1 2 3

4 5

ANITA L. GRANT (State Bar No. 144603) County Counsel LLOYD C. GUINTIVANO (State Bar No. 242944) Deputy County Counsel 255 North Forbes Street Lakeport, California 95453 Telephone: (707) 263-2321 Facsimile: (707) 263-0702 Attorneys for County of Lake and the County of Lake Sheriffs Office

rA

6
7

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFOM11A

8 9 10 11 Petitioner, 12
V

COREY PAULICH

II4w. ft
isi: A 1l Case No. CV 410353

irnui

as

13 14 15 16 17 18 Respondents. COUNTY OF LAKE; LAKE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Hearing Date: August 22, 2011 9:00 a.m. Time: Department: I

INTRODUCTION 19 20 21 (hereinafter, collectively, "County") County to set aside the disciplinary investigation 22 against Petitioner. 23 24
25

Petitioner COREY PAULICH has filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus requesting to compel FRANCISCO RIVERO and COUNTY OF LAKE

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 Petitioners representation Memorandum in Opposition to Petition and Application for Writ 1

26 27 28

I
2 3

rights. STATEMENT OF CASE On 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 6

July 21, 2011 requesting that County set aside the disciplinary investigation against 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 Petitioners 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. 11 12 13 14
15

STATEMENT OF FACTS On or about March 13, 2011, Lake County Sheriff Francisco Rivera received information from the Clearlake Police Department that about a vehicle pursuit on March 13, 2011 (hereinafter, the "incident") involving two (2) Lake County sheriff deputies supervised by the Petitioner. To get an accurate account of the circumstances

16

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 Sheriffs Office in the early evening. To memorialize their discussion, Sheriff Rivera 20 sent an email to Petitioner later that evening reminding him of the Lake County Sheriffs 21 Office rules and procedures. Petitioner responded to Sheriff Riveras email and Sheriff 22 Rivero responded to clarify Petitioners responsibilities as a deputy sheriff sergeant and 23 as the supervisor of the two (2) Lake County sheriff deputies involved in the incident. 24 I/I 25 26 27 28
III I/I

Memorandum in Opposition to Petition and Application for Writ

1 2 3 I.

ARGUMENT COUNTYS DISCUSSION OF THE INCIDENT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE i:i xsi e] [sl i :11 I I uei: i

i ieiuj iii i

4 5

Government Code Section 3303 shall not apply to any interrogation of a public 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
8

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

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

9 4], the court considered whether a sergeants 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]. 20 Sheriff Riveros discussions with the Petitioner consisted of routine

21 communications where Sheriff Rivera reminded Petitioner of the Lake County Sheriffs 22 Offices 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 Sheriffs 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 28 Memorandum in Opposition to Petition and Application for Writ 3

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 Sheriffs rules and procedures. Declaration of Francisco Rivero, at 2:24 - 3:5. The email communications between the parties clearly show Sheriff Riveros reminder to the Petitioner of these rules and procedures for purposes of training and instruction due to Petitioners 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 Sheriffs 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 Riveros 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 17 18

II.

COUNTY DID NOT PROHIBIT PETITIONER FROM OBTAINING

COMPENSATION FOR HIS OFF-DUTY DISCUSSION.

Pursuant 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 Sheriffs Office department policy, Lake County Sheriffs 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 Petitioners 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 28 Memorandum in Opposition to Petition and Application for Writ 4

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 Petitioners 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.
7 Even if Government Code Section 3303 applies, the seriousness of the incident 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). 13 The incident consisted of a vehicle pursuit that resulted in the use of deadly force

14 and a Lake County Sheriffs Office vehicle ramming the suspects 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 Sheriffs 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 Riveros email at Petitioners 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 26 27 28 Memorandum in Opposition to Petition and Application for Writ 5 Petitioner an opportunity to respond any time. III

1 k 2

s.1uJ I

1.1 I.I i:ii

1 ll II

lkAII]P

Even if Government Code Section 3303 applies, Sheriff Riveros

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.

7

Nowhere in Petitioners 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 Riveros 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 Riveros 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 Petitioners 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 Sheriffs 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. 22

V.

SHERIFF RIVERO DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO ADVISE PETITIONER THAT [Cl I (.1 1 J *1 If.Il [S]

23 i:i: 24

(SIp V J

1 ifS] 1IJ

"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 27 28 Memorandum in Opposition to Petition and Application for Writ 6

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 5 6 7 As discussed above, Sheriff Rivero simply reminded Petitioner of the Lake County Sheriffs Office Rules and Procedures as part of routine training and instruction. Declaration of Francisco Rivero, at 2:10 - 4:18. Government Code Section 3303(g) is permissive, and Sheriff Rivero did nothing to prevent Petitioners 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 Riveros 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. 15 16 VI. COUNTY DID NOT VIOLATE PETITIONERS REPRESENTATION RIGHTS. The 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 Assn. v. City of Claremont (2006) 39 Cal.4th 623, 631 [47 Cal.Rptr.3d 69, 74]. 22 Sheriff Riveros communications towards Petitioner had no relation on Petitioners 23 wages, hours or working conditions. Sheriff Riveros 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 28 Memorandum in Opposition to Petition and Application for Writ 7

1 Sheriffs Office. Declaration of Francisco Rivero, at 3:12 - 4:18. As discussed above, 2 Sheriff Riveros 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 Sheriffs 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 Riveros instruction towards Petitioner to comply with 8 the Lake County Sheriffs rules and procedures. Declaration of Francisco Rivera, at 9 10 11 12 CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, the County of Lake respectfully requests that 4:11-16.

13 this Court deny Petitioners petition and application for writ. 14 15 Date: August 9, 2011 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Memorandum in Opposition to Petition and Application for Writ 8 B By: LLOYD C. GUINTIVANO Deputy County Counsel Attorney for the County of Lake Respectfully submitted, ANITA L. GRANT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

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 as follows:

United States Postal Service by placing such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail in accordance with offices practice, whereby the mail is deposited in the United States Postal Service mailbox in the City of Lakeport, California. X_ United Parcel Service express overnight delivery by placing such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail in accordance with offices practice, whereby the mail is delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by United Parcel Service to receive documents, in an envelope or package designated by United Parcel Service with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person on whom it is to be served at that partys place of residence. Christopher Miller Mastagni, Holstedt, Amick, Miller & Johnsen 1912 "I" Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Deposited in the Lake County Courthouse box, Fourth Floor, Superior Court Clerks Office, 255 North Forbes Street, Lakeport, California 95453. Federal Express.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

F ax * to (916) 447-4614 and (916)491-4254 Mr. Jeffrey R.A. Edwards, Esq. Mastagni, Holstedt, Amick, Miller & Johnsen A Professional Corporation Personally delivered to person(s) at address(es) listed below.

24

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
25

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

26 27 28

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 Street Lakeport, California 95453 4 Telephone: (707) 263-2321 Facsimile: (707) 263-0702 Attorneys for the Francisco Rivero, County of Lake Sheriff and the County of Lake 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LAKE 9 10 COREY PAULICH, 11 Petitioner, 12 13
V.

DECLARATION OF COUNTY OF LAKE SHERIFF FRANCISCO RIVERO IN SUPPORT OF MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR WRIT

14 COUNTY OF LAKE; LAKE COUNTY 15 SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT; and DOES 1 16 through 10, inclusive, 17 18 19 I, Francisco Rivero, declare: 20 1. 21 22 Alternative Writ. 23 2. 24 Lake County Office of the Sheriff.
25

Case No. CV 410353

Respondents.
I

Hearing Date: August 22, 2011 Time: 9:00 am. Department: 1

I am the Sheriff for the County of Lake (hereinafter, "County"), and hereby

make this declaration in support of the Memorandum in Opposition to Application for

As part of my duties as Sheriff, I am responsible for the operation of the

3. 26 4. 27 28

I have been Sheriff for the County of Lake since January 3, 2011. As part of my duties as Sheriff, I am responsible for the management and 1

1 supervision of deputy sheriffs and deputy sheriff sergeants. 2 5. As 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 6 7

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

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 7. On 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. 15 8. As 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 9. The Watch Commander Log alerted me to a chase initiated by a

19 Clearlake Police Unit (CPD) that culminated with a Lake County Sheriffs (LCSO) unit 20 terminating the pursuit by forcibly ramming the suspects. 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 deputys decision to forcibly stop the vehicle by ramming it. 24 10. Upon 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 27 28 1

circumstances surrounding the incident. 11 My 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 deputys Mobile Audio Visual unit. 12. As part of Petitioners duties as deputy sheriff sergeant, he is required to

7 report serious incidents to me after they occurred.

HE

13.

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

sergeants office when he reported to the Lake County Sheriffs Office after retrieving 10 the deputys vehicle and returning it the Sheriffs Main Office. We continued our 11 discussion as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident. 12 14. My 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 Sheriffs Office policy should 18 state under what circumstance he should intervene in the incident. 19 15. In response to his statement regarding policies within the Lake

20 County Sheriffs 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 16. On March 13, 2011, Petitioner responded to my email clarifying his

24 statement regarding Lake County Sheriffs Policy, and I reiterated his duties as shift 25 supervisor in a response email dated March 14, 2011. 26 27 28 3 17. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a true and correct copy of the

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. 18. All of my discussions with Petitioner are part of my routine duties as

6
7

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

8 incident involving the use of deadly force. 19. As the shift supervisor during the incident, Petitioner has a responsibility

10 of reporting the facts and circumstances concerning the incident to me. 11 20. As 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 Sheriffs Office vehicles. 14 21. The purpose of my discussions with Petitioner were to inquire about the

15 incident, instruct, train, and remind him of the Lake County Sheriffs Office rules and 16 procedures regarding the pursuit of vehicles. 17 22. As the shift supervisor during the incident, Petitioner has a responsibility

18 enforce and comply with the Lake County Sheriffs Offices rules and procedures. 19 23. I 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. 22 24. Attached as Exhibit "C" are true and correct copies of February 14, 2011

23 and March 14, 2011 emails and from the Lake County Sheriffs Office sent to Petitioner 24 and other employees of the Lake County Sheriffs Office informing him of the Lake 25 County Sheriffs 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 28 Declaration of County of Lake Sheriff Francisco Rivero

ri

1 2

Iii.iuii

25.

Attached 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.
5 6 7

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

Dated: August 9, 2011

8
,

-~~F RAICISCORIVERO

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23

24
25

26 27 28 Declaration of County of Lake Sheriff Francisco Rivero

5

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 okd to respond by 414 as he was the closest unit. Also at the residence was the RPs 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 didnt have a weapon. 458 arrived on scene at 0042 hrs and 414 arrived 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 Waters 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 subject at 16th and 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 at 0155 hrs. Pursuit continued down Arrowhead to Bush, then turned onto 3rd and ended up on East Lake Ext. where it went into a field next to 13480 Eastlake Ext. At 0157 hrs 446 (who was doubled with 424 using 424s number) advised that the responsible vehicle t/cd into their patrol vehicle. 446 advised that he, 424 and their K9 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 and 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. (14 mins)

BEAT 3C, 415F

At 0306 hrs 461 & 448 were sent to 2375 Hwy 20 Nice for a report of a man, Ryan Hod, who punched Shayla Cranfords car and vacuum and parties were separated. 461 went out with a possible DUI and 459 went en route to back 448 from the 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. (34 mins)

BEAT 3E, TSTOP

At 0317 hrs 461 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. 461 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 clearing the call OK verbal only at 0432 hrs. Opr: LST

At 0355 hrs, Dep Clark responded to a report of a barking dog on GA (4 minutes)

1st Street. CLOSED

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. CLOSED OK (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 (15 minutes) 7A SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE CHECK At 0744 his, Dep Newton conducted a check on a vehicle. CLOSED OK (3 minutes)

7A SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE CHECK 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. CLOSED OK (3 minutes)

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 10-28s. 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. CLOSED OK (25 minutes)

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

AlUtIJU

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 Im sorry if I left you with that impression. I am fully 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 agencys pursuit that is in county jurisdiction at the point our unit was not directly involved.

Sergeant Corey Paulich Lake County Sheriffs Office Enforcement Division 1220 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 Howe; Chris Macedo; Brian Martin; Dave Perry; James Bauman 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 members 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 deputys 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 members 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 deputys 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 deputys vehicle, the deputys experience and the likelihood of apprehension. 5. The capability of the offenders vehicle to outperform the deputys 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 a vehicle 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 offenders 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

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; Carla
Hockett; 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 Auditors office, payroll will now be processed within a two day timeframe, There will be little room for error, so it will be of the utmost importance that timecards are submitted correctly and managers responsive to questions. We will be closing payroll on Wednesday, March 23rd. Remember to mark your weeks between Saturday and Sunday and assure you have the correct number week. If you had a shift change, your week needs to be marked shift change.
of hours reported in each

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. DO NOT USE EMPLOYEE NUMBERS.
If you are working overtime, your slip needs to specify the reason (for whom and why). Please be as specific as possible. If you

are 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, thanks mbs

8/9/2011

FAAM I M ON

wi i
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 TIME CODES SHIFT OT/PAY SHIFT OT/COMP CALLOUT/PAY CALLOUT/COMP COURT/PAY COURT/COMP COMP TIME USED VACATION USED SICK LEAVE 4850 LEAVE MILITARY LEAVE

i
Name: Start Date: End Date: Total Hours: Explanation:

I iii i:r.i
Corey Paullic h 03/12/11 03/13/11 1 Time_chang e _

P (.] flui1

09MMON IIIaI, iuiizi,i,

11:1

EMPLOYEE SIGNATURE: SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE:

vV,

DATE: DATE:
SATISFY S THIS REQUEST.

PRIOR TO REQUESTING ANY TIME OFF, I HAVE VERIFIED THAT I HAVE SUFFICIENT LEAVE

11 1Ei(i1UhI i
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 LEAVE
NAII ITAPV I Pti\I

MitII I:[.]D4..i P (]WAUIii

Corey Paulich 03/13/11 12 Brooks at trainin Il14I TIME: TIME CODE: i:isit 0600 01

Name: Start Date:

End Date: 03/14/11 Total Hours: Explanation:

EMPLOYEE SIGNATURE: SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE:

PRIOR TO REQUESTING ANY TIME OFF I HAVE VERIFIED THAT I HAVE SUFFICIENT LEAVE

DATE: DATE:
TO SATISFY THIS REQUEST. P

[i[i1U1
TIME CODES
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
11

I IS

II I UII

II]

(S] V1U!i

SHIFT OT/PAY SHIFT OT/COMP CALLOUT/PAY CALLOUT/COMP COURT/PAY COURT/COMP COMP TIME USED VACATION USED SICK LEAVE 4850 LEAVE
MIt ITPV I

Name: Start Date: End Date: Total Hours: Explanation:

Corey Paulich 03/15/11 03/15/11 1. 5

I.D, NO: TIME: 71_ TIME CODE:

414 1330 1500 05 /

Motion Hearing Stone did not

testify

DATE: SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE:

PRIOR TO REQUESTING ANY TIME OFF HAVE VERFIFIED THAT I HAVE SUFFICIENT TIME

DATE: 0 417hzw
TO SATISFY THIS REQUEST.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

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 as follows:

United States Postal Service by placing such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail in accordance with offices practice, whereby the mail is deposited in the United States Postal Service mailbox in the City of Lakeport, California. X United Parcel Service express overnight delivery by placing such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail in accordance with offices practice, whereby the mail is delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by United Parcel Service to receive documents, in an envelope or package designated by United Parcel Service with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person on whom it is to be served at that partys place of residence. Christopher Miller Mastagni, Holstedt, Amick, Miller & Johnsen 1912 I" Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Deposited in the Lake County Courthouse box, Fourth Floor, Superior Court Clerks Office, 255 North Forbes Street, Lakeport, California 95453. Federal Express.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

--

Fax * to (916) 447-4614 and (916) 491-4254 Mr. Jeffrey R.A. Edwards, Esq. Mastagni, Holstedt, Amick, Miller & Johnsen A Professional Corporation Personally delivered to person(s) at add ress(es) listed below.

25

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
26

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

27 28

Lloyd C. Guintivano