Protecting Law Enforcement Officers Facing Internal Investigations, Misconduct Allegations, and Criminal Charges
Are you a law enforcement officer facing internal investigation, misconduct allegations, criminal charges, or administrative discipline in Pasadena or Los Angeles County? Your career, your reputation, your pension, and your freedom are at stake. When everything you’ve worked for hangs in the balance, you need an attorney who understands the unique legal challenges facing peace officers and has the proven experience to protect your rights.
At Tu Defensor Criminalista, we provide aggressive, specialized legal representation to law enforcement officers throughout Pasadena and Los Angeles County. Our attorneys understand that police officers face distinct legal challenges that civilian defendants don’t encounter—including Peace Officer Bill of Rights protections, internal affairs investigations, POST certification issues, administrative appeals, and the intense public scrutiny that accompanies any allegation against law enforcement. We know what’s at stake, and we fight to protect your career and your future.
Free Confidential Consultation: (888) 315-3326 | Available 24/7 | Hablamos Español
Understanding the Challenges Facing Law Enforcement Officers in California
The Changing Landscape of Police Accountability
California has dramatically transformed police accountability in recent years through landmark legislation that has fundamentally changed how officer misconduct is investigated, reported, and prosecuted. For law enforcement officers in Pasadena and throughout California, understanding this new landscape is critical.
According to the Public Policy Institute of California[1], nearly 200 Californians die each year in police encounters, and amid growing concern over civilian deaths and racial injustice, California has implemented sweeping reforms to improve police transparency and accountability. These reforms directly impact officers facing allegations or investigations.
Senate Bill 1421 (2018): This landmark “Right to Know Act” ended four decades of secrecy concerning police internal investigations and officer discipline in California. SB 1421 makes public three categories of records[2]: use-of-force incidents resulting in serious injury or death, sustained findings of sexual assault by officers, and sustained findings of official dishonesty affecting criminal investigations or prosecutions. For officers, this means allegations and investigations that were once confidential are now subject to public disclosure under the California Public Records Act.
Senate Bill 2 (2021): Passed in response to nationwide protests following George Floyd’s murder, SB 2 created California’s first-ever police decertification process[3]. The California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) can now revoke officer certifications for nine categories of serious misconduct: dishonesty, abuse of power, physical abuse (including excessive or unreasonable use of force), sexual assault, demonstrating bias, acts that violate the law, participation in a law enforcement gang, failure to cooperate in misconduct investigations, and failure to intervene when observing excessive use of force.
According to P[3]O[3]ST data through 2025[3], since SB 2’s full implementation in 2023, POST has received over 36,200 allegations of serious misconduct involving approximately 20,600 officers statewide. Of these, 720 officers have been separated from their agencies through termination or resignation, with over 100 officer certifications revoked and 95 officers voluntarily surrendering certifications. An additional 164 officers have certifications temporarily suspended pending investigation.
Pasadena’s Law Enforcement Environment
The Pasadena Police Department employs more than 400 personnel[4], including 220 sworn officers, serving a population of approximately 137,195 residents. According to Police Scorecard data analyzing Pasadena policing[5], the department’s accountability and use-of-force practices are subject to intense scrutiny.
Under California’s Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA)[6], passed in 2015, the Pasadena Police Department reports detailed data on every stop officers make to the California Department of Justice. The data reveals significant disparities in stop rates and enforcement actions. In 2023, Pasadena officers used force on 28 people during stops, representing 0.3% of all people stopped[6]. The RIPA board’s 2021 analysis found that California law enforcement officers used force most frequently on Black individuals.
Additionally, a comprehensive database of 1.5 million pages of records from 12,000 California officer-misconduct and use-of-force cases[7] created by UC Berkeley and Stanford University is now publicly accessible, allowing anyone to search internal affairs documents and police misconduct records from nearly 700 California law enforcement agencies, including Pasadena.
Types of Allegations and Investigations Facing Peace Officers
Internal Affairs Investigations
Internal affairs investigations represent one of the most serious threats to an officer’s career. These administrative investigations examine allegations of policy violations, misconduct, or criminal conduct. Unlike criminal investigations, internal affairs proceedings operate under different standards of proof and procedural rules.
Complaint Sources: Internal affairs investigations can be initiated from multiple sources including civilian complaints, supervisor observations, anonymous tips, other officers’ reports, or discovery during criminal proceedings. From 2016 to 2021, California received more than 60,000 civilian reports of police misconduct statewide[1].
Investigation Process: Once a complaint is received, it must be investigated before POST can determine whether allegations are credible and merit enforcement action. Investigations typically involve interviews with complainants, witnesses, and the accused officer; review of body-worn camera footage, dash camera video, and other recordings; examination of police reports and other documentation; and reconstruction of events.
Potential Outcomes:
Exonerated: The investigation clearly established the alleged conduct did not occur or was lawful and proper
Unfounded: The investigation indicated the act complained of did not occur or did not involve the accused officer
Not Sustained: Insufficient evidence existed to prove or disprove the allegation
Sustained: The investigation revealed sufficient evidence to prove the allegation
Sustained findings can result in discipline ranging from reprimand to termination, and under SB 1421, sustained findings of use of force causing serious injury/death, sexual assault, or official dishonesty become public records.
Use of Force Investigations
Use of force incidents, particularly those resulting in serious injury or death, trigger mandatory investigations and public disclosure under SB 1421. Officers involved in these incidents face:
Administrative Review: Every use of force is reviewed to determine whether it complied with department policy and California law. Post-2020 reforms under Assembly Bill 392 significantly changed California’s use-of-force standards, limiting deadly force to situations where necessary to defend against imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.
Criminal Investigation: Serious use-of-force incidents, particularly officer-involved shootings or deaths, are investigated criminally by local district attorneys or the California Attorney General’s office. Officers can face criminal charges including assault, battery, manslaughter, or murder.
Civil Liability: Use-of-force incidents also expose officers to civil rights lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of constitutional rights, as well as state law tort claims.
Public Disclosure: Under SB 1421, all use-of-force records where an officer discharged a firearm at a person or used force resulting in serious bodily injury or death must be disclosed to the public upon request, regardless of whether the officer was disciplined.
Criminal Charges Against Officers
Peace officers can face criminal prosecution like any other citizen, but these cases carry unique complications. According to the Public Policy Institute of California[1], officers in California were most commonly arrested for assault prior to recent reforms, though comprehensive arrest data for officers has historically been limited.
Common Criminal Charges:
Assault and Battery: Including domestic violence, excessive force, and off-duty incidents
DUI: Driving under the influence, both on-duty and off-duty
Theft and Fraud: Embezzlement, theft from arrestees, insurance fraud
Perjury and False Reports: Filing false police reports, testifying untruthfully
Sexual Offenses: Sexual assault, sexual battery, unlawful sexual conduct
Weapons Violations: Unlawful discharge, carrying while intoxicated
Criminal convictions carry devastating consequences for officers including immediate termination, loss of POST certification, loss of pension benefits in many cases, and impossibility of future law enforcement employment.
POST Decertification Proceedings
Under SB 2, POST can now revoke an officer’s certification, effectively ending their law enforcement career statewide. The nine grounds for decertification are:
Abuse of Power: Misusing authority for personal gain or to harm others
Physical Abuse: Excessive or unreasonable use of force
Sexual Assault: Any sexual assault committed while on duty
Demonstrating Bias: Actions showing prejudice based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or other protected characteristics
Acts Violating Law: Criminal conduct whether on or off duty
Participation in Law Enforcement Gang: Membership in cliques that engage in misconduct
Failure to Cooperate: Refusing to participate in misconduct investigations
Failure to Intervene: Not stopping excessive force by other officers
POST decertification proceedings are administrative but carry consequences as severe as criminal convictions—permanent inability to work in California law enforcement.
Your Rights Under the Peace Officer Bill of Rights
Constitutional and Statutory Protections
California Government Code Sections 3300-3313, known as the Peace Officer Bill of Rights (POBR), provides critical protections to officers during administrative investigations. Understanding and asserting these rights is essential to protecting your career.
Right to Notice: Officers must be informed of the nature of the investigation before being questioned. You’re entitled to know what allegations you face and what policy violations are being investigated.
Right to Representation: You have the absolute right to have a representative present during any interrogation. This can be an attorney, union representative, or both. Never waive this right.
Right to Reasonable Time: Officers must be given reasonable time to obtain representation before questioning. Departments cannot force immediate interrogations without allowing you to secure counsel.
Right to Recording: Officers have the right to a complete recording of any interrogation. You’re entitled to a copy of this recording.
Right to Silence in Criminal Matters: If the investigation could lead to criminal charges, you have Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. However, refusing to answer questions in purely administrative investigations can itself be grounds for discipline.
Protection Against Punitive Action: Officers cannot be subjected to punitive action or threats during interrogations. Questions must be limited to the scope of the investigation.
Right to Access Reports: You’re entitled to access and review all materials and reports related to the investigation before any punitive action.
Statute of Limitations: Generally, departments must discover misconduct within one year of occurrence, and disciplinary action must be taken within one year of discovery, with limited exceptions.
Right to Appeal: Officers have the right to appeal disciplinary decisions through administrative proceedings and, in many cases, civil service commission hearings or arbitration.
The Critical Importance of Legal Representation
Many officers make the fatal mistake of believing they can explain their way out of allegations or that “the truth will set them free.” This is dangerously wrong. Statements made during administrative investigations can and will be used against you in criminal proceedings, POST decertification hearings, and civil lawsuits.
Never speak to investigators without an attorney present. Even if you believe you did nothing wrong, even if you believe you can easily explain the situation, even if investigators tell you things will be better if you cooperate—do not speak without counsel.
Your attorney serves multiple critical functions:
Ensuring your POBR rights are protected
Advising you which questions to answer and which to refuse
Identifying when questions venture beyond the proper scope
Documenting procedural violations
Preserving evidence and witness statements
Coordinating your defense across administrative, criminal, and POST proceedings
Protecting your statements from being used against you in other forums
How Tu Defensor Criminalista Defends Peace Officers
Comprehensive Defense Strategies
Our defense of law enforcement officers involves coordinated strategies across multiple proceedings:
Administrative Defense: We represent officers in internal affairs investigations, pre-disciplinary proceedings, Skelly hearings, arbitrations, and civil service commission appeals. Our goal is preventing discipline or, when discipline is imposed, minimizing its severity and protecting your ability to continue working.
Criminal Defense: When officers face criminal charges, we provide aggressive criminal defense in state and federal courts. We understand the unique defenses available to peace officers, including use-of-force justifications, probable cause defenses, and qualified immunity in appropriate cases.
POST Defense: We represent officers in POST decertification proceedings, presenting evidence and arguments why your certification should be maintained. Given the permanent career-ending consequences of decertification, these proceedings demand experienced representation.
Civil Rights Defense: Officers sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or state tort law need defense counsel experienced in civil rights litigation. We defend these lawsuits aggressively while coordinating with any parallel criminal or administrative proceedings.
Specific Defense Approaches
Use-of-Force Defense: When defending use-of-force allegations, we:
Retain use-of-force experts who can testify about whether your actions complied with training and standards
Analyze whether you faced an imminent threat justifying force
Review your training records and prior incidents establishing proper judgment
Examine the suspect’s actions, criminal history, and behavior creating the threat
Challenge witness accounts with forensic evidence, video analysis, and expert testimony
Present evidence of split-second decision-making under dangerous circumstances
Demonstrate compliance with Graham v. Connor reasonableness standards
Dishonesty Allegations: False report allegations are particularly dangerous because they can result in permanent POST decertification and make officers “Brady-listed,” preventing them from testifying in criminal cases. We defend these allegations by:
Demonstrating errors were mistakes, not intentional falsehoods
Establishing lack of materiality—minor inaccuracies don’t constitute actionable dishonesty
Proving the officer acted in good faith based on their perceptions at the time
Challenging investigator bias and procedural violations
Presenting evidence of exemplary truthfulness throughout your career
Sexual Misconduct Defense: These allegations demand immediate, aggressive defense due to their career-ending and potentially criminal nature. We:
Investigate the accuser’s background, credibility, and motives
Obtain all communications between the officer and accuser
Challenge the timeline and opportunity for alleged conduct
Present witnesses contradicting the allegations
Examine whether proper procedures were followed in the investigation
DUI Defense for Officers: Officers facing DUI charges confront not only criminal penalties but also likely termination and POST consequences. We employ all standard DUI defenses plus:
Challenging whether the stop was legally justified
Attacking field sobriety test administration and reliability
Contesting breath and blood test results
Presenting medical conditions affecting test results
Negotiating resolutions that preserve employment when possible
The Stakes: What Officers Risk
Career Consequences
Termination: Sustained findings of serious misconduct typically result in termination. Without experienced legal representation, officers lose not only their current position but their ability to work in law enforcement anywhere in California.
POST Certification Loss: Decertification permanently ends your law enforcement career. You cannot work as a peace officer anywhere in California. The decertification is public record and follows you permanently.
Pension Loss: While California law generally protects pension rights, certain felony convictions—particularly those involving breach of public trust—can result in pension forfeiture. Officers convicted of felonies committed in connection with their official duties may lose pension benefits they’ve spent decades earning.
Brady/Giglio Listing: Officers found to have engaged in dishonesty are placed on “Brady lists” maintained by district attorneys. Brady-listed officers cannot effectively testify in criminal proceedings because their credibility is impeached, making them useless as witnesses and resulting in immediate termination.
Criminal Consequences
Incarceration: Criminal convictions can result in county jail or state prison sentences. While officers sometimes receive more lenient sentences, being a law enforcement officer can also be an aggravating factor resulting in enhanced sentences.
Federal Prosecution: Officers can face federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 242 for willful deprivation of constitutional rights under color of law. Federal sentences are often more severe than state sentences and must be served in federal prison.
Collateral Consequences: Criminal convictions carry all the standard collateral consequences including loss of gun rights, difficulty finding employment, housing discrimination, and social stigma—magnified for former officers.
Financial Consequences
Legal Fees: Defending against administrative investigations, criminal charges, POST proceedings, and civil lawsuits is extraordinarily expensive. Officers need experienced counsel across multiple proceedings, and legal fees can easily reach tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Lost Income: Suspension during investigation, termination, and inability to find comparable employment result in massive lost income. For officers in their prime earning years, this can mean millions in lifetime earnings lost.
Civil Judgments: Officers sued under § 1983 or state tort law can face personal liability for damages. While departments often indemnify officers, indemnification isn’t guaranteed, and some conduct falls outside indemnification policies.
Investigating False Allegations
The Reality of False Complaints
Not every complaint against an officer is legitimate. False complaints arise from various sources:
Retaliatory Complaints: Arrestees file complaints to gain leverage in criminal cases, hoping to create impeachment material or pressure prosecutors to reduce charges.
Civil Lawsuit Motivation: Complainants file misconduct allegations to support civil rights lawsuits seeking monetary damages.
Personal Vendettas: Neighbors, ex-spouses, or others with personal grievances file false complaints to harm officers.
Misunderstandings: Civilians unfamiliar with legal police tactics misinterpret lawful actions as misconduct.
Mental Health Issues: Some complainants suffer from mental health conditions causing them to perceive abuse where none occurred.
Political Pressure: In high-profile incidents, departments face intense political pressure to discipline officers regardless of whether misconduct actually occurred.
We aggressively investigate complainants’ backgrounds, motives, and credibility. We obtain communications, social media posts, criminal histories, and other evidence demonstrating the complaint is false or exaggerated.
Pasadena-Specific Considerations
Local Dynamics
Pasadena presents unique considerations for officers facing allegations:
Community Scrutiny: Pasadena’s highly educated population—where 56.8% of residents hold bachelor’s degrees or higher[8]—means heightened scrutiny of police practices and vocal community advocacy around accountability issues.
Media Attention: Misconduct allegations in Pasadena often receive substantial media coverage from local outlets including the Pasadena Star-News, Pasadena Now, and LA Times coverage of San Gabriel Valley issues.
Diverse Population: Pasadena’s diversity—34.1% Hispanic, 35.2% White, 17.4% Asian, and 7.39% Black residents[9]—means allegations often involve racial dynamics and disparate impact concerns.
Courthouse Location: Administrative appeals and criminal cases are heard at the Pasadena Courthouse (300 East Walnut Street), where we regularly appear and know the judges, hearing officers, and procedures.
Why Local Representation Matters
Our attorneys appear regularly at the Pasadena Courthouse and understand the local legal environment. We know:
Pasadena Police Department procedures and policies
Civil service commission hearing procedures
Local prosecutors’ approaches to officer prosecutions
Judges’ tendencies in officer-involved cases
The political environment affecting these cases
This local knowledge provides critical advantages that out-of-area attorneys cannot match.
The Importance of Immediate Action
Time-Sensitive Factors
When facing allegations or investigation, immediate action is critical:
Preserve Evidence: Body-worn camera footage, dash camera video, witness statements, and other evidence can be lost or destroyed if not preserved immediately. We issue preservation demands ensuring evidence is maintained.
Witness Interviews: Witnesses’ memories fade quickly. We identify and interview witnesses while their recollection is fresh.
POBR Deadlines: Procedural rights under the Peace Officer Bill of Rights can be waived if not timely asserted. We ensure all deadlines are met and rights protected.
Statute of Limitations: While departments generally have one year to discover misconduct and one year after discovery to impose discipline, exceptions exist. Understanding these timelines is critical to your defense.
Criminal Investigation Coordination: Statements made in administrative proceedings can be used criminally. We coordinate defenses to ensure administrative proceedings don’t create criminal liability.
Prevent Premature Statements: The worst mistake officers make is speaking to investigators without counsel, believing they can talk their way out of trouble. We prevent you from making statements that destroy your defense.
Why Peace Officers Choose Tu Defensor Criminalista
Specialized Experience
We understand the unique legal, procedural, and political dynamics of defending peace officers. We know:
Peace Officer Bill of Rights procedures and protections
POST certification standards and decertification proceedings
Use-of-force law and standards
Administrative disciplinary procedures
Civil service commission appeals
Federal and state criminal law applicable to officers
Civil rights defense under § 1983
Aggressive Advocacy
Your career and freedom are worth fighting for. We provide aggressive representation at every stage:
Challenging baseless allegations
Identifying procedural violations
Presenting exculpatory evidence
Retaining expert witnesses
Exposing false accusations
Negotiating favorable resolutions
Litigating appeals when necessary
Confidentiality
We understand the sensitivity of officer cases. All consultations and communications are strictly confidential. We take precautions to protect your privacy throughout proceedings.
24/7 Availability
Crises don’t follow business hours. Call (888) 315-3326 anytime for immediate assistance. We respond urgently to officer emergencies.
Coordinated Defense
We coordinate defense strategies across administrative, criminal, POST, and civil proceedings, ensuring actions in one forum don’t create problems in others.
Navigating Administrative Appeals and Arbitration
Civil Service Commission Proceedings
Many Pasadena police officers have civil service protections allowing them to appeal disciplinary decisions to the Civil Service Commission. These proceedings provide critical opportunities to overturn unjust discipline.
Burden of Proof: In civil service appeals, the department bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that the officer engaged in misconduct and that the discipline imposed was appropriate. This differs from criminal proceedings where the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Standard of Review: The Commission reviews disciplinary decisions for abuse of discretion, examining whether the department’s findings are supported by the evidence and whether the discipline imposed is proportional to the offense.
Presentation of Evidence: Civil service hearings allow presentation of witnesses, documents, expert testimony, and other evidence challenging the department’s findings. We present comprehensive evidence establishing:
The misconduct allegations are false or unsupported
Procedural violations deprived you of due process rights
Witness Testimony: We call witnesses including other officers, supervisors, training instructors, and civilians who can testify about your character, the circumstances of alleged misconduct, and departmental practices. We also cross-examine department witnesses, exposing weaknesses and bias in their testimony.
Legal Arguments: We present legal arguments regarding:
Statute of limitations violations
Peace Officer Bill of Rights violations
Evidentiary issues and improper consideration of evidence
Progressive discipline principles
Disparate treatment compared to other officers
Procedural irregularities affecting the investigation
Commission Decision: The Commission can uphold the discipline, reduce the discipline, or overturn it entirely. Commission decisions are subject to judicial review in superior court.
Arbitration Proceedings
Many peace officer associations have labor agreements providing for binding arbitration of disciplinary disputes. Arbitration provides an alternative to civil service appeals with several advantages:
Neutral Arbitrator: Unlike civil service commissioners who may have political considerations, arbitrators are neutral third parties selected for their expertise in labor and employment law.
Expedited Process: Arbitrations typically proceed more quickly than civil service appeals, reaching resolution in months rather than years.
Limited Appeal Rights: While this means adverse arbitration decisions are difficult to overturn, it also means favorable decisions are more likely to stand.
Contract Interpretation: Arbitrators interpret collective bargaining agreements and memoranda of understanding, ensuring officers receive the full protections negotiated by their unions.
Officer-involved shootings trigger the most intensive investigations officers will ever face. Multiple agencies simultaneously investigate from different perspectives:
Criminal Investigation: Either the local district attorney or California Attorney General investigates whether the shooting was criminally justified. Prosecutors examine whether you acted in lawful self-defense or defense of others, or whether you committed assault, battery, manslaughter, or murder.
Administrative Investigation: Your department conducts an administrative investigation determining whether you violated department policy, regardless of whether the shooting was criminal. Policy violations can exist even when the shooting was legally justified.
Federal Investigation: In some cases, the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office investigate whether the shooting violated the subject’s civil rights under 18 U.S.C. § 242.
Coroner’s Investigation: The county coroner or medical examiner investigates the cause and manner of death, conducting an autopsy and potentially holding an inquest.
Civil Investigation: Attorneys representing the decedent’s family conduct their own investigation to support civil rights lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Media Investigation: Journalists investigate officer-involved shootings, often filing public records requests and publishing findings that create public pressure affecting official investigations.
Critical Immediate Actions
The hours immediately following an officer-involved shooting are critical. Officers must:
Secure Medical Attention: If injured, obtain immediate medical treatment. Document all injuries photographically.
Invoke POBR Rights: Immediately invoke your rights under the Peace Officer Bill of Rights, including the right to representation before making any statements.
Contact Legal Counsel: Call Tu Defensor Criminalista at (888) 315-3326 immediately. Do not make detailed statements without counsel present.
Preserve Evidence: Ensure all evidence is preserved including body-worn camera footage, dash camera video, witness information, and physical evidence at the scene.
Obtain Witness Information: Ensure investigators obtain contact information for all witnesses, particularly civilian witnesses who may leave the scene.
Avoid Social Media: Do not post anything on social media about the incident. Do not communicate with anyone except your attorney about the shooting.
Cooperate with Medical Examination: If required to submit to blood or urine testing, comply but have your attorney present if possible.
Document Your Perceptions: As soon as possible, document your perceptions, observations, and split-second decision-making that led to the use of force. These contemporaneous notes are critical evidence.
Defending Officer-Involved Shootings
We defend officer-involved shootings using comprehensive strategies:
Use of Force Analysis: We retain nationally recognized use-of-force experts who analyze whether your actions complied with Graham v. Connor reasonableness standards, California law post-AB 392, and department training and policy.
Threat Assessment: We establish that you faced an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury justifying deadly force through evidence of:
Subject’s actions immediately prior to the shooting
Subject’s statements and demeanor
Weapons possessed by the subject
Subject’s positioning and movements
Split-second decision-making under life-threatening circumstances
Training and experience affecting your reasonable perceptions
Tactical Analysis: We demonstrate your tactics prior to the shooting were reasonable, including:
Initial approach and contact decisions
Use of cover and concealment
Attempts at de-escalation when safe and feasible
Positioning relative to the threat
Use of less-lethal options when appropriate
Subject Background: We investigate the subject’s background including:
Criminal history
History of violence
Mental health issues
Drug and alcohol intoxication
Prior contacts with law enforcement
Statements to others about intentions to harm police
Scene Reconstruction: We work with forensic experts to reconstruct the shooting scene, analyzing:
Ballistics evidence establishing shot trajectory and sequence
Blood spatter analysis
Physical evidence placement
Lighting conditions
Distance and angles
Time-sequence analysis
Video Analysis: We obtain and analyze all video evidence including body-worn cameras, dash cameras, surveillance cameras, and citizen-recorded video. Video analysis often reveals split-second threats not visible to casual observers.
Witness Impeachment: We challenge civilian witnesses who claim the shooting was unjustified by:
Demonstrating their vantage point prevented accurate observation
Revealing bias against law enforcement
Exposing inconsistencies in their statements
Presenting contradictory physical evidence
Establishing poor lighting or distance affected perception
Understanding Brady/Giglio Implications
The Threat of Credibility Listings
One of the most devastating consequences for officers found to have engaged in dishonesty is placement on “Brady lists” (also called “Giglio lists”). These are rosters maintained by district attorneys of officers with credibility issues that must be disclosed to criminal defendants under Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States.
Brady/Giglio Requirements: Prosecutors have constitutional obligations to disclose evidence favorable to defendants, including information impeaching the credibility of prosecution witnesses. Officers with sustained findings of dishonesty must be disclosed to defense attorneys in any case where the officer may testify.
Career Consequences: Being Brady-listed effectively ends an officer’s law enforcement career because:
You cannot testify credibly in criminal trials
Your investigations become unusable for prosecution
Your arrests cannot be successfully prosecuted
You cannot perform essential job functions
Departments have no choice but to terminate you
What Triggers Brady Listing: Actions that can result in Brady listing include:
Sustained findings of filing false police reports
Sustained findings of testifying untruthfully
Sustained findings of planting or fabricating evidence
Sustained findings of making material misrepresentations
Criminal convictions involving dishonesty
Sustained findings of withholding exculpatory evidence
Fighting Brady Listing: We aggressively fight to prevent Brady listing by:
Demonstrating alleged dishonesty was actually mistake or miscommunication
Establishing errors were immaterial and not intentional
Proving procedural violations in the investigation
Presenting evidence of exemplary truthfulness throughout career
Challenging the credibility of accusers
Obtaining independent investigation results
Challenging Existing Listings: If you’ve been Brady-listed, we challenge the listing by:
Obtaining the full investigation file through public records requests
Identifying deficiencies in the investigation
Demonstrating the sustained finding was erroneous
Seeking removal from the list based on new evidence
Filing administrative appeals and lawsuits when appropriate
Protecting Your Pension and Benefits
Understanding Pension Forfeiture Risks
California law generally protects peace officers’ pension rights even after termination or criminal conviction. However, significant exceptions exist that can result in complete pension forfeiture.
California Government Code Section 7522.72: This statute authorizes pension forfeiture for public employees, including peace officers, convicted of felonies arising out of or in connection with their official duties involving abuse of office or position.
Felonies Triggering Forfeiture: Convictions that can result in pension loss include:
Bribery
Embezzlement of public funds
Extortion
Theft or misappropriation of public funds
Perjury committed in connection with official duties
Falsification of public records
Conspiracy to commit any of these offenses
Forfeiture Process: Pension forfeiture is not automatic. The retirement system must make a determination that:
The officer was convicted of a qualifying felony
The felony was committed in connection with official duties
The felony involved abuse of office or position
Forfeiture is appropriate given all circumstances
Defending Against Forfeiture: We protect your pension by:
Negotiating plea agreements to offenses not triggering forfeiture
Demonstrating the offense was not committed in connection with official duties
Establishing the conduct did not involve abuse of office
Presenting mitigating circumstances warranting continued pension benefits
Challenging forfeiture proceedings through administrative appeals
Partial vs. Complete Forfeiture: Even when forfeiture is warranted, we argue for partial rather than complete forfeiture, preserving at least a portion of benefits you’ve earned through years of service.
Disability Retirement Considerations
Officers facing termination sometimes have the option of applying for disability retirement, particularly when medical or psychiatric conditions contributed to the alleged misconduct.
Psychiatric Disability: Officers suffering from PTSD, depression, anxiety, or other psychiatric conditions can apply for industrial disability retirement if the conditions:
Arose out of or in the course of employment
Render them unable to perform job duties
Are permanent or stationary
Medical Disability: Physical injuries or illnesses incurred in the line of duty can qualify for industrial disability retirement.
Disability retirement may preserve pension benefits when termination is likely
Medical documentation must be compelling
Timing is critical—apply before termination when possible
Disability findings can affect other proceedings including criminal cases
Independent medical examinations will be required
We coordinate with retirement specialists, physicians, and psychiatrists to support disability retirement applications when appropriate.
Representing Officers in Federal Prosecutions
Federal Criminal Charges
Officers can face federal prosecution under various statutes:
18 U.S.C. § 242 – Civil Rights Violations: This statute criminalizes willful deprivation of constitutional rights under color of law, most commonly charged in excessive force cases. Convictions carry up to one year imprisonment, or up to ten years if bodily injury results, or up to life imprisonment if death results or if the offense involves kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse, or attempted murder.
18 U.S.C. § 1951 – Hobbs Act: Criminalizes robbery or extortion affecting interstate commerce, sometimes charged when officers steal from suspects or businesses.
18 U.S.C. § 1001 – False Statements: Makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully make materially false statements to federal investigators.
21 U.S.C. § 841 – Drug Offenses: Officers can face federal drug charges for theft or distribution of controlled substances.
18 U.S.C. § 371 – Conspiracy: Officers can be charged with conspiracy to commit federal offenses or conspiracy to violate civil rights.
Defending Federal Prosecutions
Federal prosecutions present unique challenges requiring specialized knowledge:
Higher Conviction Rate: Federal prosecutors enjoy much higher conviction rates than state prosecutors, necessitating even more aggressive defense strategies.
Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Federal sentences are calculated under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which provide less discretion than California sentencing laws and often result in longer sentences.
No Parole: Federal sentences must be served in their entirety with only limited good-time credits. There is no parole in the federal system.
Resource Disparity: Federal prosecutors have virtually unlimited resources including FBI agents, forensic laboratories, expert witnesses, and support staff.
Grand Jury Investigations: Federal cases typically involve grand jury investigations where prosecutors present evidence without defense participation, resulting in indictments that can be difficult to challenge.
We defend federal prosecutions by:
Filing motions to suppress evidence obtained through constitutional violations
Challenging the legal sufficiency of charges
Attacking witness credibility through cross-examination
Presenting affirmative defenses including good faith belief in lawfulness
Negotiating plea agreements to lesser charges when appropriate
Preparing for trial with expert witnesses and comprehensive evidence
Pursuing sentencing variances and departures from Guidelines ranges
Frequently Asked Questions About Police Officer Defense in Pasadena
Should I cooperate fully with internal affairs?
This depends entirely on the circumstances. In purely administrative matters not involving potential criminal charges, you generally must answer questions, though you should still have an attorney present advising you. When criminal charges are possible, you have Fifth Amendment rights to remain silent. Never make this decision without consulting an attorney first.
Can I be fired for refusing to answer questions?
In purely administrative investigations, yes. California law allows departments to terminate officers who refuse to answer questions in administrative investigations. However, statements compelled in administrative proceedings cannot be used against you criminally under Garrity v. New Jersey. This is why coordination between administrative and criminal defense is critical.
What if I already gave a statement?
Contact us immediately. While we cannot undo statements already made, we can prevent further damage, identify procedural violations that may help suppress statements, and build defenses minimizing the statement’s impact.
How long do internal affairs investigations take?
Investigations vary from weeks to many months depending on complexity. California law generally requires departments to complete investigations and impose discipline within statutory time limits, but these limits have numerous exceptions.
Will I be placed on administrative leave?
In serious cases, particularly those involving use of force resulting in injury/death, criminal allegations, or high-profile incidents, officers are typically placed on paid administrative leave pending investigation. This is standard procedure and doesn’t indicate guilt.
Can I transfer to another department?
Departments are now required to report officer separations to POST. Officers fired or resigned under investigation find it extremely difficult to be hired elsewhere. Additionally, sustained misconduct findings are now public records accessible to hiring departments.
What happens if I’m Brady-listed?
Being placed on a Brady list effectively ends your law enforcement career. If you cannot testify credibly in criminal cases, you cannot perform essential job functions. We fight aggressively to prevent Brady listing and, when it occurs, to challenge its basis.
Can my family be protected from retaliation?
We take threats and retaliation seriously. When appropriate, we pursue protective orders and file complaints against individuals threatening you or your family. We also advise you on documenting threats and working with law enforcement to ensure safety.
Contact Tu Defensor Criminalista for Pasadena Police Officer Defense
If you’ve been served with a Police Officer Defense in Pasadena, time is running out. Don’t face this crisis alone. Contact Tu Defensor Criminalista immediately for a free, confidential consultation about your case.
Attorney Armando Josué Cespedes is rated 5.0 on Avvo, with 34 five-star reviews from clients praising his dedication, professionalism, and results. Many note how his trial skills and attention to detail led to reduced charges or outright dismissals.
I was arrested for a DUI just recently, since Spanish is my first language, it was important to find a great attorney who was bilingual. Getting your first DUI can...
Armando cespedes went above and beyond for my case. I was very close to getting my license revoked as I am under the age of 21 and received my second...
I was referred to Mr. Cespedes by a family friend who was very pleased with his legal services. Unfortunately, I got a DUI a few months ago and I was...
Armando gets results with your best interest in mind. I was wrongfully being accused of making primal threats. Even though I was innocent, I was aware that the accusations are...
Extremely professional I recently had a brief phone consultation with Mr. Cespedes regarding a longtime friend of mine. Although he was unable to assist him with his legal needs, I...
English
Español de México