Visitors Now:
Total Visits:
Total Stories:
Profile image
By Mort Amsel (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

LAPD VS Christopher Dorner Case File Leaked, Proves LAPD Have Been Lying About Entire Thing

Sunday, February 10, 2013 15:24
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.
0

(Before It's News)

 

Source

DORNER v. LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT

CHRISTOPHER DORNER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT et al., Defendants and Respondents.

No. B225674.

Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four.

Filed October 3, 2011.

Law Office of David J. DuchrowJill A. Piano and David J. Duchrow for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, Claudia McGee Henry, Assistant City Attorney, and Gregory P. Orland, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

WILLHITE, Acting P. J.

Appellant Christopher Dorner, an officer with the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), made a complaint against his field training officer, Sergeant Teresa Evans, accusing her of kicking a suspect, Christopher Gettler (Gettler). The Los Angeles Police Department Board of Rights (Board) found that appellant’s complaint was false and therefore terminated his employment for making false statements. Appellant filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus in the superior court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, seeking to overturn the decision of the Board. The superior court denied his petition, and he now appeals. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDAppellant was charged in a formal written complaint with three counts: count 1, on August 10, 2007, making false statements to Sergeant D. Deming, who was conducting an official investigation; count 2, on October 9, 2007, making false statements to Detectives S. Gallegos and T. Lai, who were conducting an official investigation; count 3, on August 10, 2007, making a personnel complaint that he knew or should have known was false. The Board held a series of hearings at which the following witnesses testified: appellant, Captain Donald Deming, Sergeant Evans, Sergeant Leonard Perez, Sergeant Eddie Hernandez of the Los Angeles Port Police, Sergeant Phil Jackson, Sergeant Julie McInnis, Detective Shelly Villanueva (formerly Gallegos), Christopher Adrid, Ashlye Perez, Christopher Gettler, and Richard Gettler.

Testimony of Captain Deming1

In August 2007, Captain Deming was a sergeant assigned as an assistant watch commander at the Harbor Division of the LAPD. On August 10, 2007, appellant spoke with Captain Deming about an incident on July 28, 2007, involving the use of force during Gettler’s arrest at a DoubleTree Hotel in San Pedro.

Appellant told Captain Deming he had something bad to report, and he “expressed remorse that he failed to report what he believed to be misconduct (unnecessary kicks applied to an arrestee) that he witnessed approximately two weeks prior.” Appellant said that he had handcuffed the suspect and was struggling with him when Sergeant Evans (Officer Evans, at the time) kicked the suspect twice in the left shoulder area and once in the face. Appellant had not told Sergeant Jackson about the kicks when Sergeant Jackson conducted a use of force investigation, and Sergeant Evans later discouraged appellant from disclosing she had kicked the suspect. Appellant was unsure what to write about the incident on the arrest report, so Sergeant Evans completed the report, “omitting any reference to the kicks.” Appellant was visibly upset when he spoke with Captain Deming, and Captain Deming believed this was caused by fear of repercussions for reporting misconduct by a training officer. Because of his fear of repercussions, appellant told Captain Deming, “Promise me you won’t do anything.” Appellant testified that the reason he asked Captain Deming not to do anything was that he knew Sergeant Evans had a child to support and he did not want her to lose her job.

After Captain Deming retired from the LAPD, appellant called to tell him he was being investigated for false statements. Captain Deming expressed surprise, and appellant told him, “No matter what happens, I just want you to know I never lied to you.” Captain Deming testified that appellant’s performance was satisfactory while he was under his supervision.

Following appellant’s complaint about Sergeant Evans, appellant believed someone urinated on his equipment bag at the police station. Appellant thought this was in retaliation for his complaint against Sergeant Evans and filed a complaint about this incident. However, an analysis of the unknown substance on appellant’s jacket revealed that the substance was not urine.

Testimony of Sergeant Evans

Sergeant Evans was the field training officer assigned to train appellant, who was a probationary employee. She testified that appellant had expressed to her the need for reintegration training because he had been away for a long time during his military deployment.2

Sergeant Evans and appellant responded to a call around 8:46 a.m. on July 28, 2007. When they arrived, they saw the subject sitting on a bench outside the main door of the hotel. Based on the subject’s demeanor and gaze, the officers thought he was either suffering from mental illness or under the influence, so they discussed a plan to isolate him from the numerous pedestrians in the area.

Appellant told the subject to stand up, but he did not comply, so appellant placed his hand on the subject’s arm and helped him stand. When appellant and the subject were walking near a planter box on the sidewalk, the subject suddenly swung at appellant and said, “fuck you.” Sergeant Evans took a taser from appellant’s duty belt and called for backup.

While appellant was trying to gain control of the suspect, Sergeant Evans told the subject to stop or she would use the taser. Appellant and the suspect fell into the bushes in the planter box, and the suspect’s arm was wedged against a wall. After Sergeant Evans shot Gettler twice with the taser, appellant was able to control Gettler’s left wrist and place handcuffs on him. Sergeant Evans went behind the bushes and crouched down to help appellant control Gettler’s right arm. After about 30 seconds of struggling, Gettler let the officers handcuff him and said, “Is that what you wanted? Here you go.” Sergeant Evans denied kicking Gettler in the face or the shoulder area.

Appellant then helped Gettler stand and placed him in a police car. Sergeant Evans noticed that Gettler had a laceration on his cheek, but no other injuries. There were no boot marks on Gettler’s face or shirt and no bruising on his face. When Gettler was taken to the police station, he did not tell the watch commander or a physician, who treated his facial injuries, that he was kicked in the face.

After Gettler was in custody, other officers arrived, including Sergeant Phil Jackson. Sergeant Jackson interviewed Sergeant Evans about the use of force and interviewed other witnesses at the scene.

Sergeant Evans and appellant discussed the incident so appellant could write the arrest report, but she stated that appellant took too long to write the report. Appellant asked Sergeant Evans several questions about how to complete the use of force section, which underwent about three revisions by Sergeant Evans and Sergeant Jackson. Sergeant Evans testified that the revisions were mainly to articulate what specific actions the officers took during the incident because appellant was unfamiliar with the “specific verbiage” used to describe their actions. Appellant reviewed the report before it was turned in to Sergeant Jackson for approval. The use of force report stated that Gettler’s injury was consistent with the use of force involved in arresting him and did not state that Sergeant Evans kicked Gettler.

Sergeant Evans previously had told appellant that he needed to take less time in writing arrest reports. She also had indicated in an evaluation that appellant needed to improve in the areas of officer safety and common sense and good judgment. Appellant received the evaluation on August 9, 2007.

Testimony of Christopher Adrid

Adrid was working as a bellman at the DoubleTree Hotel on the date of the incident. He saw Gettler on a bench in the lobby, talking to himself, so he asked Gettler if he was a hotel guest. When Gettler said he was not staying at the hotel, Adrid asked him to sit on a bench outside the hotel.

When appellant and Sergeant Evans arrived, Adrid saw them ask Gettler to take his hands out of his pockets and approach them. Gettler stood up and walked toward the officers, but when he tried to run away, appellant tackled him. Adrid testified that he saw Gettler and appellant fall into the bushes, which were about four feet high, although in an earlier interview, he had said he did not see appellant tackle Gettler. Adrid testified that Sergeant Evans was telling Gettler to put his hands behind his back or else she would use the taser. Gettler did not comply, so Sergeant Evans shot him with the taser, and then he complied and was handcuffed. Sergeant Evans stepped into the planter and helped appellant and Gettler get up. Adrid did not see Sergeant Evans crouch in the bushes or kick Gettler. He said that Sergeant Evans had one foot in the planter and one on the sidewalk and never had both feet in the planter. Adrid saw the cut on Gettler’s nose but did not see any other injuries.

Testimony of Sergeant Perez

Sergeant Perez met appellant in 2004 or 2005, when they were both in the United States Navy Reserves. While appellant was in the police academy, he told Sergeant Perez that a classmate had used a racial epithet against him (appellant is black) and continued doing so after appellant asked him to stop. Appellant reported the incident to a supervisor.

In August 2007, Sergeant Perez was camping at a lake when he noticed he had received several phone calls from appellant; he tried calling him back, but service was intermittent. Over a series of five or six calls, appellant told Sergeant Perez that he was not getting along with Sergeant Evans and that Sergeant Evans had kicked a suspect who was either handcuffed or had one handcuff on. Appellant asked Sergeant Perez if he needed to report the incident, and Sergeant Perez said appellant needed to tell a supervisor immediately or else Sergeant Perez would do it himself. Sergeant Perez asked appellant about the arrest report, and appellant alluded to Sergeant Evans having changed the report or told appellant to change it. When appellant started telling Sergeant Perez about the incident, Sergeant Perez stopped appellant because Sergeant Perez knew he might become a witness in any investigation. A few days later, appellant told Sergeant Perez he had reported the incident to Captain Deming.

Testimony of Sergeant Hernandez

Sergeant Hernandez was an officer with the Port Police at the time of the incident. He responded to the DoubleTree Hotel when he heard a call that an officer needed help. When Sergeant Hernandez arrived, he saw “two officers crouched over, half in the bush and half not,” struggling with a suspect and trying to handcuff him. As he ran up to them, he saw them get the second handcuff on the suspect and saw appellant pick the suspect up. Sergeant Hernandez testified that appellant was wearing a dress uniform with a tie that was messed up, so he told appellant to fix his tie while he held the suspect for him. It was subsequently established that appellant was not wearing a dress uniform or a tie, based on testimony and a photo.

Sergeant Hernandez thought that Sergeant Evans had one foot in the planter and one on the sidewalk, and he never saw her in or behind the bushes. Sergeant Hernandez did not see Sergeant Evans taser Gettler or kick him.

Testimony of Ashlye Perez

Ashlye Perez was working at the DoubleTree as a bellhop on July 28, 2007. She was in the lobby of the hotel when she saw appellant and Sergeant Evans arrive at the hotel. The hotel doors were open, so she heard the officers ask Gettler to stand and ask if he was a guest at the hotel. After Perez went outside to try to usher hotel guests inside, she heard Gettler start yelling and saw the officers grab him to stop him from running away. She did not remember exactly what happened, but she saw Sergeant Evans use the taser, and she saw Gettler fall headfirst into the bushes. She noticed that some branches were broken when Gettler hit the bushes. Perez did not see Sergeant Evans go into the bushes or kick Gettler. Perez went back into the hotel, so she did not see the officers handcuff Gettler, but she saw Gettler struggling while the officers tried to get him out of the bushes. She noticed that Gettler had a cut on his face, which she thought was from hitting his face on the bushes.

Testimony of Sergeant Jackson

When Sergeant Jackson arrived, he saw appellant, Sergeant Evans, Sergeant Hernandez, a few other officers, and Gettler in custody inside the police car. After learning from Sergeant Evans that use of force was involved, Sergeant Jackson began to interview people regarding the use of force. He interviewed the officers and the other witnesses individually and did not recall any of the witnesses reporting that kicks were used. When he inspected Gettler’s injury, he saw blood on Gettler’s face that he thought was from the bushes, but he did not see any bruising or other indication that Gettler had been kicked. Sergeant Jackson read several revisions of the arrest report prepared by appellant and Sergeant Evans, and he noticed Sergeant Evans becoming frustrated with the amount of time it was taking to prepare the report.

Testimony of Appellant

Appellant testified that he graduated from the police academy in February 2006, but he left for a 13-month military deployment in November 2006. When he returned to the LAPD in July 2007, he was still on probation and was assigned to the San Pedro area with Sergeant Evans.

On July 28, 2007, appellant and Sergeant Evans received a call about a man refusing to leave the DoubleTree Hotel. When they arrived, they saw Gettler sitting on a bench, and appellant noticed a lot of people standing in front of the hotel. Appellant wanted to move Gettler away from the other people, so he asked Gettler to come speak with him, but he got no response. After asking Gettler several times, appellant placed his hand onto Gettler’s wrist and pulled Gettler up from the bench.

Appellant and Gettler walked about 15 feet away, with Sergeant Evans a little behind them and on Gettler’s left side. Gettler suddenly stopped, turned to Sergeant Evans and yelled at her, at which point Sergeant Evans took appellant’s taser. Appellant thought Gettler was about to hit Sergeant Evans, so he tried to drag Gettler to the ground and ended up pushing Gettler toward the bushes. Gettler turned around and started pushing appellant in an attempt to get away, so appellant pushed back, and they both fell in the planter box. Appellant was trying to straddle Gettler to gain control of his hands, and after he got Gettler’s left hand he heard two taser bursts.

Appellant was trying to grab Gettler’s right arm, which was pressed against the wall, but Gettler did not comply. Sergeant Evans went into the bushes, between the bushes and the wall, lifted Gettler by his hair, and told him to give appellant his arm. Appellant testified that Gettler did not have blood on his face at that point. Sergeant Evans then stood up and kicked Gettler twice in the left clavicle. Gettler yelled, and then Sergeant Evans kicked him on the left cheek, causing him to start bleeding. Gettler said, “Is this all you want?” and gave appellant his right arm to be handcuffed. Sergeant Hernandez then drove up, got out of his car, asked if they needed help, and helped pick Gettler up.

Sergeant Jackson arrived and began his investigation. He asked what appellant did during the use of force, so appellant told him that force was used to try to gain control of the suspect’s hands and that he thought he heard Sergeant Evans use a taser. Appellant did not report the kicks by Sergeant Evans because Sergeant Jackson asked him only what his own involvement was.

Appellant testified that Sergeant Jackson spoke with Sergeant Evans first and that after Sergeant Jackson spoke with appellant, appellant heard him say that appellant’s story was consistent with Sergeant Evans’s. When appellant heard Sergeant Jackson say that his story was consistent with Sergeant Evans’s, he knew that Sergeant Evans had not reported the kicks, so he thought about saying something then, but he did not. He did not feel comfortable speaking with Sergeant Jackson because Sergeant Jackson and Sergeant Evans got along well.

Appellant also testified that he was hesitant to report the kicks because when he was in the police academy, he had reported an incident in which two recruits were using a racial epithet against another recruit. He had been shunned by other recruits after that, so he did not want to speak up again.

Appellant stated that he did not think the kicks were necessary and that he would not have kicked the suspect, but he thought they might have fallen within the use of force policy. Appellant was not sure if the kicks were wrong because he had been away for over a year during his military deployment and had not received reintegration training, despite his request for the training.

After Gettler was arrested, Sergeant Evans and appellant presented him to the watch commander, Lieutenant Andrea Grossman. Appellant did not report the kicks to Lieutenant Grossman because he was not asked and he knew that probationary officers did not speak to Lieutenant Grossman unless spoken to. He also was hesitant because he knew that Sergeant Evans and Lieutenant Grossman were friends. Gettler did not report being kicked. The medical form filled out by appellant asked if the arrestee had any injuries or medical problems, and appellant had written that Gettler had a minor scratch on his face.

When appellant and Sergeant Evans were in the car later, Sergeant Evans asked appellant if he was comfortable with the use of force, and appellant replied that he was. Sergeant Evans then stated that they would not mention the kicks in the report. Appellant did not reply because he was trying to avoid conflict with her. He said that Sergeant Evans previously had told him she was trying to limit the number of use of force incidents she had because she was on a list to become a sergeant.

When they began writing the use of force report, appellant felt that he was struggling with an ethical dilemma about the use of force, but he had forgotten some of the use of force policies because of his long military deployment. He acknowledged writing the first part of the arrest report but testified that he and Sergeant Evans disagreed about the report and that she deleted what he had written and wrote it herself. Appellant also acknowledged that he reviewed the report but reiterated that he was hesitant to report misconduct because he was afraid of retaliation. When he realized the kicks were not in the report, he decided to report them to Sergeant Perez.

Appellant testified that he called Sergeant Perez because he wanted to speak with someone who worked in Internal Affairs before reporting the incident. Sergeant Perez stopped him from telling him about the incident and instead urged him to report it to his supervisor, telling appellant that he would report it if appellant did not. Sergeant Perez followed up by calling appellant to be sure he had reported it.

Appellant had asked Sergeant Evans several times for reintegration training after his deployment and had spoken with other officers about it, but he was told that probationary officers did not receive reintegration training. On July 28, 2007, appellant gave Lieutenant Grossman a request for the training, and she said that he could attend. Appellant asked to go to reintegration training at the academy because he did not want to work with Sergeant Evans any more.

Appellant testified that Sergeant Evans had not given him unsatisfactory evaluations, but he thought that personal issues she had told him about were affecting her work and causing her to be angry and difficult to approach. For example, he said that Sergeant Evans had slapped his hand on two occasions. Sergeant Evans had told appellant that she was having difficulties at home regarding a domestic violence incident and was having financial difficulties. Appellant did not report the difficulties in his relationship with Sergeant Evans because he was still on probation and did not want to cause problems.

Appellant received a weekly evaluation report dated July 29 to August 4, 2007, in which Sergeant Evans indicated that appellant needed to improve in the areas of report writing, officer safety, suspects, prisoners, and use of common sense and good judgment. He testified that the evaluation did not bother him because he had received similar reports from other officers but had never received an unsatisfactory evaluation, which he described as “a silver bullet.”

Testimony of Richard Gettler

Richard Gettler testified that his son was schizophrenic with severe dementia. He explained that his son sometimes was verbal and able to respond, but other days he was not responsive. Gettler sometimes wandered from home, but his father usually did not report him as missing because he knew the police always brought him home.

Gettler’s father stated that when the officers brought his son home on July 28, 2007, he asked Gettler if he had been in a fight because his face was puffy. Gettler told him that he was kicked at the hotel, so they drove around until Gettler directed his father to the DoubleTree, where Gettler pointed to the wall and indicated the incident happened near there. Gettler told his father he was kicked in the chest twice by a police officer, but his father decided not to report it because he assumed it was an accident and Gettler was not hurt.

Testimony of Detective Villanueva

Detective Villanueva worked in the Internal Affairs Criminal Section of the LAPD and investigated the excessive force complaint against Sergeant Evans. During her investigation, she tried to interview Gettler, but she was told by Gettler’s grandmother and father that Gettler probably would be unable to answer simple questions because of his severe mental illness. She did not ask Gettler’s father about the incident at the DoubleTree Hotel.

Based on Detective Villanueva’s interviews of three DoubleTree employees and Sergeant Evans, she concluded that appellant falsely accused Sergeant Evans of kicking Gettler. Her investigation did not reveal any evidence to support appellant’s allegation that Sergeant Evans intentionally kicked Gettler.

Testimony of Christopher Gettler

The Board brought Gettler in to question him during the administrative hearing, but his responses generally were incoherent and nonresponsive. A videotaped interview of Gettler, taken on December 8, 2008, was shown at the administrative hearing.

Decision of the Board

The Board stated that the primary issue in the case was whether Sergeant Evans actually kicked Gettler or not. After reviewing all the evidence, the Board stated that it could not find that the kicks occurred. The Board pointed out that, although Gettler’s clothes were soiled, consistent with testimony that he and appellant fell in the bushes, there was no “visible dirt transfer” on Gettler’s white shirt to support the allegation that Sergeant Evans kicked him in the shoulder or chest area.

The Board reasoned that, although there were inconsistencies in the testimony, the testimony of Adrid, Sergeant Perez, and Sergeant Hernandez was consistent with the original report by appellant and Sergeant Evans. Although Richard Gettler’s testimony supported appellant’s assertion that Sergeant Evans kicked Gettler, the Board found his testimony not credible because it was inconsistent with his son’s testimony. The Board also noted that Gettler’s mental illness affected his ability to give an accurate account of the incident and found that Gettler’s videotaped statement, alleging one kick, was not credible.

The Board found that appellant had failed to report the alleged kicks, despite numerous opportunities to do so, and that his testimony regarding his reasons for not reporting the kicks was not credible. The Board also found that the injury to Gettler’s face was caused when he fell into the bushes.

The Board found there was evidence that appellant had a motive to make a false complaint, citing Sergeant Evans’s testimony that appellant was going to receive an unsatisfactory probationary rating if he did not improve his performance and that the kicks were reported the day after appellant received an evaluation. The Board concluded that appellant was not credible and found him guilty of the charges against him.

Decision of the Trial Court

Appellant filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus, which the trial court denied. The court stated that, after an independent review of the administrative record, the court was “uncertain whether the training officer kicked the suspect or not.” Because the court was not convinced that the administrative findings were wrong, the court found that appellant failed to carry his burden of establishing that the administrative findings were contrary to the weight of the evidence. The court also rejected appellant’s contention that the Board shifted the burden of proof by requiring him to prove the training officer kicked the suspect. Finally, the court rejected appellant’s contention that the Board members were biased. The court reasoned that no other witness testified that Sergeant Evans kicked Gettler and that the issue came down to a determination of the relative credibility of appellant and Sergeant Evans. The court thus denied appellant’s petition for writ of mandate and entered judgment in favor of respondents. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION“Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, when the trial court reviews an administrative decision that substantially affects a fundamental vested right, the trial court `not only examines the administrative record for errors of law but also exercises its independent judgment upon the evidence . . . .’ [Citations.]” (Sarka v. Regents of University of California (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 261, 270 (Sarka).) The right to practice one’s trade or profession is a fundamental vested right. (Bixby v. Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 143; see alsoBarber v. Long Beach Civil Service Com. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 652, 658 [stating that the trial court is required to exercise its independent judgment where a case involves a police officer's vested property interest in his employment].)

“Under the independent-judgment standard, `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.’ [Citation.] `[The] trial court must accord a “`strong presumption of . . . correctness’” to administrative findings . . . .’ [Citation.] The trial court begins its review with the presumption that the administrative findings are correct, and then, after according the respect due these findings, the court exercises independent judgment in making its own findings. [Citation.] . . . [¶] On appeal, we review a trial court’s exercise of independent review of an agency determination for substantial evidence. [Citation.]” (Sarka, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at pp. 270-271.) “`[O]ur review of the record is limited to a determination whether substantial evidence supports the trial court’s conclusions and, in making that determination, we must resolve all conflicts and indulge all reasonable inferences in favor of the party who prevailed in the trial court. [Citations.]‘” (Wences v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 305, 318.) We review independently any legal interpretations made by the administrative agency and the trial court. (Breslin v. City and County of San Francisco (2007)146 Cal.App.4th 1064, 1077 (Breslin).)

I. Burden of Proof

Appellant’s first contention is that the trial court erred in rejecting his argument that the Board improperly shifted the burden of proof from the employer to him. Whether the Board shifted the burden of proof is a legal question reviewed de novo. (Breslin, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at p. 1077.) We conclude that the Board did not improperly shift the burden of proof.

The parties agree that respondents had the burden of proving the charges against appellant. (See California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State Personnel Bd. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1133, 1167 [explaining that a public employee's interest in his employment is protected by due process, which requires an administrative hearing at which "`the burden of proving the charges rests upon the party making the charges'"].) Thus, here, the LAPD was required to prove that appellant made a complaint he knew or should have known was false and that he made false statements during the investigation.

In arguing that the Board improperly shifted the burden of proof, appellant focuses on the Board’s statement that, after reviewing all the evidence, it could not “make a factual finding that the kicks occurred.” Neither this statement nor anything else in the Board’s decision indicates that the Board shifted the burden to appellant.

In order to prove that appellant made false statements and a false complaint, the LAPD needed to prove that Sergeant Evans did not kick Gettler. The LAPD accordingly presented witnesses and other evidence tending to show that the kicks did not occur, and the Board found its evidence persuasive. The Board’s statement that it could not find evidence to support appellant’s claim that Sergeant Evans kicked Gettler does not mean that appellant had the burden of proving his statements were not false. Rather, it indicates that the LAPD bore its burden of convincing the Board that the kicks did not occur. The trial court did not err in rejecting appellant’s argument.

II. Substantial Evidence

Appellant’s second contention is that the trial court erred in upholding the Board’s factual findings because they were not supported by substantial evidence.3 As stated above, on appeal, “we may not reweigh the evidence, but consider that evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court, indulging in every reasonable inference in favor of the trial court’s findings and resolving all conflicts in its favor.” (Breslin, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at p. 1078.)

Appellant argues that the trial court did not understand that it was required to exercise its independent judgment, pursuant to Fukuda v. City of Angels (1999) 20 Cal.4th 805 (Fukuda), and that the court instead merely “rubber-stamped” the Board’s decision. Contrary to appellant’s claim, the trial court specifically stated that it had independently reviewed the administrative record and, based on that review, it was uncertain whether Evans had kicked Gettler. Appellant therefore had failed to carry his burden of convincing the court that the administrative findings were contrary to the weight of the evidence. (Fukuda, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 817; Breslin, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at p. 1077.) The trial court did not fail to exercise its independent judgment.

Appellant further contends that the findings made by the Board were so lacking in evidentiary support as to be inherently improbable and unreasonable. We disagree.

The Board’s findings relied on physical evidence and the testimony of several eyewitnesses who testified that they did not see Sergeant Evans kick Gettler. Sergeant Hernandez and the two DoubleTree employees who witnessed the incident, Adrid and Perez, did not see any kicks. The Board also noted that the photo of Gettler did not show any dirt on his white shirt that would have indicated he was kicked in the clavicle area. The Board also relied on appellant’s failure to report the kicks despite several opportunities to do so, citing Sergeant Jackson’s testimony that appellant did not report the kicks when he was first interviewed about the use of force, as well as appellant’s failure to report the kicks to Lieutenant Grossman. In addition, the Board found that appellant had a motive to make false allegations against Sergeant Evans, based on her testimony that appellant would receive an unsatisfactory rating if he did not improve his performance.

Even if the Board had not found the evidence listed above persuasive, Sergeant Evans herself testified that she did not kick Gettler. Her testimony alone would have been sufficient to support the Board’s findings. (See People v. Fierro (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1347 (Fierro) [stating that "`unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable, testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a conviction'"].)

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s finding. The Board simply found appellant not credible and thus implicitly found Sergeant Evans credible. Credibility determinations are within the province of the trier of fact. (Fierro, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 1347.)

DISPOSITIONThe judgment of the trial court, denying appellant’s petition for a writ of administrative mandamus, is affirmed. Respondents shall recover their costs on appeal.

MANELLA, J. and SUZUKAWA, J., concurs.

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 31 comments
  • If they timed things right they could have had him responsible for Sandy Hook.

  • I was arrested in L.a. IN 1985 for recieveing stolen property of approximatly 200 dollars When incarcerated in L.A. County jail I witnessed a jailer murder a person. A jailer who could have been a stand in for Ponch in CHiPs. I was released on my own recognizance and immediatly re-entered the jail facility and tried to report what I saw. I was threatened by everyone and then they wnet to get more people and I left for fear of my life. I then immediatly within days left the area for being scared of what I saw. This was in the days of Rampart Investigation where L.A. Police were having parties and offering cash prizes and awards fro who could MURDER the most people. Well I returned to California in 2001 or 2002 so long ago. Anyways I was taking photographs at the beach as that was my job I was contracted for taking photos. I was arrested on the 18 year or so old warrant for failure to appear. Well I let them know why I did not appear for witnessing the murder, I within days was hit with a ton of unsupported charges and Judge Gill threatened me several times to keep my mouth shut and my attorney was told the same to keep me quiet. My attorney was new and did not understand corruption yet but soon learned. My attorney saved me as she caught the investigator and a San Diego Police officer perjure 8 times in their attempts to have me put away for decades. The cahrges were dropped and the judge gave a long speech that the justice system cannot operate with servants like the investigator and police officer that perjured 8 times and they would be dismissed from employment…of course the judge told the court recorder to stop her transcription before making his speech. The judge then said that I had special legal damages now that these people had damaged my life and tried to put me away for decades with intentions of malice. Well I thought it was all done and the judge was now in cost control mode. He took my attorney in his quarters and explained her future as an attorney and to now look away as the court once again were about to break the laws. The judge returned and state he is going to drop his findings and remove himself from the case and call for another hearing… in another four months or so.He stated I must go throught the complete process one more time UNLESS I SIGN A VOLUNTARY CONFESSION TO A MISDEMEANOR. My attorney said it was illegal and that I was under duress but she was no longer able to defend me. I signed as the false charges that were found to be perjured made me a target in County Jail and jailers told inmates to beat me up. So I had to be kept in solitary for a significant period. I signed the paperwork and was released to be seen on the original charge, never received on document from Judge Gills court and the FBI confiscated my computer without warrant and removed evidence of crimes against me committed by a judge and attorney in Michigan City Indiana who were cartel drug distributors who eventually had me kidnapped twice and an attempted third time ended in attempted murder and stabbing of my wife by police as I and my family were leaving for a state department safe house. The story is very involved but the FBI has helped me and other victims not a bit but has done everything to protect corrupt judges and cartel members. Not to get off track too much, I was told I should have been transferred to L.A. for processing and should have spent only a couple days in jail as opposed to almost four months. They sealed the case and after paying just over 300 dollars for the documents I was refused. I fulfilled the courts obligations of a couple hundred dollars and had to pick up garbage for some days in my home state of North Carolina ans aws released from any supervision. The justice system however refused to remove a invalid warrant for ten years and this destroyed a portion of my professional surf photography career. I am still continuing to fight corruption and the judge in Indiana has been terminated in continuing to practice by the Indiana Supreme Court after almost sucessfully breaking a/his cocaine distributor out of prison 18 years early and almost sucessfully washing 100 thousand dollars for his relaease through the Indiana State Legal System. Although found guilty no further investigation was pressed to see how many people were paid off to release a man from Michigan State prison when all those in the process turned their heads and how and who was involved in Michigan City and the State of Indiana where they could launder cartel funds through their system. Just to compare going postal in many instances is the definitive definition of the corruption of entire systems where the controlling officials are corrupt and involved in drug corruption. By the way the Judge in Indiana who cannot continue to practice after committing so many felonies any normal person would get 30 years is ex Judge Walter Chapala. It is noted that many of the state prosecutors in Michigan City are officially noted by the Supreme Court of Indiana as felons, admitted felons but are still practicing because the Indiana Supreme Court will not bring formal due process to felons who are freemasons. I highly believe if and when caught this policeman will be assassinated for his knowledge. I mean the admission that he was terminated for reporting improper violent conduct of fellow officer. This is just like rampart, laws must be made for law officials and politicians 2 to 4 times the standard prosecution for people who are supposed to be examples of society but are just using our court, law enforcement and legal system to commit crimes, persecute those who are attempting to report them, protect the guilty who are seeking for the corrupt officials and helping to proliferate drug distribution and last of all proliferate the biggest business in the United States of America….laundering drug money for the cartels and providing protection for the cartels to facilitate their distribution across the U.S and in every school possible. You will discover that if you ever try to report crimes such as these you HAVE NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER and they will go to every extreme in destroying your life from every angle through their database and members of the freemasons.

    • Harry Nut

      Cops were pretty cool in SF…. Whats your beef with the Freemasons?

      • The masons take blood oaths to protect other masons. Scottish Rite masons will protect you unless the charge is murder and York Rite will protect you regardless the crime.

      • TrumpettheAngels

        HEy “use your mind”, why don’t youuse your mind……it’s not difficult to figure out why one would have “beef” with the MURDERING, SATANIC, LIARS who call themselves the freemasons, do soe research and USE YOUR MIND!! WOW!! ddduuuuu…..aaaahhh….what’s your beef with freemasons…..dduuu…..aahhhh, can you believe that anyone in their right mind would ask “what’s your problem with freemasons”???????????????? THE FREEMASONS ARE CRIMINLASLIARS and Psycho’s who are helping to destroy the world and love to do SATANIC worshipping using children, there is your first clue “use your mind” who obvioulsy doesn’t!!

    • You ain’t alone buddy…..my only problem, was being in the wrong place at the wrong time and being a white guy hanging with mexican americans, never mind that we were all in the military. I have more hatred for the LAPD, than I ever did for the NVA, even the one who put a couple of rounds through me. :mad:

      • whats NVA?

      • The North Vietnamese Army…

    • OMG… I really hope your ok now.. you will b rewarded for your honesty, truth & conviction in your life & further !!!

    • See http://www.jimstonefreelance.com for the truth on this story and many others….cutting edge.

  • I have suspected a setup from the beginning….I believe NOTHING that mainstream babylon reports on….and I believe NOTHING from any source that is supposed to serve and protect.

  • This is a False Flag people wake up.

    • Harry Nut

      and the purpose? Looks pretty real to me Chris Jacob…. read his complete manifesto, its way to detailed plus the fact he is at large putting it in action….
      :roll:

      • TrumpettheAngels

        Me thinks this “use your mind” is a TROLL!! Yeah it looks pretty real to me because I am so sure that I have all of the truthful info., again, not using your mind TROLL! Your using misinformation to back up misinformation…makes you a TROLL or just plain stupid! I say TROLL or CIA TROLL!

      • To introduce the Drones! I figure they want to piggy-back onto this “Event” and see how much the people will tolerate the “Eye in the Sky”. If people are ok with it and do not make a fuss (after all it is for “Our safety”) then they will incorporate weapon systems on them and viola, you’ve lost most of your Amendments to the Bill of Rights.

        Very convenient timing don’t you think?

      • ElOregonian

        To introduce the Drones! I figure they want to piggy-back onto this “Event” and see how much the people will tolerate the “Eye in the Sky”. If people are ok with it and do not make a fuss (after all it is for “Our safety”) then they will incorporate weapon systems on them and viola, you’ve lost most of your Amendments to the Bill of Rights.

        Very convenient timing don’t you think?

        EXACTLY! ElOregonian I told someone this exact same thing. The gov’t is using this case to try & make the illegal use of drones against U.S. citizens legal. If the people make no fuss about it, they have won! NEVER trust your gov’t people! Question EVERYTHING!

  • It Doesn’t really matter how the matter beginned. the result is plain somebody died… :?: beside Truth is always covered by lies and to peel it off that lies will shock people

  • Cops have been beating suspects that resist arrest since the beginning of time. Those that want more kindness shown should become a servant of the Lord instead of a cop. Dorner was a military man that liked to kick butt, he must have had a personal beef against cute looking Evans causing him to file a brutality complaint against her.

  • I don’t understand how this court case can be seen as this guy is telling the truth and the LAPD are lying. It seems a cut and dried case. Independent witnesses claim they did not see this woman cop kick the arrested guy, yet this Dorner person says she did.

    The independent witnesses are the clincher here. They support Evens testimony not Dorner’s. I don’t think these people lied to protect themselves. Perhaps they were not at a position where they could see this person kick the mentally ill guy, who knows . . . it is a simple he said/she said tale . . . and anyone’s guess if she really did kick this guy.

    But one thing I always ask myself, Who in this mess has the most to lose by telling the truth? The guy who was fired or those that fired him?

    • TrumpettheAngels

      EASY….Those that fired him! Govn’t propaganda needed a scape goat and here he is!!

  • I read how they plan to use DRONES to “catch” this guy. I have to wonder if this whole thing (especially with this article) is a TOTAL FRAUD and the purpose was to get lemmings used to drones being used outside the miiltary.

  • I possibly missed something in the document which was filed with the Court of Appeals of California but I do not recall reading anything in it that even suggests the title of the article which is “LAPD VS Christopher Dorner Case File Leaked, Proves LAPD Have Been Lying About Entire Thing” Maybe the poster of the article should explain why he/she thinks the title is appropriate.

  • Wow, arrested in Indiana! I’d really like to see more posts or stories about what you describe. A gifted writer could make quite a miniseries out of this corruption…of course it would have to be independently produced. But you HIT the nail on the HEAD. It is NOT proper conduct or procedure to fire someone for reporting or bringing to attention something that MAY or may NOT be true… but the request for investion no matter where it may lead, is a necessary function… Would you say reprisal firings would have a chilling effect?

  • So, he didn’t kill anyone?

  • The criminals almost forgot they’re rich, the reward is over one million dollars. They can buy a lot of good germans with that. Masons throw in some dollars, nah, they are to cheap.

  • Anyone that would kick a mentally ill person like that in the face, should have their teeth kick in!

  • LAPD obviously still on that racist trip. Fire the entire agency.

    • Fire the blacks and others or just whites? Only 39% are white. Maybe just the ones who failed to get into that percentage and go around killing people instead?

  • I’m curious what part of this Trial transcript PROVES LAPD lied about Dorner, The Trial court Affirmed his firing.

  • oh the corruption. now they want him dead for speaking the truth.

Top Stories
Recent Stories
Follow us Facebook Twitter RSS

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story
Share This Story:
Print this story
Email this story
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Share on Tumblr
GET ALERTS:

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.