Who Should Report Protective Order Violations

[Shante]

My question involves restraining orders in the State of: California

If a peace officer (probation) has a restraining order against someone who is stalking them, is their department required to contact local law enforcement and report a violation of the restraining order if the person with the protected order against them contacts the protected person's employer with false accusations eventually causing the protected person to be fired?

[cdwjava]

My question involves restraining orders in the State of: California

If a peace officer (probation) has a restraining order against someone who is stalking them, is their department required to contact local law enforcement and report a violation of the restraining order if the person with the protected order against them contacts the protected person's employer with false accusations eventually causing the protected person to be fired?

No, the protected party's employer - even if it IS a Probation Department - is NOT required to report the violation to local law enforcement. The protected person can report any violation, however. And, unless the order prohibits contacting the employer or calling that workplace, it would not be a violation.

I would assume that if there were "false" accusations, they would not have led to termination of the Probation Department employee. They don't simply terminate someone on unsubstantiated allegations.

[Shante]

The order states that the prohibited person is not to harass or disturb the peace of the person and must stay-away at least 100 yards from the workplace of the person. The prohibited person is not to contact the protected person inn person or by phone. The individual contacted the protected person's supervisor via telephone, called the protected person multiple times on their office phone, and contacted the internal affairs department to report that they (the prohibited individual) had been in a previous romantic relationship with the protected person. Additionally, the prohibited person reported being a felon and expressing that the protected person always knew this information. The protected person denied knowing this detail of the prohibited person, yet the department believed the prohibited person with no concrete evidence to substantiate the claim.

[cdwjava]

The protected person should have contacted the police and reported the violation when it occurred.

I find it difficult to believe that a county Probation Department terminated an employee in otherwise good standing solely based upon the unsubstantiated word of a stalker - a person against whom there is a TRO. But, if they were a felon and the protected party was in relationship with them, then that can be damning.

If it has not yet been too long, the protected party should speak with their union rep. and work to fight the termination. Hopefully, the time for a Skelly hearing has not passed.

Who are YOU in this?

[Shante]

The protected person did report the multiple violations (coming by home, church and work, calling and leaving multiple voice messages on work and personal cell phone) to two law enforcement agencies (due to the area where the violations occurred). Protected person submitted police reports to IA, informed them of the restraining order, and gave IA a copy of the restraining order during the interview process. The department terminated the protected person based on the protected person having an affair with the prohibited person and the prohibited person saying that the protected person "knew" they were a felon, when in fact the protected person did not know of the prohibited person's criminal status. A restraining order was initiated due to the prohibited person wanting the protected person to leave their spouse to be with the prohibited person. When the protected person refused, the prohibited person started stalking the protected person and engaging in the actions previously mentioned.

It has been difficult for the protected person as well to believe that the department would just terminate their employee based on with words of the prohibited person. The prohibited person claimed that there were text messages to prove that the protected person knew the criminal status, yet when contacted by IA on numerous occasions, the prohibited person evaded IA, refused to be interviewed under oath or recorded, and never produced any alleged text messages. The protected person admitted to having an affair (a little over a month), but not knowing of the criminal status.

I am the protected person.

[cdwjava]

The protected person did report the multiple violations (coming by home, church and work, calling and leaving multiple voice messages on work and personal cell phone) to two law enforcement agencies (due to the area where the violations occurred).

Did they attempt an arrest? I assume this was a domestic violence restraining order and as such is the only statute in CA that mandates an arrest if there exists probable cause ... provided the reports and the suspect contact were made within a reasonable amount of time. If too long had passed (and this time frame can vary by jurisdiction) then they'd have to seek a warrant.

Protected person submitted police reports to IA, informed them of the restraining order, and gave IA a copy of the restraining order during the interview process. The department terminated the protected person based on the protected person having an affair with the prohibited person and the prohibited person saying that the protected person "knew" they were a felon, when in fact the protected person did not know of the prohibited person's criminal status. A restraining order was initiated due to the prohibited person wanting the protected person to leave their spouse to be with the prohibited person. When the protected person refused, the prohibited person started stalking the protected person and engaging in the actions previously mentioned.

Sounds like you need to work with your union rep. and fight. Has the Skelly been held, yet?

It has been difficult for the protected person as well to believe that the department would just terminate their employee based on with words of the prohibited person. The prohibited person claimed that there were text messages to prove that the protected person knew the criminal status, yet when contacted by IA on numerous occasions, the prohibited person evaded IA, refused to be interviewed under oath or recorded, and never produced any alleged text messages. The protected person admitted to having an affair (a little over a month), but not knowing of the criminal status.

I cannot pretend to know what IA knew or believed they knew. I have to think that they had greater cause to believe that you were aware of the person's status than you admitted to. Whether that info was correct or not, clearly I cannot say.

If I were the IA officer (and I held that function for many years), I would also be looking at other issues such as whether the nature of the affair granted the partner access to confidential/restricted files or other information, whether it occurred on the clock, whether you had to engage in untruthful actions in order to cover up the affair, etc. If you had lied at any time to a spouse, lover, employer, ad nasueum, those could also be grounds for termination. What was the stated grounds for termination? They had to have articulated a specific policy that was broken in order to let you go ... unless you were a probationary (not yet made permanent) employee.

I am the protected person.

I thought as much, but thank you for clarifying.

So, when did the investigation begin? When were you let go? How far are you into any appeals?

[Shante]

I submitted the multiple voice messages (100+) to the police department and they turned them over to the DA. A court date was set for January 2019 and the prohibited person failed to appear. A warrant was issued for his arrest.

Skelly hearing was held last September 2018 and I was subsequently discharged. I have a private attorney because the union rep lied to me about the department not being available on the scheduled date. I waited and stressed all Summer to later discover that it was he rep who was not available and requested a later date.

Yes they believed I was aware due to the affair, but there was no proof. The prohibited person claimed he had text messages to proved that I knew, yet never surrendered the alleged messages to IA. He also refused to go in for a recorded interview under oath. He never had access to any confidential/restricted files because I never had those in my possession after work hours. I never saw him after during work hours, and I was truthful with my spouse when the prohibited person revealed the affair to him.

The stated grounds for termination was "knowingly maintaining any personal, social, or business associations with...felons who are on parole or formal probation", because the prohibited person stated that I knew about his criminal status and incarceration. However, I was asked if I ever wrote or visited him in prison. I'm assuming they checked and knew I didn't because nothing was mention in the report.

The investigation began 05/17, I was interviewed 10/17, received intent to discharge 05/18, Skelly hearing 9/18, and terminated 10/18. I just started my civil service hearing last week.

[cdwjava]

Wow ... so you are well into the process. You have an attorney, I presume? (Hopefully)

I'm not sure there's much more you can do at this late time except follow any legal advice you have obtained from your attorney and continue with the civil service process. If the evidence is week, you may stand a good chance of prevailing - I have seen a great many cases reversed, so there's still hope. ... Assuming that there is no proof that you knew of their history or were terminated also for some other violation.

[Shante]

Yes I do have an attorney. There is no actually proof that I knew of his status. That's why I was shocked when I was terminated. I thought for sure there needed to be some type of physical proof. He kept saying he had text messages but I knew that was a lie, that's why he never gave anything to IA or went in for an interview, yet they took his word for it. There were no other violations, just that one.

The question came up as to why IA did not contact local law enforcement when they knew he was violating the order by contacting my employer. I know it's IA's job to follow up on the compliant, but I also thought because they work for the department the goal was to protect the employee. However, they made me feel like a criminal or that a restraining order was against me in this whole process.

Thank you very much for your time and feedback. I really do appreciate it.

[L-1]

If it's apparent they have no case then you need to consider they are firing you on a humbug charge because they don't want you.

Years back one of my former officers left our agency and went to work for a different department. He did something that pissed off the higher ups in his agency and found himself fired and what was clearly a no merit allegation. His Skelly was rubber stamped, upholding the firing.

He Then asked for a State Personnel Board hearing. His employer asked for continuance after continuance, dragging things out, but he eventually won, with a full restoration of back pay, benefits and his seniority restored.

Rather that return him to duty, his employing agency then filed an appeal to Superior court. Once again, the employer dragged things out by asking for endless continuances until almost three years had gone by until he got his day in court. Once again he prevailed with a full restoration of back pay, benefits and his seniority restored.

His employer offered him all his back pay and to restore his good name (no longer fired) if he would resign and sign an agreement promising to never work for that agency again. He pointed out that the court had just awarded him his job back with back pay and benefits. They responded, "You just don't get it. We don't want you."

They went on to explain that if he did not accept their offer, they would appeal to the State Court of Appeals. If they lost there, the would file an appeal with the State Supreme Court and would continue to file appeals every time they lost. They pointed out that his free union and legal defense coverage coverage stopped at the Superior Court level, that he would be paying for all further appeals out of his own pocket, and that he would run out of appeal money long before his employer would.

By now he had been unemployed (and unemployable as a fired peace officer) for three years and had gotten by doing side work working as a janitor. He took the back pay, his good name and left.

Consider the possibility that you are being fired simply because someone doesn't want you there. Is there anything going on in your life right now that has carried into your work that makes keeping you more trouble that it is worth?