1

aniel M. Gilleon (SBN 195200)

ames C. Mitchell (SBN 87151)
2 amuel A. Clemens (SBN 285919)
he Gilleon Law Film
3 1320 Columbia Street, Suite 200
an Diego, CA 92101
4 el: 619.702.8623/Fax: 619.702.6337
mail: dmg@mglawyers.com
5
ttorneys for Plaintiff Danny Hollister
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
(Central Division)

9
10
11

CASE NO.:

ANNY HOLLISTER,
Plaintiff,

12

COMPLAINT FOR:

13

vs.
1.

Whistleblower Retaliation
[Lab. Code 1102.5]; and

2.

Penalties for Retaliation Under

Private Attorney General Act
[Lab. Code 2699]

14
15

HE CITY OF SAN DIEGO and

OES 1 to 20,

16

Defendants.

17
18
19
20

Plaintiff Danny Hollister alleges:

21
22

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

1.

Plaintiff Sgt. Danny Hollister ("Hollister" or "Sgt. Hollister") is an adult and resides

23 'n San Diego County, California. He is a Sergeant with the San Diego Police Department ("SDPD").
24

2.

Defendant City of San Diego ("the City" or "SDPD") is a public entity.

25

3.

The true names and capacities, whether individual or otherwise, of defendants Does

26 I through 20 are unknown to Hollister who, therefore, sues them by such fictitious names under CCP
27 474. Hollister is informed and believes that each of the defendants is responsible in some manner
28

or the acts of omissions alleged in this complaint or caused him damages.

Complaint For Retaliation and Penalties
1

4.

At all material times, all of the defendants were agents and employees of the other

efendants and when doing the acts alleged in this complaint, they acted within the course and scope

5.

OnApril8, 2016, Sgt. Hollister sent an email to SDPD Chief Shelley Zimmerman

omplaining that the City was violating the law, specifically California Vehicle Code 21057 and

DPD Department Policy 1.13, with regard to SDPD'spolicies and continued use ofmotorcades and

otorcade training. (See Exhibit 1). Sgt. Hollister made clear that SDPD was placing lives at risk

y continuing to employ the use of police motorcades and that he was being forced to violate the law

nd SDPD Department policy. Plaintiffs email explained that every other municipal police

10

epartment in California had terminated motorcade activities, in favor of the California Highway

11 Patrol, due to the inherent risks and liabilities. Sgt. Hollister also complained that by being forced
12 o engage in motorcade training and actual motorcades, he was risking suspension under SDPD
13
14

olicy and individual liability ifhe were involved in a motor vehicle collision.

6.

A few days after the email, Sgt. Hollister's supervisor, Lt. Steven Shaw ("Shaw" or

15 "Lt. Shaw"), confronted plaintiff and was visibly upset. Lt. Shaw told Sgt. Hollister that he had been
16

o angry with him that he had not been able to speak until then. Lt. Shaw chastised Hollister and

17 hreatened his career with SDPD, stating, "we are no longer on the same page" and "you are no
18

onger part of the unified front." Lt. Shaw informed plaintiff that he no longer wanted him on the

19

otor Training staff. Shortly thereafter, Lt. Shaw removed Sgt. Hollister from certain training

20

ctivities and eventually infmmed plaintiff that he would be removed from the Motor Unit

21

ompletely. Although plaintiff was reinstated, Shaw made derogatory connnents about him at the

22

quad line-up, undermining Hollister's ability to work effectively with his co-workers.

23

Sgt.

ollister's ability to work was diminished to the point that he recently had no reasonable choice but

24 o take a leave of absence.

25

7.

On Aptil28, 2016, Sgt. Hollister submitted a claim, under Cal. Gov. Code 900 et

26

eq., to the City ("Claim"). The City rejected Hollister's Claim on July 6, 2016. Plaintiff has

27

omplied with all applicable claims statutes. On April28, 2016, Sgt. Hollister sent a letter ("PAGA

28

etter"), via certified U.S. Mail, to the Califomia Labor and Workforce Development Agency, copied
Complaint For Retaliation and Penalties
2

1 o the City and the City pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code 2699.3. The letter, which was also hand
2

elivered with the Claim, detailed plaintiff's complaints. LWDA did not provide notice to Sgt.

ollister of its intent to investigate the alleged violations within 3 3 calendar days from the postmark

ate pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code 2699.3. True and correct copies of the Claim and PAGA letter

including the original email to Chief Zimmerman) are attached as Exhibit 1.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Retaliation, Labor Code 1102.5, Against Aq Defendants)

7
8

8.

Hollister realleges paragraphs 1 through 7.

9.

SDPD was Sgt. Hollister's employer, and Lt. Shaw and SDPD Chief Zimmerman

10

ere acting on behalf of SDPD when they committed the wrongful acts alleged in this complaint.

11

t. Shaw, Chief Zimmetman and other command staff were angry that plaintiff complained about

12

DPD's use of motorcades. ill response, Lt. Shaw acted on behalfofSDPD to retaliate against

13

gt. Hollister, in violation of California anti-retaliation law and SDPD's own anti-retaliation

14

olicy that prohibits retaliatory adverse employment actions (which are defined to "include, but

15 s not limited to, unwanted transfers, change in work assignment or location, denial ofleave
16

equests, demotions, negative perfmmance evaluations, unsupported discipline, ostracism,

17

arassment, or other actions that adversely affect the work environment"). Specifically, Lt.

18

haw angrily insulted, demeaned, threatened and ridiculed plaintiff; accused Sgt. Hollister of not

19

oil owing orders; stripped him of certain training activities; informed plaintiff that he was being

20

emoved from the motor squad; and attempted to intimidate, harass, ostracize and humiliate Sgt.

21

ollister informing other officers during line up about plaintiffs complaints (e.g., a complaint

22

bout the "hostile environment" and another complaint about Lt. Shaw handing out gift cards to

23
24

e motor officer who wrote the most tickets per month).

10.

Moreover, Lt. Shaw's intent in retaliating against Sgt. Hollister included a desire

25

o paint plaintiff as an officer who could not be trusted by fellow officers and could not follow

26

rders, even though Shaw knew that Sgt. Hollister had been the subject of an 1A investigation

27

fter he had followed orders to cover up the detention of an SDPD officer who had been detained

28

t a DUI checkpoint. Lt. Shaw knew that Sgt. Hollister had been cleared because the 1A
Complaint For Retaliation and Penalties
3

1 nvestigation had confirmed he was following orders from SDPD Command when he allowed the
2

unk-driving officer to go free. Given Sgt. Hollister's undeniable allegiance to his fellow

fficers and the command, when Lt. Shaw attempted to paint Sgt. Hollister as someone who did

ot have his fellow officers' backs and would not follow orders, he was maliciously attempting

5 o defame Sgt. Hollister as an unreliable, disloyal backstabber.

11.

6
7

SDPD's actions, as described above, violated Labor Code 1102.5, which

rovides:
(a) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer,
shall not make, adopt, or enforce any mle, regulation, or policy
preventing an employee from disclosing information to a
government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority
over the employee, or to another employee who has authority to
investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or
from providing information to, or testifying before, any public
body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the
employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information
discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or
noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation,
regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the
employee's job duties.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the

(b)
employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing
information, or because the employer believes that the employee
disclosed or may disclose information, to a govermnent or law
enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee
or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover,
or coJTect the violation or noncompliance, or for providing
information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an
investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable
cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state
or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local,
state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing
the information is part of the employee's job duties.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

(c)
An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the
employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for refusing to
participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or
federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local,
state, or federal rule or regulation.

22
23
24
25
26

12.

As a legal result of defendants' retaliation, Sgt. Hollister has suffered, and will

ontinue to suffer, special damages and general damages according to proof.

27 II
28 II
Comp amt For Retaliation and Penalties
4

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Penalties- Labor Code 2699, Against All Defendants)

2
3

13.

Hollister reallages paragraphs 1 through 12.

14.

Sgt. Hollister is an aggrieved employee as defined by Cal. Lab. Code 2699(a).

5 He brings this cause of action on behalf of himself and other current or former employees of the
6

ity based upon the Labor Code violations alleged in this Complaint.

15.

Pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code 2699, Sgt. Hollister is entitled to be awarded twenty-

ve percent (25%) of all penalties due under Califomia law, plus interest and attomey's fees and

osts.

10
11

16.

The Court should award seventy-five percent (75%) of all penalties due under

alifomia law to the State of California.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

12
13
14

THEREFORE, plaintiff Danny Hollister requests a judgment against defendants The City
f San Diego, and Does 1 through 20 for:

15

a.

General and special damages according to poof;

16

b.

Prejudgment interest if allowed by law;

17

c.

Reasonable attomeys' fees and expert witness costs;

18

d.

Costs of suit;

19

e.

Any other proper relief.

20
21

ated: August 25, 2016

22
23

Dan1el M. Gillean, Attorneys

for Plaintiff Danny Hollister

24
25
26
27

28
Complaint For Retaliation and Penalties
5

RM.S.D.
2016 APR 28 PM 3: 5'
CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO
(FOR DAMAGES TO PERSONS OR PERSONAL PROPERTY)

Present claim by personal delivery or mail to the City of San Diego, Risk Management Dept.,
1200 Third Ave., Suite 1000, San Diego, CA 92101.
Received via:

TIMESTAMP
D U.S. Mail
D ~ter-Office Mail
t:l Over-the-Counter

13)\V\
FILE N o . - - - - - -

TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, the City of San Diego, California
I, Sgt. Danny Hollister
, hereby make a claim against the City of San Diego and make the
following statements in support of the claim:

1.

CLAIMANT INFORMATION

a.
b.

Claimant's Name: Danny Hollister

Post Office Address of Claimant: C/0 Gill eon Law Firm ("GLF"},

1320 Columbia St., Ste. 200, San Diego, CA 92101

(CITY) (STATE) (ZIP)

2.

c.

Claimant's Home Phone No.: C/0 GLF 619.702.8623

d.
e.

Claimant's Business Phone No.: C/0 GLF 619.702.8623

Post Office address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent,
if different than above: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

f.

Social Security No.: _N_o_t_r_e__:q_u_ir_ed

_ _ _ _ _ _ __

g.

Date of Birth: Not required

h.

Driver's License No.: Not required

--~----------

CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO THE CLAIM

a.

Date of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim: 4/8/16
-----

b.

Time of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim: 11:38 a.m.

c.

Place of occurrence or transaction (please be s p e c i f i c ) : - - - - - - - - - - See Attachment

RM-9 (Rev. 12-10) This information is available in alternative formats upon request

EXHIBIT 1

d.

other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction giving rise to the claim: _ __

See Attachment

3.

DESCRIPTION OF CLAIM
a.

General description of the indebtedness, obligation, injury, damage or loss incurred:

See Attachment

b.

The name or names of the public employee or employees causing the claimant's injury,
damage, or loss, if known, are: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
See Attachment

c.

Damages [please choose one]:

D The amount claimed is less than $10,000.

The amount of the claim as of the date of this claim is $_____. This figure is
based on the f o l l o w i n g : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~

The amount claimed is more than $10,000.

Please state if the claim would be a limited civil case 1. _u_n_:__lim=-ite:...d_ _ _ _ _ __

d.

Please provide any additional information that might be helpful in considering your
claim, including names of witnesses, treating physicians, and hospitals: _ _ __
See Attachment

e.

Please attach and/or provide any additional information that may be helpful in considering
your claim including proof of damages such as invoices, receipts, and estimates.

WARNING: It is a criminal offense to file a false claim (Cal. Penal Code 72).
I have read the matters and statements made in the above claim and I know the same to be true of my
own knowledge, except as to those matters stated upon information or belief and as to such matters, I
believe the same to be true. I certify under penalty of perjury that t e regoing is true and correct.

Dated: 4/28/16

Sign t e of Claimant or Person Acting On Behalf

of Claimant
1

Limited civil cases are discussed in California Code of Civil Procedure 85.

RM-9 (Rev. 12-10) This information is available in alternative formats upon request

Attachment To Tort Claim

On AprilS, 2016, Sgt. Hollister sent an email to San Diego Police Department ("SDPD") Chief
Shelley Zimmerman regarding his belief that the City of San Diego ("City") was violating law
(and placing lives at risk) by continuing to employ the use of police motorcades. Sgt. Hollister
further made clear that he was being forced to violate the law and Department Policy in that
regard. (Enclosed is a copy of Sgt. Hollister's email, with attachments\ and is adopted by
reference and incorporated into this claim. Also adopted/incorporated is the enclosed2 PAGA
letter sent on behalf of Sgt. Hollister dated 4/28/16.)
A few days after the email, Sgt. Hollister's supervisor, Lt. Steven Shaw, confi-onted Sgt.
Hollister, and was visibly upset. Lt. Shaw told Sgt. Hollister that he had been so angry with Sgt.
Hollister that he had not been able to speak with him until then. Lt. Shaw chastised Sgt. Hollister
and threatened his career with SDPD, stating, "we are no longer on the same page" and "you are
no longer part of the unified front." Lt. Shaw informed Sgt. Hollister that he no longer wanted
him on the Motor Training Staff, which would result in financial losses. Shortly thereafter, Lt.
Shaw removed Sgt. Hollister from certain training activities.
By doing so, the City and SDPD retaliated against Sgt. Hollister in violation of section II 02.5.
As a result, Sgt. Hollister is entitled to compensatory, economic and non-economic damages, as
well as attorney's fees, penalties, and costs.

A paragraph from the doc\llllent entitled, "Motorcade memo," has been deleted/redacted from the
accompanying memo. The original memo received by connsel (electronically), without redaction, has been
destroyed. The only "Motorcade memo" in the possession of counsel is the redacted version. The paragraph that
was deleted was examined no more than to ascertain that it appeared to contain privileged material. This footnote is
intended to provide notice to the City and its attorneys that counsel had received (but has now destroyed) materials
that appear to be privileged. See, State Comp. Ins. Fundv. WPS, Inc. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 644.
2

By including the PAGA letter in this claim, Sgt. Hollister complies with the notice provision of Labor
Code 2699.3(a)(l).

From: Hollister, Danny

Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 11:38 AM
To: Zimmerman, Shelley
Cc: Ramos, Joseph; Shaw, Steven
Subject: Motorcades
Chief Zimmerman,
I am compelled, without a foreseeable alternative, to address with you a very serious issue. We
need to reevaluate our position with respect to motorcades before our department captures
another negative headline or, worse yet, we suffer another catastrophic incident involving one
of our motor officers. In short, every time we, the Motor Unit, conduct a motorcade and/or
motorcade training, we are violating Department Procedure 1.13 and California Vehicle Code
section 21057. Our City Attorney's office has said that there is a "presumption of negligence" on
our pqrt if we continue to violate the California Vehicle Code. If there should be property loss,
injury or death resulting from any negligent activity by us and it is found to be deliberate, a
possible crime will have occurred.
Motorcades by their very nature are extremely dangerous with a fully staffed and well trained
Motor Unit skilled in all manner of motorcade protocols, which we are not. In recent years
within the U.S., numerous motorcycle officers have been injured or killed while conducting
motorcades. As a result, in California, every municipal police department in the state has
ceased motorcade activity allowing the California Highway Patrol to assume full responsibility
for all motorcade movements except the San Diego Police Department. The question is
why ... ??? ... We have nothing to gain, as a city or a Police Department, by allowing ourselves to
take unnecessary risks and incur opened ended liabilities.
The Traffic Division Captain, Motor Lieutenant and I, as the lead Motor Training Sergeant are all
well aware of the inherent risks and liabilities of violating the California Vehicle Code and
Department Policies and Procedures. We have recommended suspending motorcades until a
legislative change, currently being sought by the lAPD, permits motorcades which may help
protect the city, department, and the individual officer from civil liability and/or possible
criminal prosecution.
After reviewing our recommendation, the Chief's Office has directed us to continue with
motorcade training and to conduct motorcades ..
As I'm sure you are aware, members of the Motor Unit were recently advised that if we cause or
are a party to a collision by violating our various written policies i.e. going Code 2 %, we will be

subject to a "30 day" Suspension-300 hours. On the heels of that directive, we are now told
that we will follow the orders via the chain of command and engage in motorcade training on
public roadways and conduct actual motorcades, which will cause us to violate our own policies,
procedures and the laws that govern all of us which we have sworn to up hold. We are now, as
a Unit and a Department, in a very bad place.
I have attached the following supporting documents:
Memo from Lt. Shaw to Capt. Ramos dated February 29, 2016
Email from LAPD Motor Lt. Manual Romeral dated February 3, 2016
Excerpts from DP 1.13
California Vehicle Code 21057 and California Government Code 8558

Sincerely,

Dan Hollister
lead Motorcycle Training Sergeant

4 attachments

I{ID

Motorcade menio.Shaw.docx

50K
'[) LAPD.21057email.pdf

45K
ffiiTh DP 1.13 Emergency Vehicle Operations.docx
'l:tJ 12K

'[) 21057cvc.8558govcode.pdf

497K

The City of San Diego

MEMORANDUM
DATE:

February 29, 2016

TO:

joseph Ramos, Captain, Traffic Division

FROM:

Steven Shaw, Lieutenant, Traffic Motor Unit

SUBJECT:

Formal Motorcades

Formal motorcades are a specialized function that the San Diego Police Department's Motorcycle Unit
has traditionally handled. The use of a formal motorcade is typically reserved for the President of the
United States or other high ranking dignitary. The SDPD Motorcycle Operations Manual, Section 8.2,
states: The S.D.P.D. shall provide motorcade and protective security assistance within its area of
responsibility, consistent with available resources.
The Motor Unit takes great pride and honor in participating and providing motorcades. Although the
Motor Unit would like to continue the ability to provide a motorcade service, concern has arisen over
the California Vehicle Codes restrictions on motorcades, liability for the police department and officers
when participating in a motorcade event, and the ability to conduct formal motorcade training.
California Vehicle Code Section 21057 states, in part: Every police and traffic officer is hereby expressly
prohibited from using a siren or driving at an illegal speed when serving as an escort of any vehicle,
except when the escort or conveyance is furnished for the preservation of life.
Although there are many different personal interpretations of Section 21057, there has been no legal
interpretation of this section and how it relates to our motorcade policy and procedures. With the
exception of the California Highway Patrol, many police agencies throughout the state have
discontinued providing motorcades because of Section 21057. The Los Angeles Police Department
Motor Unit discontinued formal motorcades due to Section 21057 and now only provides escorts
(funerals, special events, etc.) which are slower and do not require taking over intersections when there
is a red signal. We also currently run escorts in this manner and therefore do not conflict with Section
21057 when it comes to escorts.

Page2
To: joseph Ramos, Captain, Traffic Division
Date: February 29, 2016

Given this information, and baring a policy call by the Chief to continue formal motorcades, I
recommend we suspend formal motorcades until a legislative amendment can be made to the California
Vehicle Code providing a more definitive explanation and guidelines on whom, how, and when
motorcades can be conducted. It is my understanding that the LAPD is in the beginning stages of this
process. We have also spoken to POA Attorney Mike Fender and he has agreed to help with this
legislative proposal.

Burlison, Robert
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

MANUEL ROMERAL [25998@lapd.lacity.org]

Wednesday, February 03, 2016 11:42 AM
Burlison, Robert
Re: escorts for team bus,ses

Rob:
Our Department policy prohibits us from taking the intersection on a red light (i.e., motorcade mode). 'NQW, we're are
only allowed to take the intersections on a green and then we hold onto the Intersection for traffic control purposes
(i.e., escort mode).

After Hawthorne Police Department (PD) Motor Officer Leonard Luna was killed on July 10,2013, during a joint funeral
escort with another agency, we were approached by the CHP with concerns that the California Vehicle Code (CVC) dtrbS
not protect law enforcement agencies for motor escorts (i.e., funerals, parades, VIPs, motorcycle rallies, etc.). There are
exceptions, but they're very limited to national emergencys, etc. Based on that meeting, we Instituted <l moratorium on
"motorcades." Now, we just run "escorts," which are slower and we don't take the intersections when the light is red.

Additionally, to stay within the CVC, our escort motors that are leap fragging do so by staying within the posted speed
limit. Therefore, we escort the "package" at slower speed. This has worked fine for us since funeral details and bicycle
rallies are typically slower paced. If we're approaching an intersection that's in a red phase, we simply slow down the
speed of the package until the light turns green and our escort motors can take control of the intersection.
After the CHP meeting, we Were under the impression that they (CHP) were going to tal<e the lead to modify the eve
through the legislative process. Unfortunately, we found out later the CHP decided notto do so due to conflict of
interest concerns (i.e., they're a State agency). Therefore, in January 2015, I submitted documentation through our
Department to legistlatively amend the eve (i.e., I'm at home, so I don"t recall the two eve sections). Last week before
my surgery, I made some Inquiries as I never heard back as to the status on what I had submitted. We have a lenghty
chain of command approval process and ultimately our Chelf of Pollee has to make the final decision. If he approves It,
then we have to get City Hall foll<s to buy into our legislative proposal and then the City has to find a Sacramento
legislator to sponsor our proposal.
Rob, hope this information help. If you have more questions, please call me at, (213) 716-9597. Be safe.
Manny Romeral, Lieutenant
LAPD- Motors
Emergency Operations Division
100 West 1st Street, Room #469
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Sprint network.

From: Burlison, Robert

Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 7:23AM
To: MANUEL ROMERAL; 'twhite@chp.ca.org'

Subject: escorts for team busses

Good morning Gentleman,
1

DP 1.13
I. PURPOSE
This Depmtment procedure complies with existing law to reduce the potential for death
or injury arising fiom emergency vehicle operation.

IV. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

A. 21052 CVC - all employees, except as authorized by 21055 CVC, are required to
operate their vehicles in accordance with all state laws.
B. 21055 CVC- provides that the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle is
exempt from Division 11, Chapters 2 tluough 10, and Division 16.5, Chapter 5,
Articles 3 and 4, of the Vehicle Code. This limited exemption is only in effect
when the following conditions are met:
The vehicle is being driven in response to an emergency call, or while
engaged in rescue operations, or is being used in the immediate pursuit of
an actual or suspected violator of the law.
C. Drivers operating emergency vehicles Code 3 shall continually sound the siren
AND utilize all emergency lights when disregarding traffic control devices or
other vehicle code regulations. At no time shall an officer use only their overhead
emergency lights while proceeding tluough or clearing an intersection.

E. 21056 CVC- states that the exemption of Section 21055 CVC does not relieve the
driver of an emergency vehicle fium the duty to DRNE WITH DUE REGARD
FOR THE SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS using the highway.
1. The effect of21056 CVC is to establish that emergency vehicle operators
are NOT protected when their unreasonable or negligent acts of driving
imperil others.
2. Officers can be held liable in criminal or civil actions for deaths, injmies
or damages caused by negligent emergency vehicle operation.

Hollister, Danny
FrQrn:
Sent:
Tq:
Subject:

PG (pgeis1 @cox; net]

Wednesday, Pebru01ry 17, 2016 9:30. PM
Hollister, Danny; Dan Hollister
Ca. Gov; Code 8558 ...

.21057~

!i;:V?tYi8gljq~:J~i1t:Ht(Ciffici:t)ffi9!~ is hereby,i~/5PEl~ly1 ;p~19Jp,it~t;Jjfrom using a siren or driving

at an illegal speed when serving as an escort ofariyvehicle, except when the escort or
conveyance is furnished for the preserVc:ttion of life or When expediting movements of
supplies and personnel for any federal, st<:Jte, or local governmental agency during a
national emergency, or state of war emergency, or state of emergency, or local
emergency as defined in Section 85/?8 of the Government Code.
.
(Amended by Stats. 1971, Ch.

131.

Cf:l. Gov. Code....

8558.
Three conditions or degrees of emergencv are established bv this chapter:
(a) ''State of war emergencv'' means the condition which exists immediately, with or
withowt <i! procl?matlori ther('lof by thfJ Governor, Whenever this st('lte or .natfon is attacked
by an enemy of the United States, or upon receipt by the state of a warning from the
federal government indicating th<:Jt such an enemy attack ls probable or imminent.
(b) "State of emergencv" means the duly proclaimed existence of.cbnditions of disaster or
of extreme peril to the safety of persons and propertywithin the st<:Jte caused by such
conditions as air pollution, fire, flood, stotm, .epiqernic, riot, drought, sudden and severe
energy shortCJge, plant or animal infestation or qisease., th.e Governor's warning of an
earthquake or volcanic prediction, or an earthquake, or other conditions, other than
conqitions reswlting from a labor cohtrov<;lrsy or conditions cal!sing a "state of war
emergency,'' which, by reason oftheir magnitude, are or are likely to be beyond the
control of the services, personnel, equip111ent, and facilities of any single county, city and
Gounty, or city .and require the combined forces ofa mwtualaid region or regions to
corn bat, or with respect to regulated energy utilities, a sudden and severe energy shortage
requires extraordinary measures beyond the authority V!Olsted in the California Public
Utilities Commission.
(c) 'V:>caf emergeflCv" means the duly proClaimed existence of conditions of disaster or of
extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the territorial limits of a cownty,

 city and county, or city, caused by such conditions as air pollution, fire, flood, storm,
epidemic, riot, drought, sudden and severe energy shortage, plant or animal infestation or
disease, the Governor's warning of an earthquake or volcanic prediction, or an
earthquake, or other conditions, other than conditions resulting from a labor controversy,
which areor are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment, and
facilities of that political subdivision and require the combined forces of other political
subdivisions to combat, or with respect to regulated energy utilities, a sudden and severe
energy shortage requires extraordinary measures beyond the authority vested in the
California Public Utilities Commission.
'
(Amended by Stats. 2007, Ch. 16, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 2008.)

GILLEON LAW FIRM

1320 Columbia Street, Ste. 200

San Diego, CA 92101
~
619.702.8623
r. 619.250.0209
"' 619.374.7040
www.mglawyers.com

April 28, 2016

Via Certified Mail
Per Labor Code 2699.3

California Labor & Workforce Development Agency

Attn: P AGA Administrator
1515 Clay Street, Ste. 80 I
Oakland, CA 94612
NOTICE
Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of2004

Re:

Sgt. Danny Hollister v. City ofSan Diego

Violation ofLabor Code 1102.5

Dear Sir or Madam:

Under Labor Code 2699.3, this letter shall serve to officially notifY you and the employer, the City
of San Diego ("the City"), about claims by an employee of the City, Sgt. Danny Hollister
("Hollister"), a sworn peace officer, that the City violated at least one section of the Labor Code.
That section is 1102.5(a-c), which states:
(a) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer,
shall not make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy
preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government
or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the
employee, or to another employee who has authority to investigate,
discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or from
providing information to, or testifYing before, any public body
conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has
reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation
of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a
local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether
disclosing the infonnation is part of the employee's job duties.
(b) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer,
shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosi11g information, or
because the employer believes that the employee disclosed or may

California Labor & Workforce Development Agency

April28, 2016
Page2
disclose information, to a government or law enforcement agency, to
a person with authority over the employee or another employee who
has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or
noncompliance, or for providing information to, or testifying before,
any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if
the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information
discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or
noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation,
regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the
employee's job duties.
(c) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer,
shall not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in
an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute,
or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule
or regulation.
On April 8, 2016, Sgt. Hollister sent an email to San Diego Police Department ("SDPD") Chief
Shelley Zimmerman, regarding his belief that the City was violating law (and placing lives at risk)
by continuing to employ the use of police motorcades. Sgt. Hollister further made clear that he was
being forced to violate the law and Department Policy in that regard. Enclosed is a true and correct
copy of Sgt. Hollister's email, without attachments, and is adopted by reference and incorporated
into this letter.
Retaliation in violation of section 1102.5 followed soon thereafter. A few days after the email, Sgt.
Hollister's supervisor, Lt. Steven Shaw, confronted Sgt. Hollister, and was visibly upset. Lt. Shaw
told Sgt. Hollister that he had been so angry with Sgt. Hollister that he had not been able to speak
with him until then. Lt. Shaw chastised Sgt. Hollister and threatened his career with SDPD, stating,
"we are no longer on the same page" and "you are no longer part ofthe unified front." Lt. Shaw
informed Sgt. Hollister that he no longer wanted him on the Motor Training Staff, which would
result in financial losses. Shortly thereafter, Lt. Shaw removed Sgt. Hollister from certain training
activities.
Sincerely,

Daniel M. Gilleon
cc:

Clerk, City of San Diego (by hand delivery)

From: Hollister, Danny

Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 11:38 AM
To: Zimmerman, Shelley
Cc: Ramos, Joseph; Shaw, Steven
Subject: Motorcades
Chief Zimmerman,
I am compelled, without a foreseeable alternative, to address with you a very serious issue. We
need to reevaluate our position with respect to motorcades before our department captures
another negative headline or, worse yet, we suffer another catastrophic incident involving one
of our motor officers. In short, every time we, the Motor Unit, conduct a motorcade iJnd/or
motorcade training, we are violating Department Procedure 1.13 and California Vehicle Code
section 21057. Our City Attorney's office has said that there is a "presumption of negligence" on
our pqrt if we continue to violate the California Vehicle Code. If there should be property loss,
injury or death resulting from any negligent activity by us and it is found to be deliberate, a
possible crime will have occurred.
Motorcades by their very nature are extremely dangerous with a fully staffed and well trained
Motor Unit skilled in all manner of motorcade protocols, which we are not. In recent years .
within the U.S., numerous motorcycle officers have been injured or killed while conducting
motorcades. As a result, in California, every municipal police department in the state has
ceased motorcade activity allowing the California Highway Patrol to assume full responsibility
for all motorcade movements except the San Diego Police Department. The question is
why ... ??? ... We have nothing to gain, as a city or a Police Department, by allowing ourselves to
take unnecessary risks and incur opened ended liabilities.
The Traffic Division Captain, Motor Lieutenant and I, as the lead Motor Training Sergeant are all
well aware of the inherent risks and liabilities of violating the California Vehicle Code and
Department Policies and Procedures. We have recommended suspending motorcades until a
legislative change, currently being sought by the LAPD, permits motorcades which may help
protect the city, department, and the individual officer from civil liability and/or possible
criminal prosecution.
After reviewing our recommendation, the Chief's Office has directed us to continue with
motorcade training and to conduct motorcades ..
As I'm sure you are aware, members of the Motor Unit were recently advised that if we cause or
are a party to a collision by violating our various written policies i.e. going Code 2%, we will be

subject to a "30 day" Suspension-300 hours. On the heels of that directive, we are now told
that we will follow the orders via the chain of command and engage in motorcade training on
public roadways and c'onduct actual motorcades, which will cause us to violate our own policies,
procedures and the laws that govern all of us which we have sworn to up hold. We are now, as
a Unit and a Department, in a very bad place.
I have attached the following supporting documents:
Memo from Lt. Shaw to Capt. Ramos dated February 29, 2016
Email from LAPD Motor Lt. Manual Romeral dated February 3, 2016
Excerpts from DP 1.13
California Vehicle Code 21057 and California Government Code 8558
Sin~erely,

Dan Hollister
lead Motorcycle Training Sergeant

4 attachments

liD Motorcade menio.Shaw.docx

SDK

~ LAPD.21057email.pdf

45K
,... DP 1.13 Emergency Vehicle Operations.d.ocx

om

12K

~ 21057cvc.8558govcode.pdf

497K