It seems plain that, as Austin indicated, he merely told detectives to strive to complete cases by the 90-day mark but did not authorize false entries to avoid reporting aging cases.

Given that Maddex falsely relied on the justifications of Austin’s direction and Ramirez’s training, his motive is apparent. He had no reason to make the false entries except to deceive. His false journal entries of a 90-day memo and case closure after 90 days enable him to investigate his cases at his leisure without the pressure of deadlines. In his words, he kept the cases off the radar of his superiors. By entering false case closure codes, dates, and case action narratives in LARCIS, Maddex concealed the fact that he had failed to timely and diligently investigate cases. This deferred the case until he could complete it on his own schedule. These actions can only reasonably be construed as intended to deceive.

Maddex’s compliance with his stated practice in two of the 12 cases does not undermine this conclusion. He closed those two cases on LARCIS at the 90-day mark with the code that he forecasted would become the actual closure code. AR 141. He attached a printout of the temporary closure to each physical case file and replaced it upon the true closure of the case. AR 141. These actions are fully consistent with Maddex’s intent to investigate and close cases on his own schedule and not the Department’s deadlines.

Maddex notes that the Hearing Officer found that he continued to investigate cases after closing them in LARSIC. AR 140. His cases were never reassigned after his transfer to OSS, and he felt duty bound to work them up without burdening other detectives. AR 2152-56. Thus, he put in significant approved overtime to work on his cases prior to and just after his transfer. AR 393-403.[5] After his transfere to OSS, he asked Espeleta to reassign his Detective Bureau cases, but Espeleta denied his request. AR 110. Maddex argues that his continued investigation, even at OSS, is at odds with an intent to deceive his supervisors. Pet. Op. Br. at 15-16.

Maddex’s continued investigations of cases after he closed them in LARSIC, both at the Detective Bureau and at OSS, may be consistent with a work ethic of doing the job himself without burdening others – although he was not diligent (see post) -- but it is also consistent with his intent to investigate only on his own schedule.[6]

Maddex argues that it is implausible that his supervisors were unaware that he continued to work on his cases after they were closed on LARCIS. It would have been evident to anyone looking at his CLEATS log and case journals that he was still working on them. AR 1224. As the Hearing Officer determined, Maddex “did not hide that he was continuing to investigate them and the cases were subject to review and tracking in CLEATS or through physical inspection of [his] case logs or case files.” AR 149. Pet. Op. Br. at 15-16.

Maddex adds that it is hard to believe that Austin or any involved supervisor would not be puzzled to have a case—let alone 12 cases—suddenly disappear from the active list. It is also hard to believe that Maddex thought he could operate undetected, given his continued work on these cases, his updates to his CLEATS entries and paper logs, overtime, request that the cases be reassigned, and final notification to Ramos about the pending investigations. AR 2152-56. Pet. Op. Br. at 17.

Maddex does not offer any reason why his supervisors should not have trusted the accuracy of the LARCIS case closure codes he had entered. Austin explained that, given the hundreds of cases he was responsible for overseeing every month, he could not take the time to determine if cases closed in LARCIS had also been closed in CLEATS, or to compare the physical case files against the list of closed cases in LARCIS. AR 2643-45, 2812-14. Austin did not review lists of open cases in CLEATS because it was not an official database and might not be accurate because supplemental reports prepared by Detectives may not have been entered. In contrast, all reports and supplemental reports are scanned by support staff into LARCIS, which the Department’s official database. AR 2665-66.

Maddex replies that Austin’s obliviousness to his (Maddex’s) actions resulted from the fact that Austin chose not to use CLEATS. AR 2654. Austin acknowledged that CLEATS is a “multifaceted-use system that was designed to assist investigators and their supervisors with case tracking”, and that “everybody in Detective Bureau was training in the system” when it first was introduced. AR 2654. Austin concluded that CLEATS is “just a system, again, that was rolled out and never fully implemented with the Sheriff’s Department properly, in my opinion.” AR 2655.

Maddex argues that Austin’s disdain for CLEATS does not show that Maddex knew his supervisors did not know detectives tracked cases in CLEATS. Detective Bureau supervisors have a responsibility to “develop a method of recording cases” to “facilitate the review process”. AR 104, 338. Sergeants review cases twice and are responsible for “identifying, collecting and reporting data” for each case. AR 336. Under FO11-01, supervisors are required to access detectives’ case files to approve closures and sign the case journal. AR 524. Maddex closed numerous cases that were active more than 30 and 60 days and supervisors such as Austin were required to review them. AR 524-25. These reviews include reviewing the case file or case journal -- i.e., CLEATS. Despite the Department’s argument that FO 11-01 only refers to LARCIS and does not mention CLEATS, it is plain that the review is of CLEATS. Reply at 2-3.

Maddex’s argument is too broad. No witness testified that supervisors were unaware that Bureau Detectives used CLEATS to enter information as a case progressed. See AR 105. Nor is there any evidence that Austin and other supervisors did not sign a CLEATS printout for the closure entries and case closure supplemental reports. AR 108, 3126 (Torres). This does not mean, however, that any supervisor reviewed case progress in CLEATS or was required to do so. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. AR 2889 (Ramos), Binion (2838).

Maddex’s deceit did not have to be foolproof. It was sufficient for his purpose that he was removed from the pressure to timely complete investigations. The undisputed evidence is that his supervisors used LARCIS, not CLEATS, to track cases. There is no evidence that he believed that any supervisor reviewed his work on CLEATS. Although it was possible to do so, supervisors were not required to track cases in CLEATS. Supervisors reviewed, on a bi-monthly basis, investigations classified as open or active in LARCIS. They did not review investigations classified in LARCIS as having been closed. Maddex knew that Department policy required him to enter accurate information into LARCIS (AR 3446-48) and his supervisors were entitled to rely on that fact.[7]

Maddex intentionally entered false case closure codes in LARCIS for the purpose of deceiving his supervisors by taking cases off the radar screen of his supervisors.

The Hearing Officer found that Maddex failed to diligently investigate all 12 cases. AR 143-44. Although Maddex did not address his diligence in his moving papers, he does so in reply. Reply at 2-3. The Hearing Officer’s analysis suffices to show that numerous failures to diligently investigate.

Case No. 1 was a battery. AR 114. The victim identified the assailant from a six-pack. AR 114. Maddex prepared a May 8, 2014 letter to the victim warning her that the case could be affected if LASD could not obtain additional information by May 31, 2014. AR 115. Maddex closed the case on the same day as the May 8 letter. AR 118. Austin testified that Maddex should have presented the case to the district attorney within a reasonable time of the victim identifying the suspect. AR 115. The Hearing Officer found that, although Maddex attributed his failure to the volume of work, he failed to take appropriate and diligent investigative action by presenting it to the district attorney. AR 115, 143.

In Case No. 2, Maddex did not contact the victim for four months, and he never actually made contact. AR 120. Maddex testified that he anticipated the case would close due to the victim’s failure to cooperate based on his unsuccessful attempts to contact her. AR 121. During reinvestigation, Torres also was unable to contact her. AR 121. Although Torres filed charges with the district attorney’s office, it declined to prosecute for lack of victim’s cooperation. AR 121. The Hearing Officer concluded that Maddex did not diligently investigate because he failed to timely attempt to contact the victim. AR 143.

Maddex received Case No. 3 in August 2013. AR 122. The case journal shows that in January 2014, Maddex researched the involved parties, drove to the victim’s house to obtain further details, conducted work-up on the suspect, contacted the victim’s boyfriend, and received a call from the suspect. AR 122. The file does not contain supplemental reports documenting the investigative work. AR 122. Maddex testified that he spoke to the district attorney, but that action was not a filing and there is no record of the conversation. AR 123. In reinvestigating, Binion spoke to the victim in 2015, who still sought prosecution, but the case was past its statute of limitations. AR 123. The Hearing Officer found that Maddex failed to take appropriate and diligent investigative action because he did not contact the victim until five months after he received the case. AR 122, 143-44.

The case file for Case No. 4 does not show that Maddex ever investigated it. AR 124. It contains the same photographic line-up found in Cases Nos. 3 and 5. AR 124. He never documented that he was investigating the same suspect in a related case. AR 124. In March 2015, Torres contacted the victims in this case and Case No. 5 and presented it to the district attorney, who declined to prosecute. AR 124. The Hearing Officer found that Maddex failed to take appropriate and diligent investigative action to contact the victim or indicate in the file that he was investigating the same suspect in a related case. AR 124, 144.

For Case No. 5, Maddex never contacted the victim. AR 125. Maddex explained that he did not think the district attorney would prosecute the case given witness identification issues. AR 125. When Torres contacted the district attorney’s office about Case Nos. 4-5 in March 2015, it refused to prosecute because the statute of limitations had passed. AR 124. The Hearing Officer found that Maddex did not diligently contact the victim. AR 144.

Maddex was assigned Case No. 6 on November 22, 2013. AR 126. By December 10, 2013, Maddex had done workups on the victim and suspect, consulted with a narcotics detective, contacted an airport police lieutenant, sent a lab receipt to the crime lab for the gun used, contacted the victim without a response and researched a photograph of the victim on LARCIS. AR 126. When Binion presented the case to the district attorney’s office in March 2015, it refused to prosecute for lack of corroborating evidence. AR 127. The Hearing Officer found that Maddex failed to take appropriate and diligent investigative action because he did not document the victim’s alleged failure to cooperate, did not investigate the reason the suspect had the firearm, and failed to submit the matter to the district attorney. AR 127, 144.

For Case No. 11, Maddex’s case journal says that he met the victim, a former county police officer, who positively identified the suspect but was uncooperative with witness information. AR 128. In September and October 2013, he gathered evidence, printed copies thereof, tracked down a duty to have him load photos on a disc, and did a workup on the suspect. AR 128. In February 2015, Maddex explained in a supplemental report that the victim did not want to involve the witness because she lived in Fresno. AR 129. He presented the case to the district attorney, who declined prosecution for insufficient corroboration. AR 129. When Torres asked if the district attorney’s office would reconsider filing, it refused. AR 130. The Hearing Officer found that Maddex failed to take appropriate and diligent investigative action because he failed to present the case to the district attorney for over 19 months. AR 130, 144.

Case No. 12 was an assault with a crowbar. Maddex received the case on August 20, 2013. AR 130. A supplemental report from May 2014 states that the victim identified the four men who attacked him. AR 130. In January 2015, Maddex presented the cases against some of the suspects to the district attorney. AR 130. The case file does not explain why there was an eight-month delay after the suspects’ identification. AR 130. When Torres contacted the victim’s family in March 2015, it was afraid to proceed with the charges. AR 131. The Hearing Officer found that Maddex failed to take appropriate and diligent investigative action. AR 131, 144.

Maddex received Case No. 13 on March 31, 2014. AR 132. A February 2015 supplemental report states that on May 23, 2014, he and another OSS detective obtained a positive identification of the suspect as the person who had sent the texts at issue to the victim. AR 132. On February 24, 2015, Maddex filed the case with the district attorney. AR 132. The file does not explain why he took nine months after suspect identification to file the case with the district attorney. AR 132. Maddex asserted that this was because of the pressure form other work, but this is insufficient to justify the delay. AR 132. The Hearing Officer found that he failed to take appropriate and diligent investigative action. AR 132-33, 144.

Maddex received Case No. 14 on September 7, 2013. AR 133. A February 2015 supplemental report stated that when Maddex contacted the victim on December 12, 2013, the victim identified the suspect. AR 133. However, the victim also told a different account of the incident and added the name of a new witness. AR 133. Maddex was unable to get sufficient information to contact the witness or another that the victim previously mentioned. AR 133. Maddex submitted the case to the district attorney in 2015, but there was no explanation for this delay. AR 133. Maddex failed to take appropriate and diligent investigative action because he did not take action until one year after the suspect’s identification. AR 134, 144.

Case No. 14 was a spousal battery. When Maddex submitted the case, the district attorney declined for lack of corroborating evidence. AR 134. When Torres contacted the victim March 2015, he no longer wanted to prosecute. AR 134. The Hearing Officer found that Maddex did not diligently investigate by waiting for more than a year after the victim identified the suspect. AR 144.

Maddex received Case No. 15 on October 15, 2013. AR 135. The only field investigation report was dated October 16, 2014 and it details investigation efforts in October and November 2013. AR 135. Maddex and another officer arrested the victim security guard on suspicion of being an inside man, but they did not have enough probable cause to avoid his release. AR 135. Austin returned the file to Maddex in February 2014 and asked for a supplemental report detailing his investigative steps. AR 136. Maddex did not prepare this report for almost a year, and he attributes that to his transfer to OSS and other work. AR 136. The Hearing Officer found that Maddex failed to take appropriate and diligent investigative action because he failed to prepare contemporaneous and sufficiently detailed supplemental reports of his investigation. AR 136, 144.

Case No. 16 was an indecent exposure in February 2013, but the victim did not report it until September 2013. AR 136. In April 2014, Maddex researched possible suspect information and drove to the victim’s home. AR 137. The victim was not at home and Maddex urged his son to have him contact Maddex. AR 137. The victim did not respond or return phone calls the next day. AR 137. By the time he tried to contact the victim, the statute of limitations passed. AR 137. A case journal entry for June 25, 2014, states that Maddex determined that the crime elements were not present. AR 138. When Binion contacted the victim in March 2015, he identified the suspect from a photographic lineup. AR 138. Binion took no further action because that suspect had moved out of state. AR 138. The Hearing Officer found that Maddex failed to take appropriate and diligent investigative action before expiration of the limitations period. AR 137, 144.

The propriety of a penalty imposed by an administrative agency is a matter in the discretion of the agency, and its decision may not be disturbed unless there has been a manifest abuse of discretion. Lake, supra, 47 Cal.App.3d at 228. If there is “any reasonable basis to sustain it,” the penalty should be upheld. Montez, supra, 40 Cal.App.5th at 877. “Only in an exceptional case will an abuse of discretion be shown because reasonable minds cannot differ on the appropriate penalty.” Ibid.

The overriding consideration in determining the appropriate discipline of a public employee is the extent to which the employee’s conduct resulted in, or if repeated, is likely to result in, harm to the public service. Kolender v. San Diego County Civil Service Com., (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 464, 471. “‘The public is entitled to protection from unprofessional employees whose conduct places people at risk of injury and the government at risk of incurring liability. Id.

The harm to the public service was serious. Maddex failed to timely and diligently investigate all 12 cases, resulting in the prosecution of none of them. In at least Cases Nos. 3 and 5, the statute of limitations passed. In others, the district attorney declined to prosecute, in part due to the passage of time and otherwise due to Maddex’s inadequate investigation. Obviously, Maddex’s failure to timely investigate was harmful to the victims specifically and to the public generally. It also harmed the Department’s reputation, the reliability of the Department’s case management system, and Maddex’s supervisors and co-workers.

Maddex does not dispute that he harmed the public service. See Pet. Op. Br. at 17.

Maddex argues that the circumstances of his misconduct are highly relevant. Yet, the Commission, in rejecting the Hearing Officer’s Conclusion of Law No. 7 (AR 156-57, 220), failed to consider them. In failing to consider the Hearing Officer’s discussion of mitigation (AR 145-49) and Findings of Fact 16, the Commission improperly rejected Conclusion of Law No. 7 when considering, if at all, the Skelly factors. This was prejudicial because, had the Commission considered this evidence, it is reasonably probable that would have resulted in a more favorable decision with the recommended reduced discipline. See Poliak v. Bd. of Psychology, (1997) 55 Cal.App.4^th 342, 364. Pet. Op. Br. at 18; Reply at 8-9.

The Commission did not fail to consider either the mitigating evidence or Finding of Fact 16. The Commission had before it the Hearing Officer’s proposed decision, including the mitigation evidence and Finding of Fact 16. The Commission rejected only the Hearing Officer’s recommendation to reduce the penalty of discharge to a 30-day suspension. AR 218. In doing so, the Commission implicitly adopted all the Hearing Officer’s fact findings and all his Conclusions of Law except No. 7 (wrongly identified as No. 8 (AR 218)), which it rejected. Thus, the Commission considered the mitigating evidence and did not find it sufficient to justify a discipline less than discharge.

The Hearing Officer noted in mitigation that the volume of work Maddex was assigned impacted the timeliness of his investigations. AR 145. Once he transferred to OSS, the cases were difficult, time-consuming, and had priority over his existing cases. AR 145. The Hearing Officer also found that the 12 cases “represent a relatively small percentage of the cases” assigned to Maddex, who “did not hide that he was continuing to investigate them”. AR 149. Maddex did not attempt to hide that he was continuing to work on these cases, which were trackable in CLEATS or through physical inspection. AR 149.

These circumstances are mitigating, although somewhat overstated by the Hearing Officer. As the Department argues, Maddex’s caseload was similar to other detectives assigned to the Crimes Against Persons Unit at Carson Detective Bureau. AR 737-41. He did not ask his supervisors for help (AR 2837, 2884) and never documented that he had a large number of open cases when he was loaned to OSS. AR 3484-88. The fact that he was required to complete his remaining open cases when he was loaned to OSS requiring was not against policy, as he still was officially assigned to the Detective Bureau. He only had approximately six to nine open or active cases two weeks before he started his assignment OSS (AR 737-741, 2809-10), which required little work to complete (AR 2649), and he was afforded overtime to do so. The Department points out, ironic or not, that his supervisors did not know he was continuing to investigate the 12 closed cases in addition to his open cases. Opp. at 10-11.

Additionally, Maddex volunteered information. After Ramos’ 2014 audit found that Maddex had four cases still open with the Detective Bureau (AR 2152-56), in March 2015 Maddex asked to meet and notified Ramos that he still had cases outstanding from 2013, though they were showing as closed in LARCIS. AR 113, 2153. They discussed the cases Maddex had brought to Ramos’s attention. AR 113, 2153-55. As Ramos noted: “[I]t was apparent [that Maddex] felt compelled to complete these cases on his own without burdening other detectives by asking for help . . . .[H]e told me [he] was trying to do the right thing and felt culpable for not handling these cases in a timely manner.” AR 2155-56.

In sum, the circumstances of the misconduct involving deception, intentionally false entries in Department records, and failure to timely investigate, are significant. The misconduct occurred at least between September 2013 and March 2015 and involved 12 cases. There are, however, mitigating circumstances.

Maddex cooperated in the investigation. While the Hearing Officer found that he exhibited “acceptance of responsibility for his misconduct” (AR 149), this is not entirely accurate because he denied an intent to deceive. However, Maddex also brought information to the attention of Ramos in March 2015 as stated ante. He further had a commendable work history without significant discipline. This suggests that he would be unlikely to repeat his misconduct.

As the Department argues (Opp. at 9), Maddex intentionally deceived his supervisors. “A deputy sheriff’s job is a position of trust and the public has a right to the highest standard of behavior from those they invest with the power and authority of a law enforcement officer. Honesty, credibility and temperament are crucial to the proper performance of an officer’s duties. Dishonesty is incompatible with the public trust.” Talmo v. Civil Service Com., (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 210, 231. “Honesty is not considered an isolated or transient behavioral act; it is more of a continuing trait of character.” Gee v. California State Personnel Bd., (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 713.

The Commission was entitled to conclude that Maddex’s dishonesty, coupled with the serious public harm he caused, renders him unsuitable for employment as a peace officer. The Commission did not commit a manifest abuse of discretion.

The Petition is denied. The Department’s counsel is ordered to prepare a proposed judgment, serve it on Maddex’s counsel for approval as to form, wait ten days after service for any objections, meet and confer if there are objections, and then submit the proposed judgment along with a declaration stating the existence/non-existence of any unresolved objections. An OSC re: judgment is set for August 31, 2023 at 9:30 a.m.

[1] FO 11-01 makes no mention of the Case Level Evaluation Assignment and Tracking System (“CLEATS”). See AR 523-28.

[2] The Hearing Officer’s proposed decision is not proof of the underlying fact but the facts in his Proposed Decision are undisputed.

[3] For convenience, the court will refer to the Hearing Officer’s proposed decision and not the Commission’s decision except where it differs from the Commission’s decision. As Maddex accepts the Hearing Officer’s findings with the exception of his finding on deceit, the court will often cite to those findings.

[4] That is not quite right. The Hearing Officer did not find that Maddex generally acted pursuant to his stated practice; he only found that the evidence was consistent with Maddex’s stated practice for Cases 1 and 16. AR 141-42.

[5] Maddex notes that Austin recalled discussing Case Nos. 4 and 5 with him after they had been closed. AR 1074-75. These cases stood out because Austin believed there might have been a link between the suspects in those two cases. AR 1075-76. Maddex’s citations show only that Austin could have discussed these cases with Maddex when Case No. 4 was coded as pending and instructed him to activate it and link it to Case No. 5. Id.

[6] Austin acknowledged that a detective could continue to work on closed cases and suggested using supplemental memoranda for continuing developments. AR 2803, 2816 (detectives could “go ahead and close out a case in LARCIS but still keep the case file on their desk if they’re working on the case.”). Pet. Op. Br. at 15-16; Reply at 2. True, but not without informing his supervisor and preparing supplemental memoranda.

[7] Maddex argues that, against policy, the Detective Bureau and Austin permitted detectives to “clos[e] out their own cases and then subsequently tur[n] it over to a supervisor for finalization.” AR 2817. Supported by testimony from Chief Del Meese (AR 3907-08), the Hearing Officer found this permissive practice violated LARCIS policy and compromised the abilities to manage Detective Bureau detectives. AR 145. Maddex contends that it was reasonable for him to believe that his closure of cases in LARCIS did not deprive Austin of his ability to track cases in CLEATS and he anticipated that Austin would do so in accord with the policies, their conversations, and the operative realities of the Detective Bureau. Pet. Op. Br. at 15-16; Reply at 3.

Austin and other supervisors may have violated an unstated policy in permitting detectives to close cases. This enabled Maddex to deceive his supervisors but has little bearing on Maddex’s motive or intent.