Just got word that this was in court today. We had expected it, as noted below, but surprised it was so quick.
His attorney’s press release follows. It gives a good outline of the basic story. You can ignore the editorializing if desired (but we like it).
So… let’s see if Burbank tries to release more confidential material to, in the words of Dennis Barlow at last night’s council meeting, “correct what is disclosed publically.”
Our recommendation? Don’t.
——————————–
Burbank Police Detective Sues City for Leaking Confidential Officer Information
Los Angeles, July 22, 2009 – Just days after former Burbank Police Detective Christopher Lee Dunn filed suit against the City of Burbank alleging racial abuse and discrimination and illegal termination, Dunn filed today a second claim for damages against the City of Burbank after it intentionally and illegally provided his confidential personnel file to a local newspaper.
Within a day of Detective Dunn’s initial legal filing, the city provided the Burbank Leader newspaper a copy of Dunn’s notice of termination from his confidential police department personnel file. This act, done to discredit the plaintiff, is a clear violation of the California Peace Officers Bill of Rights, the California Evidence Code, the California Penal Code and the recent Copley Press Inc. v. California Superior Court decision affirming that police officer personnel file materials regarding disciplinary acts are strictly confidential.
“Not only is this bureaucratic arrogance at its most dangerous, it is illegal,” said Solomon E. Gresen, the attorney representing Detective Dunn. “It boggles the mind that the City illegally released confidential information in violation of state law and its own privacy policies”. Today’s claim by Dunn asserts that the unlawful disclosure by city representatives created serious damage to him, including humiliation and reputational injury, added Gresen.
Only July 16th, Dunn filed a 22-page complaint filed July 16th in Los Angeles Superior Court, Detective Dunn, whose ancestry is Asian, described in detail years of racial abuse and discrimination at the Burbank Police Department. Dunn’s complaints to superior officers were consistently either ignored or dismissed as trivial and inconsequential. On the rare occasions Dunn was taken seriously and the complaints addressed, Detective Dunn was subjected to severe and extreme retaliation which ultimately led to his termination.
Dunn’s efforts to promote into an elite narcotics unit were initially discouraged on the basis that members of the “all-white” unit did not want work with non-Caucasians. However, because his performance warranted advancement, and also because of his exemplary service in the Special Enforcement Detail, Plaintiff Dunn persisted and was ultimately promoted into the unit as a Detective.
Despite this success, Dunn’s troubles multiplied. Some of his narcotics unit colleagues belittled him with racist jokes and comments. He was told “you know they don’t want you here”. Dunn was given the less desirable assignments in the unit notwithstanding the fact that he produced more narcotics seizures than any other officer in the department. Ultimately, one of Dunn’s complaints reached the right set of ears, and a sympathetic Captain disciplined one of the worst offenders and transferred that officer back to the patrol division. As a result, the harassment from the “white” coworkers intensified.
On March 30, 2007 Dunn was served with his first major complaint in approximately 20 years of law enforcement work. The complaint alleged Dunn “tipped off” an informant about a Culver City Police Department investigation into her activities and suggested that she get rid of any drugs in her possession. In spite of this alleged tip, the informant was arrested in possession of enough narcotics to support felony trafficking charges.
Shortly after the informant’s arrest, she recanted her earlier statements against Detective Dunn. In a handwritten statement, she described the threats and intimidation used to coerce her to make a negative report about Dunn, as well as promises of leniency if she did so. A 14-month investigation involving the Burbank PD, the Culver City PD, the LASO and the LA DA ensued. Detective Dunn was first transferred to BPD’s Juvenile Division, then sent home on administrative leave with pay. Ultimately, the complaint was determined to be unsubstantiated and no criminal charges were filed.
On or about July 17, 2008, Detective Dunn was terminated by the Burbank PD on charges that he interfered with the investigation and for insubordination. This occurred notwithstanding the facts that the complaint against him were never properly investigated or substantiated or that there was clear evidence that the case against him was based on false testimony coerced by other officers.
Detective Dunn’s believes the true motives behind his termination were the BPD’s long-standing racial bias and its desire to impose severe retaliation for harassment and discrimination complaints Dunn made against other officers.
“The evidence we have gathered during our investigation shows that the Burbank Police Department has a long history of tolerating, a matter of departmental practice, the use of unbelievably offensive racial and ethnic slurs,” said Solomon E. Gresen, the attorney representing Detective Dunn.
“The facts of this case further demonstrate that Detective Dunn’s termination was racially motivated and in made strictly in retaliation for his complaints of harassment and discrimination, and the complaint made against him was totally without merit.”
CONTACT:
Law offices of Rheuban & Gresen
Solomon E. Gresen or Steven Rheuban
(818) 815-2727
15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1610
Encino, California 91436
** UPDATE #1 **
One of the things we’d like to ask Dennis Barlow is just why it is that Burbank violated their own past-practice policies to advance derogatory material like this, legal or not, to the general public and before the trial.
Looking back at his previous comments about pending litigation against the city, Barlow’s claim has always been that Burbank does not try cases in public, they try them in court. Their policy has always been a ‘no comment’ one.
So why is Dunn being treated differently?
When it comes to his attorney’s claim that this pre-discovery release of material harmed Dunn’s reputation, we agree. Proof? The Leader got the materials, and because of this ‘advantage,’ they wrote a misleading news article that scrambled the timeline and left out some important facts.
The article led their readers to conclude that the additional material they obtained made Dunn look guiltier than sin. The Leader even editorialized to this end, by claiming that these new documents “tell a different story.”
But they didn’t. They only allowed the Leader to confuse the issue and mangle the course of events, all to Burbank’s advantage.
Here’s the problem: These confidential documents made it look like Dunn had many more and bigger culpabilities than previously “disclosed,” and the truth is, he did not. Burbank’s PD file material was largely duplicative and pretextual, based upon an erroneous interpretation of a Brady letter (see here), and with their own brand of excessive discipline and commentary thrown into the mix– but you wouldn’t know that from the Leader’s hugely slanted article.
The derogatory Leader article itself– one not seconded by any other newspaper — clearly establishes that this illegal tactic had a harmful and misleading effect. It worked for Burbank to pull this piling-on stunt, and we think it was against the law anyway, no matter.
Another point. Will Dan Evans “good times” lunch with Barlow last week enter into any of this? Why was it so great? How was the conversation? Is the Leader deeply involved in this illegality, in an agreeable fashion, a wink-and-a-nod relationship with the city? And we had such hopes for them…
Interesting note: we haven’t seen any tweets from Evans since that luncheon date.
** UPDATE #2 **
We can already figure what Burbank’s defense to this is going to be– and we don’t buy it. It revolves around the idea of duplication and eventual release, and no ultimate harm done, as well as Barlow’s fishy ‘he did it first’ excuse.
But it did cause Dunn immediate harm. The f’d-up Leader story even had his defenders thinking he was a flake and holding out on everyone. And remember, the Penal Code also prohibits the cops from revealing their own P-file material to defend themselves as well, pre-discovery. So they’re stuck with this unfairness generated by their employer’s misdeeds.
You can be damned sure that if Dunn had been throwing his confidential personnel file around town to defend himself, Barlow would already have the BPD at his door and Juli Scott down at the D.A’s office trying to get an 832.7 criminal charge.
More later.
Burbank, California 