Although Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) took effect January 1, 2022 (some of its provisions took effect at later dates, as outlined below), many law enforcement agencies (and outside investigators) are still becoming acquainted with its many new, impactful provisions.  Here, I highlight noteworthy provisions of SB 2 while also highly recommending giving SB 2 a close read before embarking on any Peace Officer misconduct investigations.  Do not sleep on SB 2!

In our prior blog post, “Build Bridges, Not Barriers,” we discussed how to make the most of an interviewee’s representative during an interview and ways to head off any potential friction in advance. This blog post discusses some suggestions and options investigators have when a representative’s conduct crosses the line into disruptive behavior. While the vast majority of representatives do not cross this line, these tips will help you if you ever encounter the rare exception.

Investigations of police or firefighter misconduct in California are governed by two key statutes: the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBR) and the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights Act (FBOR). These statutes establish protections for peace officers and firefighters subject to such investigations.

The laws applicable to the operations of public agencies create opportunities to gather evidence and information that are unique to the public sector. These opportunities can help expedite and focus investigations by narrowing the scope of interview questioning, assisting with establishing timelines, and minimizing the delays associated with document requests or personnel file review.

When public employees are facing serious discipline, they are generally entitled to a pre-disciplinary process known as a Skelly Hearing or simply, “Skelly,” during which the employee is permitted to respond to the proposed action.[1]  The Skelly is typically brief and does not include the robust components of a post-disciplinary appeal. Nonetheless, the Skelly provides an important opportunity for the employer to hear the employee’s perspective on the proposed discipline before imposing it. 

To admonish or not to admonish? That is the question - again.

It can be a refreshing treat when an investigator gets to jump into an investigation where some evidence has already been gathered, and they have at least some idea what the parties are going to say.  The ultimate fruit of the investigation, the findings, are almost always much easier to reach quickly when there are prior statements to rely upon.