Judge James C. Chalfant, Case Number: 24STCP01566, Date: 2025-02-18 Tentative Ruling

Herman Arevalo v. Los Angeles County

Civil Service Commission et al., 24STCP01566

Tentative decision on petition for administrative mandate: denied

Petitioner Herman Arevalo (“Arevalo”) seeks an administrative writ of mandate directing Respondent Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission (“Commission”) to rescind his discharge and reinstate him as a deputy sheriff.

The court has read and considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply, and renders the following tentative decision.

Petitioner Arevalo filed the Petition against Respondent Commission on May 14, 2024, alleging a cause of action for administrative writ of mandate. The Petition alleges in pertinent part as follows.

Arevalo was hired by Real Party-in-Interest County of Los Angeles (“County”) as a deputy sheriff with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (“Department”) in 2014. Pet., ¶5. Arevalo completed his probationary period and held his position as a permanent County employee. Pet., ¶5. He was a sworn police officer within the meaning of Penal Code section 830.1 and entitled to the protections of the Public Safety Officers’ Procedural Bill of Rights Act. Pet., ¶5.

On August 12, 2021, the Department notified Arevalo that it intended to discharge him from his position as deputy sheriff. Pet., ¶6. Arevalo was provided the right to respond through a grievance proceeding and he exercised that right. Pet., ¶6.

On October 21, 2021, the Department notified Arevalo that it was imposing the discipline of discharge, effective the same date. Pet., ¶7. Arevalo requested, and was granted, a full evidentiary hearing to challenge the accusations in the letter of discharge. Pet., ¶8.

The Commission appointed Hearing Officer Wayne Song (“Hearing Officer”). Pet., ¶9. The Hearing Officer heard Arevalo’s appeal on February 14, February 15, March 20, and March 21, 2023. Pet., ¶ 9.

On July 31, 2023, the Hearing Officer issued his Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation (“proposed decision”), concluding that the discipline of discharge was appropriate. Pet., ¶10.

On February 14, 2024, the Commission orally approved the Hearing Officer’s findings and overruled Arevalo’s objections to the Hearing Officer’s proposed decision. Pet., ¶11. On February 28, 2024, the Commission issued a Final Commission Action and Order, noting it had approved the proposed decision and overruled Arevalo’s objections. Pet., ¶11.

Arevalo Arevalo contends that the Commission prejudicially abused its discretion. Pet., ¶13. The final decision is not supported by the findings and the findings are not supported by the evidence. Pet., ¶13(A). The weight of the evidence did not support a determination that Arevalo engaged in misconduct as alleged or that he violated the Department Manual of Policy and Procedures. Pet., ¶13(B). Further, the Commission’s decision to uphold the discharge was an abuse of discretion and excessive. Pet., ¶13(C).

Arevalo prays for a writ of mandate to (1) set aside the decision of Respondent Commission and (2) require Respondent and Real Party to rescind his discharge and reinstate him as deputy sheriff, pay all back salary together with interest at the legal rate, and restore all other emoluments of employment. Pet. at 4. Arevalo also prays for actual damages according to proof, costs, attorneys’ fees, and other relief as just and proper. Pet. at 4-5.

On June 11, 2024, Respondent Commission filed a Notice of No Beneficial Interest in Outcome.

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 in its face specify which cases are subject to independent review, leaving that issue to the courts. Fukuda v. City of Angels, (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, (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 143. See CCP §1094.5(c). The independent judgment standard of review applies to administrative findings on guilt in cases involving a police 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.” Id. 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, a 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, 150-151; 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 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 (Ev. 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. 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, 217-218. 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, (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 961.

“Members shall maintain sufficient competency to properly perform their duties and assume the responsibilities of their positions. Members shall perform their duties in a manner which will tend to establish and maintain the highest standard of efficiency in carrying out the functions and objectives of the Department.

· Failure to conform to work standards established for the member's rank or position;

· Failure to take appropriate action on the occasion of a crime, disorder or other condition deserving police attention;

In addition to the above, the following will be considered to be prima facie evidence of incompetence:

· A written record of repeated infractions of the Department's rules, regulations, manuals or directives.”

Department Policy 3-01/100.35 (Dishonesty/False Information in Government Records) provides:

“Members shall not create false official records. Members shall not knowingly or willingly enter, or cause to be entered, in any Department books, records, memoranda, reports, computer, or electronic data systems, any inaccurate, false, or improper police information or material matter. Department members who violate this section are subject to discipline up to and including discharge.”

Department Policy 3-01/100.35 reflects the fundamental honesty requirements applicable to the position of deputy sheriff, which is a position of public trust. Talmo v. Civil Serv. Comm. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 210, 231. Honesty and credibility are traits that “are crucial to the proper performance of [a deputy’s] duties” and “[d]ishonesty is incompatible with the public trust.” Ibid.

In 2014, the Department hired Arevalo as a deputy sheriff. AR 453, 1009. He was assigned to the Carson Station as a patrol deputy. AR 453, 1022-24.

On September 7, 2020, Arevalo responded to a call regarding a possible family disturbance at a location in Carson. AR 343, 453-54. The Unit History Report created for the event indicates that an individual named Jose called the Department because his son was arguing with him over driving his vehicle and attempted to hit him. AR 228.

The primary unit for the call was Deputy Nedila Estrada (“Estrada”) and Arevalo was an assisting unit. AR 343. The call involved a dispute between a teenage Juvenile male (“Juvenile”) and his parents (“Mother” and “Father”). The parents did not speak English.

After the September 7, 2020 incident, Arevalo wrote an Incident Report dated the same day. AR 485-89.

The report stated that, upon Arevalo’s arrival, Father was standing in the front yard. Father explained that he had been arguing with Juvenile, who Father told could not use the car because he was underage. The argument escalated and Juvenile became enraged. Juvenile began breaking items in the living room and Father became fearful that Juvenile would assault him. Father walked outside and called 911. AR 487.

Arevalo contacted Juvenile near the living room. They discussed Juvenile’s desire to leave, and that Juvenile only told Father that he would take the keys if Father would not let him have them. AR 487. Juvenile then refused to talk further. AR 487.

Arevalo spoke to Father and Mother and explained that the issue was parental. Father said: “I’m done. He doesn’t listen to me, my wife and I are afraid he would hurt one of us?” AR 487.

Arevalo asked Mother if Juvenile could stay with any other family members for the time being. She said she had cousins and would contact them right away. Estrada assisted Arevalo in talking to Juvenile about going to his cousins’ home for the time being. AR 487. Juvenile agreed and walked away to get his bag of clothes. AR 487. After Mother could not get ahold of the cousins but knew they were home. When Arevalo inquired whether she could drive Juvenile, Mother exclaimed that she could not because Juvenile gets aggressive with her too. AR 487. He and Estrada attempted to calm the parents down but they both refused to take Juvenile as they were extremely fearful of him. AR 487.

Juvenile returned outside and walked past with his bag. AR 488. When Arevalo asked where he was going, Juvenile stated that he was going to walk to his cousins’ home. AR 487-88. Mother exclaimed: “He’s not going to his cousins’! He’s probably not going to come back here! He’s going to get hurt if he walks away!” AR 488. Mother “plead[ed] for law enforcement intervention as she fear [sic] her son, in his current state of mind, would attempt to hurt himself or others.” AR 488.

Arevalo “directed Deputy Estrada to remain with the parents as [he] drove toward [redacted] in an attempt to talk to [the Juvenile].” AR 488. Arevalo went ahead of Juvenile’s path and asked him to stop and speak with him. AR 488. Juvenile yelled: “Fuck the cops! You guys killed my mother fuckin’ cousin!” AR 488. Juvenile then stepped off the curb without looking, and into the street. AR 488.

Arevalo “observed a silver sedan barreling southbound toward [Juvenile] as he was still in the middle of the street. Fearing he would get run over, [Arevalo] ran toward him, grabbing his right wrist with my right hand and his backpack with my left hand.” AR 488. Arevalo pulled Juvenile toward the sidewalk as he heard “loud screeching from the vehicle braking.” AR 488.

Juvenile shouted: “Why the fuck are you arresting me?” AR 488. The momentum of Arevalo pulling Juvenile cause both to trample to the sidewalk and Juvenile tripped on the curb and fell to his knees on the grass. AR 488. Because he maintained his grip on Juvenile, Arevalo fell on him, landing on his back. AR 488. Juvenile shouted that he had done nothing wrong and attempted to stand. AR 488. Arevalo was afraid Juvenile would fight him, so he kept his grip on Juvenile’s wrist and backpack, keeping his torso against Juvenile’s back. AR 488. He yelled that he was not arresting Juvenile but he needed to calm down. AR 488. Juvenile kept trying to get up and Arevalo kept his position until Juvenile tired. AR 488.

When Juvenile calmed down, Arevalo handcuffed him and escorted him to Arevalo’s patrol vehicle. AR 488. When Arevalo asked Juvenile why he had so much hostility toward his parents, Juvenile told him that he caught his father cheating on his mother. When he confronted his parents about it, he was met with rejection. AR 488.

Based on Juvenile’s statements, his hostile aggression towards his parents, and his carelessness in crossing the street, Arevalo determined that he was a danger to himself and others and contacted the Mental Evaluation Team (“MET”), which responded. AR 488. He also notified Sergeant Francisco Reyes (“Sgt. Reyes”) regarding his use of force. AR 489. The MET team agreed Juvenile was a danger to himself and others and placed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 5585 hold. AR 488. Estrada and the MET transported Juvenile to the hospital. AR 488.

Estrada wrote a supplemental report following the incident. AR 235. She noted that she transported Juvenile to the hospital at the request of the MET. Ibid.

The surveillance video was obtained from the home of Graciela Guillen (“Guillen”). AR 356. There are two copies of the video: the first is a copy of the video Guillen’s son made with his cellphone, and the second is a version IAB Sgt. Troy Rodriguez (“Sgt. Rodriguez”) altered so it could be viewed without flipping it to its side. AR 843. The court has viewed the pertinent portions of the video several times.

The video shows that Arevalo drove his vehicle around the block to intercept Juvenile, who was walking southbound on the sidewalk on the west side of Shearer. Arevalo parked his patrol vehicle on the west side of the street and then stood on the sidewalk to await the approaching Juvenile. As Juvenile approached, he left the sidewalk and began to walk across the street in an effort to avoid Arevalo. As he crossed the street, a white vehicle that had pulled away from the far curb in a three-point turnabout approached behind him.

Arevalo mirrored Juvenile, entering the street and angling to his right in order to intercept the Juvenile. As Arevalo did so, the white vehicle braked. Arevalo then grabbed Juvenile’s right wrist and forced him toward the east edge of the roadway. In doing so, Arevalo maneuvered behind and placed both hands on Juvenile. Arevalo then pulled Juvenile to the ground. The video depicts Arevalo wrenching his body to the right in order to generate the torque necessary to slam the Juvenile to the ground. The video does not depict Juvenile tripping and falling to the ground under his own power.

After brief struggle with Arevalo maintaining a position on top of Juvenile, Juvenile ceased moving. More than 40 seconds after Arevalo pulled Juvenile to the ground, a silver sedan passed by the scene. Arevalo handcuffed Juvenile on the ground, then assisted him to his feet, escorted him to his cruiser, and placed him in the rear seat of the vehicle.

Arevalo’s supervisor, Sgt. Reyes, was called to the scene along with the acting watch commander, Sergeant Steven Velasquez. AR 345. Sgt. Reyes subsequently approved Arevalo’s report of the incident. AR 485. After reviewing the security camera video depicting the encounter between Arevalo and Juvenile, Sgt. Reyes realized that the incident was substantially different from Arevalo’s report. AR 345-346, 363. Accordingly, an Internal Affairs Bureau (“IAB”) investigation was opened.

Estrada was interviewed seven months after the incident, on April 13, 2021. AR 369. Arevalo was talking to Father when she arrived. AR 371. She spoke with Juvenile while Arevalo was speaking with the father. AR 371. Juvenile was completely cooperative. AR 371. Juvenile told her that he had an argument with his father, and there were “cheating issues” with his mother. AR 372. She asked Juvenile to just take a seat so she could get the story from the parents. AR 372.

Mother told her that Juvenile is constantly getting into arguments with them and tends to run away. AR 372. Estrada noted that deputies have been called to the house a couple of times. Ibid.

Estrada asked Mother since there was no crime, was there somewhere Juvenile could go for the day? AR 372. Mother told her she had a sister nearby, and she did not mind if her son went to stay with her family. AR 372. Estrada asked Mother to give her sister a call. AR 372. She told Juvenile that they were going to take him to his cousins’ house. Estrada told Juvenile to pack a bag, and he did. AR 373. Mother, however, was unable to contact her sister after several attempts. AR 373.

Juvenile grew impatient. At one point, he began walking away southbound from the residence, but returned at Estrada’s request. AR 373. After more delay, Juvenile grew more agitated and said: “Forget this”. AR 373. He walked away again in the same direction, and this time did not return despite Estrada’s repeated calls to him. AR 373. Estrada then explained to Mother that the deputies could not force Juvenile to return because no crime had been committed. AR 373. She asked Mother whether her son had any medical condition and Mother responded: “No, he does this all the time. He runs away from the house. He’ll go to his friend’s house or he’ll go to the cousin’s house.” AR 373.

Arevalo left the scene without telling Estrada where he was going. AR 376-77. Estrada assumed Arevalo left the call because there was nothing more for him to do. AR 376. Estrada did not even realize that Arevalo had re-contacted Juvenile until another deputy informed her later that “[Arevalo]’s got somebody detained.” AR 377.

Estrada remained at the house in part to retrieve a “missing juvenile” form from her patrol vehicle to give to the parents and to explain to them the procedures for filling out and submitting the form if their son did not return. AR 376-77. Estrada said that Juvenile was “completely calm with me the whole time . . .” AR 379. She believed Juvenile was “walking away to . . . just let his frustration and . . . temper come down.” AR 376. Estrada denied that Mother “pleaded” for law enforcement intervention. Mother was simply “frustrated . . . with the situation with her and her husband.” AR 375.

Estrada denied that Mother ever mentioned her son was suicidal. AR 374. If she had, they would have had to bring him back to the house. AR 374. Estrada also denied that Mother said Juvenile suffered from depression. AR 374. She did say he has a bad temper. AR 374. Estrada did not recall if Mother said that Juvenile had seen a psychiatrist or therapist. AR 375.

Mother was interviewed by IAB on April 6, 2021. AR 383. She stated that Juvenile already was calm by the time Arevalo and Estrada arrived at the residence. AR 388, 408. Her son has been diagnosed with depression and anger management. AR 408. He does not have mental health issues and had not been “evaluated.” AR 387, 397. He had a psychologist “but he didn’t want the psychologist anymore. And then from there they would call – they gave us some number. This number is just to ask for help. So help to and talk to him.” AR 386. They could not find the psychologist’s number, so they called 911. AR 388.

She did not ask or “plead with” the deputies to go and help her son after he had departed. AR 402, 409. The deputies did not ask her if her son might do harm to others or to himself in his mental state. AR 396.

She was speaking only with Estrada and Arevalo was speaking to her husband. She did not know what her husband told Arevalo. AR 411. When asked, she told Estrada that he did have depression. AR 386, 400. She did not say anything about suicide. AR 400.

Mother was not concerned for her son’s safety when he walked away. AR 394-95, 402. She was kind of concerned that he started walking in the opposite direction from the cousins’ house. AR 409.

Even Estrada was surprised when Arevalo left, and his act of leaving to pursue Juvenile “was his own action”. AR 402.

Arevalo was interviewed by IAB on February 12, 2021. AR 452. Estrada was already in front of the residence talking to Juvenile when he arrived. AR 454. He initially spoke to Father while Estrada contacted Juvenile. AR 454. Father told him that Juvenile had a lot of issues the past couple months because he has been angry for no apparent reason. AR 454. Father explained the incident concerning car keys. AR 455.

Mother said they don’t want to press charges, they just wanted Juvenile to get some help. AR 455. She asked the deputies if there was some “program” they could take her son to. AR 455. When he explained there was not, she continued to plead for help. AR 455. Arevalo asked if there was some place Juvenile could go. AR 455. Mother responded that Juvenile had cousins “further up north in Carson City” and she could give them a call. AR 455. Arevalo so go ahead, that might be the best option. AR 455.

Arevalo stood by talking to Father while Estrada talked to Juvenile. AR 455. She told him that Juvenile independently raised the prospect of going to see his cousins. AR 455. Arevalo said that is perfect and Mother is making the call now. AR 455.

Juvenile did not say much to Arevalo. AR 455. He said: “I just want to get out of here. Let me go.” AR 455. He walked in the house to retrieve his items. AR 455. Mother came out irate, saying that the last time he went to his cousins he went away and did drugs with gang members. AR 456. She said she didn’t want him to go to his cousins. AR 456. Estrada overheard and said: “So we can’t take him”. AR 456. Mother said no, I fear he won’t stay there. He will leave and probably get hurt. AR 456. Arevalo told Estrada that takes away the cousins as an option. AR 456.

Father and Mother continued to plead to take Juvenile to a program, even though Arevalo said they cannot do that. AR 456. At that time, Juvenile stepped out of the house with a backpack and started walking down the street. AR 456. Arevalo yelled “where are you going?” Juvenile responded with expletives and said he was leaving. AR 456. Estrada said: “Hey, we had an agreement”. Juvenile flipped her off and kept walking. AR 456.

At this point, Mother grabbed Arevalo by the shirt crying and said “how are you just gonna let him walk away?” AR 456. Estrada interjected that they could write a missing person’s report but he is not a danger to himself and we cannot stop him. AR 455. Mother said: “But he is suicidal”. AR 456. Arevalo said: “What do you mean he is suicidal? You did not mention this.” AR 456. Mother said Juvenile has been depressed and has suicidal tendencies. AR 456. I fear if you let him walk away, I’m never going to see him again. AR 456.

Arevalo made a judgment call and told Estrada that, based on what Mother just said, he was going to get in his cruiser, drive ahead of him, and stop him. Estrada agreed. AR 456.

That is what Arevalo did. AR 456. Arevalo made contact with Juvenile, who was a couple blocks away and walking towards him on the sidewalk. AR 457. Juvenile yelled epithets and started to cross the street. AR 457. Arevalo saw a silver car barreling down the street toward Juvenile in the street. AR 457. He feared Juvenile would get hit by the car and rushed into the middle of the street to make himself visible to the car so it would slow down. AR 457. Juvenile said: “If you come close or you touch me, I’m just gonna go across the street.” AR 457.

To prevent Juvenile from doing so and knowing there was a car behind him, Arevalo rushed up to him, placed his right hand on Juvenile’s right wrist and left hand on Juvenile’s backpack and said: “You’re gonna get hit. Get on the sidewalk”. AR 457. Juvenile started yelling and they both were walking to the sidewalk. AR 457. To stop him from breaking away and moving back to the center of the street, he was pushing Juvenile, who was pressing against him. AR 458. When they got to the curb, Juvenile tripped a bit. Because he was taller than Arevalo, Arevalo’s arm lifted up and he began to lose his grip. AR 458. Arevalo tried to step onto the sidewalk to regain his grip. AR 458. He began to trip on the grass area which has holes in it. AR 458.

“So as I’m trying to regain my footing and he's also trying to regain his footing, I felt my body going backwards, and at this point, I had a decision to make because I felt as I either had to let him go in order to regain my footing or I’m about to fall because him and his arm and his height, I wasn't able to get that footing correctly. So once I felt that I was about to lose my balance, I made the conscious decision that I'm about to fall, but I'm committed to holding onto him because at this point I didn’t want to let him go. So I closed him in and I quickly turned my body causing him to move to the side so that way he doesn't fall on top of me.” AR 458.

After being shown the video, Arevalo stated that he did not recall the white sedan at the time he wrote his report. AR 475. It was the silver sedan that comes through later that he recalled. AR 475. Arevalo acknowledged that it appears from the video that he performed a “controlled takedown” of Juvenile at the curb, but his description in his report was “relatively the same as what exactly what I saw in the video”; he made a conscious decision to turn his torso so that Juvenile would fall next to, and not on, him. AR 475. He did not intend to perform a takedown; he simply wanted to keep his grip on Juvenile. AR 475. He also asserted: “I did rush towards [Juvenile],” meaning that he “walk[ed] at a rapid pace.” AR 476.

Juvenile told IAB that Arevalo kicked his leg and pushed him down. AR 427. He “didn’t throw me. He just pushed me down.” AR 427. Arevalo was holding his arm behind his back. AR 426. The neighbor, Guillen, did not know the situation. AR 428. She only saw a deputy trying to arrest a kid who was big and not nicely dressed. AR 428.

“So she’s saying that the subject tried to push ... attempted to push the deputy by putting both his hands out. And then that’s when the deputy grabbed the left arm. She says that it was obvious to her that he tried to just grab the arm so that he could get...grab a hold of him. But when that happened, because of the ... the incident occurred close to the curb on, on her side of the street, the, the subject tripped and then kind of fell to the ground and ... as she kind of motioned, on his knees. And then the deputy was able to handcuff him.” AR 444

When asked if it “appear[ed] that the deputy threw him to the ground,” Guillen responded: “No, no, no, no, no.” AR 444. “[Arevalo] just reached out there to grab his arm, so he can get control of him, but he didn’t actually take him to the ground”. AR 445.

Arevalo told Sgt. Reyes that he grabbed Juvenile by the wrist and backpack to keep him from getting struck by traffic, and then Juvenile tripped and fell as Arevalo held onto him. AR 360-61.

Based on Arevalo’s report, and what Arevalo told him, he believed Arevalo had determined Juvenile was suicidal and a danger to himself when he left the house. AR 367.

After noting the video inconsistencies in Arevalo’s story, Sgt. Reyes told IAB: “I still tried to put it together, seeing, what I believe maybe, maybe the momentum, maybe his state of mind made him see different things.” AR 366.

Deputy Frederick Noya is a Gang Intervention Deputy with the Gang Diversion Team. He works with up to 100 kids a year whom he oversees “kind of like a second probation officer.” AR 595-96. Juvenile was brought to his program because he was having issues “with drugs and stuff like that.” AR 599. He knew Juvenile was “being depressed” and had anger issues. AR 599.

Following completion of the investigation, the Department served Arevalo with a letter of intent to discharge dated August 12, 2021. AR 536-42. The Department charged the following:

“1. That in violation of the Department's Manual of Policy and Procedures Section(s) 3-01/050.10, Performance to Standards, on or about September 7, 2020, while on duty, and assigned to Carson Station, you failed to perform to the standards established for your rank of a Deputy Sheriff, and/or failed to perform your duties in a manner which would establish and maintain the highest standard of efficiency in carrying out the functions and objectives of the Department, when you failed to properly document the events leading to your use of force, as evidenced by, but not limited to the following:

a. surveillance video from the scene that contradicts your written reports of events; and/or,

b. reporting you ran toward C.A., a minor, whereas surveillance video showed you walking; and/or,

c. reporting that you observed a silver sedan “barreling” toward C.A., a minor, whereas surveillance video showed a white sedan traveling southbound at slow speeds, while you were making contact with C.A., a minor, in the street. Subsequently the video showed a silver sedan at a greater speed; and/or,

d. reporting C.A., a minor, tripped on the curb and fell down onto his knees, whereas surveillance video showed you conducting a takedown technique.

2. That in violation of the Department’s Manual of Policy and Procedures Section 3-01/100.36, Dishonesty/False Information in Records, on or about February 12, 2021, during the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department administrative investigation, you failed to provide full, complete, and/or truthful statements in regard to the events surrounding the call for service at 21108 South Shearer Avenue, Carson on September 7, 2020, as evidenced by, but not limited to the following:

a. stating to Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) investigators that the mother (Margarita Cruz Martinez) of C.A., a minor, “grabs you by the shirt crying, saying how are you just gonna let him walk away?” and/or stating Ms. Martinez said, “But he is Suicidal” and/or words to that effect; however, Ms. Martinez indicated, in her interview with IAB investigators, at no time did she tell you that C.A., a minor, was suicidal and/or words to that effect; and/or,

b. during Deputy Nedila Estrada’s interview with IAB investigators, Deputy Estrada stated Ms. Martinez never mentioned that C.A., a minor, was suicidal and/or words to that effect.

c. failing to accurately report factual circumstances surrounding the detainment of a minor; and/or,

d. lacking probable cause to support detaining a minor for a mentally ill investigation.”

After a Skelly hearing, the Department issued a letter of imposition and an addendum informing Arevalo of his discharge. AR 528-35.

Chief Myron Johnson (“Chief Johnson”) authored the Disposition Sheet discharging Arevalo. AR 511-16. The “Mitigating Factors” set forth in the Disposition Sheet stated: “Often times during dynamic events, mistakes are made. After reviewing the surveillance video, Subject Arevalo corrected the accounts leading up to the incident and acknowledged it was his perception that the incident occurred as documented in the incident report and he was not being untruthful.” AR 515 (emphasis added).

Arevalo’s last two performance evaluations had ratings of “very good.” AR 515. He has only one previous founded discipline, from 2017, for a Use of Code 3 violation. AR 515.

The Department’s Guidelines for Discipline (“Guidelines”) set a discipline range for failure to perform to standards is a written reprimand to discharge. AR 514. The discipline range for dishonesty is 15 days to discharge. AR 514.

Arevalo appealed his discharge to the Commission. The Hearing Officer held a four-day hearing. See AR 605-1292. The Department called Sgt. Nyesha Sutton, Sgt. Troy Rodriguez, and Chief Myron Johnson as witnesses. None of Estrada, Mother, Father, or Juvenile testified.

Sgt. Myesha Sutton (“Sutton”) (formerly Rice) testified that she was the bonus deputy with the MET on September 7, 2020. She arrived on scene with her clinician partner, Rayza Donis (“Donis”). AR 223, 636, 638. Sutton, as a sworn officer, the clinician she is partnered, and the field deputy all have the ability to place a Juvenile in a 5585 hold. AR 637.

The decision is a collaborative process. AR 640-41. When a Juvenile makes a statement that he “would rather die than go back home”, that statement alone is not enough for a hold. AR 640. If he made that statement and did something that could possibly hurt himself, that would justify a hold. AR 640. In this case, Donis signed the form, so Sutton assumed that Donis made the decision for a hold. AR 638.

The MET meets with the handling deputy, who tells them what is going on. AR 643. Both the MET deputy and clinician talk to the parents, deputies, and decide whether an individual should be placed on a 5150 or 5585 hold. AR 643-44. A lot of behaviors can be drug induced, and the MET team won’t take them if they are under the influence. AR 643. Based on their independent evaluation, both MET members believed Juvenile met the criteria for a 5585 hold. AR 646.

When a minor is taken in on a 5585 hold, the MET members speak with the parents. AR 645. In this situation, Donis, who is bilingual, spoke with the Spanish-speaking Father. AR 645.

There have been times when Sutton was called to a scene to conduct an independent MET evaluation and determined that a hold was not warranted. AR 646.

Chief Johnson testified that it is the sergeant’s responsibility to ensure a report is accurate before submitting it to the watch commander. AR 716. If the sergeant signs a report, it means he or she has reviewed it. AR 716. The sergeant would be expected to review video surveillance before signing a report. AR 716. If a sergeant believes a report is inaccurate after watching the video, he should not sign it. AR 716. Chief Johnson believed Sgt. Reyes watched the video before signing Arevalo’s report. AR 714.

A deputy does not need “probable cause” to detain an individual for an investigation; “reasonable suspicion” is all that is required. AR 761. Thus, Arevalo was only required to have reasonable suspicion about Juvenile’s mental health status to conduct an investigation for a 5585 hold. AR 762.

Neither Sutton nor Donis was interviewed by IAB. AR 763-64. While he was aware that MET deputies and clinicians write reports when they complete an investigation in the field, he did not recall seeing a MET report in this instance. AR 765. Nor did he ask to review a MET report. AR 765. The clinician’s paperwork signing off on the 5585 hold was not included in the IAB investigation packet. AR 766-67.

Arevalo testified that Estrada was speaking with Juvenile when he arrived on scene. AR 1029. The parents were nearby and trying to interject due to their distraught or stressed-out nature. AR 1030. He separated them from Juvenile to speak with them. AR 1030.

Arevalo began to speak with Mother in Spanish; he is fluent, and she did not speak English. AR 1030. Mother explained that she got out of the shower and heard a lot of yelling in the living room. AR 1030. She saw her son breaking the television and throwing things around, yelling at Father that he wanted the car keys. AR 1031. Father looked terrified but refused to give up the car keys because Juvenile had no license, and he previously crashed the car. AR 1031. Juvenile balled his fists and said give me the keys or I will take them from you. AR 1031. Father yelled to Mother: “Call 911. Call the police.” AR 1031.

Mother explained that she tried to contact a mental health hotline she had been referred to by her son’s psychologist. AR 1031-32. She got no answer and then called 911. AR 1032. Juvenile waited for the police inside the house and his parents waited outside. AR 1032.

Arevalo asked the parents if they wanted Juvenile prosecuted for vandalism. AR 1033. Mother quickly said they don’t want him in jail, they want him to get help. AR 1034. Arevalo asked Mother to tell him about the psychiatrist. AR 1033. Mother answered that Juvenile had been diagnosed with depression and anger issues, and he had medication for depression. AR 1034. He refuses the medication because he never liked it. He gets angry very quickly. AR 1034. Arevalo asked if Juvenile has ever done anything to hurt himself, and Moter said that many times he has punched walls, broken his knuckles, and had to get hospitalized. AR 1034. When asked if he might want to hurt himself further, Mother said that he might want to do so because he states that he “doesn’t care anymore” and he “doesn’t want to deal with it” anymore. AR 1034-35.

Mother started talking about putting her son in programs because she does not want him in jail. AR 1035. Arevalo responded that there are no programs we can put him in, but Mother was adamant that there was a program she knew existed. AR 1036.

Arevalo inquired about a family or friend where Juvenile could go and calm down. AR 1036. Mother referred to her sister but did not want her son to go there because he always runs off and hangs out with his gang member friends. AR 1036. Mother insisted there had to be a program for her son. AR 1037.

Juvenile went inside. AR 1038. Estrada told him Juvenile had agreed to go to his cousins. AR 1038. Arevalo said Mother objected to him going there. AR 1039. Arevalo repeated to Mother that Juvenile wants to go to his cousins and Mother again objected. AR 1039. Estrada told Mother there was no other option. AR 1038. Mother went inside to call her sister, and Arevalo consulted with Estrada whether they would be exposed to criticism if they took Juvenile to his cousins’ home and he got beat up. AR 1041. Mother came out and said her sister was not answering her phone. AR 1041.

Mother kept asking about a program. AR 1042. Juvenile came out of the house with a backpack on and walked toward and out the main gate. AR 1043. Estrada yelled: “Where are you going? We agreed that I was going to take you up to your cousin’s”. AR 1043. Juvenile turned and said: “Fuck you”, I’m going to walk. AR 1043.

Mother was distraught and asked how the deputies could just let him walk away; he is going to get hurt. AR 1045. Estrada said there is nothing we can do; he is 17 and can take care of himself. AR 1044. Mother continued to berate Estrada. AR 1044. Estrada told Arevalo that she was going to get Mother a missing person report from her car. AR 1045.

Mother reiterated to Arevalo that Juvenile was depressed and was going to hurt himself. AR 1045. He asked if her son was suicidal, and she said yes. AR 1045, 1047. Estrada came back and Arevalo told her that they need to stop Juvenile because he is suicidal. AR 1046.

Mother told Estrada that her son was going to hurt himself, but Estrada did not believe it. She said you are saying that because you want us to grab your son. You didn’t say that in the beginning, so I don’t believe you. AR 1046.

Arevalo told Estrada that he was “also on the fence of believing the mom, but she made the statements and we cannot just discredit the mom just because we think she possibly lied. She said the words. We need to go stop him”. AR 1046. Arevalo then decided to take over the call. He told Estrada to stay there, and he would head Juvenile off in his car. AR 1046.

Arevalo believed he had a reasonable suspicion to detain Juvenile. AR 1049. He drove around the block and waited for Juvenile. AR 1049-50. He intended to detain Juvenile. AR 1050. He waited for Juvenile and asked to talk. AR 1052. Juvenile started yelling and threw up his hands in gang signs and yelled “Fuck the pigs.” “You guys killed my cousin.” AR 1053. Arevalo said I just want to talk. AR 1053. Juvenile said you can’t arrest me. If you get too close, I will just walk on the other side. AR 1053.

Arevalo saw a silver or grey car coming at relatively high speed above the residential limit. AR 1054-55. He yelled at Juvenile that he was going to get hit. Juvenile did not even look behind and said “you can’t touch me”. AR 1054. Arevalo knew he had to stop Juvenile and feared for his safety. AR 1054. His perspective was to detain for 5585. He made a quick move and grabbed Juvenile and walked him to the sidewalk. AR 1054-55.

As Arevalo and Juvenile reached the curb, Arevalo lost his balance and started to fall backward. AR 1058. He did not want to let go of Juvenile. Nor did he want Juvenile -- who was approximately six feet tall and taller than him -- to fall on top of him. AR 1058. Arevalo thus turned his body as he fell, and Juvenile fell on his hands and knees. AR 1058. Juvenile began yelling and crying that he did not want to live any more. AR 1067-70.

Arevalo called his supervisor, Sgt. Reyes, to the scene, as he believed he had used force during his interaction with the Juvenile. Sergeants are tasked with conducting use of force investigations. AR 1074. When Sgt. Reyes arrived, Arevalo told him that he had spoken to a witness who lived across the street, Guillen, who was then standing in her front yard. AR 1078. Guillen had video of the incident from her home surveillance system, and she had a copy for him. AR1078-79. Arevalo testified that he told Sgt. Reyes about the video because he wanted him to be aware that he (Arevalo) had nothing to hide. AR 1081.

Prior to Sgt. Reyes’ arrival, Arevalo had called the paramedics to look at a scrape Juvenile had sustained on his shin, as well as the MET so it could assess the situation. AR 1076. Mother’s statements provided enough information for Arevalo to legally detain the Juvenile under a reasonable suspicion standard, and to call MET to conduct an evaluation into whether the Juvenile was a danger to himself or others. AR 1278-79.

Arevalo completed his report on-scene without the benefit of viewing the video. AR 1098-99. The first opportunity Arevalo had to view the video was during his IAB interview. AR 1106. Arevalo gave his report to Sgt. Reyes, who told him that he would read the report when he watched the video to see if there were any discrepancies, and that he would let Arevalo know if there were. AR 1100.

Two-and-a-half weeks later, Reyes asked about the color of the car Arevalo described in his report. When Arevalo stated that he would watch the video to make any needed corrections, Reyes told him there was no need—he would submit the report “as is.” AR 1100-01. Reyes never told Arevalo that there were any discrepancies between his report and the video. AR 1105-06.

Arevalo acknowledged that the video shows him walking, not rushing, toward the Juvenile in the street. AR 1175. He testified that, “based on [his] perspective,” he “did rush to him” when he made contact with Juvenile. AR 1175.

Father was not available when Internal Affairs conducted interviews because he was out of the country. AR 902; see AR 346.

Estrada did not document her conversation with the parents or Juvenile in her report. AR 935-36.

The Department became aware of the video only because Arevalo told his supervisor, Sgt. Reyes, of its existence. AR 930.

The Hearing Officer issued a proposed decision finding Arevalo violated two Department policies and upholding the discharge. AR 70-85.

Arevalo submitted objections to the proposed decision (see AR 88-104), and the Department submitted a response. AR 106-26.

On October 25, 2023, the Commission considered the objections, overruled them in a 4-1 vote, and issued a final decision upholding the discharge. AR 127-31.

Petitioner Arevalo seeks to set aside the Commission’s decision of discharge on the basis that (a) the weight of the evidence does not reflect his guilt on either charge and (b) the penalty of discharge was excessive.

1. Arevalo Failed to Properly Document in His Report the Events Leading to Use of Force

Charge One was based upon the surveillance video from Guillen’s home. Charge One asserted that Arevalo violated the Department Manual of Policy and Procedures section 3-01/050.10 (Performance to Standards) by failing to properly document the events leading to the use of force. In support of the charge, the letters of intent and imposition cited the following: (a) the video contradicted Arevalo’s report; (b) Arevalo reported that he had run toward Juvenile, whereas the video showed him walking; (c) Arevalo reported a silver sedan “barreling” toward Juvenile, whereas the video showed a white sedan proceeding slowly, with the silver sedan arriving later; and (d) Arevalo reported that Juvenile tripped on the curb and fell down on his knees, whereas the video depicted Arevalo performing a takedown technique.

Arevalo argues that the Department became aware of the video only because Arevalo told his supervisor, Sgt. Reyes, of its existence. Arevalo testified that he told Sgt. Reyes about the video because he wanted him to be aware that he had nothing to hide. AR 1081.

Department policy notes the importance of accurate reports and provides that “Department members may review recordings prior to documenting an enforcement or investigative activity to ensure their reports, statements, and documentation are as accurate and complete as possible.” AR 196. The Department also has a “Video Advisement” which provides in relevant part:

The recording may depict things that personnel did not see or hear. Personnel may have seen or heard things that were not recorded by the camera. Depending on the speed of the camera, some action elements may not have been recorded or may have happened faster than personnel could perceive and absorb them. The camera has captured a 2-dimensional image, which may be different from a person’s 3-dimensional observations. Lighting and angles may also have contributed to different perceptions.” AR 196 (emphasis added). Pet. Op. Br. at 11.

Arevalo never had the chance to review the video prior to writing and finalizing his incident report. Arevalo completed his report on-scene, and the first time he saw the video was during his IAB interview. AR 1106. Arevalo gave his report to Sgt. Reyes, who said he would read it when he watched the video to see if there were any discrepancies. Two-and-a-half weeks later, Sgt. Reyes asked Arevalo about the color of the car described in his report. When Arevalo said he would watch the video to make corrections, Reyes told him there was no need; he would submit the report “as is.” AR 1100-01. Reyes never told Arevalo there were any discrepancies between his report and the video, and he signed off on the report. Pet. Op. Br. at 11.

Chief Johnson testified that he believed Sgt. Reyes watched the video before signing off on Arevalo’s report. AR 714. This is consistent with Arevalo’s statement that Sgt. Reyes asked him about the color of the car but indicated it was not important. AR 1100-01. If a sergeant signs off on a report, it means he or she has reviewed it. It is the sergeant’s responsibility to ensure a report’s accuracy before submitting it to the watch commander. AR 716. If Reyes had believed the report to be inaccurate after watching the video, he should not have signed off on it. Pet. Op. Br. at 14.

In his testimony, Arevalo acknowledged that the video shows him walking toward Juvenile in the street. AR 1175. Arevalo argues that it is this type of situation referred to by the Video Advisement: “the human eye and brain could perceive some things in stressful situations differently than a camera records them.” AR 1196. He testified that, based on his perspective, he did rush to Juvenile right before they made contact. AR 1175. The Department presented no evidence that Arevalo had a reason to be untruthful about this fact. Whether he ran, rushed, or walked to Juvenile in the street, there is no dispute that Arevalo made contact and led him to the curb. Arevalo’s perception of how he reached Juvenile is immaterial. Pet. Op. Br. at 11.

Arevalo’s statement about a white sedan “barreling” towards them also is based on perception. The video shows only what was directly in front of Guillen’s house; it does not provide Arevalo’s angle of observation in the middle of the street. Arevalo may have seen the silver car coming at a high rate of speed toward Juvenile and the white car may have pulled out of a driveway prior to the silver car’s arrival. Alternatively, Arevalo may have thought the white car was silver, and that its speed was greater than appears on the video. In fact, after noting the inconsistencies, Sgt. Reyes told IAB: “I still tried to put it together, seeing, what I believe maybe, maybe the momentum, maybe his state of mind made him see different things.” AR 366. The Department presented no evidence that Arevalo intentionally misstated what occurred. Pet. Op. Br. at l2.

Arevalo stated in his report that Juvenile tripped on the curb and Arevalo fell because he wanted to maintain his grip on him. AR 488. During his IAB interview, Arevalo explained that Juvenile was pressing against him as they were walking toward the curb. AR 458. When they got to the curb, Juvenile tripped. Because he was taller than Arevalo, Arevalo’s arm lifted up and he began to lose his grip. AR 458. Arevalo tried to step onto the sidewalk to regain his grip:

Arevalo acknowledged in his IAB interview that the video appears to show that he performed a “controlled takedown” of Juvenile but argued that the video also is consistent with his description. AR 475. While the video appears to show a takedown, Juvenile is off camera right before he and Arevalo go to the ground, and there is a fence obscuring the curb line, so it is impossible to see what happened. Arevalo consistently maintained that it was not his intention to perform a takedown; he simply wanted to keep his grip on the Juvenile, given his concerns about the Juvenile’s mental health. Pet. Op. Br. at 14.

Witness Guillen’s IAB interview (translated by Sgt. Rodriguez) comports with Arevalo’s description of what occurred. She said Juvenile tried to push Arevalo, who reached out to grab him. AR 444. When asked if it “appear[ed] that the deputy threw him to the ground,” Guillen responded, “No, no, no, no, no.” AR 444. Pet. Op. Br. at 13.

Arevalo argues that his version also is partly corroborated because he asked Juvenile, after they had fallen to the ground, why he had so much hostility toward his parents. Juvenile responded: “You just don’t fucking get it! My dad cheated on my mom and he blamed me for it!” AR 488. This is consistent with Estrada’s IAB interview that Juvenile told her he had an argument with his father, and there were “cheating issues” with his mother. AR 372. Pet. Op. Br. at l3.

The court’s review of the video shows that, after Arevalo drove his vehicle around the block to intercept Juvenile, the following occurred. Juvenile was walking southbound on the sidewalk on the west side of Shearer. Arevalo parked his patrol vehicle on the west side of the street and then stood on the sidewalk to await the approaching Juvenile. As Juvenile approached, he left the sidewalk and began to walk across the street in an effort to avoid Arevalo. As he crossed the street, a white vehicle that apparently had pulled away from the far curb in a three-point turnabout approached behind Juvenile.

Arevalo mirrored Juvenile, entering the street and angling to his right to intercept Juvenile. As Arevalo did so, the white vehicle braked. Arevalo then grabbed Juvenile’s right wrist and forced him toward the east edge of the roadway. In doing so, Arevalo maneuvered behind and placed both hands on Juvenile. Arevalo then pulled Juvenile to the ground. The video depicts Arevalo wrenching his body to the right in order to generate the torque necessary to slam the Juvenile to the ground. The video does not depict Juvenile tripping and falling to the ground under his own power.

After a struggle with Arevalo maintaining a position on top of Juvenile, Juvenile ceased moving. More than 40 seconds after Arevalo pulled Juvenile to the ground, a silver sedan passed by the scene. Arevalo handcuffed Juvenile on the ground, then assisted him to his feet, escorted him to his cruiser, and placed him in the rear seat of the vehicle.

The video shows Arevalo did not run toward Juvenile – he casually walked into the street to intercept the minor. Arevalo admits as much by arguing that the speed with which he moved toward Juvenile is immaterial. Not so, because Arevalo’s version of events is that he rushed toward the minor to save him from a barreling oncoming car. See Opp. at 11, n. 5.

The video also shows there was no silver sedan barreling toward Juvenile. The white car that appears in the camera frame is moving slowly, and the court believes it is the same car that was parked at the curb moments before and pulled a three-point turnabout. While the car was coming behind Juvenile, he was not at risk. Indeed, both Arevalo and Juvenile were almost out of the street before the white car passed them. The silver car (moving at moderate speed) did not appear until well after Arevalo and Juvenile were on the grass.

Finally, the video depicts a takedown, not a trip and fall by Juvenile with Arevalo falling with him. Arevalo stated in his IAB interview that Juvenile tripped a bit when they got to the curb. Arevalo began to lose his grip, also began to trip, and made the conscious decision that he would fall but continue to hold onto Juvenile. AR 458. Juvenile stated in his IAB interview that Arevalo kicked his leg and pushed him down. AR 427. He “didn’t throw me. He just pushed me down.” AR 427. Finally, Guillen stated in her IAB interview that Juvenile tripped and kind of fell to the ground and on his knees. AR 444. “[Arevalo] just reached out there to grab his arm, so he can get control of him, but he didn’t actually take him to the ground”. AR 445.

All three are wrong. The video clearly shows Arevalo pulling Juvenile while torquing his own body, resulting in a throwdown or takedown. There is no other way to fairly describe it. It is possible that Juvenile tripped, but the court did not see it on the video. The court saw a deliberate takedown, not a trip and fall.

The Department (Opp. at 12) is correct that Charge 1 does not require intentional misstatement or falsehood. It only requires the Department to prove that Arevalo’s performance of his job duties failed to conform to standards established for his rank. Nor does Charge 1 allege the various other inaccuracies in Arevalo’s report concerning what happened at the house. Arevalo’s misrepresentation of the use-of-force incident failed to conform with the standards and expectations of his position as a deputy – namely, that he accurately document the critical events of a use-of-force incident. The video, Arevalo’s report, and his IAB statements establish that he was guilty of Charge 1.

Charge Two asserted that Arevalo violated MPP section 3-01/100.35 (Dishonesty/False Information in Department Records) by failing to provide full, complete and truthful statements in his IAB interview. That policy prohibits a member from knowingly or willingly entering or causing to be entered in any Department records any inaccurate or false information or material matter. AR 542.

In support of this charge, the letter of imposition cited: (a) Arevalo’s statements in his IAB interview that Mother grabbed him by the shirt while crying and had asked how Arevalo could just let her son walk away, stating that Juvenile was suicidal; (b) Estrada’s statement in her IAB interview that Mother never stated Juvenile was suicidal; (c) Arevalo’s failure to accurately report the factual circumstances of his Juvenile’s detainment; and (d) Arevalo’s lack of probable cause to detain the Juvenile for a mentally ill investigation. AR 530.

Arevalo argues that the evidence shows Mother made numerous concerning statements regarding the well-being of her son, including that he had anger management issues, was depressed, and had been seeing a psychologist. She stated that she wanted to place her son in a program, and she was concerned he would not return home if he left. Pet. Op. Br. at 9.

Arevalo detailed in his report Mother’s numerous comments regarding her concern for her son’s safety. As Juvenile walked away from the home, Mother stated that she believed he would get hurt if he walked away, and feared he would attempt to hurt himself or others. AR 488. During his IAB interview, Arevalo explained that Mother pleaded for the deputies to take her son to “some sort of program,” which Arevalo indicated they could not do. AR 455, 456. She also told Arevalo that her son has been depressed and has suicidal tendencies. AR 456.

During the hearing, Arevalo testified that Mother told him that she and Father had tried to contact a mental health hotline before calling 911 (AR 1031-32), that Juvenile had been seeing a psychologist (AR 1032), that he had been diagnosed with depression and anger issues (AR 1034), and that she was worried he was going to hurt himself (AR 1045). Arevalo testified that he asked Mother if her son was suicidal, and she said yes. AR 1045. Arevalo also testified that Mother told Estrada that her son was going to hurt himself, but Estrada did not believe it. AR 1046. Arevalo told Estrada that “we cannot just discredit the mom just because we think she possibly lied. She said the words.” AR 1046. Pet. Op. Br. at 15.

Arevalo admits that Estrada denied in her IAB interview that Mother ever mentioned that Juvenile was suicidal. AR 374. However, the deputies were not always together when speaking with the parents. AR 371. Further, Estrada also denied that Mother said Juvenile suffered from depression (AR 374), and did not recall her saying that he had seen a psychiatrist or therapist. (AR 375). Importantly, Estrada was interviewed seven months after the incident, on April 13. AR 369. The report Estrada wrote following the incident was minimal, at best, so she would not have been able to refresh her recollection prior to the interview. AR 235.

Mother stated in her IAB interview that her son had seen a psychologist and that she told either Arevalo or Estrada that he did have depression. AR 386, 400. Mother also stated that she did not say anything about suicide. AR 400. However, a review of her interview transcript shows that there was quite a bit of confusion and/or discrepancies in Mother’s statements. For example, Mother said that while her son was in therapy, he had not been “evaluated.” AR 397. However, she also said that they “had found him therapy and they declared that he had depression.” AR 401. Mother also said that she only told the deputies her son had depression because they asked about it. AR 401.

Arevalo argues that he and Estrada were called to the house because Juvenile was arguing with his father over driving and threatened to hit him. AR 228. These facts do not lend themselves to the deputies asking, unprompted, about whether Juvenile had depression. Therefore, Mother must have volunteered this information. Pet. Op. Br. at 16.[1]

For the 5585 hold, a deputy need not have “probable cause” to detain an individual for an investigation; “reasonable suspicion” is all that is required. AR 761. Arevalo was only required to have reasonable suspicion about Juvenile’s mental health status to conduct an investigation for a 5585 hold (AR 762) and Mother’s statements provided enough information for Arevalo to legally detain Juvenile and call MET for an evaluation whether Juvenile was a danger to himself or others. Pet. Op. Br. at 9.

Importantly, the MET (Sgt. Sutton and clinician Donis) conducted their own independent evaluation of Juvenile when they arrived on scene. Based upon this independent evaluation, both Sutton and Donis believed Juvenile was a danger to himself or others and should be taken in on a 5585 hold. Donis, who is bilingual in Spanish and English, explained the situation to Father, who was a Spanish-speaker (AR 645) and there is no evidence that Father objected. Pet. Op. Br. at 16.

According to Arevalo, the MET’s independent evaluation shows that he had reasonable suspicion to detain Juvenile for a mental health evaluation.[2] Chief Johnson’s conclusion in the Disposition Sheet that Arevalo changed or embellished the facts surrounding the events in order to justify the use-of-force measures he decided to employ (AR 515) is entirely without basis. Arevalo did not need to embellish the facts to justify his use of force because the MET believed Juvenile to be a danger to himself. Pet. Op. Br. at 16-17.

Arevalo argues that the Department presented no evidence that he had any motive to lie about what occurred. Arevalo called Sgt. Reyes and told him that Guillen witnessed the street incident and that she had recorded it on video. He would not have done so if he was trying to hide his actions. Further, Arevalo would not have called the MET had he not sincerely believed Juvenile was a danger to himself. Pet. Op. Br. at 10.

The court disagrees. Arevalo’s version of key events is directly contradicted by Estrada’s and Mother’s IAB interviews.

In her interview, Estrada stated that she spoke with Juvenile while Arevalo was speaking Father and Juvenile was completely cooperative. AR 371. Mother told her that Juvenile is constantly getting into arguments with them and tends to run away. AR 372. Mother told her she had a sister nearby, and she did not mind if her son went to stay with her family. AR 372. Estrada asked Mother to give her sister a call. AR 372. She told Juvenile that they were going to take him to his cousins’ house. Estrada told Juvenile to pack a bag, and he did. AR 373. Mother, however, was unable to contact her sister after several attempts. AR 373. Juvenile grew impatient. After more delay, Juvenile grew more agitated and said “forget this”, walked away again in the same direction, and did not return despite Estrada’s repeated calls to him. AR 373.

Estrada asked Mother whether her so had any medical condition and Mother responded: “No, he does this all the time. He runs away from the house. He’ll go to his friend’s house or he’ll go to the cousin’s house.” AR 373. Arevalo left the scene without telling Estrada where he was going. AR 376-77. Estrada assumed Arevalo left the call because there was nothing more for him to do. AR 376.

Estrada said that Juvenile was “completely calm with me the whole time . . .” AR 379. She believed Juvenile was “walking away to . . . just let his frustration and . . . temper come down.” AR 376. Estrada denied that Mother “pleaded” for law enforcement intervention. Mother was simply “frustrated . . . with the situation with her and her husband.” AR 375. Estrada denied that Mother ever mentioned her son was suicidal. AR 374. If she had, they would have had to bring him back to the house. AR 374. Estrada also denied that Mother said Juvenile suffered from depression. AR 374. She did say he has a bad temper. AR 374.

In her interview, Mother also stated that Juvenile already was calm by the time Arevalo and Estrada arrived at the residence. AR 388, 408. Her son has been diagnosed with depression and anger management. AR 408. He does not have mental health issues and had not been “evaluated.” AR 387, 397. He had a psychologist, “but he didn’t want the psychologist anymore. AR 386.

She spoke with Estrada; Arevalo spoke to her husband. When asked, she told Estrada or Arevalo that Juvenile had depression. AR 386, 400. She did not say anything about suicide. AR 400. Mother was not concerned for her son’s safety when he walked away. AR 394-95, 402. She only was “kind of” concerned that he started walking in the opposite direction from the cousins’ house. AR 409. She did not ask or “plead with” the deputies to go and help her son after he had departed. AR 402, 409. The deputies did not ask her if her son might do harm to others or to himself in his mental state. AR 396. Even Estrada was surprised when Arevalo left, and his act of leaving to pursue Juvenile “was his own action”. AR 402.

Arevalo’s position directly contradicts the versions of Mother and Estrada and does not ring true. Arevalo’s contention that Mother was beseeching the deputies to find her son a program and that Juvenile was suicidal were squarely contradicted by Mother and Estrada. Arevalo’s claims that the Juvenile was yelling and aggressive, and that he posed a danger to either himself or others (thereby justifying detainment for a mental health investigation) also were rebutted by Mother and Estrada, both of whom stated the situation was calm, Juvenile was cooperative, Mother never stated her son was suicidal or would hurt himself, and Estrada believed Juvenile was not a danger to either himself or others. See Opp. at 13.

As discussed ante, the video demonstrates Arevalo’s failure to accurately report the factual circumstances of his detainment of Juvenile. He also lacked reasonable cause to detain Juvenile for a mentally ill investigation. At most, Arevalo knew that Juvenile had anger and depression issues. Estrada knew this was not a sufficient basis to detain for a 5585 hold. AR 373. Arevalo knew this also, which is why he made up Mother’s statement that Juvenile was suicidal. AR 456. If Mother had said such a thing, Estrada told IAB that she would have had to bring Juvenile back to the house. AR 374. Estrada did not do so because Mother never said it.

It is true that Arevalo brought the video to the attention of Sgt. Reyes, arguing that it shows he felt he had nothing to hide. The Department correctly argues that this does not change the fact his report and interview contained numerous materially false statements. Arevalo also may have felt that the video would be discovered anyway. Guillen was standing outside her home when Sgt. Reyes arrived. Arevalo had to know that it was highly likely that someone would interview her in the use of force investigation and the video would be uncovered. Better to get out in front and disclose it to his supervisor. See Opp. at 13-14.

Arevalo also notes that he did not view the video prior to writing his report. This point is rendered moot by the fact that he stood by his report version in both his IAB interview and testimony at hearing. For the same reason, the Department-issued Video Advisement may support an innocent misrecollection of what happened on the street with Juvenile, but it does not support the false statements in Arevalo’s report of discussions with Mother and Estrada, or why his IAB interview and testimony continued to differ so markedly from the video.

The MET’s sign-off on the 5585 hold does not save Arevalo either. First, the MET spoke to Arevalo and received whatever information he had, including his false assertion that Mother said Juvenile was suicidal. It is not hard to see the MET holding an angry juvenile whose mother says is suicidal. Second, the Disposition Sheet is correct because Arevalo embellished Mother’s statements and other facts to justify his use of force, including that Juvenile was suicidal. The use of force had occurred by the time the MET arrived and Arevalo cannot use the MET decision to justify his actions. Pet. Op. Br. at 16-17.

This raises the issue of motive. The court agrees with the Department and Chief Johnson’s Disposition Sheet about Arevalo’s motivation to lie in his report and in the IAB interview stems from his use of force on Juvenile. He had used force without reasonable suspicion and needed to create a false narrative to explain why he would leave the scene of a call on which he was the assisting deputy without telling the handling deputy, pursue a juvenile who was not wanted for any crime, initiate an unnecessary encounter with that juvenile in the middle of a street, and then engage in an unlawful use of force that involved a takedown of the juvenile. Opp. at 12.

Arevalo argues that this motive fails to explain why he would go after Juvenile in the first place, and he could only have done so because he believed Juvenile was in danger. Reply at 7.

Perhaps Arevalo’s actions are explained by his odd statements about his authority. Throughout the incident and proceedings, Arevalo wrongly suggested that he was in charge and did everything significant. He claims he instigated the prospect that Juvenile stay with his cousins even though he was talking to Father, not Mother (AR 455, 487), he asked Juvenile where he was going when Juvenile walked out with his backpack (AR 487-88), he directed Estrada to remain with the parents as he went after Juvenile (AR 488), Father and especially Mother pled with him to stop Juvenile (AR 456), Mother grabbed his shirt and cried “are you just going to let him walk away” (AR 456), and he took it upon himself to make a judgment call to stop Juvenile (AR 457). The video shows him standing with hands on hips, confidently waiting for Juvenile on the sidewalk, showing his authority. He was not in charge, Estrada was. In his testimony, Arevalo says he decided to take over the call. AR 1046. If he took over the call, he did so without Estrada’s knowledge.

Given his attitude, it is not hard to understand that Arevalo may have gone after Juvenile because the latter had dared to leave without permission -- more accurately, Arevalo’s permission. This admittedly is speculative, but there also is no obligation to answer every open issue in evaluating a case. Arevalo is guilty of Charge 2.

The “Mitigating Factors” set forth in Chief Johnson’s Disposition Sheet show that discharge for lack of proper documentation is unwarranted. As Johnson wrote:

“Often times during dynamic events, mistakes are made. After reviewing the surveillance video, Subject Arevalo corrected the accounts leading up to the incident and acknowledged it was his perception that the incident occurred as documented in the incident report and he was not being untruthful.” AR 515 (emphasis added).

Chief Johnson further wrote: “After reviewing the surveillance video, Subject Arevalo appeared to accept personal responsibility for his action/discrepancies which was documented in the incident report.” AR 515 (emphasis added). If the court finds that Arevalo did not properly document the circumstances leading up to the use of force in violation of the Performance to Standards policy (AR 5-6), it should conclude that the Commission abused its discretion in sustaining Arevalo’s termination, and that a written reprimand or suspension is appropriate. See AR 514. Pet. Op. Br. at 18.

This issue is moot because the court concludes that Arevalo is guilty of both Charges 1 and 2. For the latter, he was dishonest in his report and IAB interview to justify his use of force.

Arevalo argues that, even if he engaged in some dishonesty, the Department provides that suspension, rather than discharge, may be appropriate. See AR 514. Pet. Op. Br. at 18.

While the court agrees that dishonesty by a peace officer does not always result in dismissal, it often does. As the Department argues (Opp. at 14-15), the position of deputy sheriff is a position of public trust. Talmo v. Civil Serv. Comm., (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 210, 231. Honesty and credibility are traits that “are crucial to the proper performance of [a deputy’s] duties” and “[d]ishonesty is incompatible with the public trust.” Ibid.

The evidence shows that Arevalo submitted a report that was materially false to justify his use of force. He reiterated those false statements in his IAB interview. Chief Johnson testified that Arevalo’s misconduct involved dishonesty, violated public expectations of honesty in Department employees, potentially exposed the Department to liability for Juvenile’s’ three-day 5585 hold, and deprived Juvenile of his civil liberties. AR 689-90, 695–96. “[A] narrative that is crafted to accomplish in this case the detention of this young man, that’s unacceptable.” AR 695-96. Arevalo also failed to take responsibility for his misconduct, as evidenced by the fact that he “doubled down” on the falsehoods in his report during his IAB interview (and his testimony). Opp. at 15.

Given the nature and extent of Arevalo’s dishonesty, discharge was not a manifest abuse of discretion.

The Petition is denied. The County’s counsel is ordered to prepare a proposed judgment, serve it on Arevalo’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 March 25, 2025 at 9:30 a.m.

[1] The court does not understand this conclusion since Arevalo’s position is that there was nothing they could do to restrain Juvenile because he had committed no crime, and he (Arevalo) was casting about for reasons to do so. See AR 455-56.

[2] Arevalo argues that he Department never sought out this crucial information. Neither Sutton nor Donis was interviewed (AR 763-64) and Chief Johnson testified that he did not recall seeing or asking for a MET report. AR 764-65. Had the Department conducted a proper investigation, it would have discovered that Arevalo had a reasonable basis for detaining Juvenile. Pet. Op. Br. at 16.