county of lake's opposition to sgt. paulich petition

8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 1/30

ANITA L. GRANT (State Bar No. 144603)County CounselLLOYD C. GUINTIVANO (State Bar No. 242944)

A

Deputy County Counsel255 North Forbes StreetLakeport, California 95453

Telephone: (707) 263-2321Facsimile: (707) 263-0702

Attorneys for County of Lake and the County of Lake Sheriff’s Office

S UP ERIOR COURT OF THE S TATE OF CALIF OM11A

Petitioner,

V

Case No. CV 410353

COUNTY OF LAKE; LAKE COUNTYSHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; and DOES 1through 10, inclusive,earing Date: August 22, 2011

Time::00 a.m.Respondents.epartment: I

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Petitioner COREY PAULICH has filed a petition for writ of administrative

mandamus requesting to compel FRANCISCO RIVERO and COUNTY OF LAKE

(hereinafter, collectively, "County") County to set aside the disciplinary investigation

against Petitioner.

County objects to any writ on the grounds Government Code Section 3303 does

not apply based on the discussions between Sheriff Francisco Rivero and the

Petitioner. In the alternative, even if Government Code Section 3303 applies, County

did not violate its provisions. Also, the County did not violate Petitioner’s representation

Memorandum in Opposition to Petition and Application for Writ 12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

1 3

14

15

16

17

18

19

2 0

2 1

2 2

23

2 4

25

2 6

2 7

2 8

COREY PAULICHas

II4w

ft

irnui

isi: A 1l



I rights.

2TATEMENT OF CASE

3

n or about July 11, 2011, Petitioner filed a Petition for Peremptory Writ of

4 Mandate. Petitioner also filed an ex parte application for alternative writ of mandate on

5 July 21, 2011 requesting that County set aside the disciplinary investigation against

6 Petitioner; or in the alternative, show cause why a peremptory writ of mandate should

7 not issue commanding the same. On July 21, 2011, a hearing on Petitioner’s

8 alternative writ of mandate was held and the court ordered the County to set aside the

9 disciplinary investigation against the Petitioner or in the alternative to show cause on

10 August 22, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. in Department One why the County has not done so.

1 1

1 2TATEMENT OF FACTS

1 3On or about March 13, 2011, Lake County Sheriff Francisco Rivera received

1 4information from the Clearlake Police Department that about a vehicle pursuit on March

1 513, 2011 (hereinafter, the "incident") involving two (2) Lake County sheriff deputies

1 6supervised by the Petitioner. To get an accurate account of the circumstances

17 surrounding the event, Sheriff Rivera contacted Petitioner by phone hours after the

18 incident and continued the discussion when Petitioner reported to the Lake County

19 Sheriff’s Office in the early evening. To memorialize their discussion, Sheriff Rivera

20sent an email to Petitioner later that evening reminding him of the Lake County Sheriff’s

21Office rules and procedures. Petitioner responded to Sheriff Rivera’s email and Sheriff

22Rivero responded to clarify Petitioner’s responsibilities as a deputy sheriff sergeant and

23 as the supervisor of the two (2) Lake County sheriff deputies involved in the incident.

24I/I

25

26III

27I/I

28emorandum in Opposition to Petition and Application for Writ



1RGUMENT

2 I .OUNTY’S DISCUSSION OF THE INCIDENT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE

3 i ieiuj ii’i i:isi e] [sl:1 1I ei: i

4

overnment Code Section 3303 shall not apply to any interrogation of a public

5 safety officer in the normal course of duty, counseling, instruction, or informal verbal

6 admonishment by, or other routine or unplanned contact with a supervisor or any other

7 public safety officer. Government Code Section 3303(i).

8n Steinert v. City of Covina (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 458, 464 [53 Cal.Rptr.3d 1,

9 4], the court considered whether a sergeant’s conversation with a police officer, where

10 the sergeant treated the issue as an opportunity to train the officer and to give the

officer another perspective. The court held that since there was no suspicion by the

12 sergeant that misconduct by the officer occurred and the only intention is to instruct and

13 train the officer of the following the proper procedures to prevent the same mistake from

14 happening, Government Code Section 3303 would not apply. Steinert, 146 Cal.App.4th

15 at 466 [53 Cal.Rptr.3d at 7]. The second paragraph of Government Code Section

16 3303(i) "is intended to cover innocent preliminary or casual questions or remarks

17 between a supervisor and officer. It was included to avoid claims that almost any

18 communication is elevated to an investigation." City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court

19 (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1514 [67 Cal.Rptr.2d 775, 778].

20heriff Rivero’s discussions with the Petitioner consisted of routine

21 communications where Sheriff Rivera reminded Petitioner of the Lake County Sheriff’s

22 Office’s rules and procedures. Declaration of Francisco Rivero, at 2:10 - 4:18. After

23 reviewing the Watch Commander Logs and receiving information from the Clearlake

24 Police Department regarding the incident by Lake County Sheriff’s Office deputies who

25 were supervised by the Petitioner, Sheriff Rivera contacted Petitioner to get a full

26 account of the incident. Declaration of Francisco Rivero, at 2:6 - 4:18. In light of the

27




seriousness of the incident, Sheriff Rivero found it appropriate to promptly meet with

Petitioner in order to instruct and train him as to proper conduct under the Lake County

Sheriff’s rules and procedures. Declaration of Francisco Rivero, at 2:24 - 3:5. The

email communications between the parties clearly show Sheriff Rivero’s reminder to the

Petitioner of these rules and procedures for purposes of training and instruction due to

Petitioner’s mistake. Declaration of Francisco Rivero, at 3:26 - 4:5. In the normal

course of administering his department, Sheriff Rivero conducted a routine discussion

as to the nature and circumstances of an accident involving a Lake County Sheriff’s

9 vehicle. Declaration of Francisco Rivero, at 4:6-16. Therefore, the provisions under

10 Government Code Section 3303, including, but not limited to, disclosing information

11 about the interrogation, the tape-recording of the interrogation, and the right of

12 representation. Since the purpose of Sheriff Rivero’s discussions with Petitioner was to

13 inquire about the incident and instruct and train him, these discussions are excluded

14 from the requirements of Government Code Section 3303, and Petitioner has no basis

15 for his claimed requirements under Government Code Section 3303.

16 II .OUNTY DID NOT PROHIBIT PETITIONER FROM OBTAINING

17 COMPENSATION FOR HIS OFF-DUTY DISCUSSION.

18ursuant to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding between the

19 County of Lake and the Lake County deputy Sheriffs’ Association, overtime

20 compensation for the off-duty discussions between Sheriff Rivero and Petitioner has

21 always been made available to the Petitioner. Declaration of Francisco Rivero, at 4:22 -

22 5:4. Pursuant to Lake County Sheriff’s Office department policy, Lake County Sheriff’s

23 Office employees are required to report their overtime hours through their payroll

24 timesheet. Declaration of Francisco Rivero, at 4:22 - 5:1 . Nowhere in Petitioner’s writ

25 documents did Sheriff Rivero prohibit Petitioner from including overtime hours in his

26 timesheet. Since Petitioner failed to comply with the County of Lake Personnel Rules in

27




reporting his overtime, he did not receive overtime hours for off-duty discussion with

Sheriff Rivero. Sheriff Rivero has always made overtime compensation available to

Petitioner for their off-duty discussions, and the absence of overtime payment is due to

Petitioner’s failure to report it as required by the County of Lake Personnel Rules.

III. THE DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN SHERIFF RIVERO AND PETITIONER WERE

NECESSARY DUE TO THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE INCIDENT.

7ven if Government Code Section 3303 applies, the seriousness of the incident

8 necessitates the discussions between Sheriff Rivero and the Petitioner. "The

9 interrogation shall be conducted at a reasonable hour, preferably at a time when the

10 public safety officer is on duty, or during the normal waking hours for the public safety

11 officer, unless the seriousness of the investigation requires otherwise." Government

12 Code Section 3303(a).

1 3he incident consisted of a vehicle pursuit that resulted in the use of deadly force

14 and a Lake County Sheriff’s Office vehicle ramming the suspect’s vehicle. In light of

15 these serious circumstances, Sheriff Rivero contacted Petitioner by telephone just

16 hours after the incident in order to get an accurate account of the incident. Declaration

17 of Francisco Rivero, at 2:24 - 3:7. This conversation continued in the early evening in

18 the Lake County Sheriff’s Office. Declaration of Francisco Rivero, at 3:8-18. A

19 follow-up discussion was held by email, to which Petitioner had the opportunity to

20 respond to Sheriff Rivero’s email at Petitioner’s convenience. Declaration of Francisco

21 Rivera, at 3:19 - 4:13. The circumstances surrounding the incident are serious to

22 warrant a prompt communication between the Sheriff and the sergeant involved in

23 supervising the two (2) deputies involved in the collision. Furthermore, the

24 communications took place at reasonable hours, one of which is by email that gave the

25 Petitioner an opportunity to respond any time.

26 III27




1 k’.1uJ I1.1 I.I i:iill IIk’AII]P

2ven if Government Code Section 3303 applies, Sheriff Rivero’s

3 communications with Petitioner regarding the incident did reference punitive action.

4 "[P]unitive action means any action that may lead to dismissal, demotion, suspension,

5 reduction in salary, written reprimand, or transfer for purposes of punishment."

6 Government Code Section 3303.

7owhere in Petitioner’s writ documents did it state that Sheriff Rivero

8 communicated a dismissal, demotion, suspension, reduction in salary, written

9 reprimand, or transfer for purposes of punishment" as defined by Government Code

10 Section 3303. Petitioner claims to that Sheriff Rivero’s use of the phrase "held

11 accountable" refers to punitive action. The word "accountable" is defined as "subject to

12 giving an account: answerable <held her accountable for the damage>." Online

13 Merriam -Webster Dictionary (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accountable).

14 Sheriff Rivero’s email clearly stated that Petitioner would be held "accountable knowing

15 the rules and for the actions of you [sic] subordinates. Declaration of Francisco Rivero,

16 at 3:26 - 4:5. As part of Petitioner’s duties as a sergeant and supervisor of the two (2)

17 deputy sheriffs involved in the incident, he is responsible for the supervision of these

18 deputy sheriffs. Also, all deputy sheriffs and deputy sheriff sergeants are responsible

19 for following and enforcing the Lake County Sheriff’s Office rules and procedures. To

20 not allow accountability in this context would disregard the enforceability of these rules

21 and procedures. Declaration of Francisco Rivero, at 4:14-16.

2 2 V.HERIFF RIVERO DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO ADVISE PETITIONER THAT

2 3 i:i:Cl I (.1 1 J *1 If.Il [S] £ (SIp V J 1 ifS] 1IJ

2 4

The complete interrogation of a public safety officer may be recorded."

25 Government Code Section 3303(g). "Upon the filing of formal written statement of

26 charges, or whenever an interrogation focuses on matters that are likely to result in

2 7

2 8emorandum in Opposition to Petition and Application for Writ



punitive action against any public safety officer, that officer, at his or her request, shall

2 have the right to be represented by a representative of his or her choice who may be

3 present at all times during the interrogation." Government Code Section 3303(i).

4

s discussed above, Sheriff Rivero simply reminded Petitioner of the Lake

5 County Sheriff’s Office Rules and Procedures as part of routine training and instruction.

6 Declaration of Francisco Rivero, at 2:10 - 4:18. Government Code Section 3303(g) is

7 permissive, and Sheriff Rivero did nothing to prevent Petitioner’s access to a

8 tape-recorder. Government Code Section 3303(i) requires a formal written statement of

9 charges and a statement of punitive action before triggering the right to representation.

10 As shown above, there is nothing punitive about Sheriff Rivero’s instructional

11 statements to Petitioner. Furthermore, there is no formal written statement of charges

12 at the time of the discussions because the discussions between Sheriff Rivero and

13 Petitioner consisted of routine instruction and training, not an investigation. Declaration

14 of Francisco Rivero, at 4:11-18.

1 5 VI. COUNTY DID NOT VIOLATE PETITIONER’S REPRESENTATION RIGHTS.

16he scope of representation shall not include consideration of the merits,

17 necessity, or organization of any service or activity provided by law or executive order.

18 Government Code Section 3504. Notwithstanding the scope of representation

19 provisions, the action or policy must have a significant and adverse effect on the wages,

20 hours, or working condition of bargaining-unit employees. Claremont Police Officers

21 Ass’n. v. City of Claremont (2006) 39 Cal.4th 623, 631 [47 Cal.Rptr.3d 69, 74].

22 Sheriff Rivero’s communications towards Petitioner had no relation on Petitioner’s

23 wages, hours or working conditions. Sheriff Rivero’s communications neither proposes

24 to implement a new policy towards the bargaining-unit employees, nor did he propose a

25 new policy towards Petitioner. Rather, he reiterated the rules and procedures that have

26 been in place as part of the merits, necessity or organization of the Lake County

27




1 Sheriffs Office. Declaration of Francisco Rivero, at 3:12 - 4:18. As discussed above,

2 Sheriff Rivero’s communications with Petitioner were not investigative in nature

3 because its purpose is to train and instruct Petitioner in proper compliance with the

4 Lake County Sheriff’s Office rules and procedures. Declaration of Francisco Rivero, at

5 4:1 1-16. The contents of their discussions did not apply to "wages, hours, and other

6 terms or conditions of employment." Government Code Section 3504. Rather, these

7 discussions consisted of Sheriff Rivero’s instruction towards Petitioner to comply with

8 the Lake County Sheriff’s rules and procedures. Declaration of Francisco Rivera, at

9

:11-16.

10

1 1ONCLUSION12or the reasons discussed above, the County of Lake respectfully requests that

13 this Court deny Petitioner’s petition and application for writ.

14

1 5

16

17

18

19

2 0

21

2 2

2 3

Date: August 9, 2011 Respectfully submitted,ANITA L. GRANT

By:LLOYD C. GUINTIVANODeputy County CounselAttorney for the County of Lake

24

25

2 6

2 7

2 8emorandum in Opposition to Petition and Application for Writ



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

J

I, the undersigned, declare:

I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of Lake, State of

California. I am over 18 years of age and not a party to the within matter. My business

address is 255 North Forbes Street, Lakeport, California.

On August 9, 20111 served a copy of the following document(s) addressed asfollows:

United States Postal Service by placing such envelope(s) with postagethereon fully prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail in accordancewith office’s practice, whereby the mail is deposited in the United StatesPostal Service mailbox in the City of Lakeport, California.

X_nited Parcel Service express overnight delivery by placing such envelope(s)with postage thereon fully prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail inaccordance with office’s practice, whereby the mail is delivered to anauthorized courier or driver authorized by United Parcel Service to receivedocuments, in an envelope or package designated by United Parcel Servicewith delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person on whom it isto be served at that party’s place of residence.

Christopher MillerMastagni, Holstedt, Amick, Miller & Johnsen1912 "I" StreetSacramento, CA 95814

Deposited in the Lake County Courthouse box, Fourth Floor, Superior CourtClerk’s Office, 255 North Forbes Street, Lakeport, California 95453.

Federal Express.

F ax * to (916) 447-4614 and (916)491-4254

Mr. Jeffrey R.A. Edwards, Esq.Mastagni, Holstedt, Amick, Miller & JohnsenA Professional Corporation

Personally delivered to person(s) at address(es) listed below.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this

declaration was executed on August 9, 2011, at Lakeport, California.

Lloyd C. Guintivano



I ANITA L. GRANT (State Bar No. 144603)County Counsel

2 LLOYD C. GUINTIVANO (State Bar No. 242944)Deputy County Counsel

3 255 North Forbes StreetLakeport, California 95453

4 Telephone: (707) 263-2321Facsimile: (707) 263-0702

Attorneys for the Francisco Rivero, County of Lake Sheriff and the County of Lake6

7

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA8

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LAKE9

10 COREY PAULICH,ECLARATION OF COUNTY OFLAKE SHERIFF FRANCISCO RIVERO

1 1N SUPPORT OF MEMORANDUM INPetitioner,PPOSITION TO PETITION AND

12PPLICATION FOR WRIT

1 3

V.

14ase No. CV 410353COUNTY OF LAKE; LAKE COUNTY

15 SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; and DOES 116 through 10, inclusive,earing Date: August 22, 2011

Time::00 am.17

espondents.epartment: 1

I18

19

I, Francisco Rivero, declare:2 0

1 .am the Sheriff for the County of Lake (hereinafter, "County"), and hereby21

make this declaration in support of the Memorandum in Opposition to Application for2 2

Alternative Writ.23

2 .s part of my duties as Sheriff, I am responsible for the operation of the

2 4Lake County Office of the Sheriff.

25

3.have been Sheriff for the County of Lake since January 3, 2011.2 6

4 .s part of my duties as Sheriff, I am responsible for the management and2 7

2 8



1 supervision of deputy sheriffs and deputy sheriff sergeants.

2.s part of my duties as Sheriff, I am responsible for supervising County of

3 Lake deputy sheriffs and County of Lake deputy sheriff sergeants to ensure that they

4 follow and comply with the Lake County Office of the Sheriff regulations, rules and

5 procedures.

6.s part of my duties as Sheriff, I am responsible for ensuring that County

7 of Lake deputy sheriff sergeants maintain proper supervision over their deputy sheriff

8 subordinates in compliance with the Lake County Office of the Sheriff regulations, rules,

9 and procedures.

10

.n March 13, 2011, I received, via e-mail, the overnight Watch

11 Commander Log for 03/13/2011, 0000-0600 hours. The Watch Commander Log is a

12 briefing prepared by Central Dispatch chronicling the events of the shift. Attached

13 hereto as Exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy of the overnight Watch Commander Log

14 for 03/13/2011, 0000-0600 hours.

1 5.s part of my routine duties as Sheriff, I review the Watch Commander

16 Log every morning to inform myself of events that took place during the time stated in

17 the Watch Commander Log.

18.he Watch Commander Log alerted me to a chase initiated by a

19 Clearlake Police Unit (CPD) that culminated with a Lake County Sheriff’s (LCSO) unit

20 terminating the pursuit by forcibly ramming the suspect’s. I contacted the day-watch

21 LCSO sergeant, as well as CPD Sergeant Hobbs. Sgt. Hobbs told me that the CPD

22 officer who had initiated the chase had expressed concerns regarding the LCSO

23 deputy’s decision to forcibly stop the vehicle by ramming it.

2 4

0 .pon receiving the information from CPD and due to the seriousness of

25 the use of deadly force surrounding the incident, I called Petitioner between 3:20 PM

26 and 5:50 PM on March 13, 2011 to get an accurate account of the facts and

2 7

2 81



circumstances surrounding the incident.

11y phone conversation with the Petitioner consisted of inquiring as to why

the LCSO was involved in the chase, what had occurred during the chase, had he

monitored the chase, to inquire as to why he did not notify me as to the chase and the

use of force, and to ask him to obtain the deputy’s Mobile Audio Visual unit.

12.s part of Petitioner’s duties as deputy sheriff sergeant, he is required to

7 report serious incidents to me after they occurred.

H E3 .n or about 6:30 p.m. on March 13, 2011, I met with Petitioner in the

sergeant’s office when he reported to the Lake County Sheriff’s Office after retrieving

10 the deputy’s vehicle and returning it the Sheriff’s Main Office. We continued our

11 discussion as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident.

1 24 .y continued discussion with Petitioner on or about 6:30 p.m. on

13 March 13, 2011 consisted of asking him if he was aware of the fact that the CPD chase

14 had been initiated over an expired vehicle registration. I also asked him if he

15 understood the LCSO vehicle pursuit policy and his obligation to terminate pursuits

16 based on a multifaceted risk assessment. In the course of my discussions with

17 Petitioner, Petitioner stated to me that the Lake County Sheriff’s Office policy should

18 state under what circumstance he should intervene in the incident.

1 95.n response to his statement regarding policies within the Lake

20 County Sheriff’s Office, I decided to memorialize the discussion in an email dated

21 March 13, 2011, to which I reminded the Petitioner of his duties as a deputy sheriff

22 sergeant.

23

6.n March 13, 2011, Petitioner responded to my email clarifying his

24 statement regarding Lake County Sheriff’s Policy, and I reiterated his duties as shift

25 supervisor in a response email dated March 14, 2011.

2 67.ttached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a true and correct copy of the

27

28



1 email communications between me and the Petitioner from March 13, 2011 to March

2 14, 2011, in which I mentioned to Petitioner that as a shift supervisor he will be held

3 accountable knowing the rules and he will be held accountable for the actions of his

4 subordinates. My email also proceeded to cite the Lake County Sheriffs Office rules

5 and regulations as a reminder to Petitioner of his duties as shift supervisor.

68.ll of my discussions with Petitioner are part of my routine duties as

7 Sheriff in gathering and collecting information from shift supervisors regarding a serious

8 incident involving the use of deadly force.

19.s the shift supervisor during the incident, Petitioner has a responsibility

10 of reporting the facts and circumstances concerning the incident to me.

1 10.s part of my routine duties as Sheriff, I need to inquire into the nature

12 and circumstances of the incident because a County of Lake accident report form

13 needed to be completed in accidents involving Lake County Sheriff’s Office vehicles.

1 41 .he purpose of my discussions with Petitioner were to inquire about the

15 incident, instruct, train, and remind him of the Lake County Sheriff’s Office rules and

16 procedures regarding the pursuit of vehicles.

1 7

2.s the shift supervisor during the incident, Petitioner has a responsibility

18 enforce and comply with the Lake County Sheriff’s Office’s rules and procedures.

193.have never discussed overtime hours with Petitioner during our

20 discussions and I have never prohibited Petitioner from reporting overtime hours in his

21 time sheet for our discussions that took place during his off-duty hours.

224.ttached as Exhibit "C" are true and correct copies of February 14, 2011

23 and March 14, 2011 emails and from the Lake County Sheriff’s Office sent to Petitioner

24 and other employees of the Lake County Sheriff’s Office informing him of the Lake

25 County Sheriff’s Office policy to report overtime hours on the slip form. These emails

26 were sent to Petitioner on a monthly basis as a reminder to properly report overtime

27

28eclaration of County of Lake Sheriff Francisco Riveroi



1 Iii.iuii

25.ttached hereto as Exhibit ’D" is a true and correct copy of the "Lake

3 County S.O. Time Authorization / Use" slip form in which Petitioner reported twelve (12)

4 hours of overtime from March 13, 2011 at 1800 hours to March 14, 2011 at 0600 hours.

5declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

6

7 Dated: August 9, 2011

8

, ’ ~ ~ F RAICISCORIVERO9

10

1 1

12

1 3

14

1 5

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2 6

2 7

2 8eclaration of County of Lake Sheriff Francisco Rivero



i m:



WATCH COMMANDER LOG

03/13/2011

0000-0600 HOURS

BEAT 3E, 1154

At 0017, 461 went out on an 1154 at Lakeshore BI & Nice Lucerne Cutoff. Closed OK at

0018.

BEAT 6C, 415F

At 0038 459 & 424 were dispatched code 3 to a call of a family 415 with the male half

threatening the RP with a gun. Rp then stated the male had grabbed a gun and cocked it

still making threats to the RP. 458 came up on his way home was ok’d to respond by 414

as he was the closest unit. Also at the residence was the RP’s 16 yo daughter and they

were locked in a room. Male half, Curtis Galloway, called in on 911 advising that the RP

was the problem and he didn’t have a weapon. 458 arrived on scene at 0042 hrs and 414arrived at 0043. The male was asked by dispatch to go to the door with his hands in plain

view to contact the deputies on scene. 424 ran a 40 caliber pistol through AFS with no

results. 459 went 10-15 with the male half at 0124 and transported him to Hill Rd at

0153. Detail closed AR, RT at 0215 hrs. (lhr & 37 mins)

BEAT 5A, 1154

At 0055 448 went out with an 1154 at Highland Springs & Highway 29 Lakeport. Ran

Antonio Orozco-Jimenez 27N and cleared the call OK at 0108 hrs. (13 mins)

BEAT 5A, SECK

At 0112, 448 did a security check at The Brick in Kelseyville. Call closed OK at 0116

hrs. (4 mins)

BEAT 6C, PEDC

At 0116 hrs 414 did a pedestrian check at 9195 Takelma Wy Kelseyville. Closed OK at

0119 hrs. (3 mins)

BEAT 3C, SUSC

At 0139, 461 & 448 were dispatched to Water’s Edge Trailer Park 3317 Hwy 20 #7, Nice

for a report of a drunk female behind the residence trying to talk to the home owner

through her window. 461 got on scene at 0155 hrs and closed GA at 0200 (03 00) and

448 was canceled.



BEAT 6A, CPDA

At 0145 hrs 424 was dispatched to assist CPD with a pursuit that was approaching the Y.3P9 & 3S4 were west bound Hwy 20 and 424 was advised they were headed back

towards the city of Clearlake via Sulphur Bank Dr. 424 was headed to cut off the subjectat

16thand Country Club in Clearlake. CPD units were unreadable on their channel so

Central took over the pursuit traffic on primary.424 entered the pursuit as the 2

d

car at0155 hrs. Pursuit continued down Arrowhead to Bush, then turned onto 3 r d and ended up

on East Lake Ext. where it went into a field next to 13480 Eastlake Ext. At 0157 h rs 446(who was doubled with 424 using 424’s number) advised that the responsible vehicle

t/c’d into their patrol vehicle. 446 advised that he, 424 and their K 9 partner were code 4

and central started station 70 as a precaution. CPD 3P9 advised they had one detained

and were code 4 at 0159 hrs. CPD ran Matthew Bronsert DOE 05/25/1969 10-27 an d

advised 10 -15 at 0301 hrs (time change). 424 went with CPD to the area of the Y to look

for evidence, 424 Cleared RT Case 11030210 at 0348 hrs. (1 hr 3 mins)

BEAT 3B, PEDC

At 0151 hrs, 448 went out with one at the Rodman Slough. Transported the subject to

4035 Lakeshore BI, Lakeport and closed CA at 0304 hrs. (1 4 mins)

BEAT 3C, 415F

At 0306 hrs 4 61 & 4 4 8 were sent to 2375 Hwy 20 Nice for a report of a man, Ryan Hod,

who punched Shayla Cranford’s car and vacuum and parties were separated. 46 1 went

out with a possible DUI and 459 went en route to back 44 8 from th e jail. 448 on scene at

0323 hrs and 459 at 0331 hrs. 459 went 10-8 at 0331 and 448 did an area check for the

male stating it was verbal only and closed unable to locate at 0340 hrs. (3 4 mins)

BEAT 3E, TSTOP

At 0317 hrs 46 1 pulled over a possible DUI vehicle at Hwy 29 & Nice Lucerne Cutoff.

He requested CHP for a turn over at 0318 and ran Clifford Maner DOB 04/14/1978 at

0319 hrs. CHP arrived on scene at 0335 hrs and was 10-15 at 0347 hrs. 46 1 cleared the

call RT/OS at 0401 hrs.

BEAT 6A, PEDC

AT 0335 hrs 424 went out with a pedestrian at Highway 53 & Ogulin Canyon, Cleared

OS at 0342 hrs. (7 mins)

BEAT 7A, SUSC

At 0348 hrs, 459 & 424 were dispatched to 19929 Mountain Meadow North HV for a

male heard yelling at a female. 459 cancelled 424 at 0354 hrs and went on scene in the



are at 0413 hrs. 459 went out with the RP at 0420 then out at the address listed clearingthe call OK verbal only at 0432 hrs.pr: LST

At 0355 hrs, Dep Clark responded to a report of a barking dog on 1 s t Street. CLOSEDGA (4 minutes)

At 0435 hrs, Dep Cook and Zepeda were dispatched to a report of a loud party on Clay

St. CLOSED GA Unable to locate any noise or party. (9 minutes)

BEAT 3B SECURITY CHECK

At 0616 hrs, Dep Daskarn conducted a check at Pivniska Trucking on Hwy 20. CLOSED

OK (4 minutes)

3B SECURITY CHECK

At 0620 hrs, Dep Daskam conducted a check on Main St. CLOSED OK (2 minutes)

6B FOOT PATROL

At 0626 hrs, Dep Newton conducted patrol on Main St. CLOSED OK (17 minutes)

3D SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE CHECK

At 0642 hrs, Dep Daskam conducted a check on a vehicle at Lucerne Harbor. CLOSEDOK (1 minute)

7A SECURITY CHECK

At 0729 hrs, Dep Newton conducted a check at Tri Counties Bank and then West

America Bank. CLOSED OK (6 minutes)

4B THEFT

At 0738 hrs, Dep Djernes responded to a report of a stolen cell phone by known subjects.

CLOSED GS (1 5 minutes)

7A SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE CHECK

At 0744 his, Dep Newton conducted a check on a vehicle. CLOSED OK (3 minutes)



7A SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE CH ECK

At 0803 firs, Dep Newton conducted a check on a vehicle. He ran a 27Nora on one male

subject. CLOSED OK (8 minutes)

3B SECURITY CHECK

At 0809 hrs, Dep Daskam conducted a security check at Tule Lake Rd/Hwy 29.

CLOSED OK (3 minutes)

3D WELFARE CHECK

At 0829 his, Dep Daskam responded to a request for a welfare check at Lorraine Village.


3B PEDESTRIAN CHECK

At 0829 hrs, Dep Daskam conducted a check on one. Ran subject 27Nora. CLOSED OK

(3 minutes)

SA CONTEMPT OF COURT

At 0856 his, Dep Hockett responded to a report of a possible 166.4 violation. CLOSED

GS (17 minutes)

3F SECURITY CHECK

At 0908 hrs, Dep Daskam conducted a check at the Fair Grounds. CLOSED OK (7

minutes)

7A SECURITY CHECK

At 0916 Dep Newton conducted a check at Middletown Garden Apts and then

Middletown Manor Apts. He ran two 10-28’s. CLOSED OK (9 minutes)

7A SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE CHECK

At 0930 hrs, Dep Newton conducted a vehicle check. CLOSED WA (2 minutes)

4C TRESPASSING

At 0946 hrs, Dep Thomas responded to possible trespassers with a tent at a neighboring

property. CLOSED UN (8 minutes)

4B FOLLOW UP



7A FOOT PATROL

At 1113 hrs, Dep Thomas conducted patrol at Middletown Park. CLOSED OK (3

minutes)

w_.1.I. iiusjp

1124 hrs, Dep Daskam conducted patrol at Lucerne Harbor. Ran a check on one subject.


4B BRANDISHING WEAPON

At 1151 hrs, Dep Daskam, Det Hockett and Sgt Basor responded to a report of a male

who shot at another subject on Elk Mt Rd. STILL PENDING



AUIJU-



From: Francisco Rivero

Sent: Monday, March 14, 20116:19 AM

To: Corey Paulich

Cc: Rob Howe; Chris Macedo; Brian Martin; Dave Perry; James Bauman

Subject: RE: LCSO policy concerning pursuits

Sgt Paulish,

Our conversation was concerning your duty to inquire about the reason for the

pursuit. If an SO unit gets involved in a pursuit, either at the request of another

agency or on their own, you are obligated to inquire about the reason for the -chase, make a risk assessment and determine whether or not to terminate our

involvement. This is what you should of done and did not do

From: Corey Paulich

Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 11:26 PM

To: Francisco Rivero

Cc: Rob Howe; Chris Macedo; Brian Martin; Dave Perry; James Bauman

Subject: RE: LCSO policy concerning pursuits

I’m sorry if I left you with that impression. I am ful ly aware of my obligation as a supervisor to monitor and

terminate a pursuit involving members of the Sheriffs Office when necessary. I think my comment was in

relation to the canceling of another agency’s pursuit that is in county jurisdiction at the point our unit was

not directly involved.

Sergeant Corey Paulich

Lake County Sheriffs Office

Enforcement Division1220 Martin Street

Lakeport, CA 95453

707-262-4200

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or

legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized

interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the

Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender

and destroy all copies of the communication.

8/5/2011



From: Francisco Rivero

Sent: Sunday, March 13, 20118:08 PM

To: Corey Paulich

Cc: Rob How e; Chr is Macedo; Br ian Mart in; Dave Perry; James Baum an

Subject: LCSO policy concerning pursuits

Sgt. Paulich,

In speaking to you this evening you left me with the impression that you believe you have

little if any obligation to monitor or make decisions on termination of pursuits. You said

the SO policy should state under what circumstance you should intervene. Well it does.

Please read the following excerpts from our rules and procedures concerning that topic. Be

advised that irrespective of what agency initiates a pursuit, you have an absolute

responsibility to monitor SO units and refuse to participate or terminate their

participation when appropriate. As shift supervisor you will be held accountable knowing

the rules and for the actions of you subordinates.

Frank Rivero

Sheriff

C. PURSUIT OF VEHICLES

A pursuit is that driving concerned with the pursuit and apprehension of a violator in a

motor vehicle, consistent with the provisions of California Vehicle Code sections 21055

and 21056 CVC. During such pursuits it is the policy of the Department that deputies

proceed in a manner consistent with the safety and well being of all persons. When

circumstances indicate that the life and safety of any person is endangered because of a

pursuit, such pursuit shall be terminated in all but the gravest of circumstances.

1. SAFETY RULES REGARDING PURSUIT: California Vehicle Code Section

21055 provides that an emergency vehicle may disregard Division 11, "Rules of the

Road’, when in pursuit of an actual or suspected violator. To be termed an emergency

vehicle, the red light(s) must be in operation. The siren shall be operated when reasonable

or when necessary as determined by the existing conditions. This exemption however,

does not relieve the driver from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all

persons using the roadway nor protect him from the consequences of an arbitrary exercise

of the privileges granted. The following techniques should serve as aids in assisting

deputies during pursuit. However, a member’s good judgment is the most important

safety factor.I When using the siren and red light, do not attempt to pass on the right of another

vehicle unless absolutely necessary. This should be attempted only as a last resort,

such as when a vehicle stops directly in the path of the emergency unit, and there are

no other alternatives.

II When driving at high speeds with red lights and siren, drive near the center of the

street so that approaching vehicles can see the red lights.

III Give motorists and pedestrians an opportunity to yield the right of way.

d. Drive with due regard for all persons and vehicles using the roadway.

E-1.5

2. FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN INITIATING/TERMINATING PURSUITS

Whenever a pursued person clearly exhibits the intention of avoiding the arrest by using a

8/5/2011



vehicle to flee or when a known or suspected law violator refuses to stop, the deputy

must decide whether or not to initiate a pursuit. Once a pursuit has been initiated, the

deputy, and the deputy’s supervisor, shall constantly reassess the conditions of the pursuit

to determine whether or not the pursuit will be allowed to continue. In making these

decisions, the deputy and supervisor must remember that apprehension of the violator is

rarely more important than the safety of the deputy, and never more important than the

safety of innocent persons.

a . Initiating Pursuits--A deputy may initiate a vehicle pursuit when a known wanted

felon is in the vehicle; when the occupant(s) of the vehicle has committed a crime in

the member’s presence; or, when the member has an articulable reason for wanting to

stop the vehicle. A vehicle pursuit should only be initiated when, under the

circumstances, the pursuit would not pose an unreasonable risk to innocent persons or

the deputy. In making this determination, the following factors should be considered:

1. The nature of the offense, whether or not the offense was committed in the

deputy’s presence and whether or not the offender is a juvenile.

2. The volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

3. Visibility, surface and other road conditions and weather conditions.

4. The capability of the deputy’s vehicle, the deputy’s experience and the

likelihood of apprehension.5. The capability of the offender’s vehicle to outperform the deputy’s vehicle.

6. The ability to identify and/or apprehend the offender at a later time.

b. Terminating Pursuits--Once a pursuit has been initiated by a member, the factors

which justified the pursuit may change rapidly and so must be constantly reassessed

by the deputy and the supervisor assuming control of the pursuit. The deputy shall

terminate a vehicular pursuit when:

1. so directed by the supervisor assuming control of the pursuit, or;

2. when the reason for apprehending the pursued vehicle is clearly outweighed by the

risk of harm imposed on innocent persons and/or the deputy.

E-l.6

In addition to the factors listed in subsection (a) above, the following additional factors

should also be considered by the member in determining whether or not to terminate avehicle pursuit:

a . Whether the suspect has been identified to the point where later apprehension

can be accomplished.

b . The driving pattern and/or other behavior of the offender during the pursuit.

c. The availability of aerial surveillance to monitor the offender’s vehicle.

d. Whether or not the pursued vehicle is so far ahead of the pursuing vehicle, that

continued pursuit would be futile.

Upon termination of a pursuit, the pursuing member shall, if reasonably possible, perform

an overt act that would demonstrate that the member is no longer pursuing the

violator. Such overt acts can include, but are not limited to the following in

conjunction with deactivation of emergency lighting equipment:

a . Performing a lawful U-turn

b. Turning off the highway on which the pursuit is occurring

c. Stopping on the side of the highway

8/5/2011



*i4iII:Ils



om: Mary Beth Strong

Sent: Monday, February 14, 20119:14 AM

To: Aaron Clark; Andy Davidson; Benjamin Moore; Bill Djernes; Brian Kenner; Brian Martin; Carla

Hockett; Chris Chwialkowskl; Chris Fisher; Chris Macedo; Chris Rivera; Corey Paulich; Cynthia Radoumis;

Dane Hayward; Darren Daskam; Dave Perry; David Jones; Dennis Keithly; Dennis Ostini; Donald

McPherson; Duayne Emis; Elvis Cook; Emil Devincenzi; Eric Keener; Francisco Rivero; Frank Walsh; Gary

Basor; Gary Frace; Gary Hall; Gavin Wells; Glenn Capurro; Hart Gall; Jacob Steely; James Bauman; James

Campbell; James Samples; Jay Vanoven; Jerry Pfann; Joe Dutra; John Drewrey; John Gregore; Jose

Zepeda; Justin Newton; Keith Wells; Kellie Moe; Lucas Bingham; Lyle Thomas; Mary Beth Strong;

Mauricio Barreto; Michael Sobieraj; Mike Curran; Mike Pascoe; Mike Powers; Mike Woods; Nicole

Costanza; Richard Austring; Richard Ward; Rob Howe; Robert Piveronas; Roth Shifts; Sarah Hardisty;

Stephen Wright; Steve Brooks; Steven Herdt; Steven Jones; Todd Dunia; Tom Andrews; Walter White;

Wes Frey; William Burnett

Subject: February timecard deadline

I was just advised that this message did not get sent to patrol.

mbs

Timecards are due to the main office by Tuesday February 15th at lOam. Please assure your weeks are marked correctly

(between Saturday and Sunday) and all slips are signed and stapled to your timecard.

Any overtime worked or time off taken between the day your timecard is turned in and the end of the pay period (20th),

needs to be turned in to the main office by Monday, 2/21 at 9am (this is a holiday).

Do NOT use employee numbers. Any timecards received without the proper Information will be returned.

Managers will need to be available on the 18th to review any questions that arise during auditing. If you are not going to

be available, please let me know who will be addressing the questions in your absence. (A follow up email will be sent

regarding this responsibility)

If you have any questions, please contact your supervisor.

thanks

mbs

8/9/2011

0



From: Mary Beth Strong

Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 5:28 PM

To: Aaron Clark; Andy Davidson; Benjamin Moore; Bill Djernes; Brian Kenner; Brian Martin; CarlaHockett; Chris Chwialkowski; Chris Fisher; Chris Macedo; Chris Rivera; Corey Paulich; Cynthia Radoumis;

Dane Hayward; Darren Daskam; Dave Perry; David Jones; Dennis Keithly; Dennis Ostini; Donald

McPherson; Duayne Emis; Elona Porter; Elvis Cook; Emil Devincenzi; Eric Keener; Francisco Rivero; Frank

Walsh; Gary Basor; Gary Frace; Gary Hall; Gavin Wells; Glenn Capurro; Hart Gall; Jacob Steely; James

Bauman; James Campbell; James Samples; Jay Vanoven; Jerry Pfann; Joe Dutra; John Drewrey; John

Gregore; Jose Zepeda; Justin Newton; Keith Wells; Kellle Moe; Lucas Bingham; Lyle Thomas; Mary Beth

Strong; Mauricio Barreto; Michael Sobieraj; Mike Curran; Mike Pascoe; Mike Powers; Mike Woods; Nicole

Costanza; Rebekah Dolby; Richard Austring; Richard Ward; Rob Howe; Robert Piveronas; Roth Shuts;

Sarah Hardisty; Stephen Wright; Steve Brooks; Steven Herdt; Steven Jones; Todd Dunia; Tom Andrews;

Walter White; Wes Frey; William Burnett

Subject: March timecard deadline

Timecards will be due to the main office on Thursday, March 17th at lOam .

After timecard submission, please continue to turn in time off/overtime slips in a timely manner. All slips must be turned in no

later than Monday March 21st at Barn. Managers will need to be available on Monday and Tuesday to resolve any questions. If the

manager is not available, a designee must be assigned. Due to a change In the Auditor’s office, payroll will now be processedwithin a two day timeframe, There will be little room for error, so it will be of the utmost importance that timecards are submittedcorrectly and m anagers responsive to questions. We w ill be closing payroll on Wednesday, M arch 23rd.

Remember to mark your weeks between Saturday and Sunday and assure you have the correct number of hours reported in each

week.If you had a shift change, your week needs to be marked ’shift change.

Call out pay and court overtime must show the actual time listed on the right side of the slip. The left side of the slip will still reflect

the 4 hour call out pay (If you are entitled to 4 hours) Court overtime must have the subpoena attached and noted whether or not

you testified.

D O N O T U S E E M P L O Y E E N U M B E R S .

If you are working overtime, your slip needs to specify the reason (for whom and why). Please be as specific as possible. If youare working drug enforcement, specify the type of drug so It can be determined which grant to bill.

There should be NO manual adjustments from previous pay periods.

If you have any questions, please contact your supervisor for clarification,

thanksmb s

8/9/2011



FAAM I M O N



TIME CODES

SHIFT OT/PAY Name: Corey Paullic h2 SHIFT OT/COMP

CALLOUT/PAY Start Date: 03/12/11CALLOUT/COMP

COURT/PAY End Date: 03/13/11

COURT/COMPCOMP TIME USED Total Hours: 1VACATION USED

SICK LEAVE Explanation: Time_change 0 4850 LEAVE

MILITARY LEAVE

09M M O N

IIIaI,

iuiiz,i,1 : 1wi i iii:r.i(.] flui1

EMPLOYEE SIGNATURE: ATE:

SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE: vVATE:PRIOR TO REQUESTING ANY TIME OFF, I HAVE VERIFIED THAT I HAVE SUFFICIENT LEAVEATISFY S THIS REQUEST.

11 1Ei(i1UhI i’MitII I:[.]D4..’i P (]WAUIii

TIME CODES

SHIFT OT/PAY

SHIFT OT/COMP

CA LLO UT/PAY

CALLOUT/COMP

COURT/PAY

COURT/COMP

COMP TIME USED

VACATION USED

SICK LEAVE

4850 LEAVENAII ITAPV I Pti\I

Name: Corey Paulich

Start Date: 03/13/11

End Date: 03/14/11

Total Hours:2Explanation: Brooks at trainin

Il14I:isit

TIME: 0600

TIME CODE:1EMPLOYEE SIGNATURE:

ATE:

SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE:ATE:PRIOR TO REQUESTING ANY TIME OFF I HAVE VERIFIED THAT I HAVE SUFFICIENT LEAVEO SATISFY THIS

RE Q UE S T.

[i[i1U1 II’SII I UII] (S] V1U!i

TIME CODES

SHIFT OT/PAY

SHIFT OT/COMP

CALLOUT/PAY

CALLOUT/COMP

COURT/PAY

COURT/COMP

COMP TIME USED

VACATION USED

SICK LEAVE

4850 LEAVEMIt ITPV

Name: Corey Paulich.D, NO:414

Start Date: 03/15/11330 /

End Date: 03/15/11IME: 1500

Total Hours:. 51_ TIME CODE: 05

Explanation: Motion Hearing Stone did not testify

SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE:PRIOR TO REQUESTING ANY TIME OFF H AVE VER FIFIED T H AT I H AVE S U FFIC IEN T T IME

D A T E :

DATE: 0 4 1 7 h z wTO SATISFY THIS

RE Q UE S T.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I, the undersigned, declare:

I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of Lake, State of

California. I am over 18 years of age and not a party to the within matter. My business

address is 255 North Forbes Street, Lakeport, California.

On August 9, 20111 served a copy of the following document(s) addressed asfollows:

United States Postal Service by placing such envelope(s) with postagethereon fully prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail in accordancewith office’s practice, whereby the mail is deposited in the United StatesPostal Service mailbox in the City of Lakeport, California.

Xnited Parcel Service express overnight delivery by placing such envelope(s)with postage thereon fully prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail inaccordance with office’s practice, whereby the mail is delivered to anauthorized courier or driver authorized by United Parcel Service to receivedocuments, in an envelope or package designated by United Parcel Servicewith delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person on whom it isto be served at that party’s place of residence.

Christopher MillerMastagni, Holstedt, Amick, Miller & Johnsen1912 ’I" StreetSacramento, CA 95814

Deposited in the Lake County Courthouse box, Fourth Floor, Superior CourtClerk’s Office, 255 North Forbes Street, Lakeport, California 95453.

Federal Express.

--ax * to (916) 447-4614 and (916) 491-4254

Mr. Jeffrey R.A. Edwards, Esq.Mastagni, Holstedt, Amick, Miller & JohnsenA Professional Corporation

Personally delivered to person(s) at add ress(es) listed below.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this

declaration was executed on August 9, 2011, at Lakeport, California.

Lloyd C. Guintivano

county of lake's opposition to sgt. paulich petition

Documents