WPCJ 9lFQLKI ,CtDl`:z?A,є3et~eBgXhz\w%uexDqĂn60Lށ6#@  ,E119cwQ0u2nKh)V/Q&aO'ˮ=-UO {g#5EȺݖ}qC0[u O1h}l 4%?Yf n&]eJ1J}^fY#UN % 0 U6} N  0gEw^ 4#7F mHU _UFU> B B* HP LaserJet 5,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(Z)$USUS.,  <6X9`(Courier New  9,USUS., d   d (,(#,(#(  AX )1dE01AAW )1qdE#1A1  2 8 3  4 H  5   6 X   7  0  8 h  9 @  10 x  11 P 12  13 ` 14  15  p 16  17 0  18 " 19 @ $ 20 !& 21 P#( 22 $( * 23 `&!, 24 '8#. 25 p)$0 26 *H&2 27 ,'4 28(39$ )!USUS.,     d ". ,z.:i+003|xUH6X`(<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular<\( 9Z+&Courier Regular d&0 d d )!USUS.,    _ X`XXXCLANCYLITIGATIONGROUP   PatrickE.Clancy,SBN60805 t Dr.DemosthenesLorandos,SBN177644 8 1600S.MainSt.,Suite185 L WalnutCreek,CA94596  Tel:(925)2564600  eFax:(888)8025089#XXXX`# H  X`XXX]sXX`AttorneysforDefendant    @  SUPERIORCOURTOFCALIFORNIA,COUNTYOF  l  THEPEOPLEOFTHESTATEOF0 h )0h(#h(#CaseNo.0p(#(#h p(#p(# CALIFORNIA,0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#),| h(#h(#    `     h )0  @ (#(#    `  Plaintiff,0 h )0h(#h(#ADMISSIBILITYOF (#(#    `     h )0  DEFENDANTSCOMPELLEDx (#(# vs.0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#)0h(#h(#TESTIMONYPURSUANTTO<(#(#    `     h )0  GOVERNMENTCODESECTIONSP(#(# Ѐ0 0 (# (#0h(#(#)0h(#h(#3303AND3304(#(#    `     h )0  (#(#    `  Defendant.0 h )0h(#h(#Date:L(#(#    `     h )0  Time:`(#(# ______________________________)0  Dept:$(#(#    `     h   @$ INTRODUCTION   p   Intheinstantcasethedefendant" wasprosecutedbytheCityAttorneyin  anadministrativedisciplinaryhearingregardinghisemploymentwiththe 0  __________Fire/Police ԀDepartment.Duringthathearing,afterMiranda " admonitions,thedefendantwascompelledtotestifyabouteventsthatwere @ $ possiblycriminalinnature. !&   Thedefendanttestifiedagainsthiswillwithoutcounselatthathearing P#( andmadeseveralstatementsregarding $( * ______________________________________________________________. `&!,   Theprosecutionmayallegethatduringtheadministrativehearingthe '8#. defendantcommittedspecificactsoffalsetestimonyregarding p)$0 ________________________________________________.Assuchtheprosecutionmay *H&2 attempttousethisevidencetodemonstratethatthedefendanthasacharacter ,'4 traitforlying. .X)6 _  Refusaltotestifyatanadministrativedisciplinehearingcanbe  interpretedbytheemployingagencyasinsubordinationpursuanttoGovernment 8 Codesection3303(a,g)and3304(a).Assuch,administrativesanctionscanbe  imposedforrefusingtotestify. H    Thedefendantherebymovesforaprotectiveorderpreventingany   evidenceofhiscompelledtestimonyattheadministrativedisciplinaryhearing X   frombeingadmittedintoevidenceattrial.  0   I.  h    THEDEFENDANTHADNOCONSTITUTIONALORSTATUTORYRIGHTTOREMAINSILENTFREEOF @  ADMINISTRATIVESANCTION #X`X]sP##XXXX`1#ԀX`XXX DURINGTHEDISCIPLINARYHEARING.#XXXX`2#XCXXX        GovernmentCodesection3303and3304arepartofthePublic < SafetyOfficer'sProceduralBillofRightsAct.Sections3303(a  g)and3304(a)establishtheadministrativeproceduresbywhich L publicsafetyofficerscanbeinvestigatedandinterrogatedfor $ disciplinarypurposes.GovernmentCodesection3304(a) \ specificallystates: 4   0  Nothinginthissectionshallprecludeaheadofanagency l fromorderingapublicsafetyofficertocooperatewithother 0  agenciesinvolvedincriminalinvestigations.Iftheofficer D! failstocomplywithsuchanorder,theagencymayofficially " chargehimwithinsubordination. GovernmentCodesection |# 3304(a). @ $(#(#     Thecaseof Lybargerv.CityofLosAngeles (1985)221 !& Cal.Rptr.529;40Cal.3d822,interpretedthissectionas P#( providing neitheraconstitutionalnorastatutoryrightto $( * remainsilentfreeofadministrativesanction.  Id.at531 `&!, (emphasisadded). '8#.   The Lybarger decisionhasbeenupheldinseveralcases p)$0 involvingadministrativeinvestigationsofpublicsafety *H&2 officers.(See,e.g. CityofLosAngelesv.SuperiorCourt ,'4 (Labio) (1997)57Cal.App.4th1506(policeofficer'snon_Ԅ .X)6 _Mirandized_Ԁquestioningbysuperiorofficerforsanctionable  actionrightfullysuppressed.) Peoplev._Gwillim_ (1990)274 8 _Cal.Rptr_.415;223_Cal.App_.3d1254(policeofficer'sstatementin  aninternalaffairsinvestigationentitledtouseandderivative H  useimmunityunder _Lybarger_ .) Williamsv.CityofLosAngeles    (1988)252_Cal.Rptr_.817;47Cal.3d.195(failuretoadvise X   officerunderinvestigationofhisrightsper _Lybarger_ and  0  GovernmentCodesections3303and3304insufficientgroundsfor h  reinstatementofemployment.)) @    Regardinganyconstitutionalprotectionaffordedtheofficer x  beinginvestigated, _Lybarger_ reasonedthat: P   0  Asamatterofconstitutionallaw,itiswellestablished  thatapublicemployeehasnoabsoluterighttorefuseto L answerpotentiallyincriminatingquestionsposedbyhis ` employer.Instead,hisselfincriminatingrightsaredeemed $ adequatelyprotectedbyprecludinganyuseofhisstatements  atasubsequentcriminalproceeding. _Lybarger_ 221_Cal.Rptr_. \ 529#XXXXC#X`XXXԀat531(emphasisadded).#XXXX`#XCXXX p(#(#     Thecourtfurtherdeterminedthatnostatutoryrightto  remainsilentduringdisciplinaryhearingsexisteddetermining 0  thatGovernmentCodesection3303(e)"expresslyprovidesthatan " officerwhorefusestorespondtoquestionsorsubmitto @ $ interrogationissubjecttopunitiveactionbyhisemployer.Id. !& at532. P#(  II. $( * CONCLUSION  `&!,   Intheinstantcasethedefendanthadadutytocooperate '8#. withtheinvestigationconductedbythe__________________ p)$0 regardinghisallegedactsofinsubordination.Failuretodoso *H&2 wouldhaveresultedinadministrativedisciplinaryaction.Asa ,'4 result,hisstatementswereaproductoftheadministrative .X)6 disciplinaryprocessand,accordingtothe _Lybarger_ decision,  cannotbeusedagainsthiminanysubsequentcriminalproceeding. 8   Therefore,thedefendantrespectfullyrequeststhata  protectiveorderissuetotheeffectthatanyandallstatements H  oradmissionsmadebyhimduringthedisciplinaryhearing   conductedbytheModestoCityAttorney'sOfficeregardinghis X   employmentwiththeModestoFireDepartmentbeheldinadmissable.  0  Further,thedefendantrespectfullyrequeststhatneitherthe h  witnessesfortheprosecutionnorthedistrictattorneymakeany @  mentionofsaiddisciplinaryhearing. x  Dated:October16,19980 h 0h(#h(#0(#(#RespectfullySubmitted,P(#(#    `     h     ________________________ `    `     h        `     h     AttorneyforDefendant#XXXXCU #