Post by WaTcHeR on Sept 20, 2006 14:30:22 GMT -5
09.20.2006 - A former Ventura County Sheriff's Department deputy who was fired this year for misconduct argued in court Tuesday that the department should give him back his job, along with back pay and full benefits.
Former deputy Michael Chad Van Winkle lost his job after failing to turn in weapons designated for destruction.
On Tuesday, Van Winkle's attorney, Stuart Adams, asserted his client's civil rights were violated by the department, and he is seeking a mandatory injunction forcing the department to reinstate him.
At the center piece of Adams' legal argument is the Police Officers Bill of Rights, a California statute that offers certain job protections to law enforcement personnel.
Thomas Temple, assistant county counsel, argued in court that giving Van Winkle his job back would be "outrageous."
"He shouldn't be reinstated. The Sheriff's Department had ample cause to fire this man," Temple said. "Mr. Van Winkle wasn't treated any worse and yet, a great deal better, than other criminal suspects."
Lawyer says client didn't steal
After the hearing, Adams said his client had 10 years working as a deputy and had a good record in the department. He said his client didn't steal any weapons. However, another deputy stole the weapons.
"They were trying to obtain firearms legally. They couldn't, and he put them back, period. The department blew it out of proportion," Adams said.
Van Winkle and former deputies Lester Tunigold and Edward Garcia Ponce were arrested last year and charged with embezzlement and conspiracy involving weapons that were turned in by residents and were to be destroyed.
All three deputies were fired.
In April, Ponce was sentenced to 150 days in jail and three years of probation. He pleaded guilty in February to embezzlement, stealing a firearm and possessing an illegal assault rifle. After a four-week grand jury investigation, the District Attorney's Office decided to dismiss criminal charges against Tunigold and Van Winkle. Prosecutor Howard Wise had said the evidence against Tunigold and Van Winkle was insufficient.
Citing a case law where an officer was fired for taking bribes and illegal gambling and was later reinstated by the court because the state's Police Officers Bill of Rights was violated, Adams said reinstatement is a legal remedy.
"If it is such an outrageous remedy, why is it in the statute?" he asked.
The law affords police certain rights and protections to maintain a "stable employer-employee" relationship, Adams said in court.
Civil Service panel to hear case
The law covers such things as investigations, interrogations, personnel files, polygraph examinations and the right not to disclose income, assets, debts and expenditures.
After listening to arguments from both sides, Ventura County Superior Court Judge Vincent O'Neill said he would make a ruling later. Meanwhile, Van Winkle is scheduled to argue his case before the Civil Service Commission on April 28.
Temple argued that a criminal investigation trumps the law, and officers aren't entitled to more rights than the average citizen.
Adams said the department commingled an administrative probe with its criminal investigation, triggering the Bill of Rights.
Not ‘mere technicality'
"These are very serious rights that must be enforced," said Adams, who is also seeking legal fees.
He said this isn't a "mere technicality" in the law but a very important piece of legislation.
Temple denied any commingling, saying that the weapons charges were very serious and were investigated by the department's Major Crimes Unit.
"It ignores the nature of the allegations here," Temple said, adding that the law doesn't cover "investigators and criminal suspects."
Adams said the police "sting" that implicated his client was illegal under the Police Officers Bill of Rights, adding that the department should have asked another law enforcement agency to investigate Van Winkle.
Arrested in front his children
Van Winkle was arrested "in the middle of the street" in front of his children and was surrounded by officers, Adams said in court.
Outside the courtroom, Van Winkle and his parents gathered around Adams as he spoke to The Star.
"The parents are devastated. My client is devastated. He was a good cop, and he had the rug pulled out from underneath him," Adams said.
The family noted that Van Winkle was given a commendation two months before his arrest for helping capture a knife-wielding man after a high-speed pursuit.
www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/county_news/article/0,1375,VCS_226_5007140,00.html
Former deputy Michael Chad Van Winkle lost his job after failing to turn in weapons designated for destruction.
On Tuesday, Van Winkle's attorney, Stuart Adams, asserted his client's civil rights were violated by the department, and he is seeking a mandatory injunction forcing the department to reinstate him.
At the center piece of Adams' legal argument is the Police Officers Bill of Rights, a California statute that offers certain job protections to law enforcement personnel.
Thomas Temple, assistant county counsel, argued in court that giving Van Winkle his job back would be "outrageous."
"He shouldn't be reinstated. The Sheriff's Department had ample cause to fire this man," Temple said. "Mr. Van Winkle wasn't treated any worse and yet, a great deal better, than other criminal suspects."
Lawyer says client didn't steal
After the hearing, Adams said his client had 10 years working as a deputy and had a good record in the department. He said his client didn't steal any weapons. However, another deputy stole the weapons.
"They were trying to obtain firearms legally. They couldn't, and he put them back, period. The department blew it out of proportion," Adams said.
Van Winkle and former deputies Lester Tunigold and Edward Garcia Ponce were arrested last year and charged with embezzlement and conspiracy involving weapons that were turned in by residents and were to be destroyed.
All three deputies were fired.
In April, Ponce was sentenced to 150 days in jail and three years of probation. He pleaded guilty in February to embezzlement, stealing a firearm and possessing an illegal assault rifle. After a four-week grand jury investigation, the District Attorney's Office decided to dismiss criminal charges against Tunigold and Van Winkle. Prosecutor Howard Wise had said the evidence against Tunigold and Van Winkle was insufficient.
Citing a case law where an officer was fired for taking bribes and illegal gambling and was later reinstated by the court because the state's Police Officers Bill of Rights was violated, Adams said reinstatement is a legal remedy.
"If it is such an outrageous remedy, why is it in the statute?" he asked.
The law affords police certain rights and protections to maintain a "stable employer-employee" relationship, Adams said in court.
Civil Service panel to hear case
The law covers such things as investigations, interrogations, personnel files, polygraph examinations and the right not to disclose income, assets, debts and expenditures.
After listening to arguments from both sides, Ventura County Superior Court Judge Vincent O'Neill said he would make a ruling later. Meanwhile, Van Winkle is scheduled to argue his case before the Civil Service Commission on April 28.
Temple argued that a criminal investigation trumps the law, and officers aren't entitled to more rights than the average citizen.
Adams said the department commingled an administrative probe with its criminal investigation, triggering the Bill of Rights.
Not ‘mere technicality'
"These are very serious rights that must be enforced," said Adams, who is also seeking legal fees.
He said this isn't a "mere technicality" in the law but a very important piece of legislation.
Temple denied any commingling, saying that the weapons charges were very serious and were investigated by the department's Major Crimes Unit.
"It ignores the nature of the allegations here," Temple said, adding that the law doesn't cover "investigators and criminal suspects."
Adams said the police "sting" that implicated his client was illegal under the Police Officers Bill of Rights, adding that the department should have asked another law enforcement agency to investigate Van Winkle.
Arrested in front his children
Van Winkle was arrested "in the middle of the street" in front of his children and was surrounded by officers, Adams said in court.
Outside the courtroom, Van Winkle and his parents gathered around Adams as he spoke to The Star.
"The parents are devastated. My client is devastated. He was a good cop, and he had the rug pulled out from underneath him," Adams said.
The family noted that Van Winkle was given a commendation two months before his arrest for helping capture a knife-wielding man after a high-speed pursuit.
www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/county_news/article/0,1375,VCS_226_5007140,00.html