Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdministrative Record Part 5ARBITRATION HEARING, JULY 23, 2015, VOL. 4 7/23/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 899 1 time that I had attempted to provide a recommendation. 2 Q. Okay. But that was also a situation with a 3 police report and an investigation that you did not 4 review? 5 A. Correct. But I think I had intimate knowledge 6 of the investigation. I didn't review it, but if 7 something was -- I knew it was a sustained allegation 8 falsifying a police report. 9 Q. Okay. Let me make sure I understand what 10 you're saying right now. 11 Because you were aware that someone had a 12 sustained allegation of falsifying a police report and 13 they received a particular discipline, you're saying 14 that although you did not review the materials, that you 15 had an intimate knowledge of that investigation? 16 A. I think more so because now that I'm in a 17 captain position and have had discussions about that 18 particular investigation with people who were involved 19 in that investigation. So I did have knowledge. 20 Q. Well, you have... 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: You have that knowledge 22 now or you had it then? 23 THE WITNESS: I had the knowledge then of that 24 investigation. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. I need to clarify Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 1996 ARBITRATION HEARING, JULY 23, 2015, VOL. 4 7/23/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 900 1 a couple things here because I'm kind of getting lost. 2 I want to go back to the top. 3 Your testimony is that you initially 4 recommended to Chief Gesell that Officer Waddell be 5 suspended for 80 hours; is that right? 6 THE WITNESS: Correct. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: And that recommendation 8 was based mostly on your understanding, not your 9 personal knowledge, of a prior case involving a 10 misrepresentation on the police report; is that right? 11 THE WITNESS: Correct. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: And in that case, your 13 understanding is that there was a sustained allegation 14 of misrepresentation that resulted in a 40-hour 15 suspension; is that right? 16 THE WITNESS: Correct. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: And your view was they're 18 both involving serious matters, but you felt Officer 19 Waddell's matter was more serious and, therefore, it 20 should be a longer suspension? 21 THE WITNESS: Yes. 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. There was another 23 question, but I forgot it. I'm sorry to interrupt, but 24 I've got to make sure my notes make some sense. Go 25 ahead. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 1997 ARBITRATION HEARING, JULY 23, 2015, VOL. 4 7/23/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 901 1 BY MS. CASTILLO: 2 Q. Okay. And when you made the recommendation 3 initially, at least, sometime after January 15, you had 4 in your head the additional allegations from Sergeant 5 Pfarr, correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. And when you made the recommendation in 8 January -- sometime after January 15, 2014, was it at 9 that point that you had had this knowledge of the 10 original case from chiefs before where an 80-hour 11 suspension was given for misrepresenting an official 12 police report document and you gave that -- 13 MR. PALMER: Objection -- 14 BY MS. CASTILLO: 15 Q. -- or -- I'm sorry -- or was it later that you 16 learned the details from people who were involved in the 17 investigation? 18 MR. PALMER: Okay. Objection. Vague and 19 ambiguous, compound, misstates the evidence. 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: It's compound. I'm not 21 following it. So let's break it down into smaller 22 pieces. 23 BY MS. CASTILLO: 24 Q. Well, when did you have the discussion with 25 people who were involved in the comparison case? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 1998 ARBITRATION HEARING, JULY 23, 2015, VOL. 4 7/23/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 902 1 A. That case had been looming in the department 2 for a number of years. Are we talking the first case 3 under the other chief? 4 Q. What do you mean by looming? Was the guy 5 disciplined and it dragged out? Was it -- 6 A. Well, I just want to clarify. When you said 7 the first case, you're talking about the case under the 8 previous chief? 9 Q. Well -- 10 A. Or are we talking about the CAT case? 11 Q. I'm talking about the case under the previous 12 chief, the false police report case. 13 A. Can you ask again? I'm sorry. 14 Q. You became aware -- did you become aware of 15 that case as a captain? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Okay. And once you became a captain, then you 18 then had contact with the people who were involved in 19 that investigation and they gave you details? Is that 20 your testimony? 21 A. Yes. There were discussions about process and 22 procedure as more of an educational process for me to 23 learn how these types of investigations work. 24 Q. And who were the people who gave you this -- or 25 who were these people that gave you that information? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 1999 ARBITRATION HEARING, JULY 23, 2015, VOL. 4 7/23/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 903 1 A. It would have been Captain Staley. 2 Q. Okay. So Captain Staley informed you that 3 there -- in the past, there was this case -- or were you 4 aware of it, anyways? 5 A. You know, I think, generally speaking, 6 there's -- people are aware, internally, to some level. 7 Q. Okay. And you said here's how that case worked 8 out and here's what the discipline was? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And was he an investigator in that case or did 11 he make the recommendation, do you know? 12 A. I don't know. 13 Q. Well, you have intimate knowledge based on your 14 testimony of that case? 15 A. And now I do recall, actually, when I was 16 looking into this matter, I did pull the other file and 17 reviewed some of the documents in order to help me 18 understand past practice, and, I think, originally, I 19 said I did not look at the case, but now that we're 20 discussing it more, I had reviewed a portion of it. 21 Q. In the past practice that you're talking about, 22 is discipline for false statements just across the 23 board? Is that what you're saying? 24 A. It was the only thing I had to refer to and had 25 something to compare to in the case where I felt I was Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2000 ARBITRATION HEARING, JULY 23, 2015, VOL. 4 7/23/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 904 1 investigating a situation of lying. 2 Q. And since you reviewed that, was Captain -- 3 what was Captain Staley's role in that case? 4 A. Which case? 5 Q. The first case, your example case. 6 A. Oh, I don't know what his role was, 7 specifically, but I knew he had knowledge of the case 8 because he was a captain at the time, I believe, or had 9 acquired information from being a captain. 10 Q. Okay. And then your testimony was that you 11 talked to other people who were involved in the case. 12 Who were the other people? 13 A. I talked to Captain Staley. I mean, other 14 than, maybe, some conversations with Chief Gesell as 15 were -- as I used that case as a comparison for my 16 recommendation of discipline, there were conversations 17 with him. 18 MS. CASTILLO: I don't have anything further. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: Cross-examination, or 20 recross? 21 MR. PALMER: Could I have a moment? 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: Sure. Do we need to take 23 five? 24 MR. PALMER: Yes. Could we, please? 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: Sure. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2001 ARBITRATION HEARING, JULY 23, 2015, VOL. 4 7/23/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 905 1 (Recess.) 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: So any more questions on 3 recross of this witness? 4 MR. PALMER: No. 5 THE COURT: And you're done with your direct, 6 at least, for the moment? 7 MS. CASTILLO: Correct. 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Thank you very 9 much, Captain Storton. You may step down. 10 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 11 MS. CASTILLO: He's subject to recall and 12 admonish -- 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes. I just want to 14 mention two other things. We're still on the record. 15 You may be recalled by one side or the other and I would 16 ask you, therefore, during the pendency of the 17 proceeding, not to discuss testimony you've given so far 18 with anybody. 19 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 21 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. For the appellant, 23 any more witnesses today? 24 MS. CASTILLO: No. The witness we have asked 25 be available is no longer, I'm told. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2002 ARBITRATION HEARING, JULY 23, 2015, VOL. 4 7/23/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 906 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: The city manager is past 2 4:00. She's got their Special Olympics obligation. 3 So it looks like we're going to recess for 4 today. So, tomorrow, we can call her at 9:00 then? 5 MS. DIETRICK: That's correct. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: And you have other people 7 lined up. So we'll be busy tomorrow, also. 8 MS. CASTILLO: Okay. If those people aren't 9 available -- 10 MR. PALMER: Do you want to give us a couple of 11 other names? I mean, the likelihood, honestly, of two 12 sergeants and a police officer all being available on 13 the same day, given 10 to 12-hour shifts, I don't know. 14 CAPTAIN STALEY: I believe Brian, Janice and 15 (inaudible) can all be here tomorrow. 16 MR. PALMER: You've got the trifecta. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. So the stars are 18 lining up. 19 MS. CASTILLO: Lucky guess. 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: Then we're done for today 21 and we'll go off the record and see everybody tomorrow 22 at 9:00. 23 (The proceedings adjourned at 4:04 p.m.) 24 25 Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2003 ARBITRATION HEARING, JULY 23, 2015, VOL. 4 7/23/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 907 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) SS. 3 4 I, MELISSA PLOOY, Certified Shorthand Reporter, 5 licensed in the State of California, holding CSR License 6 No. 13068, do hereby certify: 7 That said proceeding was verbatim-reported by me by 8 the use of computer shorthand at the time and place 9 therein stated and thereafter transcribed into writing 10 under my direction. 11 I further certify that I am not of counsel nor 12 attorney for or related to the parties hereto, nor am I 13 in any way interested in the outcome of this action. 14 In compliance with Section 8016 of the Business and 15 Professions Code, I certify under penalty of perjury 16 that I am a Certified Shorthand Reporter with License 17 No. 13068 in full force and effect. 18 WITNESS my hand this ____________ day of 19 _____________, ________. 20 __________________________________ MELISSA PLOOY, CSR#13068 21 22 23 24 25 Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2004 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 908 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO In the Matter of the Appeal ) of the Dismissal of ) OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL, ) Appellant, ) and ) CSMCS Case No. ARB-14-0209 POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE ) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, ) VOLUME V PAGES 908-1099 Hiring Authority. ) TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA FRIDAY, JULY 24, 2015 8:33 A.M. - 4:08 P.M. REPORTED BY MELISSA PLOOY, CSR #13068 MCDANIEL REPORTING Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2005 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 909 1 THE TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS WAS TAKEN AT THE 2 SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL, 990 PALM STREET, SAN LUIS 3 OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, BEFORE MELISSA PLOOY, A CERTIFIED 4 SHORTHAND REPORTER IN AND FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 5 ON FRIDAY, JULY 24, 2015, COMMENCING AT THE HOUR OF 8:33 6 A.M. 7 8 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL 9 HEARING OFFICER: 10 SOUTHWESTERN LAW SCHOOL BY: CHRISTOPHER DAVID RUIZ CAMERON 11 PROFESSOR OF LAW 3050 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD 12 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010 213) 738-6749 13 CCAMERON@SWLAW.EDU 14 FOR THE APPELLANT: 15 GASPARD, CASTILLO, HARPER, APC BY: KASEY A. CASTILLO, ESQ. 16 NICOLE A. NALEWAY, ESQ. 3333 CONCOURS STREET 17 BUILDING 4, SUITE 4100 ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91764 18 (909) 466- 5600 KASEY@GCHATTORNEYS.COM 19 NIKKI@GCHATTORNEYS.COM 20 FOR THE HIRING AUTHORITY: 21 JONES & MAYER BY: GREGORY P. PALMER, ESQ. 22 3777 NORTH HARBOR BOULEVARD FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92835 23 (714) 446- 1400 GPP@JONES-MAYER.COM 24 25 ALSO PRESENT: LAURA WADDELL, CAPTAIN CHRIS STALEY, CHRISTINE DIETRICK Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2006 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 910 1 I N D E X 2 WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 3 CAPTAIN CHRIS STALEY 911 924 930 4 KATIE LICHTIG 931 946 962 5 OFFICER GEORGE BERRIOS 972 987 1005, 1011 1010 6 SERGEANT JANICE GOODWIN 1015 1028 1037 7 SERGEANT BRIAN AMOROSO 1045 8 9 I N D E X T O E X H I B I T S 10 APPELLANT'S MARKED ADMITTED 11 EXHIBIT P 912 924 12 EXHIBIT Q 912 924 13 EXHIBIT R 916 924 14 EXHIBIT S 921 924 15 EXHIBIT T 938 970 16 EXHIBIT U 971 1013 17 EXHIBIT V 1037 1044 18 EXHIBIT W 1044 1097 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2007 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 911 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: We're back on the record. 2 I think this is day five of our hearing in the appeal 3 regarding the termination of Officer Waddell, and I 4 understand the appellant would like to recall, briefly, 5 Captain Staley; is that right? 6 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Captain Staley, you're 8 still under oath. You understand that? 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Very good. Go ahead. 11 12 DIRECT EXAMINATION 13 BY MS. CASTILLO: 14 Q. Thank you. I believe your executive memorandum 15 to Gesell was Exhibit 6, correct? 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: Let's take a look. We're 17 talking about Department 6? 18 THE WITNESS: Yes. 19 BY MS. CASTILLO: 20 Q. That was dated May 8th, 2014? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And that's after you received both IA 23 investigations and then rendered your assessment and 24 penalty recommendation, correct? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2008 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 912 1 MS. CASTILLO: Can I have the next exhibit in 2 line, please, P? 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: That would be P. P is a 4 one-page document that looks, pretty much, like the to 5 and from line on an e-mail from Chris Staley to Bill 6 Proll. Oh, and the date is 4/27/2014. 7 BY MS. CASTILLO: 8 Q. Captain Staley, do you -- is this an e-mail 9 from you to Lieutenant Proll? 10 A. It appears so. 11 Q. Okay. And this would be in reference to the 12 Waddell -- one of the Waddell IAs? 13 A. It appears so, yes. 14 Q. Okay. With an attachment. 15 Do you know what that attachment would be? 16 A. I don't. 17 Q. Okay. This is dated after you turned in your 18 executive summary to Chief Gesell, correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Were you still going back and forth on drafts 21 with Lieutenant Proll after you turned in your executive 22 recommendation? 23 A. I don't recall. 24 Q. Okay. The next in line marked -- 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: Q. Oh, there's a couple Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2009 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 913 1 of pages on here. So Q is a multiple-page document. 2 Looks like there's three separate pages. The front 3 says -- looks like an e-mail download from Chris Staley 4 to Bill Proll, and the date is June 18, 2014. 5 BY MS. CASTILLO: 6 Q. Okay. This is a three-page document. Can I 7 have you start from the back page, last page? 8 A. Okay. 9 Q. This would appear to be an e-mail from you to 10 the chief, correct? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. And then going to the next in line page, 13 we see e-mails from the chief to the city manager, and 14 then to the next -- or to the first page then, there's 15 an e-mail to you, dated June 18th, from the chief where 16 you are instructed to deliver the files to the city 17 manager, correct? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Okay. And then on Wednesday, June 18th, you 20 ask Lieutenant Proll to deliver the complete case file, 21 including all of the CDs to Katie, correct? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And would that be Katie, the city manager? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. Okay. And then you then have the -- get a Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2010 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 914 1 response from Lieutenant Proll on June 18, asking you 2 what is the status of the narrative that he last sent 3 you and if that could be the narrative in the final 4 file. Do you see that? 5 A. I do. 6 Q. And you say yes. 7 Was the narrative and the final files in the 8 investigation conducted by Lieutenant Proll still not 9 finalized in June 2014? 10 A. I believe it was. 11 Q. Did Lieutenant Proll not know whether or not it 12 was finalized? 13 A. Well, he had gone back for revisions and there 14 were some typos and errors that needed to be corrected. 15 Q. And when was -- when were those typos and 16 errors corrected? 17 A. I don't know, exactly. 18 Q. Oh, okay. And you have e-mails that show your 19 typos and errors that are being corrected, or who 20 corrected those? 21 A. There were a number of people who reviewed the 22 document. 23 Q. Okay. And who would those be? 24 A. It would have been myself, the city attorney 25 and, I believe, the human resources director, as well. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2011 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 915 1 Q. And so it's your testimony that the only thing 2 that was being corrected in June of 2018 was typos? 3 MR. PALMER: Objection. Misstates his 4 testimony. 5 MS. CASTILLO: Well, I'm asking. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, let's put it in the 7 form of a question. Is that all there was? 8 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure, exactly, what was 9 being corrected at that point. There were a number of 10 changes that had to happen to the document because it 11 had to be corrected. Exactly what that was, I don't 12 recall. 13 BY MS. CASTILLO: 14 Q. So corrections and changes? 15 A. I would say yes. 16 Q. So you would agree with me that in June of 17 20 -- or on June 18th, 2014, that it was not finalized, 18 or it was finalized? What was the status? 19 A. What appears, from my statement there, that it 20 was finalized by that point. 21 Q. Well, okay. Your statement -- his question to 22 you is can that be the narrative in the final file. 23 A. My response is yes. 24 Q. Okay. So, at that point, he had not given you 25 the completed file? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2012 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 916 1 A. I asked for it. I would assume I had it by 2 that point. 3 Q. Well, according to the lieutenant who was 4 conducting the IA investigation, he was uncertain? 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: Is that a question? 6 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: It sounded like a 8 statement. 9 MS. CASTILLO: I guess I can ask another 10 question. 11 BY MS. CASTILLO: 12 Q. Have you had any conversations with him? 13 A. Many. 14 Q. Okay. I just gave you Appellant's P and you 15 don't recall what the attachment included, correct? 16 A. I don't. 17 Q. Okay. Would this attachment include some of 18 the corrections and changes that you just discussed? 19 A. I would assume so. 20 Q. Okay. I'll have this marked as Appellant's -- 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: R. 22 MS. CASTILLO: -- R. I tried to make copies, 23 but, for whatever reason, I think my scanner is being 24 weird, but these were in the dummy file. So they were 25 passed out yesterday. So I'll need to make copies Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2013 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 917 1 either at break or they were provided. 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: I prefer to have everyone 3 look at the same documents while we're going forward. 4 MS. DIETRICK: I can copy those. 5 MS. CASTILLO: It's a two-page. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: Let's go off the record 7 and take care of that. 8 (Pause in proceedings.) 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: So we're back on the 10 record and we've marked our next document as Appellant's 11 R and it looks like it's two pages and it's a 12 handwritten document. The title at the top of both 13 says, "Administrative Inquiry Disposition," and the ID 14 numbers -- looks like it's for the two IA investigations 15 of the appellant. The first page says AI13-004P, as in 16 Paul, and the next page is IA13-005P. 17 BY MS. CASTILLO: 18 Q. Captain Staley, these two documents came out of 19 the dummy file, I guess, that you brought to the hearing 20 yesterday, correct? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. Okay. And these documents were provided to 23 you, I'm sorry, by a person -- you said her name was 24 Sue? 25 A. Sue Sanders. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2014 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 918 1 Q. Okay. And I see the first -- the first 2 document indicates that you were the supervisor who was 3 assigned to the false statements investigation regarding 4 the statements made to the supervisor, and this would be 5 the statements that were investigated by Lieutenant 6 Bledsoe, right? 7 So this is the one that Captain Storton was 8 originally assigned to, correct? 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. So would there have been an original 11 administrative inquiry disposition sheet that looked 12 like this with Supervisor Captain Keith Storton's name 13 on it? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Okay. And then I see that it goes down and it 16 says violation of department policy, how the employee 17 was notified and on what date, the disposition and then 18 where it was reviewed. 19 Whose signature is that next to the line where 20 it says, "reviewed by"? 21 A. It's mine. 22 Q. Okay. So that is -- this says, "reviewed 23 by" -- this is your signature? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. Okay. And on 5/ 8/14? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2015 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 919 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. Okay. So that's the date that you finalized 3 everything? 4 A. I believe she would have based it on when she 5 dated the executive recommendation. She probably -- I'm 6 trying to figure out why she dated it that day because 7 it probably would have been well after that. 8 Q. Okay. Wait. You signed it, but someone else 9 dated it next to your name? 10 A. No. I dated it, as well. I probably based it 11 on my executive recommendation. I don't know, exactly, 12 why that date is there. 13 Q. Do you know when you reviewed and dated this? 14 A. I don't. 15 Q. So is the date accurate? 16 A. I don't know. 17 Q. Okay. This is an official document, right? 18 A. This is a record for our books for the files, 19 yes. 20 Q. Okay. Who is supposed to sign where it says, 21 "approved by"? 22 A. I would assume that's the chief. 23 Q. Oh, okay. Well, you've done these before, 24 right? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2016 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 920 1 Q. And so in the past when you've done these, who 2 has approved them? 3 A. I don't see it after I review it. 4 Q. Okay. So you've never seen one of these before 5 in that dummy file in a hearing previous to this? 6 A. Yes, I have. 7 Q. Huh? 8 A. Yes, I have. 9 Q. Okay. And so when you looked at it in a dummy 10 file previously, who had reviewed this? 11 A. Reviewed it? 12 Q. Well, approved your review. 13 A. I believe it was the chief. 14 Q. Can you look at the second page? Okay. This 15 is for the theft of property case. Which case would 16 that be? 17 A. The Bentley. 18 Q. Oh, okay. I thought that was a vehicle 19 tampering case. 20 A. It's how she labeled it. 21 Q. Who filled it out? 22 A. Sue Sanders did. 23 Q. And this was by Lieutenant Proll. And who 24 reviewed this one? 25 A. It doesn't have a signature. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2017 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 921 1 Q. Okay. And no one dated this, either, right? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Okay. But these were sustained allegations? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. This one's S. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Appellant's S, 7 another e-mail download, one page, name on the top says 8 from Steve Gesell to Katie Lichtig, dated June 17, 2014, 9 a bunch of attachments indicated. 10 BY MS. CASTILLO: 11 Q. Captain Staley, I would like you -- okay. 12 So, at the bottom, you see where you originally 13 sent what I have referred you to originally in 14 Appellant's Q, correct? 15 A. I'm not sure what you're asking. 16 Q. Okay. Well, if you go back to Q and you look 17 at the last page, we first talked about how you sent the 18 chief the IA, right? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. Now go to Appellant's S and look at the 21 bottom. Do you see that? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. And then you can go back to Q again, if 24 you need to, and see where the chief then indicates to 25 the city manager, as we had discussed again in Q, that Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2018 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 922 1 they were ready to move forward with the serving of the 2 letter of intent to Officer Waddell. Do you see that? 3 A. I do. 4 Q. Okay. And so Appellant's S has, in its 5 attachments to the city manager, the captain's 6 recommendation final document, 4/21/2014. 7 Is that your executive recommendation? 8 A. I would assume so, yes. 9 Q. Okay. So was your final recommendation done on 10 4/21/2014? 11 A. I don't recall the exact date it was completed. 12 Q. Is that how you typically save your document 13 with the date when it's finalized? 14 A. Not necessarily, no. 15 Q. Is that just a weird date, then, that just 16 materialized in the title of your document? 17 A. I don't know. 18 Q. You don't know what that -- did you save that 19 title or did someone else? 20 A. I would assume I did since I'm the one who 21 completed the document. 22 Q. Okay. So what would have 2014/4/21 meant to 23 you? 24 A. I assume it was the date I completed it. 25 Q. Okay. And attached to the city manager was the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2019 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 923 1 letter of intent. 2 This is the letter of intent that you typed for 3 the chief, right? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. Why didn't you put your initials at the bottom 6 of the letter of intent if you typed it? 7 A. I was typing it for the chief. 8 Q. Right. So why didn't you put your initials at 9 the bottom of it? 10 A. It's not my practice. 11 Q. You've never heard that when people write 12 something for someone else, they write their initials at 13 the bottom? 14 A. Apparently not. 15 Q. Okay. And this was sent over on June 17th, 16 2014. The other attachments, Waddell IA004P, and then 17 there's a parenthetical with the Number 4. Do you see 18 that? 19 A. I do. 20 Q. And then IA113005, final edited doc. Do you 21 see that? 22 A. I do. 23 Q. Okay. What are those attachments? 24 A. I would assume they're copies of both 25 administrative inquiries. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2020 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 924 1 Q. Okay. And the chief indicates that -- strike 2 that. 3 MS. CASTILLO: I'll ask those to be moved in. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: So we're moving the 5 admission of Appellant's P, Q, R and S. Any objection? 6 MR. PALMER: No objection. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Without objection, 8 they're admitted into evidence. 9 MS. CASTILLO: Nothing else with him. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Do you want to ask 11 Captain Staley questions? 12 MR. PALMER: Yes. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Go right ahead. 14 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION 16 BY MR. PALMER: 17 Q. Now, Captain, your executive recommendation 18 that we've all, ad nauseam, acknowledged was dated May 19 8th, 2014, correct? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. Do you know when you started preparing the 22 initial draft of this document? 23 A. I don't recall the exact date. 24 Q. Do you know if it was April 21st? 25 A. Could be. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2021 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 925 1 Q. That date could be nothing more than when you 2 started preparing the document? 3 A. Could be, yes. 4 Q. Eventually, though, it became, from your point 5 of view, final form somewhere around May 8? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And it was printed out and your obligation 8 would be to send what is marked as Department's Exhibit 9 6 to whom? 10 A. To the police chief. 11 Q. All right. Now, when the police chief gets it, 12 what is your understanding what he does? 13 A. He reviews the document to see if he concurs 14 with it. 15 Q. And I think you have established he did concur 16 with your recommendation? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. All right. Now, can we assume that that 19 happened sometime shortly after May 8th? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Okay. Is it clear in your memory when that 22 happened? 23 A. Not exactly. 24 Q. But shortly after May 8th? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2022 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 926 1 Q. Are you with me so far? 2 A. I think so. 3 Q. Now, at that point, would I be correct in 4 saying that both you and the chief of police had a 5 meeting of the minds that some rule violations had 6 occurred and termination was going to be implemented? 7 MS. CASTILLO: Objection. Leading. 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'm going to allow it. 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. 10 BY MR. PALMER: 11 Q. All right. So if we assume that occurred 12 sometime shortly after May 8th, when was Mr. Waddell 13 finally noticed of that intention? 14 A. I don't recall the date. 15 Q. Go to Exhibit 5, please. That's the notice of 16 intent, right? 17 A. It is. 18 Q. And it's dated September 9th, 2014? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. If I'm doing math right, that's four months 21 later? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Are there lots of things that happened in that 24 four-month period of time? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2023 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 927 1 Q. One of them would be to somebody, maybe you, 2 maybe the chief of police, somebody to advise the city 3 manager what's going on? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Would it be wise for you or the police chief to 6 move forward with a case like this without bringing the 7 city manager in on it? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Does she, kind of, frown on that? 10 A. She has the ultimate authority to make the 11 termination. 12 Q. Would other people be brought into this 13 discussion, too? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Like, for example, Christine Dietrick? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. She's an integral player in this thing? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And Exhibit S, sorry -- yeah. Appellant's 20 newly-identified Appellant's Exhibit S, do you have that 21 there? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. The top of it appears to be an e-mail from the 24 chief, right? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2024 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 928 1 Q. To Katie Lichtig? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. With CCs to Ms. Dietrick and Monica Irons? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. Who is she? 6 A. Human resources director. 7 Q. Is she a pretty integral player in this thing, 8 too? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And this occurred June 17, 2014? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Which would be in the time period between May 13 and September when we were moving from your executive 14 recommendation, giving Mr. Waddell notice of the 15 intention to terminate his employment? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. Is it -- strike that. 18 Do all these parties, Ms. Dietrick, Ms. Irons, 19 Ms. Lichtig, in not just this case, in other cases, do 20 they all have the authority to provide their own input 21 on this thing? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do they all have authority to put the stop on 24 this thing? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2025 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 929 1 Q. Do they all have the authority to recommend 2 changes or additions? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. You've been a captain of police for six years? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Is this the first notice of intent or 7 significant disciplinary action that you have assisted 8 on? 9 A. No. 10 Q. In the past, prior to Mr. Waddell's case, have 11 you prepared notices of intent to discipline? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And have you been responsible, at least, in 14 part, to prepare not only that notice, but all the 15 supporting material? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Do you want to make sure you get that right? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Is the notice of intent and all the supporting 20 material a pretty important document? 21 A. It is. 22 Q. Is it required by Skelly that you give an 23 officer in Mr. Waddell's position information -- correct 24 information such that he can meaningfully prepare a 25 response? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2026 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 930 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Is that what you all were trying to do here in 3 the four months between May and September? 4 A. Yes, it was. 5 MR. PALMER: Nothing further. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: Anything on re-direct? 7 MR. PALMER: Wait. One other item, if I may. 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: One other item. 9 BY MR. PALMER: 10 Q. In between May and September, was Mr. Waddell 11 still getting paid? 12 A. Yes, he was. 13 MR. PALMER: Nothing further. 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: Ms. Castillo, anything 15 else? 16 17 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 18 BY MS. CASTILLO: 19 Q. But, again, you did not prepare the packet that 20 went to Mr. Waddell to ensure it was complete, right? 21 A. No. It was Sue Sanders who completed the 22 packet. 23 MS. CASTILLO: Okay. Nothing else. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Anything else? 25 MR. PALMER: No. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2027 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 931 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: Very good. Thanks, 2 Captain Staley. We'll let you stand down again. 3 MS. CASTILLO: City manager? 4 MS. DIETRICK: Shall I retrieve the city 5 manager? 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes. Let's do that. 7 Actually, I'm going to run to the restroom. 8 (Recess.) 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: We're resuming and the 10 appellant is calling the city manager; is that right? 11 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: Ms. Lichtig, could I get 13 you to raise your right hand? 14 Do you affirm that the testimony that you are 15 about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and 16 nothing but the truth? 17 THE WITNESS: I do. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: Great. Put your hand 19 down. Go ahead, Ms. Castillo. 20 MS. CASTILLO: Thank you. 21 22 DIRECT EXAMINATION 23 BY MS. CASTILLO: 24 Q. Good morning. 25 A. Good morning. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2028 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 932 1 Q. Are you familiar with the case for which we are 2 here today? 3 A. I am. 4 Q. Okay. And have you ever met Officer Waddell? 5 A. I think I've met him a couple times. 6 Q. Okay. And you've been the city manager for San 7 Luis Obispo for how long? 8 A. About five and a half years. 9 Q. When did you start working in that capacity 10 here? 11 A. January 17th, 2010. 12 Q. And as a city manager, do you ever participate 13 in the Skelly process? 14 A. I have responsibilities for reviewing certain 15 disciplinary actions. 16 Q. Okay. And can you describe what that means? 17 A. I'm responsible for reviewing and approving any 18 terminations of employees. 19 Q. Okay. And when you say reviewing and 20 approving, can you describe the extent of your review 21 and how that translates into approval? 22 A. I'm presented with the investigative file and 23 the material that's used in this particular case for the 24 chief to make his determination and the HR director to 25 evaluate the level of discipline in cases of termination Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2029 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 933 1 and I reviewed all of the material that was presented to 2 the chief and to me and then concurred with the 3 termination. 4 Q. Okay. Now, I understand that you review 5 pursuant to a Municipal Code section? 6 A. I believe that it's a Municipal Code section, 7 as well as the city's rules, personnel rules. 8 Q. Okay. Can you look at the white binder in 9 front of you? These are the city's exhibits. Can I 10 have you look at 2.36. -- 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Are we looking at the 12 first tab? 13 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. Tab 1. 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: So Exhibit 1 for the 15 department and then we're looking at a particular -- 16 BY MS. CASTILLO: 17 Q. Section 2.36.320. Is that the section that you 18 are provided your authority to do this review that you 19 were speaking about? 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: Is this something -- is 21 this a mystery? 22 MS. CASTILLO: No. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: She's not the attorney. 24 So... 25 MS. DIETRICK: We'll stipulate. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2030 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 934 1 BY MS. CASTILLO: 2 Q. This is where you're -- this is what you're 3 talking about when you say that you review and then 4 concur? 5 A. So this, actually, is titled, "Disciplinary 6 Action Authority." Yes. 7 Q. Okay. My question for you is, do you do this 8 prior to the Skelly or after the Skelly? 9 A. After the Skelly. 10 Q. Okay. And what materials were you provided in 11 this particular case? 12 A. To the best of my knowledge, it was the 13 internal affairs investigation and all of the 14 supplementary information that was used to make the 15 determination. 16 Q. Okay. Can you describe what that was? 17 A. I don't have a specific recollection at this 18 time other than the fact that it was several binders or 19 several files worth of information. 20 Q. Were you provided audios? 21 A. I don't remember. 22 Q. Did you listen to audio? 23 A. I don't recall. 24 Q. Did you take notes? 25 A. I did not. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2031 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 935 1 Q. After you reviewed the material, how did you 2 render your decision? I mean, did you convey that in 3 e-mail? Did you convey that in person? How did you 4 convey it? 5 A. To the best of my recollection, it was in 6 person. 7 Q. And do you know, approximately, when that was? 8 A. I do not recall. 9 Q. Okay. In front of you in the black binder 10 should be Appellant's Exhibit S. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: F, as in -- 12 MS. CASTILLO: S, Sam. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Oh, okay. What we just 14 marked. 15 THE WITNESS: There's nothing in this binder. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: We just marked some 17 exhibits. I think we're going to dig those up right 18 now. 19 MS. CASTILLO: Yeah. They're right there. 20 MR. PALMER: Did you say S or F? 21 MS. CASTILLO: S. 22 BY MS. CASTILLO: 23 Q. It's an e-mail. Do you see the e-mail? 24 A. I do. 25 Q. Okay. And is this an e-mail that you received Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2032 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 936 1 from the chief regarding the Waddell investigation? 2 A. It appears so, yes. 3 Q. Okay. And in this e-mail, he indicates that 4 he's ready to move forward with serving the letter of 5 intent to Officer Waddell and then he attaches the most 6 relevant documents for your review. Do you see that? 7 A. I do. 8 Q. Okay. Then can you look at Q? 9 A. This is R. Is R all of these pages? No. 10 That's P. 11 Q. Q is a three-page e-mail. 12 A. Okay. 13 Q. I'll direct you to the second page. There's an 14 e-mail response from you to the chief, indicating that 15 you would like to review the entire file. Do you see 16 that? 17 A. Yes, I do. 18 Q. Okay. And his response to you is, "of course," 19 and that is on June 18th. 20 So the entire file would have included audio 21 CDs. Does it refresh your memory as to whether or not 22 you received audio CDs? 23 A. I do not have a recollection of whether the 24 file included the CDs or not. 25 Q. Okay. It would have been about some five hours Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2033 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 937 1 of audio that you would have had to listen to. 2 Do you recall, in June of 2014, listening to 3 five hours of audio for a termination case for Officer 4 Waddell for two investigations? 5 A. So just to give you a little bit of background, 6 I'm, actually, a former federal agent, and so I've been 7 to the federal law enforcement training center -- 8 Q. I need a yes or no. 9 MR. PALMER: I'd object. I'd let the witness 10 answer. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'll let the witness 12 answer, but, typically speaking, Mr. Palmer's a very 13 competent attorney. He'll have you go back and explain 14 later. I'll let you answer here, but she was entitled 15 to just find out if you have listened to it. 16 THE WITNESS: I don't have a recollection of 17 listening to it. 18 BY MS. CASTILLO: 19 Q. Was there any other terminations that took 20 place June through September or October of 2014 in the 21 police department? 22 A. Not to my recollection, no. 23 Q. According to these e-mails, you received the 24 packet before Skelly, correct? 25 A. Could you repeat the question? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2034 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 938 1 Q. According to these e-mails, you received the 2 packet before Skelly, correct? 3 A. That is not my recollection. 4 Q. Okay. These say that they were ready to move 5 forward with a letter of intent. A letter of intent 6 comes before the Skelly, correct, based on your 7 understanding, right? 8 A. I don't have a recollection that this occurred 9 before -- that I reviewed before the Skelly. 10 Q. Do you know when the Skelly occurred? 11 A. I do not. 12 Q. Do you know what occurred in the Skelly 13 hearing? 14 A. I do not. 15 Q. Okay. So in order to affirm the imposition of 16 discipline, you would solely be relying on whatever was 17 in the recommendation from the captain, the packet and 18 the letter of intent, correct, because you did not 19 attend this Skelly hearing, right? 20 A. That is correct. 21 Q. Okay. 22 MS. CASTILLO: This will be T. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. So T is a 24 two-page letter on the letterhead of the Gaspard 25 Castillo Firm, dated September 4, 2014, addressed to Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2035 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 939 1 Chief Gesell, from Nicole Winter. 2 BY MS. CASTILLO: 3 Q. Did you ever get a copy or see a copy of this 4 letter from my then partner, Nicole Winter, prior to the 5 Skelly hearing? 6 A. I don't have a recollection of seeing this 7 letter. 8 Q. Do you need a minute to read it? 9 A. No. I've looked at it. 10 Q. Okay. This morning, we heard testimony from 11 Captain Staley that you contribute to the decision to 12 discipline a police officer to include termination; is 13 that correct? 14 A. I take my responsibility seriously. And so, 15 yes, I am involved in ensuring that the investigation 16 warrants that because it's a serious action to take. 17 Q. Okay. So do you have any recollection, other 18 than that you received a file and that you affirmed a 19 decision, any of the circumstances of this particular 20 case? 21 A. Yes, I do. 22 Q. Okay. What would that be? 23 A. I reviewed the file, I met with the chief, I 24 asked questions, I met with the city attorney and the HR 25 director to ensure that we all felt that the level of Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2036 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 940 1 discipline was appropriate, based on the actions that 2 were documented in the file. 3 Q. Okay. Documented in the file, but you did not 4 see this letter, right? 5 A. Not to my recollection. 6 Q. Okay. Did you learn about the content of this 7 letter during your conversation with the chief? 8 A. I don't have -- 9 MR. PALMER: Objection. Attorney-client 10 privilege. 11 MS. CASTILLO: With the chief? 12 MR. PALMER: Yeah. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: I don't care anything 14 with the chief. So I'm going to let her answer that 15 one. If you recall. 16 THE WITNESS: I don't have a recollection. 17 BY MS. CASTILLO: 18 Q. In your conversation with Monica Irons, did you 19 have any conversation about this letter? 20 A. I have no recollection of seeing the letter. 21 Q. Okay. How long was your review of the 22 information from the time you received it to the time 23 that you rendered your affirmation? 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: You're asking her how 25 much time did she spend reading -- Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2037 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 941 1 MS. CASTILLO: Correct. 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: -- or how many days or -- 3 MS. CASTILLO: Correct. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: If you remember. 5 THE WITNESS: I don't have a recollection. It 6 was extensive. The amount of time I spent with the file 7 was extensive, but I don't have a specific recollection 8 of how many hours. 9 BY MS. CASTILLO: 10 Q. And you took no notes, whatsoever? 11 A. Not to my recollection, no. 12 Q. Did you have any questions that you felt needed 13 to be answered after review of the file? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And what were those questions? 16 A. I don't have a specific recollection. That was 17 part of the conversation with the chief. 18 Q. So you remembered that something bothered you, 19 but you don't know what it was? 20 MR. PALMER: Objection. Misstates testimony. 21 BY MS. CASTILLO: 22 Q. Well, I'm sorry. Did something bother you 23 about the investigation? 24 A. As I stated earlier, I have training in the 25 area of investigation and so I wanted to make sure that Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2038 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 942 1 I completely understood the facts before rendering my 2 opinion. 3 Q. Okay. And so -- 4 A. So let me just say it clearly. It's a 5 mischaracterization to suggest that I was bothered by 6 it. I was doing a thorough review of the file to ensure 7 that I understood the facts and that they warranted the 8 discipline that was being proposed. 9 Q. Okay. And did you -- hold on real quick. 10 We heard testimony yesterday about an officer 11 previous to Officer Waddell who had filed a false police 12 report or who had been involved in a false police report 13 investigation and who received a 40-hour suspension. 14 MR. PALMER: I'm -- sorry. Were you done? 15 MS. CASTILLO: No. 16 BY MS. CASTILLO: 17 Q. Are you aware of this? 18 MR. PALMER: Objection. Relevance. The 19 evidence yesterday suggested that that case took place 20 several years before and so it would be not on the 21 tenure of this city manager. 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: Point noted. That, 23 really, goes to the weight. I'm going to allow the 24 witness to answer the question if she knows about it. 25 That's fair game. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2039 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 943 1 THE WITNESS: I am aware of it. 2 BY MS. CASTILLO: 3 Q. Okay. Because you have been the city manager 4 for five and a half years? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. And were you the city manager during that case? 7 A. I was not. 8 Q. Okay. And I'm also aware of another officer 9 who was involved in a case with another false report and 10 that was more recent. Are you aware of that case? 11 A. I have no idea what you're talking about. 12 Q. Okay. In the last five and a half years, have 13 you, personally, been involved in any disciplinary 14 decisions where false or misleading statements, other 15 than, obviously, this case, were sustained allegations? 16 A. Can you repeat the question? 17 Q. In the last five and a half years as a city 18 manager here, were you personally involved in 19 disciplinary decisions where false and misleading 20 statements or allegations that were sustained while you 21 were city manager? 22 MR. PALMER: Objection. Relevance, Pitchess. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'm going to allow her to 24 answer that. 25 THE WITNESS: Not to my recollection. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2040 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 944 1 BY MS. CASTILLO: 2 Q. When the human resources director is consulted 3 regarding the process, what is their role? 4 A. Their role is to ensure that our rules are 5 being followed, that there is sufficient evidence to 6 support the action that's being taken, that there's 7 consistency throughout the organization. 8 Q. And when you say, "consistency," what do you 9 mean by that? 10 A. It gives us an opportunity to make sure that 11 we're applying the rules and the standards in a similar 12 fashion, or if we're deciding that there are differences 13 between individual cases, facts that are presented, that 14 we understand the why and the what-fors associated with 15 the differences in the levels of discipline associated 16 with those cases. 17 Q. And you said that the human resources 18 director's role is to determine if there was sufficient 19 evidence? 20 A. No. It's just another level of review. It's a 21 check and a balance, a quality assurance, quality 22 control function. 23 Q. So a second Skelly officer? I don't understand 24 what you mean. Are they reviewing the file? Are they 25 reviewing the paperwork? What are they reviewing, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2041 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 945 1 specifically? 2 A. They're giving advice and counsel to the 3 department on the city's personnel rules and regulations 4 and the HR department, and the HR director is 5 responsible for ensuring the consistent application of 6 those throughout our organization, as well as making 7 sure that we're in compliance with our memorandums of 8 understanding with our labor groups. 9 Q. And is this done prior to Skelly or pre-Skelly? 10 A. I'm sorry. You said before Skelly 11 or pre-Skelly? 12 Q. I'm sorry. Prior to Skelly or post-Skelly? 13 A. I believe that it's both. 14 Q. And for the HR individual's role -- but your 15 role, your testimony, is only after Skelly occurs? 16 A. Well, I wouldn't say that it's exclusively 17 after Skelly occurs. 18 In this particular case, I don't recall the 19 timeline associated with my involvement. In the review 20 of the file, in listening to the questions, I believe 21 that it was before and it was after the Skelly, just as 22 it was with the HR director. 23 Q. And what makes you say that? 24 A. That's my recollection of the process that we 25 followed. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2042 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 946 1 MS. CASTILLO: Can we have a five-minute break? 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: Sure. 3 (Recess.) 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Ms. Castillo, any more 5 questions? 6 MS. CASTILLO: No. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Very good. Anything 8 on -- I guess, we'll call it cross-examination. 9 MR. PALMER: Cross-examination of the city 10 manager. That works. 11 THE COURT: I guess, strictly speaking, it's 12 that, but treated as direct. I don't know. Just go 13 ahead. 14 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION 16 BY MR. PALMER: 17 Q. Good morning. 18 A. Good morning. 19 Q. Can you briefly take us through your 20 background, training, experience and education? 21 A. Sure. I worked for the public sector for, 22 sorry to say, more than 30 years and I started my career 23 in the federal government in Washington, D. C. where I 24 became a federal agent with the U.S. Treasury 25 Department. I also spent time at the Department of Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2043 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 947 1 Education doing white collar crime investigations and 2 other internal affair type investigations, both in 3 treasury and at the Department of Education, and then I 4 transitioned to local government where I spent my years 5 before coming to San Luis Obispo in cities of Santa 6 Monica, Malibu and Beverly Hills in different positions 7 there. 8 Q. And in your current position as city manager, 9 would you review proposed -- strike that. 10 When you review investigations that might lead 11 to disciplinary action, do you bring all that training 12 and experience to it? 13 A. I do. 14 Q. Do you take it seriously? 15 A. I take it extraordinarily seriously. One of my 16 roles is to make sure to maintain the integrity of the 17 organization and being fair to employees at the same 18 time. 19 Q. Now, let me see if I can get the hierarchy here 20 square in my mind. 21 You, as the city manager, are the supervisor of 22 many department heads, right? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. Including the chief of police? 25 A. Correct. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2044 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 948 1 Q. And you, as the supervisor of chief of police, 2 probably want to be informed of significant events that 3 occur on a chief of police's watch? 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q. You don't want to be blindsided, do you? 6 A. No, I don't. 7 Q. That's a big thing. Let me try to reset it. 8 Is it your expectation, not just with the chief 9 of police, but all your department heads, that they make 10 you aware of significant events which you need to be 11 aware? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And is one of those significant discipline? 14 A. Yes, it is. 15 Q. You were asked to look at Exhibit 1. That 16 white notebook at the top of your table there is Exhibit 17 1, is my exhibit book, and you have it open to the right 18 page. You have it open to 2.36.320 of the San Luis 19 Obispo Municipal Code? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And the way I understand this, correct me if 22 I'm wrong, is that you come into a potential 23 disciplinary action, or, at least, want to be consulted 24 when it's a suspension of more than five days? 25 A. I believe that's correct. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2045 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 949 1 Q. Or a demotion? 2 A. I believe that's correct. 3 Q. Or a discharge? 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q. And in this case, it was a discharge? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. All right. Now, in your management expectation 8 of your department heads, including the chief of police, 9 at what point would you expect the chief of police to 10 inform you of a consent of misconduct charges that the 11 chief believes warrants termination? 12 A. I would anticipate that I would be informed of 13 that prior to that decision being made so that I could 14 be consulted and to make sure that I feel comfortable 15 that that decision is moving along appropriately. 16 Q. Okay. So let me make sure I understand this. 17 The chief of police is in charge of the police 18 department? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. And captains and the investigative and patrol 21 function of those departments, correct? 22 A. Absolutely. 23 Q. Okay. And do you allow the chief of police, 24 any chief of police, not just Chief Gesell, a certain 25 amount of autonomy within the department? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2046 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 950 1 A. I do. 2 Q. So let's say, for example, that a complaint 3 comes in about potential police officer misconduct and 4 the police department is investigating, they're 5 conducting an internal investigation, with which you 6 sound pretty familiar, at least, with that process, 7 right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Do you expect to be called in? 10 A. It would depend on the level of misconduct that 11 was being alleged. 12 Q. Say, for example, maybe a felony violation of 13 law by a law enforcement officer. 14 A. Yes, I would anticipate that I would be 15 informed of that. 16 Q. Let's say it's not that, it's just a regular 17 old set of misconduct charges without any sort of 18 over-arching criminal activity off duty. 19 Would you expect to be called for the 20 investigation? 21 A. No, I would not. 22 Q. You would allow the chief of police to allow 23 that function to unfold? 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. So then that function unfolds and the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2047 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 951 1 investigation has concluded with sustained misconduct 2 charges. Are you with me so far? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. All right. And the chief of police wants to 5 charge an employee based upon that. 6 Is that when your expectation is that the chief 7 bring you in? 8 A. Absolutely. 9 Q. All right. Now, still in my exhibit book is 10 Exhibit 6. Can you turn to that? Exhibit 6 is a 11 three-page document -- or a four-page document. You may 12 take your time and look at it and see if you recognize 13 it after reviewing it. Do you recognize it? 14 A. I do. 15 Q. How do you recognize it? 16 A. It was part of the file that I reviewed in part 17 and parcel to my responsibilities associated with the 18 Municipal Code. 19 Q. Am I correct in saying that you didn't review 20 just this document, you reviewed more? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. But this is one of the portions of a file that 23 you reviewed? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Okay. You see this is dated May 8th, 2014? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2048 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 952 1 A. Yes, I do. 2 Q. Okay. As you sit here today, do you have a 3 good memory of some sort of accurate date on which you 4 received this? 5 A. I do not have a specific recollection of the 6 date that I received it. 7 Q. And in your understanding of how the San Luis 8 Obispo Police Department handles these type matters and 9 gets to this point, at what point is the San Luis Obispo 10 Police Department at when Captain Staley issues his 11 executive recommendation, Exhibit 6? 12 A. It's at the conclusion of the investigatory 13 stage of the process. 14 Q. And would that mean that some folks in the 15 police department are considering what potential 16 disciplinary action to be imposed? 17 A. Yes. I would assume that that's the case. 18 Q. Okay. And, again, I want you to assume that it 19 is a termination case. 20 A. Okay. 21 Q. At some point shortly after May 8th, would you 22 expect to be informed? 23 A. After the chief had had the opportunity to 24 review and consider the information that was presented, 25 yes, I would. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2049 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 953 1 Q. All right. You have Exhibit -- Appellant's 2 Exhibit Q there still? I think Q is a three-page 3 document, an e-mail string, we can call it. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. Let's start at the last page of Exhibit 6 Q. 7 Do you see there appears to be an e-mail from 8 Captain Staley to Chief Gesell? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. With a note saying, "Here you go"? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And then if you go to the bottom of Page 2 of 13 Appellant's Exhibit Q, connected with the top of Page 3, 14 does that appear to be an e-mail from the chief to you? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And others? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Christine Dietrick, Monica Irons, right? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. And what does the chief inform you here on this 21 e-mail? 22 A. That we, which, I assume, is the police 23 department, is ready to move forward with serving the 24 letter of intent on Officer Waddell, provided you 25 concur. I've attached the most relevant documents for Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2050 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 954 1 your review. 2 Q. Okay. And this was sent to you, apparently -- 3 by virtue of this exhibit, it was sent to you on June 4 17? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And that would be about five weeks after 7 Exhibit 6 in my book? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. Is that in conformance with your expectation of 10 your chief of police? 11 A. Yes, it is. 12 Q. Is that in conformance with, going back to 13 Exhibit 1, bringing you involved on such cases in 14 conformance with 2.36.230? 15 A. Yes, it is. 16 Q. And then you responded the next day on June 17 18th, back to Appellant's Exhibit Q? 18 A. I did. 19 Q. And what did you say? 20 A. I said that I'd like to review the entire file 21 before making a decision. 22 Q. Because you're a former investigator? 23 A. It's possible. It also has to do with my 24 taking this role and responsibility very seriously and 25 that I understood that we were proposing to terminate Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2051 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 955 1 and end somebody's career with the City of San Luis 2 Obispo and I take that responsibility very, very 3 seriously. 4 Q. So not pertaining to this case, but just a 5 general question, do you feel confident enough to review 6 an internal affairs investigation that is completed from 7 the police department and make your own assessment of 8 its quality and competency, and if it's not, tell the 9 chief of police this isn't going forward? 10 A. I absolutely do. 11 Q. Have you done that before? 12 A. I have. 13 Q. And when you sent the e-mail to -- according to 14 Appellant's Q, when you sent the e-mail on June 18th to 15 the chief saying I'd like to review the entire file, did 16 the chief respond? 17 A. He did. 18 Q. And he said, "Of course," with an exclamation 19 point. 20 Is that in conformance of what you expect your 21 chief of police to do? 22 A. It is. He knew my level of desire for detail. 23 Q. If we go to Page 1 of Exhibit Q, apparently, he 24 made some sort of direction to Captain Storton? 25 A. That's correct. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2052 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 956 1 Q. And delivered both files? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And is it your recollection that, at some point 4 after June 18th, that was done? 5 A. It is my recollection it was done. I don't 6 have a recollection, specifically, of the date. 7 Q. That would be in conformance with how you run 8 your shop and how you expect the police chief to run his 9 or her shop? 10 A. I do. 11 Q. And was it at some point thereafter that you 12 engaged in this review of the documents? 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. Do you know -- as you sit here today, do you 15 know exactly when the Skelly conference occurred? 16 A. I do not. 17 Q. In your experience and training, do you have an 18 understanding that the Skelly conference usually is 19 preceded by some notice called a notice of intent to 20 discipline? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. Have you -- in preparation for testifying 23 today, have you looked at any such document? 24 A. In preparation for today, no, I have not. 25 Q. In my exhibit book is Exhibit 5, if you could Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2053 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 957 1 turn to that. Take a look at Exhibit 5. 2 Does that appear to be a notice of intent to 3 discipline? 4 A. It is. 5 Q. Addressed to Mr. Waddell? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. It's dated September 9? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. That would be about four months -- as I'm 10 counting up dates, that would be about four months after 11 Captain Staley executed his executive recommendation? 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. Does that help you pinpoint -- now we have 14 the -- Captain Staley making his recommendation, 15 apparently, being transferred to the chief the police, 16 the chief of police transferring it to you in 17 conformance with local rule and law in mid-June of 2014 18 and then the notice of intent, September 9, 2014? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. Does that help you pinpoint that you were 21 brought into this case prior to the Skelly? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And it wasn't just you? 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. It was Christine Dietrick, Monica Irons? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2054 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 958 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. So it sounds like you were all taking this 3 seriously? 4 A. We took it very seriously. 5 Q. Do you value the input of your city attorney? 6 A. I do. 7 Q. Do you value the input of your HR director? 8 A. I do very much. 9 Q. Do you value the input of your chief of police 10 and captain? 11 A. I do. 12 Q. Do you know why it took four months between the 13 time that Captain Staley, apparently, communicated his 14 opinion and conclusion to the chief and then, in June, 15 while on its way to you, and finally got to the period 16 of notice of intent in September? Do you know why it 17 took that long? 18 A. Because we were -- yes, I do. 19 Q. Why? 20 A. We were taking -- doing due diligence on 21 ensuring that the investigative materials supported that 22 level of discipline. We had a number of conversations 23 about the level of discipline and the facts that 24 supported it and really wanted to make sure that we were 25 doing the right thing. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2055 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 959 1 Q. Did you feel comfortable you were doing the 2 right thing? 3 A. I did. 4 Q. Based on your entire review of this matter? 5 A. I did and I do. 6 Q. Do you -- Appellant's T, the last exhibit that 7 was identified during your testimony, it's a letter from 8 Ms. Nicole Winter at the Gaspard Castillo Law Firm. 9 Do you have a recollection of ever seeing 10 that? 11 A. I don't have a recollection, specifically, of 12 seeing it. 13 Q. Do you typically respond to letters from 14 lawyers? 15 A. Typically, do not. 16 Q. Who do you have -- 17 A. Particularly, the ones that are not addressed 18 to me. 19 Q. Do you have people that do that? 20 A. I have a partnership with our city attorney and 21 her staff that are, typically, responsible for deciding 22 how and when we're going to be responsive with letters 23 from lawyers. 24 Q. All right. So if we go back to Exhibit 5, my 25 Exhibit 5 -- sorry for making you go around. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2056 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 960 1 A. That's okay. I can do it. 2 Q. Page 2 of Exhibit 5, that second to the last 3 paragraph discusses him making an appointment to have a 4 Skelly conference? 5 A. Uh-huh. 6 Q. Is that how you interpret that paragraph? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Were you present at the Skelly conference? 9 A. I was not. 10 Q. Do you have an expectation that your chief of 11 police conducted a Skelly conference in conformance with 12 the law? 13 A. Yes, I do. 14 Q. Does the city attorney usually attend the 15 Skelly conference? 16 A. I believe, in many instances, she does. 17 Q. Do you know if she did in this case? 18 A. I don't recall. 19 Q. Turn to Exhibit 4, please. First paragraph of 20 Exhibit 4, does that give you some information about 21 whether or not a Skelly conference was held and on which 22 date? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Which date was it on? 25 A. September 11th, 2014. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2057 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 961 1 Q. Do you recognize the structure of Exhibit 4? I 2 probably should have said that first. Do you recognize 3 what it is? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Is it the final disciplinary notice? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Does that, typically, follow a Skelly 8 conference? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. So if the Skelly conference was held in 11 conformance with Exhibit 4 on September 11th, 2014, then 12 this notice came out October 1, 2014, sounds like there 13 was about a three-week period in between that. 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. Do you know if you were consulted after the 16 Skelly conference? 17 A. I believe I was. 18 Q. Would that be your expectation? 19 A. It is. 20 Q. Would you, typically, have the chief of police 21 or maybe the city attorney, in addition, come in and 22 tell you, hey, did you hear anything fantastic? 23 A. I have an expectation that I would be informed 24 if there are any changes to anybody's opinions about the 25 discipline that should be taken at that point in the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2058 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 962 1 process. 2 Q. Did that occur in this case? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And did any party, with exception of city 5 attorney because we don't want to invade attorney-client 6 privilege, did any person in that conversation tell you 7 that they got any information that changed their mind? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Did you ask questions? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And, ultimately, based upon everything you 12 knew, including the Skelly response, whatever was 13 downloaded to you during that conference, did anything 14 change your mind from the initial decision you made, as 15 the appointing authority of the City of San Luis Obispo, 16 to affirm the decision to terminate Mr. Waddell? 17 A. No information was presented that changed my 18 mind to affirm the decision. 19 MR. PALMER: Thank you. Nothing further. 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: Redirect? 21 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 22 23 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 24 BY MS. CASTILLO: 25 Q. You were well aware of this investigation much Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2059 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 963 1 earlier than June 17th, correct? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. Okay. And, in fact, in January of 2014, you 4 were aware that Captain Storton was preparing a 5 recommendation, correct? 6 A. I was informed earlier than June of 2014 that 7 an investigation was being conducted. I can't confirm 8 or deny that it was January of 2014. 9 Q. Okay. Well, did Monica Irons tell you that 10 Captain Storton had sent her his initial draft of his 11 recommendation for review? 12 A. No. I was informed by the chief of the 13 circumstances that were being investigated. 14 Q. Okay. Did you get a chance to review the draft 15 that Captain Storton had sent to Monica Irons via 16 e-mail? 17 A. I don't recall one way or another. 18 Q. Do you recall looking in that file or seeing in 19 that file that you were presented Captain Storton's 20 recommendation for a two-week suspension? 21 A. To the best of my knowledge, the material that 22 I was presented was the final form of the file. 23 Q. Okay. So the answer is, no, you did not see 24 Captain Storton's recommendation for a two-week 25 suspension? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2060 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 964 1 A. I don't have a recollection of seeing that 2 document. 3 Q. Have you ever heard of his two-week suspension 4 recommendation? 5 A. Only in more recent weeks after that was 6 identified here. 7 Q. What do you mean, "identified here"? 8 A. So the -- I had no information until I 9 understood that that was an issue that was raised here. 10 Q. And when did you learn that? 11 A. I don't have a specific recollection, but in 12 the last month, or so. Since the hearing started. 13 Q. Are you aware that he testified yesterday? 14 A. Um, well, I saw him in the hallway yesterday. 15 Q. So did he tell you yesterday? 16 A. No, he didn't tell me. 17 Q. Oh. Someone else told you before he testified? 18 Who told you that that could be an issue in 19 this hearing? 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: If it's coming from 21 Mr. Palmer, I don't want to hear it. 22 MR. PALMER: Or Ms. Dietrick. 23 MS. CASTILLO: If it came from Mr. Palmer, I 24 don't want to know. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: Or Ms. Dietrick. She Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2061 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 965 1 became aware. That's enough. 2 BY MS. CASTILLO: 3 Q. But you became aware after -- what you're 4 saying, there was a different recommendation for 5 discipline? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Did it come from -- okay. 8 When the chief sent you the e-mail with the 9 most relevant documents, why was it that you asked for 10 the complete file? 11 A. Because I take my responsibility seriously and 12 I feel like it's imperative that I see the comprehensive 13 material that is associated with the chief coming to a 14 decision. 15 Q. Did you recall seeing photographs? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Okay. And how many? 18 A. I don't recall. 19 Q. What were they of? 20 A. They were of an accident scene. 21 Q. Okay. A crashed car? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. Were there more than one? 24 A. I believe there was. 25 Q. And you were not provided with transcripts of Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2062 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 966 1 any of the interviews with witnesses, correct? 2 A. I don't recall whether I was or was not. 3 Q. Okay. And Mr. Palmer went through your review 4 with you and the Municipal Code section and asked you 5 about when you were consulted. 6 It's, actually, the personnel director that 7 gets consulted, correct? 8 A. There's -- there's a consultation 9 responsibility with the HR director and then, as part of 10 our process, I'm consulted before the notice of 11 termination is determined to affirm that that's the 12 level of discipline that we want to -- that the city 13 intends to pursue. 14 Q. Okay. So -- 15 A. So it's both. 16 Q. So it says prior to imposition of the 17 discipline. 18 You are the city administrative officer, 19 correct? 20 A. Um, one and the same. The city charter title 21 was changed from city administrative officer before my 22 arrival to city manager. So my title now is city 23 manager, but it is commonly referred to in many of our 24 Municipal Code sections as city administrative officer. 25 Q. Okay. And you shall act, right? You're not Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2063 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 967 1 just a consultant, correct? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. Okay. 4 A. I shall affirm. 5 Q. Okay. So you're the final decision-maker, 6 correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And in your consultations and communications 9 with the chief after the Skelly hearing, it was never 10 brought to your attention the discussions at Skelly 11 regarding statutory issues that were brought up by 12 Officer Waddell's attorney? 13 MR. PALMER: Objection. Vague. 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah. I'm not following 15 that. 16 BY MS. CASTILLO: 17 Q. Or any of the content of the letter, if you did 18 not see the letter, itself. 19 A. I believe that, in my conversations with 20 Ms. Dietrick, that those issues -- 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: I don't want you 22 testifying about what you talked about with 23 Ms. Dietrick. If you know something, you can testify to 24 it, how you got it. If it involves any attorney-client 25 conversation, don't want to know about it. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2064 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 968 1 BY MS. CASTILLO: 2 Q. So after the Skelly, you said there was nothing 3 that changed your mind, correct? 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q. Okay. And so the facts that you were presented 6 at the Skelly did nothing to change your mind, at all? 7 A. That's correct. 8 MS. CASTILLO: Okay. Nothing else. 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: Cross-examination, 10 recross, redirect, whatever it is? 11 MR. PALMER: No. No questions. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: So we can excuse 13 Ms. Lichtig then? 14 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: You're excused to get 16 back to your regular duties. 17 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: Go off the record for a 19 second. 20 (Recess.) 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: We have our next witness. 22 It's Officer Berrios, correct? 23 THE WITNESS: Correct. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Hi. I'm Chris Cameron. 25 I'm the hearing officer. It's my job to make sure we Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2065 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 969 1 get your testimony. Let's begin by getting you to raise 2 your right hand. 3 Do you affirm the testimony you are about to 4 give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but 5 the truth? 6 THE WITNESS: I will. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 8 Ms. Castillo, would you like us to take a look 9 at -- oh. Before you go there, Appellant's T, we didn't 10 deal with that. Is there any objection to T coming 11 in? 12 MR. PALMER: Oh, yes. Appellant's T is 13 irrelevant, it's also wrong. Mr. Waddell was not 14 terminated solely based on an arrest. He was never 15 arrested. 16 MS. CASTILLO: I believe that -- 17 MR. PALMER: It's factually inaccurate. It has 18 absolutely no probative value. If you want me to go 19 through Pick versus City of Oakland, I can. It has 20 absolutely no relevance to this case and this situation 21 involving Mr. Waddell. 22 MS. CASTILLO: It was in the dummy file. I 23 believe that it is appropriately admitted as an exhibit 24 because it was provided prior to Skelly and I do think 25 that it is relevant, as it should have been -- well, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2066 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 970 1 it's relevant to the entire context that was just 2 questioned before the city manager. We don't have the 3 chief here today, but I think that it is -- it should 4 be, at least, admitted for the purposes of whatever 5 weight the hearing officer is going to -- 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah. The objections, 7 really, go to the weight. So I'm going to admit it. 8 I'm not sure what it's worth, but I'm definitely going 9 to let it into the record. So Exhibit T is admitted. 10 All right. So we've taken care of that. Now 11 we're looking at another appellant exhibit at this time, 12 or is this new? 13 MS. CASTILLO: This is going to be U. I'm 14 going to give you the original, but I will write U on 15 it. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: I just want to make sure 17 Mr. Palmer gets one. 18 MS. CASTILLO: I have one for Mr. Palmer. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: Is this for him or me? 20 MS. CASTILLO: That is for you. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 22 MS. CASTILLO: For -- well, we'll put this -- 23 whichever is in the exhibit book, Mr. Palmer can have 24 that one. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: You get the one with the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2067 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 971 1 pretty cover. 2 MR. PALMER: Cool. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: Appellants Exhibit U is a 4 transcript of the audio recording of Officer George 5 Berrios. The date of the recording appears to be 6 January 17, 2014; although, it was transcribed on June 7 15 of this year. 8 MS. NALEWAY: Sorry. This is a bigger copy 9 that has four to a page and, that way, he can actually 10 see -- because yours is a normal size, right? Because 11 that's a condensed version that we gave him. Do you 12 have a condensed version? You have a normal version. 13 I'm going to remark this as Exhibit U so it's a normal 14 uncertified. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: But it's the same thing? 16 MS. NALEWAY: It's the same exact thing. 17 MR. PALMER: And the page numbers are the same? 18 MS. CASTILLO: Oh, I gave you a condensed? 19 MS. NALEWAY: Yeah. We gave him a condensed. 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: Do you want to give him a 21 bigger one? 22 MS. NALEWAY: Yeah. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: Why don't you give him 24 mine and then I'll take a condensed. 25 MS. NALEWAY: We have an extra copy. I was Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2068 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 972 1 just letting you know we were going to switch this out. 2 It's the exact same document. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: As long as we're having 4 random documents here for the record, I'm just going to 5 note something that I was discussing with Ms. Castillo 6 before we went on. I'm sure there will be some 7 foundational questions asked of Officer Berrios, but 8 we're going to be hearing, today, some audio recordings, 9 and the way we're going to do that is going to relieve 10 the court reporter of the responsibility to write down 11 what's heard on the audio recording, but there will be 12 reference made to it beforehand by counsel as to what 13 pages in the relevant transcript the audio recording 14 information can be found. So I just want to note that 15 for the record. 16 Ms. Castillo, go ahead. 17 MS. CASTILLO: Thank you. 18 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION 20 BY MS. CASTILLO: 21 Q. Good morning. 22 A. Good morning. 23 Q. Can you please state, for the record, your 24 occupation and employer? 25 A. George Berrios, City of San Luis Police Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2069 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 973 1 Department. 2 Q. And what is your rank? 3 A. Currently, I'm a master patrol officer. 4 Q. And how long have you been a police officer? 5 A. 18 and a half years. 6 Q. Okay. Do you know Kevin Waddell? 7 A. I do. 8 Q. Do you recall being interviewed by Lieutenant 9 Proll in January of 2014 for an administrative 10 investigation into Officer Waddell? 11 A. Yes, I do. 12 Q. Had you ever worked with Officer Waddell 13 before? 14 A. Yes, I have. 15 Q. In what capacity? 16 A. We were field partners together, working 17 nights, initially, and then we both went into the motor 18 unit within my second year of being on service with the 19 police department and then worked together conjunctively 20 in the motor unit for two and a half, almost three 21 years. 22 Q. Okay. Any other assignments that you work 23 with -- or that you worked with Officer Waddell? 24 A. He was also on the S.W.A.T. team when I was on 25 the crisis negotiation team. He was assigned to the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2070 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 974 1 sniper position when I was assigned as the crisis 2 negotiator on the team. We also worked numerous other 3 details assigned in the unit together, not limited to, 4 but included bicycle rodeos, traffic safety events, 5 special events throughout the city, so forth and so on. 6 Q. Okay. Did you respond to a major injury 7 accident at Orcutt and Johnson involving a Bentley on 8 February 22nd, 2013? 9 A. In reviewing the U here, I didn't go that day, 10 but I remember hearing about it. 11 Q. Okay. I'm going to play some audio, and then 12 I'm going to stop, ask you some questions -- 13 A. Okay. 14 Q. -- and I will refer to the transcript lines -- 15 A. Okay. 16 Q. -- so we can follow along. That way, the court 17 reporter doesn't have to transcribe the whole time. Go 18 ahead. 19 (Audio playing.) 20 BY MS. CASTILLO: 21 Q. We just listened to Lines 1 through 9 in 22 Appellant's Exhibit U. 23 Was that your voice on the audio? 24 A. Yes. 25 MS. CASTILLO: Okay. Continue. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2071 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 975 1 (Audio playing.) 2 BY MS. CASTILLO: 3 Q. So we just listened to Lines 10 through 1. 4 Prior to being called into the interview with 5 Lieutenant Proll, were you advised what the nature of 6 your interview was about? 7 A. No, other than that first Line 6 on Page 2, 8 that was the first time that I knew anything about the 9 investigation. 10 Q. Okay. So you just -- he -- so you were noticed 11 that you were a witness in an interview? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. Okay. And did he tell you who the subject 14 officer was? 15 A. No. Not until -- I think it was beforehand the 16 recording started because I didn't know what I was 17 getting called in the office for. So I asked. He said 18 he was doing an investigation on Officer Waddell and he 19 had some questions to ask and that's when the recording 20 started, if my memory serves me correct. 21 Q. Okay. We can start again, starting on Line 2. 22 (Audio playing.) 23 BY MS. CASTILLO: 24 Q. That was Lines 2 through 23. 25 Prior to being called into the office to be Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2072 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 976 1 interviewed in January of 2014, had you ever heard -- I 2 mean, you indicate to Lieutenant Proll that you never 3 heard that Officer Waddell had removed a piece of the 4 Bentley for personal gain, correct? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. Had you ever heard that he removed a piece of 7 the Bentley, at all? 8 A. Never. 9 Q. Okay. And you -- Lieutenant Proll tells you 10 that you were not at the scene. 11 At that time, were you working closely with 12 Officer Waddell, as his partner? 13 A. No. At that time, he was assigned downtown 14 bikes, I believe, and I was assigned night shift patrol. 15 So we had limited interaction. 16 Q. Okay. So you had limited interaction with him 17 and you're not at the scene. 18 Do you work any overtime shifts with him or, at 19 this time, what -- why -- do you have any idea why you 20 were interviewed? 21 A. Um, the only thing I can think of is I was part 22 of the traffic team at one point, the call-out team. 23 As part of motors, our first assignments were 24 all assigned, the whole unit, as, basically, the traffic 25 team. So if a major accident happened, the whole team Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2073 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 977 1 internally got called in to assist in whatever would be 2 needed at the scene of the accident. 3 This case, I think the night in question, there 4 was enough people there that I didn't get called in or I 5 was on patrol. So either vice versa thing could have 6 been in place, whether enough people or I was stuck on 7 patrol. 8 Q. So did he ever -- other than what was -- well, 9 let me ask you. 10 Were you a motor officer at this time? 11 A. Um, at that time, no, I was not. 12 Q. Okay. So if you are part of the traffic team, 13 every single person gets a call that night? 14 A. Correct. The whole unit would get a call at 15 that time. It's changed now. Now we're having assigned 16 team where bodies are specifically assigned to do the 17 secondary duties. 18 In 2013 -- or -- yeah, in 2013, there was no 19 assigned team yet. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. It was people that were in the traffic unit and 22 then other people that were forming the traffic unit, if 23 they could not find A, they would go to B, couldn't find 24 B, they would go to C, and so forth and so on down the 25 line until you get enough people to assess the scene and Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2074 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 978 1 do the scene management as a need to a major accident. 2 Q. Who else was on the traffic team? 3 A. In 2013? 4 Q. Yes. 5 A. It would have been Colleen Kevany, Sergeant 6 John Villanti, Chris Chitty, myself, Officer Waddell, 7 Officer Phillips, Officer Cudworth, possibly Officer 8 McCormack, depending on where everyone was at. 9 And these are all former motor officers that 10 had the training and ability to get to a scene and 11 know -- pick up this equipment and know how to measure, 12 know when someone was talking about, you know, your 13 prolongation line or a line, how to figure things out in 14 a faster method than your general patrol guy would know. 15 Q. So all of those people should have been called 16 in and interviewed, too, then, probably? 17 MR. PALMER: Objection. Vague, speculation. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: Do you understand the 19 question? 20 THE WITNESS: I do. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: You can answer. 22 THE WITNESS: Based on this? Yeah, I would 23 think so. 24 MS. CASTILLO: Okay. 25 THE WITNESS: If I -- yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2075 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 979 1 BY MS. CASTILLO: 2 Q. If you were being interviewed, right? 3 A. Right. I would expect everyone. 4 Q. Okay. Play. We are now starting with Line 23. 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: This is on Page -- 6 MS. CASTILLO: 3. 7 (Audio playing.) 8 BY MS. CASTILLO: 9 Q. We're stopping at Line 13. What's DRMO? 10 A. The official name is Demilitarized 11 Reutilization Military Office. 12 Q. And what does that have to do with the Bentley? 13 A. Nothing. They're, totally, two separate 14 entities. 15 Q. Okay. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: Demilitarized. What's 17 the next word? 18 THE WITNESS: Reutilization. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: This is the program where 20 the military gives local law enforcement some equipment? 21 THE WITNESS: Yes. Correct. Made after one of 22 the major riots. That's what made the news again. 23 BY MS. CASTILLO: 24 Q. Prior to the start of the interview, did 25 Lieutenant Proll tell you he was going to ask you Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2076 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 980 1 questions about the DRMO program? 2 A. I don't recall. 3 Q. Okay. Can you start? 4 (Audio playing.) 5 BY MS. CASTILLO: 6 Q. Okay. That concluded the transcript. 7 Officer Berrios, when you were talking about 8 the accountability for the DRMO program, was Officer 9 Waddell responsible for anything in the DRMO program? 10 A. We both were. 11 Q. And what do you mean by that? 12 A. Checks and balances. 13 Q. And how so? 14 A. If we obtained something through the program, 15 there was checks and balances because -- I'll example 16 this bottle of water. If I knew that one bottle of 17 water came in, he was my check or my balance that, yes, 18 one bottle of water came in so that when our supervisor 19 asked, where's that one bottle of water, either one of 20 us could say it's in the storage shed or it's issued out 21 to officer A or officer B or officer C. That way, not 22 one person had the ability to go, what bottle of water? 23 Q. Did you document the items that you received? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Were they inventoried? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2077 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 981 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And was it only you and Officer Waddell that 3 were in charge of this? 4 A. As far as the allocation and bringing in the 5 items, searching for the items, yes, we were the two 6 that did it most of the time. 7 Q. Okay. Do you -- do you recall being asked in 8 the beginning of 2014 about a missing rifle? 9 A. Um, like, an AR rifle? 10 Q. Well, do you recall, in 2014 -- well, yes, a 11 missing AR. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. And who asked you about that? 14 A. Um, one of the supervisors did. 15 Q. Okay. And what was that conversation like? 16 A. I think I'm the one that, actually, generated 17 that conversation because, once a year, CalEMA, which is 18 the Department of Emergency Management for California, 19 they're, actually, the ones that supervise the program. 20 So once a year, I have to -- or myself, but the 21 department has to respond to all the things that we have 22 in question that we have secured through the DRMO 23 program in paper, or now it's done by digital. So 24 everything has to be photographed, serialized and sent 25 to them, and, at the time, I was missing one rifle and Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2078 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 982 1 didn't know where it was amongst all the things that 2 were going on before me, and after. 3 Q. Okay. And do you recall where this 4 conversation was? 5 A. Um, it might have been in the briefing room 6 or -- I think it might have started in the briefing room 7 and then went over to the armory because there's some 8 certain lockers that I don't have keys to and I can't 9 get into because they're slot equipment or storage 10 equipment. 11 Q. And do you recall who was there during this 12 conversation about the missing rifle? 13 A. It was probably during night watch. So 14 probably a supervisor, a couple officers nearby that 15 know gun -- where stuff should be that have been in the 16 department longer than I have been there. 17 Q. Do you recall, in 2014, during that 18 conversation, Sergeant Pfarr being present? 19 A. He probably was there. 20 Q. Do you recall Sergeant Pfarr stating that 21 someone should check the safe of Officer Waddell? 22 A. I did. 23 Q. Did you have a reaction to that comment? 24 A. I was kind of upset because we all -- law 25 enforcement, we all hold ourselves as brotherhood and Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2079 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 983 1 you don't want to -- it's something you don't say. 2 Q. Where did that comment come from? Do you know? 3 A. No idea. 4 Q. Do you know about what month that was? 5 A. Um, I want to say May, April-ish, somewhere 6 around there. 7 Q. Ultimately, that rifle was located, wasn't it? 8 A. Correct. It was in a locker that I have keys 9 to, buried under a couple of the shotguns that we had 10 for years. 11 Q. After -- do you recall around the time that 12 Officer Waddell was placed on administrative leave in 13 December 2014 -- or 2013, right? 2013? 14 A. Yeah. 15 Q. Do you recall ever being approached by Sergeant 16 Pfarr and having a conversation with him about Officer 17 Waddell being on administrative leave? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. What was that conversation like? 20 A. It was whenever the initial suspension was 21 done. I think it was a Wednesday or a Thursday because 22 I was -- at that time, I wasn't working Wednesdays and 23 Thursdays. I was working day shift with Sergeant Pfarr 24 as my supervisor, and so it was either a Saturday or 25 Sunday of the week that everything happened. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2080 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 984 1 We went to Starbucks for a cup of coffee. We 2 normally went, I'd say, once a week, or something like 3 that, and just have a cup of coffee in the morning. So 4 it was before everything kind of started in the morning 5 and we sat down, had a cup of coffee, and he asked me, 6 hey, have I talked to Kevin, and I was kind of shocked 7 and go, no, is there something I -- something going on? 8 He goes, you didn't hear? I've been on my days off, I 9 haven't heard anything, and he went on to tell me that 10 there's an investigation going on concerning some 11 issues, and I was, A, kind of shocked and, B, 12 dumbfounded. 13 And so then I, in turn, started asking 14 questions and I said what kind of interview 15 investigation are we looking at? And we recently had 16 three prior internal investigations that we had three 17 different outcomes. So I asked him, well, was it 18 outcome A, outcome B or outcome C? And he goes, well, I 19 can't really get into that, but not that bad, they're 20 still working on some stuff, and I was kind of amazed 21 and shocked and finished my coffee and left. 22 Q. So Sergeant Pfarr indicated to you that he 23 didn't think the outcome of the investigation would be 24 that bad? 25 A. Correct. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2081 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 985 1 Q. And when you said outcome A, B and C, was that 2 termination, suspension -- 3 A. I think I, actually, used people's names. So I 4 said was it Officer McDowell, who got arrested? And he 5 goes, oh, no. Is it Officer Pierce, who also got 6 arrested? And he goes, no. And I said Sergeant Kemp, 7 who got demoted? And he goes, no, no, nothing. He just 8 kind of blew it off, like, hey, it's going on, but we 9 should be fine. So I took it as, okay, it should be 10 over and done with like every other investigation that 11 I've seen over the 18 and a half years. It's either 12 going to go one way or the other way. 13 Q. So nothing as bad as a demotion or an arrest 14 for, like, a crime? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. Okay. In the time -- you said you've been an 17 officer for 18 years, right? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. 18 years at San Luis Obispo? 20 A. No. Almost eight and a half years here in San 21 Luis Obispo and ten in the City of Lompoc in Santa 22 Barbara County. 23 Q. And in the eight years that you were here, you, 24 obviously, worked with Officer Waddell? 25 A. Correct. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2082 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 986 1 Q. Do you have an opinion about his integrity? 2 A. I do. 3 Q. And what is it? 4 A. I hold it where I hold my own, at a high level 5 of integrity. That's all we have in law enforcement, is 6 integrity. 7 Q. Do you think he's a truthful person? 8 A. I do. 9 Q. Do you think he is an ethical person? 10 A. I do. 11 Q. And an honest person? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Had you ever heard that Sergeant Pfarr or 14 anyone else had concerns about Officer Waddell removing 15 anything from the DRMO locker or the DRMO program up 16 until the point you were asked about it by Lieutenant 17 Proll? 18 A. No. 19 Q. When you spoke to Sergeant Pfarr that day at 20 coffee, or any other day, did he ever indicate to you 21 that he had concerns about Officer Waddell's integrity? 22 Did he communicate that to you? 23 A. No. 24 MS. CASTILLO: I don't have anything further. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: Cross-examination? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2083 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 987 1 MR. PALMER: Yes. 2 3 CROSS-EXAMINATION 4 BY MR. PALMER: 5 Q. Good morning, Officer. 6 A. Good morning. 7 Q. My name's Greg Palmer. I will be asking you 8 some questions. 9 A. Okay. 10 Q. How close would you say you were over the years 11 with Mr. Waddell? 12 A. Um, I consider him a friend, a real close 13 friend. We went camping, we had dinner together, our 14 wives know each other, our kids know each other, a close 15 friend. 16 Q. Is that, pretty much, for the entire eight 17 years you've worked here with him? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Do you vacation together? 20 A. Not necessarily because, him being on downtown 21 bikes and me out on patrol, it's kind of hard to both 22 get the same time off together. 23 Q. I'm trying to reconcile the camping. 24 A. That was just spur-of-the-moment thing. We 25 went in 2013. I think it was for a couple days. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2084 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 988 1 Q. Just you and he, not the whole family? 2 A. No. The whole family. 3 Q. Just you and him and your family or multiple 4 families? 5 A. The four of -- the six of us. 6 Q. How long did you spend together? 7 A. Two and a half days. 8 Q. Is that the only time you did that? 9 A. Uh-huh. 10 Q. But you've gone to his house for dinner? 11 A. No. 12 Q. He's been to your house for dinner? 13 A. For drinks, yes. 14 Q. Multiple times? 15 A. Two or three times, I think. 16 Q. Okay. Are you currently on the -- in traffic? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. I see your helmet. It's kind of like a clue. 19 How long have you been in traffic? 20 A. This second rotation, I'm at a year and a half. 21 Q. When did you start your second rotation? 22 A. April of '14, I believe it was. 23 Q. Okay. So -- and when did your first rotation 24 end? 25 A. Middle of '13, I want to say. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2085 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 989 1 Q. Okay. So -- 2 A. '12, somewhere in there. 3 Q. You only come here for this part of the 4 hearing, but we've all been together for several days. 5 A. Okay. 6 Q. It's, pretty much, been established that the 7 traffic accident involving the Bentley occurred in 8 February of 2013. 9 A. Okay. 10 Q. So if you use that as a benchmark, were you in 11 traffic then? 12 A. No. 13 Q. But you, nonetheless, were on the call-out 14 team? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. So if a significant traffic accident occurs in 17 or around February of 2013, even though you're not in 18 traffic anymore, you, theoretically, would still be 19 called out? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. Okay. But you don't recall being called out on 22 that accident? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. Okay. Do you know why? 25 A. One of two things, like I said before, one, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2086 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 990 1 they have enough bodies to manage the scene or, two, 2 patrol. Those are the only two reasons why, or three, I 3 didn't answer the phone. So it could have been the 4 third, but I doubt it. 5 Q. Do you remember getting a call? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Do you remember getting woken up at 3:00 a.m.? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Because that's when this accident occurred. 10 Does that, maybe, militate that you were, 11 perhaps, on patrol? 12 A. Probably. Because February, I think, I was on 13 nights. I think I went to nights in '13 because I ended 14 up, ' 14, coming right into motors from days. So I don't 15 have the full schedule to tell you back then. 16 Q. Maybe it's me, but it seems, to me, that you, 17 certainly, could have gone to the accident scene -- 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. -- while you were on patrol. 20 A. Could have. 21 Q. It would have been easier to get ahold of 22 you if you were -- 23 A. If I was there, correct. 24 Q. But you don't have any recollection? 25 A. Correct. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2087 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 991 1 Q. But you heard about the accident? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. Fairly shortly after it occurred? 4 A. Um, I don't know. Probably within two weeks, 5 maybe, a week. Because when I was coming back from 6 whatever shift I was on, everyone was talking about it, 7 how the roll bar, built-in roll bar, kicked on, which 8 saved the person's life because, otherwise, it would 9 have been a serious fatal rather than a serious injury 10 DUI. 11 Q. Kind of a spectacular event? 12 A. It was, actually. Everyone was kind of shocked 13 because I think, in the automobile world, not too many 14 of us have an attempt to see a high-end expensive car. 15 So I didn't know this thing was there until everyone 16 started talking about it, and then they were, like, hey, 17 by the way, this car has this. Okay. 18 Q. Especially a car with some sort of emergency 19 deployed roll bar? 20 A. I guess that's what they call it. 21 Q. So would it be safe to say many in the police 22 department were talking about this event? 23 A. Oh, yes. 24 Q. In the days and weeks after it? 25 A. Uh-huh. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2088 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 992 1 Q. And correct me if I'm wrong. It was quite 2 surprising, most everybody talking about this event, not 3 only did nobody died, but both persons lived? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. Okay. And did those discussions within the 6 police department personnel continue as the weeks went 7 on? Did it, kind of, abate? 8 A. Um, it kind of just dies after it's done, it's 9 over, and fill out the report and it goes away. 10 Q. Now, when Lieutenant Proll interviewed you, did 11 he ask you if you were part of those discussions amongst 12 your peers about the spectacularness of this accident? 13 A. Um, I think he did. It was part of the 14 lifeline there. 15 Q. I think I remember hearing that. Okay. 16 And did he ask you if, during any of those 17 discussions you had with the department personnel, that 18 any specific conduct involving Mr. Waddell came up? 19 A. I don't think he asked about a specific 20 question, but I never heard it. As you can see in the 21 transcript, I was surprised about this whole Bentley 22 thing. 23 Q. That, kind of, dovetails into my next question. 24 A. Okay. 25 Q. During any time that you all, the department Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2089 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 993 1 members, were discussing the details of this accident 2 after it occurred, you didn't -- it seems, to me, 3 correct me if I'm wrong, you didn't have any discussion 4 with anybody who might have been at that accident who 5 saw Mr. Waddell doing or not doing anything? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. You had no discussion with anybody at that 8 point? 9 A. No discussion. 10 Q. Do you know if that was in Lieutenant Proll's 11 mind when he asked you to interview? 12 A. I have no idea what was in his mind. 13 Q. That's the point. 14 You don't know why Lieutenant Proll interviewed 15 you, right? 16 A. No. 17 Q. You don't know how your name came up in this 18 investigation, do you? 19 A. Um, no. 20 Q. Could it come up -- somebody could have said in 21 response to a question, well, what other SLO P.D. person 22 was there, and maybe your name got dropped? 23 A. Sure. 24 Q. Have you done an internal affairs investigation 25 in your career? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2090 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 994 1 A. I have. 2 Q. Many? 3 A. No. 4 Q. You have done investigations in your career? 5 A. Yes, I have. 6 Q. I imagine, you've done many traffic accident 7 investigations? 8 A. Traffic accident, felony assault 9 investigations, murder investigations, yes. 10 Q. Criminal law investigations? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Have you ever had a situation where you have a 13 potential witness somewhere outside on the tangents, you 14 know, way outside, perhaps they have something to share, 15 perhaps they don't, but you interviewed them, anyway? 16 A. On what type of case are we talking about? 17 Q. Any kind. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Traffic accident, maybe there's somebody in a 20 donut shop nearby? 21 A. Sure. 22 Q. Maybe you go in there and say, did anybody see 23 anything in here? 24 A. All the time. 25 Q. One of the reasons for that is to make sure you Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2091 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 995 1 lock people into their stable? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. Whether they have anything to share or not? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. It would be kind of embarrassing if you don't 6 hit somebody up like that and, later, they have 7 something to share that's important? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. You don't know if that was the reason you were 10 interviewed, do you? 11 A. I have no idea, other than what Lieutenant 12 Proll told me. 13 Q. Did Lieutenant Proll tell you you were being 14 interviewed as part of an internal affairs 15 investigation? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And did you understand that, therefore, it had 18 a level of confidentiality to it? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And you weren't supposed to talk about it 21 afterwards? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. I didn't see in the transcript where he 24 reminded you of that at the end. Did you? 25 A. No. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2092 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 996 1 Q. But you knew that, anyway, right? 2 A. Oh, yes. 3 Q. Were you given any written notice before you 4 were interviewed? 5 A. No. 6 Q. He just kind of pulled you? 7 A. I was working and got the call to come into the 8 office, like today. 9 Q. Okay. Do you remember Lieutenant Proll's 10 questioning you about whether or not you knew if 11 Mr. Waddell had a collection of items taken at the 12 accident scene? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Do you know if that was in his mind when he 15 decided to interview you? 16 A. I have no idea. 17 Q. Thinking that maybe you had nothing to share 18 with regard to the accident scene, but you knew if he 19 had a collection? 20 A. I don't know where -- I was -- as -- I was 21 shocked and amazed at that question. 22 Q. The AR-15 thing that came up during your direct 23 examination, I want to make sure I get the timing of 24 this right. You were asked about that weapon? 25 A. I brought it up. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2093 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 997 1 Q. Okay. Take me through that. How did it come 2 up? 3 A. So CalEMA sends us an e-mail. The list says 4 you have these items -- 5 Q. Okay. 6 A. -- where are they? 7 Q. Okay. 8 A. I went to look for said items. Some of the 9 items were acquired prior to me even arriving at the 10 station. So I had no idea this water bottle existence 11 until I got the report. So the report came in, I 12 started looking for all said items and it was the AR-15. 13 Q. Was that the only item missing on the list? 14 A. At the time, yes. 15 Q. Go ahead. 16 A. So I started asking people that were there 17 before me, in the locker room, hey, do you know where 18 this one might be or this one might be, do we check 19 here, check there, and that's how the generic 20 conversation arose. 21 Q. Okay. And your recollection, that occurred in 22 April or May of 2014? 23 A. Um, or maybe even '13. I don't -- I can't tell 24 you without looking on a computer screen and doing some 25 background history on my side, exactly, when it was. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2094 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 998 1 Q. Because I thought 2014 came up. 2 A. It might have been '14. 3 Q. Are you more solid on ' 13 than '14? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Okay. 6 A. I'm not solid on either one. It was the 7 conversation that was there, just like 20 other 8 conversations that were there about everything in life. 9 Q. And was one of the persons you asked about the 10 whereabouts of this weapon Sergeant Pfarr? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Anyone else present during that conversation? 13 A. Maybe another range master. 14 Q. Do you know who? 15 A. Maybe Officer Kozneck, but I can't tell you 16 whether or not he was there or not, maybe Sergeant 17 Michael, maybe even Sergeant Gillham. I have no idea. 18 Q. Now we get back to we have to talk to all three 19 of those people, right? 20 A. If you want to, but no one's going to really 21 have an idea. I can guarantee. 22 Q. I'm just trying to get back to the point where 23 Lieutenant Proll -- 24 A. I see what you're saying. I get you. 25 Q. How is Kozneck spelled? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2095 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 999 1 A. K-O-Z-N-E-C-K. 2 Q. What were the other names? 3 A. Michael, Sergeant Michael, Sergeant Gillham. 4 Q. G-I-L-L-A-M? 5 A. H-A-M. 6 Q. All those three are range masters? 7 A. No. Sergeant Gillham was a former sergeant in 8 charge of all the equipment, the DRMO equipment, prior 9 to myself and Officer Waddell taking over, and then 10 Sergeant Michael, the former range master, also on 11 S.W.A.T. Officer Kozneck is also a S.W.A.T. member and 12 does our maintenance on our rifles. 13 Q. Okay. And it was during that conversation that 14 Sergeant Pfarr said you should look in Waddell's locker? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. Do you know if he was joking? 17 A. Sure. Could have been. 18 Q. Do you know if he was being serious? 19 A. That's -- would you like my opinion? 20 Q. Let me ask it this way. 21 Have you ever been with a group of guys that 22 traded insults between each other? 23 A. Sure. 24 Q. It's a common thing stupid guys do sometimes? 25 A. Sure. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2096 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1000 1 Q. Do you think, maybe, that was it? 2 A. An insult is an insult. 3 Q. You were offended by it? 4 A. I was offended by it. 5 Q. Because you like Mr. Waddell? 6 A. It's not so much that I liked Mr. Waddell. 7 Q. You have a respect for him? 8 A. Correct. Just like I have a respect for 9 Captain Staley. I would never say something like that 10 in a way that's -- why would -- why would I want to put 11 dislike or a black cloud over somebody for no reason? 12 Q. I understand. 13 A. Especially being disheartful, and it goes back 14 to integrity. 15 Q. I understand. 16 A. Why would I want my integrity -- for me to say 17 something that's totally disrespectful to anybody and 18 then someone else think about the consequences that 19 could happen with that being said. 20 Q. I understand. And you believe that Mr. Waddell 21 has integrity? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. At least, in your opinion? 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. And you testified to that at the end of your Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2097 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1001 1 examination? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. Okay. And that's based upon the sum total of 4 your experience with him? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Over the past eight years? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. Working in motors together? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Working in traffic together? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Being on different teams, S.W.A.T. team, 13 negotiation team together? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Driving police cars together? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Do you see all of the stuff on these tables? 18 A. I do. 19 Q. Do you see all the notebooks? 20 A. I do. 21 Q. Do you see my egg crate back there? 22 A. Now I do. 23 Q. There's significance when a case achieves egg 24 crate status. 25 A. It does. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2098 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1002 1 Q. Do you see all the notebooks there and all the 2 pieces of paper? 3 A. I do. 4 Q. Do you have an understanding that your part of 5 this case is a sliver? 6 A. I like it. 7 Q. Okay. Do you know the contents of all these 8 notebooks? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Nobody ever shared that with you? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Do you know if you could be convinced that, 13 based upon the review of all these notebooks, that maybe 14 Mr. Waddell does not have the integrity you thought he 15 had? 16 A. Sure. 17 Q. When you spoke to Sergeant Pfarr, was it at 18 Starbucks? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. Did he give you any details about the 21 investigation? 22 A. No. He was very limited, just saying that it 23 was an investigation. That's what I would expect 24 anybody to say. 25 Q. What do you mean? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2099 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1003 1 A. Just like if I was involved in an investigation 2 and someone asked one of my friends, hey, have you 3 talked to him about the investigation, we can't talk 4 about what the investigation's about, you don't do that. 5 Q. Right. So what I wrote down, I just want to 6 make sure the sum total that Sergeant Pfarr shared with 7 you was there was an investigation going on? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. And you, sort of, probed and asked some 10 questions? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. Kind of in an obtuse way? 13 A. Can't dangle the carrot and not expect to get 14 bit. 15 Q. I understand. 16 A. Right? 17 Q. Did you ever speak to Lieutenant Jeff Smith 18 about this matter? 19 A. Um, no. 20 Q. Did he ever speak to you? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Have you ever had a situation, again drawing on 23 your experience of doing investigations, where, in the 24 beginning, part of the investigation, you thought it 25 probably would go one way and then it took it in Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2100 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1004 1 another? 2 A. Sure. I think every investigation has that 3 potential. 4 Q. Got to keep an open mind? 5 A. Always. 6 Q. Kind of pull all the tentacles and all the 7 springs? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. As long as it's reasonable? 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. Do you know if Sergeant Pfarr -- do you know 12 what Sergeant Pfarr knew when he, purportedly, said to 13 you something which made you conclude that this thing -- 14 everybody was going to be okay on this? Do you know 15 what he had in his mind? 16 A. Do I know what he knew or do I know what he had 17 in his mind? 18 Q. Either or both. 19 A. I would think he would know more than I knew. 20 Q. Do you know what he knew? 21 A. I don't know what he knew. 22 Q. Do you know if he was the investigator or a 23 witness in the case? 24 A. I had no idea. 25 Q. You don't know what his status was? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2101 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1005 1 A. No. 2 MR. PALMER: Okay. Nothing further. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: Redirect? 4 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 5 6 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 7 BY MS. CASTILLO: 8 Q. In terms of the timing of the conversation with 9 Sergeant Pfarr and the rifle, was that when Officer 10 Waddell was on administrative leave? 11 A. I believe so. 12 Q. Okay. So that would have been in 2014, 13 correct? 14 A. Sure. 15 Q. Okay. And then you indicated that Sergeant 16 Pfarr brought up the topic of Officer Waddell being on 17 administrative leave when you spoke to him at coffee. 18 Do you normally talk about Officer Waddell when 19 you go to coffee with Sergeant Pfarr? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Do you have any idea why he would bring up 22 Officer Waddell to you? 23 A. Only, maybe, because he knew we were friends. 24 Q. Okay. Was Officer Waddell your only friend at 25 the police department? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2102 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1006 1 A. No. 2 Q. Okay. Is your testimony any different because 3 of your friendship with Officer Waddell? 4 A. No. 5 Q. You've testified in court before? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Approximately, how many times? 8 A. Um, yesterday. What's today? Wednesday? 9 Thursday? Tuesday. 10 Q. And you take your oath seriously? 11 A. Very seriously. 12 Q. You talked about your belief in regards to 13 Officer Waddell's integrity and why the rifle comment 14 offended you. 15 Did that have anything to do with the DRMO 16 program and the potential for losing the program if 17 there was an issue with the missing rifle? 18 A. Very much so. 19 Q. What do you mean by that? 20 A. So the government -- how the program works -- 21 it's been in the news and everything else, but would you 22 like a breakdown of it to, kind of, understand? 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: I don't need all the 24 details, unless they're relevant here. 25 MS. CASTILLO: Just a synopsis, like a short -- Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2103 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1007 1 THE WITNESS: Okay. So they issued the items 2 to us. We, in turn have to -- we're, basically, 3 borrowing the items until, heaven forbid, World War III 4 happens, and then they say, hey, we need everything 5 back. So if that happens, we need to pick all our stuff 6 up and give it back to them. They, in turn, can 7 reutilize it to the people in question. 8 If we come up and say, yeah, you gave us six 9 water bottles, but I only have three, they're going to 10 make us accountable for those three. If we can't find 11 the other three, then we're kicked out of the program 12 and never able to acquire any items from the program, at 13 all. To date, we have a bunch of items that would cost 14 us more than what we got for free. 15 BY MS. CASTILLO: 16 Q. Do you remember -- and you indicated that 17 Officer Waddell took this seriously, as well? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. Do you remember, in 2013, a time period when he 20 was inventorying and looking for items that had yet to 21 be inventoried that were taken from the DRMO area? 22 A. 2013? 23 Q. Yeah. Do you remember a time of that? 24 A. I think, at one time, we both were looking for 25 stuff because we had to find it amongst all the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2104 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1008 1 different places where stuff could have been hidden and 2 put away. 3 Q. Although you two were in charge of the program, 4 were there times when other officers would just come and 5 take things -- 6 A. Oh, yes, yes. 7 Q. Was that commonplace? 8 A. It was. In fact, we had an e-mail put out 9 saying, hey, until we -- until we say yes or until the 10 three of us say yes to take something, then you can take 11 it. If it's not yes, then don't take it because we need 12 to know where it's at all the time. 13 Q. And do you remember Officer Waddell -- 14 A. I do. 15 Q. -- also sending e-mails like that? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And why was -- why were e-mails like that sent? 18 A. Because people were coming in, taking items 19 that were not, in turn, accounted for, and us not 20 knowing exactly what the count is, I can't respond to 21 CalEMA or, better yet, I can't respond to my supervisor 22 and say, hey, I have all this or I don't have all this. 23 Q. So those things were taken without permission 24 or consent? 25 A. Correct. They were left until we showed up the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2105 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1009 1 next day and then found out that everything had already 2 been ransacked and taken. 3 Q. Were those things like boots? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And where were those at when they were taken? 6 A. They were in the -- our sally port bay. We 7 have a bay that -- like, by the jail at the station 8 where we pull in, and we threw them all in there because 9 there was a lot of stuff. 10 Q. And do you know when that occurred? 11 A. Um, the end of '12, ' 13, maybe, somewhere in 12 there. I know it was a trip from Barstow that we had a 13 guy on injured reserve make and he picked everything up, 14 brought everything back and threw it all in there and 15 then we showed up the next morning. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: We're coming up on 11: 15. 17 How are we doing here? 18 MS. CASTILLO: I think I'm -- I think I'm done. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: Anything on recross? 20 MR. PALMER: Just one quick area. 21 MS. DIETRICK: Captain Staley's gone. So we 22 can go on until we conclude. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 24 MR. PALMER: I only have one quick inquiry. 25 /// Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2106 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1010 1 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. PALMER: 3 Q. Officer Berrios? 4 A. Yes, sir. 5 Q. Now that we've reestablished the AR-15 6 discussion with Sergeant Pfarr occurred in 2014 -- 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. -- she said that he was on administrative 9 leave? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. Okay. Do you know if -- well, let me do it 12 this way. 13 Did Sergeant Pfarr, in conjunction with making 14 his comment, tell you anything about why he might have a 15 reason in early 2014 to not share your opinion of 16 Mr. Waddell's integrity? 17 A. Did he tell me why he didn't like him? 18 Q. Why he didn't think he was truthful? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Why he thought maybe something had happened in 21 the past that, maybe, would suggest that there's a gun 22 in his locker? 23 A. He didn't tell me anything like that. 24 Q. Nothing in terms of something had happened in 25 the past that made him lack trust in Mr. Waddell? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2107 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1011 1 A. No. 2 MR. PALMER: Okay. Thank you. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: Ms. Castillo, anything 4 else? 5 6 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 7 BY MS. CASTILLO: 8 Q. Did you get the impression that Sergeant Pfarr 9 didn't like Officer Waddell? 10 A. Uh-huh. Yes. 11 Q. Was there any specifics in regards to that, 12 other than the statement with me, or have you heard 13 anything from Sergeant Waddell, specifically, in 14 relation to that impression or that opinion other than 15 that statement? 16 A. Okay. Rewind. Have I -- 17 Q. Other than the statement made about the gun 18 being, hey, check Kevin's locker or safe -- 19 A. Right. 20 Q. -- other than that statement, what is your 21 opinion based on, or your knowledge? 22 A. As far as Sergeant Pfarr's -- 23 Q. Not liking Officer Waddell. 24 A. What my opinion is? 25 Q. Right. What is it based on? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2108 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1012 1 MR. PALMER: I'd object to his opinion. 2 MS. CASTILLO: Or knowledge. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. If he's got 4 any basis, I'll allow it. 5 THE WITNESS: So yes opinion or no opinion? 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: You can give an opinion 7 and say why. 8 THE WITNESS: Okay. I think it's because the 9 whole sergeant issue. 10 BY MS. CASTILLO: 11 Q. And what do you mean by that? 12 A. Well, both Officer Waddell and Sergeant Pfarr 13 took this test at the same time to become sergeant and 14 the chief made his decision on who he wanted to pick to 15 make sergeant. Sergeant Pfarr got picked over Officer 16 Waddell and I think that has a lot to do with it. 17 Q. If Sergeant Pfarr got picked over Officer 18 Waddell, why would Sergeant Pfarr dislike Officer 19 Waddell? 20 A. Like it was mentioned earlier, the bullying -- 21 not the bullying. The... 22 MR. PALMER: Trading insults. 23 THE WITNESS: Trading insults. There you go. 24 The trading insults thing comes into play. My stripes 25 are bigger than your stripes, he picked me over you, I'm Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2109 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1013 1 your boss now, I beat you, the whole trading insults 2 philosophy that adults do in the workplace. 3 BY MS. CASTILLO: 4 Q. Is it your personal impression or do you have 5 knowledge that this is a commonly-held opinion in the 6 department? 7 A. That he -- that he didn't like Kevin -- 8 Q. Correct. 9 A. -- or that Sergeant Pfarr -- um, I would think 10 it's common -- I don't want to say common knowledge, but 11 those of us that have been in law enforcement long 12 enough can see it, just like anybody at a workplace 13 would be able to see when subject A doesn't like subject 14 B, you can -- kind of easy to see. 15 MS. CASTILLO: Okay. Nothing else. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: Anything else from the 17 department? 18 MR. PALMER: No. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: Can we take care of the 20 admission of Appellant's U? Do you want to move it? 21 MS. CASTILLO: Yes, please. 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: Any objection? 23 MR. PALMER: No. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Without objection, U is 25 admitted. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2110 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1014 1 Can we excuse Officer Berrios? 2 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: You're excused. Thank 4 you very much. 5 THE WITNESS: Do you want me to put this 6 somewhere? 7 MS. CASTILLO: You can leave it there. 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: Just leave it right there 9 on the pile. That's our DRMO. Off the record. 10 (Recess.) 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: So we're back on the 12 record and we're continuing with the testimony of 13 Sergeant Goodwin at this time; is that right? 14 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Very good. 16 Hi, Sergeant Goodwin. I'm Chris Cameron. I'm 17 the hearing officer. It's my job to make sure we get 18 your testimony. Could we begin by getting you to raise 19 your right hand? 20 Do you affirm that the testimony you are about 21 to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing 22 but the truth? 23 THE WITNESS: I do. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Very good. Go ahead, 25 Ms. Castillo. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2111 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1015 1 DIRECT EXAMINATION 2 BY MS. CASTILLO: 3 Q. Is your last name still Goodwin? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. I thought I heard the city attorney call 6 you something else. 7 Sergeant, by whom are you employed? 8 A. San Luis Obispo Police Department. 9 Q. And how long have you been so employed? 10 A. With San Luis Obispo, for 17 years. 11 Q. And how long have you been a sergeant there? 12 A. 10 years. Correction. I've been with the city 13 for 19 years. That went fast. 14 Q. And how long have you been a sworn police 15 officer? 16 A. 26 -- 27 years now. 17 Q. And did you have prior law enforcement 18 experience elsewhere? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Where? 21 A. The Los Angeles Police Department. 22 Q. And do you know Kevin Waddell? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. During the time that Kevin Waddell was employed 25 at San Luis Obispo Police Department, did you supervise Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2112 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1016 1 him? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And in what assignments did you supervise him? 4 A. I supervised him both in patrol and in traffic. 5 Q. For, approximately, how long did you supervise 6 him as a patrol officer? 7 A. I don't remember how long I was, specifically, 8 his direct supervisor, but for the entirety of the time 9 that he was a patrol officer, we worked together on and 10 off throughout that time. 11 Q. What about in the traffic division? Do you 12 recall? 13 A. My time in traffic was a total of three years. 14 Without having those dates and calendars in front of me, 15 at least half of that, I would imagine. It was at least 16 a year, year and a half, close to two, that we worked 17 together. 18 Q. And did that include doing the total station 19 and traffic investigations? 20 A. Yes, it did. 21 Q. Okay. Were you his -- were you his supervisor 22 when he received any awards or accommodations, that you 23 can recall? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. What do you remember? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2113 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1017 1 A. I don't know if I was his direct supervisor at 2 that time, but I remember attending an awards ceremony 3 in Pismo Beach. I want to say it was the Foot Printers 4 award. I can't recall others, but that one, 5 specifically, is in the front of my mind. 6 Q. And what is that for? 7 A. I don't remember. 8 Q. Do you know what the Foot Printers are? 9 A. I know about their organization, but I would be 10 meshing a couple of different organizations together. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Is it Foot Printers? Is 12 that what you're saying? 13 THE WITNESS: Yes. 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: F-O- O-T? 15 MS. CASTILLO: P-R-I-N-T-E-R-S. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 17 BY MS. CASTILLO: 18 Q. Do you remember why you attended? 19 A. Just in support of Kevin. I remember what the 20 award was for, and it is law enforcement -- it is a law 21 enforcement group and it was for his work in a lot of 22 our technology, having to do with electronic citations 23 and electronic traffic reporting and some little 24 forward-thinking things he was working on at the time. 25 Q. Okay. Thank you. In February of 2013, were Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2114 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1018 1 you working as a traffic sergeant? 2 A. I believe that was when I was in traffic, yes. 3 Q. Okay. Do you recall a traffic collision 4 involving a Bentley? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Okay. Did you respond to this traffic 7 collision? 8 A. I did. 9 Q. Okay. And did you see Officer Waddell there 10 that night? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. You were interviewed as part of an internal 13 affairs investigation by Lieutenant Proll; is that 14 correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Was that in January of 2013, do you know? I'm 17 sorry. January 2014? 18 A. If those are the dates that you have on record, 19 then I would imagine that is when it occurred. I don't 20 recall, specifically, when it happened. 21 Q. Okay. In front of you is what's marked as 22 Appellant's Exhibit B, which is a certified transcript. 23 Have you been provided with a transcript of 24 your interview with Lieutenant Proll prior to your 25 testimony today? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2115 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1019 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And was it this transcript that's in front of 3 you? 4 A. It was not a paper copy. It was an electronic 5 copy. 6 Q. Okay. Who provided it to you? 7 A. Captain Staley did. 8 Q. Okay. Did it look like this, with this cover 9 sheet? 10 A. No, it did not. 11 Q. Okay. Were you able to review your transcript 12 prior -- 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Did you review it today? 15 A. No. 16 Q. When was the last time you reviewed it? 17 A. Probably, it was the day that he sent it to me, 18 which was probably three weeks ago, or something. 19 Q. Okay. I wanted to ask you a couple questions 20 about the evening of the Bentley crash. Okay? That 21 evening, were you the only sergeant on scene? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Who else was there? 24 A. I was at home when I received the call. I was 25 not on duty at the time the collision occurred. I Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2116 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1020 1 received the phone call at home from Sergeant Pfarr, who 2 had been on scene and was discussing a traffic call-out 3 because we didn't know the extent of the injuries of the 4 people inside. So I, ultimately, got myself together 5 and came in and responded to the scene. 6 Q. Okay. Did everyone who was on the traffic team 7 respond to the Bentley crash that night? 8 A. I recall that Officer Waddell came, Officer 9 Kevany came and Officer Cudworth came. I believe that 10 was the totality of my team at the time. 11 Q. Okay. And what was the purpose of those 12 individuals going to that particular scene? 13 A. To utilize the total station to document that 14 collision based on what they had seen, what the initial 15 people responding had seen. When they arrived, they 16 felt it was going to be major injury and potentially 17 fatality. So we needed to document the evidence that 18 was present at the time. 19 Q. Okay. When there is the potential for a felony 20 or a potential for a fatality, is that a specific 21 instance when you will utilize this particular team 22 versus having a regular patrol officer handle the 23 traffic collision report? 24 A. It's really dependent upon the exact 25 circumstances of each collision, but this one, based on Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2117 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1021 1 the unknown, whether there was intoxication or not, 2 there were two people involved, there is potential for 3 that to be a felony DUI and, potentially, a fatal. I 4 can't speak to every instance, but we evaluate each case 5 and determine whether a call-out is warranted. 6 Q. Did you stay the entirety of that evening or 7 did you respond and leave shortly thereafter? 8 A. I did not stay for the entirety. I wouldn't 9 say that staying a short time was accurate. 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. I arrived, ensured that my team had what they 12 needed, I assisted with working on the data and making 13 sure that we had people in place, and once we had gotten 14 to a point where we felt we had sufficient people, 15 sufficient coverage and it was getting ready to be 16 buttoned up, there's no need for the supervisor to 17 remain on scene, financially, any longer. 18 Q. So at the point that you left, your team had 19 the investigation under control? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. When you left, was Sergeant Pfarr there? 22 A. I don't recall whether he was on scene. He was 23 still on duty because he was the night shift supervisor. 24 Q. Okay. 25 A. I, honestly, can't tell you if he was Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2118 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1022 1 physically there at the time I left or not. 2 Q. Okay. During the time that you were 3 interviewed by Lieutenant Proll, he went through a -- 4 basically, a fact pattern with you in that he was 5 conducting an investigation as to whether or not Officer 6 Waddell was collecting, essentially, trophies, from car 7 parts. Do you recall that line of questioning? 8 A. I recall the questions. I don't recall that 9 being stated. 10 Q. What do you recall being asked from your 11 interview with Lieutenant Proll, generally? 12 A. Very similar to what you've just asked me. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. When did I arrive and who was there and what 15 did you see while you were there. 16 Q. Okay. During the time that you were there, 17 there was no interaction that you saw or that you told 18 Lieutenant Proll about regarding Officer Waddell 19 tampering or attempting to remove any Bentley emblems or 20 anything like that, correct? 21 A. Can you repeat that? 22 Q. Well, you were asked if you had any knowledge 23 or had witnessed Officer Waddell removing any Bentley 24 emblems, correct? 25 A. Correct. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2119 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1023 1 Q. And your answer was no, correct? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. Did you, at any point thereafter, hear anything 4 about that at the department or later that evening? 5 A. No. The first time I ever heard about it was 6 during this investigation. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Was when? I'm sorry. 8 THE WITNESS: During this investigation when 9 Lieutenant Proll was interviewing me. 10 BY MS. CASTILLO: 11 Q. Okay. And did you, along those same lines, 12 leading up to this January 13th, 2014, interview, hear 13 about any successful or unsuccessful joke that Officer 14 Waddell had played on Sergeant Pfarr that night at the 15 Bentley scene? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Okay. So other than the fact of the crash, 18 itself, and the circumstances involving that particular 19 accident, was there anything remarkable that you learned 20 of regarding that Bentley incident until you went to 21 your IA interview as a witness? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Okay. You, as the traffic sergeant, reviewed 24 the final report for the Bentley crash; did you not? 25 A. I don't have that evidenced in front of me. I Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2120 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1024 1 can't guarantee that -- I would imagine I would have 2 reviewed it, but if I was gone or on vacation or not 3 there that day that needed to be approved, I can't 4 guarantee you that I read it and approved it. I would 5 need to see that exhibit. 6 Q. Is that something you would, customarily, 7 review as part of your duties as the traffic sergeant? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. So if your team members conducted one of 10 their specialized investigations and you did not review 11 that, would that be something -- other than an instance 12 where you were on vacation or otherwise available, would 13 that be something that was -- 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: I don't understand this 15 question. I need you to back up and start over. You 16 lost me. 17 BY MS. CASTILLO: 18 Q. Okay. Would it be abnormal for some other 19 sergeant to review a traffic team investigation if you 20 were not on vacation? 21 A. I think I understand your question. I would, 22 normally, review traffic team collisions, yes, barring 23 some other circumstance. 24 Q. Okay. And as you sit here today, you have no 25 recollection of reviewing the Bentley crash? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2121 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1025 1 A. I wouldn't be willing to testify that I signed 2 it without seeing that. 3 Q. That's fine. I'm just asking if you have any 4 recollection of reviewing the report. 5 A. I don't. 6 Q. Okay. 7 A. I've reviewed hundreds since then and I don't 8 recall. 9 Q. Do you often review -- well, strike that. 10 You also worked or did work during the period 11 of -- well, strike that. 12 As a sergeant, did you also supervise the CAT 13 officers as a watch commander? 14 A. I'm sure that I've had some of them under my 15 supervision during that time frame since CAT has been 16 employed, yes. 17 Q. And do you recall, specifically, when that 18 would have been? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Okay. Do you recall if you ever supervised 21 Officer Waddell as a CAT officer? 22 A. I don't recall. 23 Q. Do you recall ever being told by Lieutenant 24 Smith that Officer Waddell was someone you needed to 25 watch? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2122 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1026 1 A. I don't recall. 2 Q. And have you ever been made aware by any anyone 3 in the department that Officer Waddell is a problem 4 officer? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Based on your observations of Officer Waddell, 7 do you have an opinion on his professionalism? 8 A. I can speak to my own experiences -- 9 Q. Yes, please. 10 A. -- working with Officer Waddell. I've never 11 had a problem working with him, personally. I have 12 enjoyed supervising him. We've always had a 13 professional, positive -- I mean, in addition to a 14 professional, positive relationship, we've also had a 15 personal friendship, and I've never had a problem with 16 Kevin. 17 Q. Do you have an opinion as to his integrity? 18 A. He's never lied to me, that I'm aware of. I 19 have no concerns about that. 20 Q. At the heart of this matter is a question of 21 whether or not Officer Waddell -- well, whether or not 22 Officer Waddell had a certain intent and I have -- is 23 there a culture in the department, that you're aware of, 24 between officers or command staff or superiors and 25 subordinates who play jokes on one another in the police Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2123 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1027 1 department? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And can you give an example of a joke or a 4 prank that you're personally aware of? 5 A. One officer who's very afraid of snakes had a 6 dead snake that was found in the road put in his patrol 7 boot. 8 Q. Okay. Have you participated in pranks on other 9 officers? 10 A. Yes, I have. 11 Q. Okay. Are you aware of Officer Waddell playing 12 pranks or participating in pranks on other officers? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. Is this something that, in your opinion, 15 is commonplace? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Is it something that, in your opinion, is -- 18 strike that. 19 Would it surprise you to hear of an officer 20 playing a prank on a supervisor? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Would it surprise you if you heard that a prank 23 was played on a supervisor and it was not well-received? 24 A. No. 25 Q. And, contrarily, sometimes they are Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2124 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1028 1 well-received; would you agree? 2 A. Yes. 3 MS. CASTILLO: I don't have anything else. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Cross-examination? 5 MR. PALMER: Yes. 6 7 CROSS-EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. PALMER: 9 Q. Good afternoon, Sergeant. 10 A. Good afternoon. 11 Q. My name's Greg Palmer. I'll be asking you a 12 few questions. Let me try to add some facts and see if 13 it refreshes any memory. 14 While you were at the scene of the Bentley 15 traffic collision -- let me do it this way. 16 Do you have a clear recollection whether or not 17 Sergeant Pfarr was there? 18 A. Right now, no, I don't and I don't know if I 19 recalled it at that time and mentioned it to Lieutenant 20 Proll. 21 Q. But, at some point, however it happened, there 22 was a point in time where both you and Sergeant Pfarr 23 were at the accident scene? Still not clear? 24 A. I can't remember if we spoke on the phone. I 25 know we spoke on the phone and I was at home. Whether Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2125 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1029 1 we were, physically, in the same place at the same time, 2 I, honestly, don't remember. 3 Q. Okay. There's been some evidence that Sergeant 4 Pfarr left the scene for a while to go to the hospital. 5 Does that trigger any memory of him leaving and coming 6 back? 7 A. I, honestly, don't recall him being there, 8 physically, while I was there, which is why I can't -- I 9 don't remember if he was there when I got there and if 10 he showed up and left. 11 Q. Just wanted to try. 12 You said you had a personal friendship with 13 Mr. Waddell? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. How close is that? 16 A. Just coworkers who enjoyed one other's company 17 and would have conversations and that's -- I considered 18 him a friend. 19 Q. Okay. Any, like, off-duty socializing with 20 families? 21 A. We went to -- we went to lunch once, we've been 22 to coffee once. 23 Q. Sounds like nothing, though, all on-duty kind 24 of stuff? 25 A. Yeah. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2126 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1030 1 Q. Nothing like going camping together? 2 A. No. We've been to lunch off duty and to coffee 3 off duty one or two times. 4 Q. That's the extent of it, though? 5 A. Yeah. 6 Q. Playing jokes and pranking, would you agree 7 with me that -- you've been in law enforcement 27 years? 8 A. Uh-huh. 28. 9 Q. Pranking was different 27 years ago, wasn't it? 10 A. Uh-huh. 11 Q. You used to be able to get away with stuff you 12 can't get away with -- 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: You're nodding, but I'm 14 not hearing anything. The court reporter can't get that 15 down. 16 THE WITNESS: Sorry. Yes. 17 BY MR. PALMER: 18 Q. Used to get away with stuff you can't get away 19 with anymore? 20 A. I suppose, yeah. 21 Q. When officers and/or supervisors are deciding 22 to joke or prank with one another, should they keep in 23 mind how the joke or the prank activity might be 24 perceived by the general public? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2127 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1031 1 Q. Was there members of the general public at this 2 accident scene? 3 A. The only members of the public that I recall 4 being there was motorists coming there, but I don't, 5 specifically, remember anyone else being present. 6 Q. Well, let's go to the obvious and then work in. 7 The two occupants of the car were, obviously, 8 there at some point? 9 A. Not when I was there. 10 Q. Okay. And I think there's evidence that they 11 were unresponsive, but they were members of the general 12 public. Would you agree? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. Were you there when the tow truck 15 operator was present? 16 A. I don't recall whether I was there with the tow 17 truck or not. 18 Q. Okay. So perhaps your best memory is you left 19 before the tow truck operator got there? 20 A. It's possible. 21 Q. You would assume a tow truck operator would get 22 there at some point, right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Because the Bentley was on its roof? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2128 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1032 1 Q. So if, at some point, there was evidence that a 2 tow truck operator was there, he would be a member of 3 the public? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Don't know of any other member of the public 6 that was there, besides people driving by? 7 A. I don't recall. Members of ambulance crews, if 8 you want to go down that road, but... 9 Q. So if an officer or supervisor is going to 10 prank somebody or do a joke at such a scene, one would, 11 certainly, want to be mindful of how that activity might 12 be perceived by people driving by where there are 13 members of the public present? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Because you would agree with me a joke can be 16 misinterpreted? 17 A. Of course. 18 Q. It can look like something completely different 19 than a joke? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. It could look like somebody's assaulting 22 somebody? 23 MS. CASTILLO: Objection. Improper 24 hypothetical, relevance. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'm going to allow it. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2129 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1033 1 THE WITNESS: Depends upon the joke. 2 BY MR. PALMER: 3 Q. Depends upon the activity. It could look like, 4 depending upon the activity, somebody is stealing items? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Okay. You -- you've been at San Luis Obispo 7 Police Department longer than Mr. Waddell? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. He's been with the department, up until his 10 termination, about how long? Do you remember? 11 A. I don't remember the dates. 12 Q. Did you know Mr. Waddell before he began 13 working here? 14 A. No. 15 Q. So would it be safe to say that the sum total 16 of your experience with Mr. Waddell was as you both were 17 employed by the San Luis Obispo Police Department? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. And, again, your opinion of his integrity is 20 based upon, I assume, that total amount of time? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Of watching him interact and supervising him on 23 duty during duty activities? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Do you see all the notebooks and pieces of Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2130 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1034 1 paper around this table? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. You see my egg crate back there? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Trust me, it's significant when a case reaches 6 egg crate status. 7 You see all the notebooks and pieces of paper 8 in that egg crate? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And all that stuff around here. 11 Do you know what's in these notebooks? 12 A. The only part of this investigation I'm aware 13 of is what I was interviewed on. 14 Q. And just your portion of it, at least, from my 15 side of the table, is this little sliver? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. Do you know of anything else that's in these 18 books, except your little sliver? 19 A. I do not. 20 Q. Did you ever review the internal affairs 21 investigation? 22 A. I did not. 23 Q. For your knowledge, there was two separate 24 ones. Have you reviewed either one? 25 A. No. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2131 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1035 1 Q. Do you think if you had a chance to review all 2 the contents of the notebooks on these desks, even given 3 your opinion of Mr. Waddell's integrity over the years 4 you've known him, that, perhaps, you could be convinced 5 of a different result? 6 A. Without doing so, I can't render that opinion. 7 MR. PALMER: Okay. Nothing further. 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: Anything on redirect? 9 MR. PALMER: Oh, wait. I do have something 10 else. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. 12 BY MR. PALMER: 13 Q. Sorry. 14 You said the first time you heard about the 15 allegation that Mr. Waddell had taken some -- taken or 16 removed some car parts from the Bentley as an allegation 17 of the case was when you were interviewed? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. Didn't hear any sort of even a wisp of that 20 kind of activity before you were interviewed? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Okay. And I noted in your interview that you 23 had a couple of comments to say in reaction to finding 24 out that was what the allegation was about. Do you 25 recall those comments at this point? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2132 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1036 1 A. I don't, without looking at it. If you'd like 2 to direct me to it -- 3 Q. Let me see if you can remember off the top of 4 your head before I direct you. 5 You said, "My only comment I have is what a 6 stupid thing to do." Any recollection of that? 7 A. That doesn't surprise me if that was my answer, 8 but now that you say that, I believe that was in 9 response to something, what would your reaction be if I 10 told you this is what happened. 11 Q. Page 10 of Appellant's V, and you might want to 12 start with reviewing just the bottom of Page 9 as it 13 goes over to 10, just to get context. You can stop on 14 Line 7 of Page 10. 15 A. Okay. 16 Q. Does that refresh your memory? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. You might even have to go back to Page 8. At 19 the beginning of Page 8, Line 7 is where Lieutenant 20 Proll kind of summarizes and puts everything in summary 21 form. See if it rings a bell. 22 A. Okay. 23 Q. Okay. So I just want to make sure that we 24 understand your comment I -- I'm sorry, comment I 25 have -- in my transcript it says, "The only comment I Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2133 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1037 1 have is it's just a stupid thing to do." 2 What would be "it's" in that sentence? 3 A. If you were to take something that was not 4 evidence that didn't serve a purpose. 5 Q. And the other thing that I heard you say, or I 6 listened to you say in the interview and saw it in the 7 transcript is there on Page 10, Line 10. 8 "I can't say anything surprises me anymore in 9 the realm of human existence." Do you recall that? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Have you ever had a situation where you had a 12 close friend or acquaintance who you trusted a lot, held 13 in high regard, and they disappointed you? 14 A. Absolutely. 15 MR. PALMER: Nothing further. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: Anything else on 17 direct? 18 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 19 20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MS. CASTILLO: 22 Q. Well, let's start from the beginning. Okay. 23 Can I direct your attention to Page 8 and -- 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: This is Appellant's V? 25 MS. CASTILLO: Yes, please. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2134 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1038 1 BY MS. CASTILLO: 2 Q. Line 7 through Line 13 where you were informed 3 that the allegation at this point was that Officer 4 Waddell had the idea to get the screwdriver to remove 5 the Bentley emblem from one of the hubcaps to keep and 6 that other people were there and everybody kind of knew 7 about it. Do you see that? 8 A. I do. 9 Q. Okay. Once you were told that by Lieutenant 10 Proll, did that surprise you? 11 A. In what way? 12 Q. Well, had you heard about this from the other 13 traffic people? 14 A. No. As I stated, I never heard any of this 15 information. So it was new information, yes, it was. 16 Q. Okay. And then he goes on on Page 8 to say the 17 notion of a possible practical joke comes up because 18 it's a practical joke, maybe because Chad was a new 19 sergeant and everything. 20 Had you heard previously of practical jokes 21 being played on newly-appointed sergeants or -- I don't 22 know. Are there corporals in your department? 23 A. There is no corporals. 24 Q. Okay. So newly-appointed sergeants. Have you 25 heard of that happening in the past? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2135 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1039 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Okay. So then he makes mention of this and he 3 gives you this synopsis. 4 At that point, the question that Mr. Palmer 5 asks you is on Page 10. The comment that he just asked 6 you about, "The only comment I have it's just a stupid 7 thing to do," was that based on the fact pattern that 8 Lieutenant Proll gave you, all the information that he 9 gave you? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. Other than the information that you had 12 in this interview from Lieutenant Proll, did you -- were 13 you given the opportunity to look at any photographs to 14 refresh your memory and/or draw the conclusion regarding 15 the comment that you made on Page 10 at Line 6? Do you 16 remember seeing photos? 17 A. I remember photos being taken and I remember 18 seeing photos. I don't remember at what point I looked 19 at those photos and I don't know how those photos tie 20 into Line 6. 21 Q. I guess my question was kind of unclear. 22 Were you shown photos in your interview with 23 Lieutenant Proll relating to the fact pattern that he 24 gave you on Page 8? 25 A. I don't remember if I saw photos that day. I Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2136 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1040 1 don't know if it's outlined in this. I think it would 2 be outlined in that. 3 Q. Okay. So you didn't see any photographs of a 4 removed hubcap or a screwdriver or anything like that? 5 A. Not that I recall. 6 Q. Okay. And then on Page 9, Line 4 where he 7 says, "I'm just kind of filling you in on what Robert 8 and Colleen knew," who is Robert? 9 A. That's Officer Cudworth. 10 Q. And who is Colleen? 11 A. Officer Kevany. 12 Q. Okay. So wherein he's telling you what Robert 13 and Colleen knew, were you aware that they had been 14 interviewed in this investigation at the point that you 15 were interviewed? 16 A. I'm not sure. 17 Q. Okay. And then at the point where he says on 18 Page 9, Line 8 that they thought it was a done deal 19 because he had been talked to by Chad and that kind of 20 stuff, when you were told that information, what did you 21 interpret that to mean by Lieutenant Proll? 22 A. I'm not sure I understand. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: The question? 24 THE WITNESS: A, this sentence in the 25 transcript is -- it's very unclear and it's a Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2137 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1041 1 poorly-worded sentence, but it's the spoken word. 2 So out of context, it's difficult to recall and 3 interpret what his context was when he said it, but -- 4 and I don't understand what the done deal part of that 5 is supposed to mean. 6 BY MS. CASTILLO: 7 Q. If Officer Waddell had been talked to by Chad 8 Pfarr, the sergeant, about what had occurred at the 9 Bentley, either if it had been an instance of misconduct 10 on his part or a practical joke that went wrong, would 11 that have been, in your mind, a counseling by the 12 sergeant? 13 MR. PALMER: Objection. Speculation, it's 14 beyond the scope of the witness, the ability to answer. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah. You haven't 16 qualified her -- she doesn't have anything to do with 17 discipline. 18 BY MS. CASTILLO: 19 Q. Let me ask you, as a sergeant, yourself, if 20 you -- as you read this and you have just said that you 21 have some questions as to what this meant, when you -- 22 when he asks you, "so does that shed light on anything," 23 do you have any idea, after the rendition that 24 Lieutenant Proll gave you, what, actually, happened at 25 the Bentley scene? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2138 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1042 1 A. With regard to -- 2 Q. Any of it. 3 A. -- anything? 4 Other than our investigation of the collision, 5 I have no knowledge of anything else that may have 6 happened. If any of those conversations took place, 7 they were not directed at me and they were not in my 8 presence. 9 Q. Okay. So when you rendered the opinion of the 10 comment would be it's just a stupid thing to do, was 11 that -- what kind of opinion were you giving? 12 A. I think I mentioned that somewhere else, that 13 if Lieutenant Proll was getting to the point that his 14 accusation was that Officer Waddell was taking a piece 15 of property from this vehicle for personal reasons, 16 wanted to take it for himself, as in stealing it, I was 17 saying that would be a stupid thing to do. 18 Q. No. Actually, can I have you go to Page 9, 19 though, and look at Line 15? Preceding that comment is 20 the question, "Maybe the idea was let's do it when 21 you're not looking or after you left or something, you 22 know, but to kind of keep" -- and then you answer that 23 you left first. 24 And if you go up further, it talks more about 25 the trophy, right? Do you see that on Page 9? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2139 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1043 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: Line 2. 2 THE WITNESS: Thank you. I see that. 3 BY MS. CASTILLO: 4 Q. Okay. So is it your opinion -- was your 5 comment -- does it refresh your recollection as to your 6 comment being that taking anything for a trophy would 7 have been a stupid thing to do? 8 A. Correct. 9 MS. CASTILLO: And then I think the last 10 question was -- actually, no. I have nothing further. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Anything on recross? 12 MR. PALMER: No. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Can we excuse this 14 witness then? 15 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Sergeant. I 17 appreciate your stopping by. You can just leave all 18 that stuff there and we'll let you go. 19 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 20 MS. CASTILLO: Can I ask that V be moved in, 21 please? 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: Any objection to the 23 admission of V? 24 MR. PALMER: Other than I think it's missing 25 some words, no. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2140 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1044 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. So without 2 objection, Appellant's V is admitted. Okay. Next 3 witness? 4 MS. CASTILLO: Sergeant Amoroso. 5 CAPTAIN STALEY: I don't believe he's available 6 until after 2:00. It's what he informed me yesterday, 7 but I'll try to get ahold of him. 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: Let's take a break for a 9 second. 10 (Recess.) 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: We're going back on the 12 record. We're continuing with the appellant's next 13 witness, which is Sergeant Amoroso, and we're also 14 marking the next document in sequence for the 15 appellants. This is Appellant's Exhibit W. It's a 16 transcript of the audio recording of an interview with 17 Sergeant Amoroso, January 7th. Is that 2014? 18 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. All right. 20 Sergeant, can I get you to raise your right 21 hand? Do you affirm that the testimony that you are 22 about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and 23 nothing but the truth? 24 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very much. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2141 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1045 1 Ms. Castillo, you may take it away. 2 3 DIRECT EXAMINATION 4 BY MS. CASTILLO: 5 Q. Good afternoon. 6 A. Good afternoon. 7 Q. By whom are you employed? 8 A. The City of San Luis Obispo. 9 Q. And what is your occupation? 10 A. Police officer. 11 Q. And how long have you been employed as a police 12 officer? 13 A. 12, 13 years, something like that. 14 Q. Okay. And have you always worked for the City 15 of San Luis Obispo? 16 A. No. I started with the City of Santa Barbara. 17 Q. Okay. And how long have you worked -- or how 18 long did you work there as a police officer? 19 A. Two years and three months. 20 Q. Okay. And do you know Kevin Waddell? 21 A. I do. 22 Q. And when did you first meet him? 23 A. When he was hired at the City of San Luis 24 Obispo. 25 Q. And, approximately, how long did you work with Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2142 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1046 1 him? 2 A. The entire time. So from -- I don't know what 3 his hire date was. I, honestly, have no clue. Eight 4 years ago, seven years ago, nine. I'm not sure. 5 Q. And what is your current assignment? 6 A. I'm a sergeant on the Special Enforcement Team. 7 Q. And what is that? 8 A. Narcotics and vice. 9 Q. And did you ever have the occasion to supervise 10 Kevin Waddell? 11 A. I did. 12 Q. And do you know when that period was? 13 A. That would have been from, I guess, 2012 to 14 '14, I think. 15 Q. Okay. And were you his direct supervisor or 16 his -- 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Okay. And in what capacity -- or I'm sorry. 19 What assignment was Officer Waddell working? 20 A. It was a metro assignment, downtown bicycle 21 officer. 22 Q. Okay. And did you used to be neighbors with 23 Officer Waddell? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Are you currently still neighbors? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2143 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1047 1 A. Well, I still live there and they still own the 2 house, but they don't currently live there. So I don't 3 know how to classify that. 4 Q. Friends with Officer Waddell? 5 A. Absolutely. 6 Q. When's the last time you two socialized? 7 A. Three days ago, four days ago. 8 Q. And what did you do? 9 A. He happened to come by my house when he was 10 doing some yard work of his and chatted in the driveway. 11 Q. And how long did he stay for? 12 A. Half-hour, 40 minutes, maybe. 13 Q. Did you talk about your testimony for this 14 hearing? 15 A. No. 16 Q. My name is Kasey Castillo. Have I ever spoken 17 to you on the phone? 18 A. I don't think so. Not that I'm aware of. 19 Q. Have you ever spoken to my associate, Nikki 20 Naleway? 21 A. I don't believe so, no. 22 Q. Okay. Have you been provided a copy of your 23 testimony -- or, I'm sorry -- your interview with 24 Lieutenant Proll that was taken in January of 2014 25 regarding the internal affairs investigation of Officer Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2144 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1048 1 Waddell? 2 A. I was. 3 Q. And was that a copy that was provided to you by 4 Captain Staley? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And when was that provided? 7 A. Maybe three weeks ago, four weeks ago. 8 Q. Okay. And did you have the opportunity to 9 review it? 10 A. I did. 11 Q. And when was the last time you reviewed it? 12 A. Ten minutes ago. 13 Q. Okay. Were you able to review the entirety? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Okay. What I'd like to do is play the 16 interview and then I'm going to stop and ask some 17 questions about the questions and your answers. 18 A. Okay. 19 Q. Same way that we did earlier. 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: Sure. So we're looking 21 at Appellant's W and counsel will identify the lines and 22 pages, as appropriate. 23 (Audio playing.) 24 BY MS. CASTILLO: 25 Q. So Appellant's W, we've just listened to Lines Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2145 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1049 1 1 through 12. Is that your voice on the audio? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. When you were noticed that you were a witness 4 in this internal affairs investigation, were you told 5 what you were, potentially, going to be interviewed 6 about by Lieutenant Proll? 7 A. I don't recall. 8 Q. Okay. Did you know it had something to do with 9 a Bentley, or the Bentley investigation? 10 A. When he -- 11 Q. Brought you in. 12 A. At that point, yes, but at the -- your first 13 question, when he officially noticed me, I don't 14 remember if he told me at the time or if he said I have 15 to talk to you regarding Kevin. 16 Q. You didn't receive an official piece of paper 17 that said you're a witness in an interview, can I come 18 in -- or meet me on this date and time? 19 A. I don't know. I don't recall -- 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. -- if I got a letter or not. 22 Q. Okay. We can start again on Line 13. 23 (Audio playing.) 24 BY MS. CASTILLO: 25 Q. I'm stopping at Line 22. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2146 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1050 1 Are you on the traffic -- were you on the 2 traffic team at that point? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Was that your regular assigned shift? 5 A. Yes. That particular night? 6 Q. Yes. 7 A. Without looking at the date, I don't remember 8 what day of the week it was, but I believe it was. 9 Q. Okay. You weren't called in for this 10 particular -- 11 A. No, no. We were already working at the tail 12 end of our shift. 13 Q. Okay. Thank you. Starting on Line 23. 14 (Audio playing.) 15 BY MS. CASTILLO: 16 Q. We're stopping at Line 15 on Page 3. 17 You indicate in your statement right there that 18 Sergeant Pfarr had, at least, recently, prior to this, 19 been promoted. Was that when he had been promoted to 20 sergeant? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. Did you -- okay. Go ahead, starting on 23 Line 16. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Hold on. I just want to 25 clear up something. The FST truck, what is that? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2147 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1051 1 THE WITNESS: It is a 2002 Chevy pickup truck 2 typically used by civilians, which are called FSTs, 3 field service technicians, and at the time, even though 4 I worked in that assignment, I would drive that from 5 time to time because it was an available car that most 6 people didn't use. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. And you testified 8 Officer Waddell drove out in a white Crown Vehicle. Is 9 that a squad car? 10 THE WITNESS: It would be a squad car, but I 11 believe, later in my testimony, I go back and say, 12 actually, I'm not sure if we drove separate or together 13 on the way there. 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. 15 MS. CASTILLO: So beginning at Line 16, please. 16 (Audio playing.) 17 BY MS. CASTILLO: 18 Q. Stopping at Line 8 on Page 4, the traffic 19 sergeant, would that have been Sergeant Goodwin at the 20 time? 21 A. I believe so, that she was traffic sergeant at 22 that time, yes. 23 Q. And you indicated that if Sergeant Pfarr hadn't 24 been so new, that you probably wouldn't have gone. 25 Was he a probationary sergeant, or how does Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2148 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1052 1 that work in San Luis Obispo Police Department? 2 A. Yes. He had just promoted. I think it was, 3 maybe, like a week or two prior to this incident. So 4 when we promote, I believe it's one year, is our 5 probationary period. I may be wrong. I need to look at 6 the manual. 7 MR. PALMER: We'd love to help you, but -- 8 THE WITNESS: There is a probationary period 9 every time you promote where you are on probation. So 10 it would have definitely fallen within that period 11 because he was so new. 12 MS. CASTILLO: Okay. Starting at Line 9, 13 please. 14 (Audio playing.) 15 BY MS. CASTILLO: 16 Q. We are stopping at Line 9 on Page 6. 17 At the time that you were interviewed in 18 January of 2014, do you know how much time, roughly, had 19 passed since the Bentley accident? 20 A. I thought I recall it being, maybe, six months 21 or, possibly, even longer, but I don't have the date of 22 the accident. So I'm not sure. 23 Q. And was this the first time you had been 24 interviewed about the Bentley incident or anything 25 having to do with Officer Waddell at the Bentley Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2149 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1053 1 incident? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Okay. Starting at Line 10 on Page 6. 4 (Audio playing.) 5 BY MS. CASTILLO: 6 Q. Stopping at Line 18 on Page 8. 7 As you've heard all these questions, up until 8 this point, had you heard anything about the allegation 9 of Officer Waddell having a collection of car parts 10 before you were asked about it in this interview? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Continuing -- 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Hold on one second. I 14 want to clarify a couple things. This might be obvious, 15 but I want the transcript to be clear. 16 Sergeant Amoroso, when you're talking about CAT 17 call-out team, that's not the same thing as the CAT 18 shift program, right? Those are two different CATs? 19 THE WITNESS: No. Two different things. This 20 CAT is Critical Accident Team and it's when it's a 21 potential fatality, not the Community Action Team, which 22 is the guys working transients. Big difference. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'm going to say this so 24 it can be recorded, that we are going to refrain, except 25 for what this witness might say, from using that term Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2150 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1054 1 because it's going to be extremely confusing. It's a 2 different CAT and a different feline altogether. 3 Second, you mentioned Officer Hyman. Could you 4 tell us Officer Hyman's first name? 5 THE WITNESS: Jennifer, and I believe her name 6 is spelled wrong in here. It's H-Y-M-A-N. There's no D 7 on the end of her name. 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 9 THE WITNESS: Sure. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Go ahead. 11 MS. CASTILLO: I believe we left off at -- we 12 can start again at wherever. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: 9? 14 MS. CASTILLO: We're on Page 8. Just start it 15 again. We'll figure it out. 16 (Audio playing.) 17 BY MS. CASTILLO: 18 Q. We are stopping at Line 5 on Page 9. 19 The military surplus stuff that Lieutenant 20 Proll is referring to, do you know what he was talking 21 about? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And what was he referring to? 24 A. It's the DRMO program where military surplus 25 equipment is available to local law enforcement agencies Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2151 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1055 1 through an online database and request system. 2 Q. And was that the program that Officer Waddell 3 was involved in? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Had you ever heard any allegations that Officer 6 Waddell had ever been involved in any kind of 7 misappropriation of that equipment or anything along 8 those lines prior to this question in this interview? 9 A. No. 10 Q. And a Bentley is not a part of the DRMO 11 program, right? 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. Okay. Continuing on Page 9 at Line 6. 14 (Audio playing.) 15 BY MS. CASTILLO: 16 Q. We are stopping at Page 9, Line 15. You give 17 an example regarding an e-mail that was sent out. 18 Was that an e-mail that was sent out by Officer 19 Waddell? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Do you remember when that e-mail was sent? 22 A. I don't, unfortunately. 23 Q. Okay. But it was, obviously, before January 24 7th of 2014, correct? 25 A. Yes. And if I would have guessed, it probably Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2152 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1056 1 would have been within, maybe, a month or two of this 2 interview because I don't think I would have remembered 3 such a random event if it hadn't been relatively 4 recently. 5 Q. Okay. And you said when all the shoes came 6 here. Were those shoes that were part of the DRMO 7 equipment? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. When you refer to he being pissed, was 10 that Officer Waddell? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And can you explain what he was upset about? 13 A. They obtained a large quantity of shoes in 14 various sizes. These are military combat boots that 15 were all brand new. When they got them, they were, sort 16 of, in a large box, for lack of a better term, just all 17 jumbled together. 18 So he and Officer Berrios were planning on 19 organizing and cataloging on how many pairs and what 20 size they have so they can, sort of, in an orderly 21 fashion, pass them out to people, but I believe when 22 they came back -- this equipment, you, generally, have 23 to go drive to go get it in order to save shipping 24 costs. So it might be in San Diego or somewhere halfway 25 up the state. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2153 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1057 1 And when they got back, they organized some of 2 it, but couldn't finish it before the end of their 3 shift. So figured they would just leave it and come 4 back the next day and finish it, and by the next day, 5 unknown officers had picked through the shoes and found 6 sizes that fit them. So they started taking pairs of 7 shoes, thinking, you know, that it was just a 8 free-for-all, here's a big pile of shoes. 9 And so he was upset because he was unable to 10 properly catalog what size shoes went to which person, 11 which tells me of his attentiveness and wanting to be 12 accurate with where the equipment is and who it went 13 to. 14 Q. Okay. And are you involved in the DRMO 15 program, yourself, or were you at that time? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Okay. When you say that he sent an e-mail, did 18 you see the e-mail? 19 A. I think the e-mail went to what we call PD-All, 20 which is an e-mail that goes to the whole department. 21 It might have just been to the officers. I don't 22 remember, but I did see the e-mail. 23 Q. Okay. And what was -- if you remember, what 24 did the e-mail, generally, speak to? 25 A. Something to the effect of if you took Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2154 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1058 1 something out there you shouldn't have, you need to put 2 it back so we can catalog what we have and then we'll 3 pass it out. 4 Q. Are you aware of any supervisors taking these 5 shoes, or whatever they were, shoes? 6 A. Yeah. They were boots. I think there were. I 7 don't recall which ones, but I do, specifically, 8 remember that everyone was grabbing, kind of -- whoever 9 was working that day was trying to get a pair that fit 10 them. 11 Q. And was it common knowledge in the police 12 department that Officer Waddell and Officer Berrios were 13 in charge of this program and the inventory? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And that permission needed to come from those 16 two people in order to obtain any of the equipment from 17 the DRMO program? 18 A. Generally, yes. 19 Q. Okay. Go ahead start on Line 16 on Page 9. 20 (Audio playing.) 21 BY MS. CASTILLO: 22 Q. Okay. So Sergeant Villanti promoted, and then, 23 at that point, you indicate that Sergeant Waddell was 24 also in the running for the sergeant position? 25 A. Correct. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2155 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1059 1 Q. And who were the other candidates? 2 A. It was Villanti, Waddell, and I believe 3 Cudworth or Shalhoob, but the top three are, generally, 4 available to be chosen, and I don't remember if the 5 third was Cudworth or Shalhoob at the time. 6 Q. Was there a list or an order? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And are you aware of what it was? 9 A. Officer Waddell was first on the list and then, 10 I believe -- when the list gets certified, it was before 11 even Sergeant Pfarr had promoted. So I believe Officer 12 Waddell was first. I think Pfarr was second, Villanti 13 was third and then, like I said, I don't know if 14 Cudworth or Shalhoob was fourth or fifth, however it 15 ranked out. 16 Q. Okay. So that time around Sergeant Villanti 17 was third on the list, got promoted, correct, or 18 somewhere around there? 19 A. Correct. But at that time, Sergeant Pfarr had 20 already been promoted. So then Sergeant Villanti, 21 effectively, was number two on the list. Everyone just 22 kind of bumps up when somebody promotes. 23 Q. Okay. And then there was another time when 24 there was a special assignment promotion, correct? 25 A. Correct. Which would have nothing to do with Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2156 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1060 1 this list. Two separate things. 2 Q. Okay. And do you know when, about, that was? 3 A. I think it would have -- it was coming into 4 January. So -- because I think all those specialties 5 that came up was a January time frame. So it would have 6 been a little bit -- month before that, December, 7 November, perhaps. 8 Q. Okay. December or November of 2013? 9 A. Yes. I would assume so. 10 Q. If you were interviewed in January -- 11 A. Okay. So yeah. 12 Q. Okay. And those kind of assignments would 13 include what? 14 A. There were some detective positions opening up. 15 I don't remember if it was persons or property. It 16 could include -- to be honest, I don't remember what was 17 open at the time, but daytime bicycle positions, DUI 18 officer, field training officer, CSI, and our specialty 19 positions come up all the time and, every now and then, 20 there happens to be a time when a bunch of them open up 21 at the same time, and that was one of those times. 22 Q. Okay. And when you were talking, originally, 23 with Sergeant Pfarr about who would be a good sergeant, 24 did you have an opinion as to whether or not Officer 25 Waddell would have been a good sergeant? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2157 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1061 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And what was your opinion? 3 A. I thought he would have. 4 Q. Okay. Do you know if Officer Waddell put in 5 for any of the special assignments during that next 6 promotional period that arose? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And do you know what he put in for? 9 A. Initially, he put in for one of the 10 investigator or detective positions and, also, the 11 daytime bicycle position. 12 Q. And if -- if he had received either of those 13 positions, can you tell me who his supervisors would 14 have been for the daytime bike position at that time? 15 A. It could be me. I could be wrong, but I have 16 to get my dates right. You know what? No. I take that 17 back. I came out of bicycles in January 2014. So it 18 would have been Sergeant Pfarr would have been his 19 daytime bicycle supervisor. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. And if he had gotten a spot in the Bureau, it 22 would have been Lieutenant Bledsoe, would be his direct 23 supervisor. 24 Q. Okay. Starting on Page 10, Line 17 -- 16 -- 25 14. Sorry. Page 10, Line 14 please. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2158 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1062 1 (Audio playing.) 2 BY MS. CASTILLO: 3 Q. We are ending at Page 12, Line 11. 4 At the time of the Bentley incident, were you 5 Officer Waddell's direct supervisor? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And at that time, you never heard anything 8 about Officer Waddell vandalizing the Bentley or 9 tampering with the vehicle or anything of that nature 10 that evening? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. Okay. Conversely, did you ever hear of any 13 joke that went over on Sergeant Pfarr that night? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Okay. Did you hear of any reaction from 16 Sergeant Pfarr -- or I'm sorry. 17 Did you hear of any -- in the evening following 18 the -- I guess it would be the 22nd of February 2013. 19 Did you hear from Sergeant Pfarr that he was 20 upset with Officer Waddell? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Okay. Start at Page 12, Line 12, please. 23 (Audio playing.) 24 BY MS. CASTILLO: 25 Q. As his direct supervisor, are you the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2159 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1063 1 individual who would be responsible for Officer 2 Waddell's evaluations? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. If another supervisor, who is his functional 5 supervisor, has an issue with Officer Waddell, is it 6 their obligation to also document their issues in that 7 individual's personnel evaluation or do they give that 8 information to you to put in that officer's personnel 9 evaluation? 10 A. I've seen it done both ways. 11 Q. Okay. 12 A. It's such a small department. We all know each 13 other. So I have seen sergeants that are not -- and 14 I've done it myself where you're not directly with 15 someone, but you might have been working a shift or seen 16 something happen and it's easier for you to submit a 17 supervisor's note instead of having a sergeant, who 18 wasn't even there, submit it on your behalf, but there's 19 also other times where we've passed stuff off to their 20 immediate supervisor just so that, hey, this is better 21 if it comes from you because you were there. So I've 22 seen it done both ways. 23 Q. What's a supervisor's note? 24 A. It's just a supervisor's observation note. 25 Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's discipline or -- not Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2160 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1064 1 discipline. I don't want to use the word negative, but 2 areas for improvement, and it's just an observation just 3 like it sounds, something you see that you want to 4 document. 5 Generally, we'll do those because, number one, 6 either we want to praise someone and make sure that it's 7 documented, the good job that they're doing, or 8 sometimes we write them so that people realize, hey, 9 what you did was, maybe, a violation of policy or 10 something that was showing neglect or something like 11 that and we want them to realize you need to correct 12 this behavior and this isn't just a brief conversation, 13 hey, get better, it's let's put pen to paper and, 14 hopefully, this doesn't happen again, and it also gives 15 us a paper trail so, in their working file going up to 16 their annual evaluation, it helps you, when you write 17 the annual evaluation, remember what they did over the 18 year, whether it's good or bad, and it gives you 19 something to put in there. 20 Q. Okay. Did the supervisors at your police 21 department ever meet and share information about the 22 subordinates that they supervised? 23 A. Sure. 24 Q. Okay. And if you were supervising someone 25 else's team, would you give the information to the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2161 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1065 1 supervisor, who would write their evaluations, if you 2 noticed something that caused you concern -- 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. -- so that they could be aware? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Okay. Starting at Line 16 on Page 12. 7 (Audio playing.) 8 BY MS. CASTILLO: 9 Q. When you obtained the information from Sergeant 10 Pfarr that he had confronted Officer Waddell about it, 11 did he give you any other information about that? 12 A. I don't remember. I mean, are you talking 13 about at the scene right then? 14 Q. Well, was it at the scene that he said that he 15 talked to Officer Waddell? 16 A. He told me two things. I think it's covered 17 just a little further down here, but he said he, sort 18 of, verbally admonished him in the field, and then, 19 later, back at the station, he thought about it more and 20 it bothered him more that he felt like, maybe, he should 21 talk to him again, and so he called him into the office 22 and verbally admonished him a second time. 23 Q. Okay. Now, at this point when you were having 24 this conversation with Sergeant Pfarr, were you writing 25 Officer Waddell's evaluation? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2162 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1066 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And what were you writing his evaluation for? 3 A. Well, I would have been his direct -- do you 4 mean was I actively writing it at that moment? 5 Q. Right. 6 A. Oh, I don't recall. I have no idea when his 7 annual was due. I would have to see the date on it. 8 Q. Was it due at the same time that he was putting 9 in for the sergeant position when you first found out 10 about the Bentley incident? 11 A. Well, there might be two different things 12 you're talking about. The annual evaluations are due on 13 your annual birthday with the department, for lack of a 14 better term, but when we have a sergeant test, as part 15 of the sergeant promotional process, active sergeants 16 will write -- they fill out, like, a questionnaire, 17 basically, on each candidate that has a numerical score 18 with a couple of sentences on each category, but if the 19 list was already certified, that would have been done 20 prior to because it happens as part of that list being 21 certified and calculating a final score. 22 So I don't think I was working on anything 23 actively, but, again, if you tell me -- if we knew when 24 his hire date was, I would be able to suggest whether I 25 was actively working on it or not, but I don't know that Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2163 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1067 1 information. 2 Q. Okay. Did you document what he told you at the 3 time around when the sergeant promotions were happening 4 in an eval, if you can recall? 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'm sorry. To clarify, a 6 document as to what who told him? 7 BY MS. CASTILLO: 8 Q. When Sergeant Pfarr brought the Bentley 9 incident to your attention the first time around when 10 the sergeant promotions were happening, do you recall 11 documenting it in an evaluation? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Okay. Did you fill out one of these 14 questionnaires that you referred to about the 15 information that you received from Sergeant Pfarr? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Okay. And is that because you believe the list 18 had already been certified? 19 A. Well, yeah. I mean, that questionnaire that 20 you're referring to has nothing to do with any specific 21 incident. It has to do with the promotional process. 22 So we get those questionnaires in a binder and 23 then it just goes back into certifying the list. So it, 24 sort of, has nothing to do with an annual evaluation 25 type piece, I guess. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2164 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1068 1 Q. Okay. And then if someone fills out a 2 questionnaire on a candidate, where do those 3 questionnaires go? 4 A. I believe they go to HR and tallies them and 5 inputs into the final score you get to place you on the 6 list. 7 Q. Oh, okay. 8 A. I think those are held within HR. I don't know 9 how long they hold them, but they go over there. 10 Q. So do you know what the reason that Sergeant 11 Pfarr brought this information to your attention was the 12 first time you heard it? 13 A. We were discussing, again, who we thought would 14 be the best sergeant on the list, and when Kevin's name 15 came up, again, Sergeant Pfarr did not think that he 16 would be a good sergeant, was uneasy, and he brought up 17 this issue with this hubcap, and, again, it was the 18 first thing I'd ever heard of it. 19 Q. Do the current sergeants have input into who 20 gets promoted? 21 A. Not really. I mean, other than what we fill 22 out in that questionnaire. Really, that decision is 23 made above our heads. 24 Q. And that questionnaire is for a list that's not 25 already certified? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2165 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1069 1 A. Correct. That questionnaire -- I mean, there 2 is sentences that you can write in there for data, but 3 that questionnaire really results in a numerical score 4 and that numerical score helps roll up towards their 5 final tally, is all it is. 6 So it's really not -- I don't know what the 7 higher levels -- whether they really look at what people 8 wrote about the candidates. I suspect, at that point, 9 it's already said and done, it's built into their final 10 tally and they're looking at other aspects of who they 11 want to promote and why. 12 Q. So being that there was already a list at this 13 time, do you know if new questionnaires were filled out? 14 A. No. There would be no reason to. Those 15 questionnaires only go out when the sergeant promotional 16 test is going. It was already done. So the list was 17 certified. So there would be no new questionnaires 18 until a new list was announced. 19 Q. So this was just talk amongst sergeants then? 20 A. Yes. This is just sitting in our office, 21 chatting, hey, who do you think he should promote? Oh, 22 I think he should promote this guy and not this guy and 23 this is why. We were just having an informal 24 discussion. 25 Q. Once you heard this information, did you do Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2166 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1070 1 anything with it? 2 A. No. Because he told me he already notified the 3 lieutenant, which my role in this position would have 4 been, simply, to notify a lieutenant about the 5 allegation because I don't determine I'm going to start 6 an internal investigation on someone. It's my role to, 7 simply, pass along the information and, potentially, 8 maybe, write a memorandum if it was me involved in it, 9 saying, hey, this is what happened, and then the 10 lieutenant would have a discussion with the captains and 11 decide whether or not to initiate an investigation into 12 something. 13 Q. Okay. If you had not been told that 14 Lieutenant -- or which lieutenant did Pfarr tell you -- 15 A. You know, in my paperwork, it says Bledsoe or 16 Smith. I don't recall at the time and I, certainly, 17 don't recall now. So it was one of the two. 18 Q. Had you not been notified that a supervisor of 19 higher rank than yourself had been notified, what would 20 you have done, if anything, with the information? 21 A. I would have gone with Chad to the lieutenant 22 and sat down and said this information -- you need to 23 hear this and decide what you want to do with it. 24 Q. But, at that point, you believe that had 25 already been accomplished? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2167 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1071 1 A. Right. And that's what he told me had been 2 accomplished. So I believed him. 3 Q. Okay. Did he give you any information about 4 the content of the verbal reprimand in the field? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Okay. 7 A. Well, I take that back. I think he was generic 8 and said, you know, I told him you can't be doing that 9 kind of stuff and he definitely said he was angry. He, 10 being Chad, not Kevin, that he was trying to portray you 11 can't be doing this stuff, but other than that, nothing 12 specific. 13 Q. Okay. At that point, did you believe that the 14 matter had been handled, at least, according to what had 15 been described to you, by the other sergeant? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Okay. So we'll start at Line 25 on Page 12. 18 (Audio playing.) 19 BY MS. CASTILLO: 20 Q. We're stopping at Line 16 on Page 13. 21 At the time that he was conveying this to you, 22 did he seem like he was frustrated that nothing had ever 23 happened with it after he had expressed that to the 24 lieutenant? 25 A. I don't remember frustration on his part, no. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2168 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1072 1 Q. And this, again, was just part of the casual 2 conversation about who would be a good sergeant? 3 A. Right. 4 Q. Okay. Can you start at Line 17 on Page 13? 5 (Audio playing.) 6 BY MS. CASTILLO: 7 Q. Okay. We're stopping at Line 1, Page 16. 8 Are there jokes that get played at your police 9 department? 10 A. Probably every police department. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. Have jokes been played on you, as a 12 sergeant? 13 A. Yep. 14 Q. Have you played jokes on other people? 15 A. Yes, I have. 16 Q. Did you play a joke on Officer Waddell before? 17 A. Probably. I'm trying to draw one up off the 18 top of my head, I can't think, but he's, certainly, 19 played a few on me. 20 Q. Did you ever send him to ride a bike up a hill? 21 A. Oh, yeah. Yes. 22 Q. What did you do in that instance? 23 A. Uh, I was on patrol, and when I was a 24 relatively newer bicycle officer, we had a report of a 25 fight with somebody with a gun at the doorstep of a Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2169 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1073 1 party. It was a gun or knife, something very dangerous, 2 and it was comical because we got sent to ride up this 3 hill and it's, like, the steepest hill in town and so we 4 were riding as quick as we could and, basically, not 5 going anywhere and sort of joking along the way that 6 people were passing us with walkers. So by the time we 7 got to the top of the hill, we were exhausted. 8 So as -- sort of, as a hazing deal, when 9 Officer Waddell and -- I think it was -- it might have 10 been Officer Anglehart, too. I had dispatched -- put in 11 a call at, roughly, the same location when they were, 12 roughly, at the same location we were and had them 13 respond on their bikes up the hill, as we did. 14 Q. Okay. Did Sergeant Goodwin ever play a joke on 15 you in briefing with a bug? 16 A. Yup. 17 Q. What happened there? 18 A. I don't care for insects and she, apparently, 19 has a large insect collection. So she brought in a 20 large dead beetle of some kind and put it in a report 21 sleeve. We have these plastic sleeves when you get 22 reports back that we would pass around the room. So she 23 slipped in this clear plastic report sleeve with this 24 three-inch beetle in it and stuck it in front of my face 25 and, of course, I jumped when I saw it because I wasn't Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2170 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1074 1 expecting that. 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'm sorry. Who brought 3 that in? 4 THE WITNESS: Sergeant Goodwin. Janice. 5 BY MS. CASTILLO: 6 Q. So it's the normal culture of joking around 7 between officers and supervisors and subordinates in 8 good nature? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And when you were joking with Officer Waddell, 11 that you recall, at the traffic accident scene, this was 12 right when Sergeant Pfarr had been promoted? 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. Okay. And he had been promoted, you said, 15 within the week, or so, or two weeks? 16 A. I think the accident was in February and, my 17 recollection, he was promoted in January. So within a 18 month, give or take. 19 Q. Okay. And do -- when you -- when you were 20 discussing pulling a prank on Sergeant Pfarr, did you 21 and Officer Waddell actually discuss what kind of prank 22 you could pull? 23 A. No. 24 Q. And, at that time, were you aware of any 25 animosity on the part of Sergeant Pfarr towards Officer Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2171 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1075 1 Waddell? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Okay. Were you aware of any animosity on the 4 part of Officer Waddell towards Sergeant Pfarr? 5 A. No. 6 Q. So you have this discussion and then Officer 7 Waddell gets to work on the Bentley scene? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. And then you leave and go home? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. Let's start again. I believe we're on 12 Line 9 on Page 16 -- Line 2 on Page 16. Thanks. 13 (Audio playing.) 14 BY MS. CASTILLO: 15 Q. So Lieutenant Proll asks you, now knowing that 16 Kevin took items off of the Bentley, if you thought it 17 would be a result of him playing a practical joke, and 18 your response is, "That type of activity would be 19 exactly what we would have been referring to as a funny 20 joke, you know, basically, flip out a new sergeant." 21 Why was that your opinion? 22 A. Well, because, you know, when you make 23 sergeant, you're responsible for everyone else and 24 everything that occurs on your scene. 25 So, you know, sort of, as a joke, you know, the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2172 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1076 1 best way that you would get to a new sergeant would be 2 to do something that would cause him to have heartache 3 because it would be the actions of another person that 4 he has no control over. 5 Q. Okay. And when you had been talking to Officer 6 Waddell prior to you leaving the scene, the two of you 7 had been discussing about something so ridiculous and 8 over the top in terms of the practical joke that would 9 be played? 10 A. Yeah. I mean, we just discussed it would be 11 funny to play some kind of joke on him. I don't 12 remember using the term, over the top, but definitely 13 something that would make him shake his head and think, 14 what are you doing. 15 Q. Okay. Do something that would be so ridiculous 16 that he would, as a supervisor, sort of, be like, oh, my 17 God, what are you doing, right? Like that? 18 A. Yeah. 19 Q. Okay. And then your statement to Lieutenant 20 Proll was, "But if you then factor in the questions 21 about having collections of parts from other traffic 22 accidents, if that part is true, then I would now doubt 23 that it would have anything to do with a practical 24 joke." That was your statement? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2173 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1077 1 Q. And why would having the collection of parts 2 from other traffic accidents change your mind from this 3 was a joke if he took something to mess with Pfarr to 4 maybe now it's not a joke? 5 A. Because I would assume someone that just -- 6 sort of, an MO, modus of operating. If they typically 7 take car parts and then this, although you might think 8 of it as a joke, but it turns out as another car part, 9 it's a habit, it's a pattern of behavior that makes you 10 realize that's not a joke, that's something that this 11 person does. 12 Q. Okay. But is your opinion that if there were 13 no collection of car parts, then knowing what you know 14 about Officer Waddell and having the conversation you 15 had, that the fact pattern that Lieutenant Proll gave 16 you was something that would lead you to believe that it 17 was a joke? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Can you start at Line 5, Page 17, please. 20 (Audio playing.) 21 BY MS. CASTILLO: 22 Q. Okay. Stopping at Line 17 on Page 17. 23 Lieutenant Proll asks you about it was a 24 practical joke that never came to fruition because you 25 hadn't heard about it, and it indicates that everyone in Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2174 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1078 1 the department would know about it. 2 Do you believe that had it been a practical 3 joke that had been well-received, that everyone in the 4 department would know about it? 5 A. That's, typically, the way they work, yes. 6 Q. Okay. What about if it had been a practical 7 joke that had not been well-received? 8 A. I don't know. 9 Q. Sergeant Pfarr told you that he verbally 10 reprimanded Officer Waddell in the field? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And that he pulled him into his office later 13 that night? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. And that he verbally reprimanded him in the 16 office? 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. Did he tell you that there were any witnesses 19 to these verbal reprimands? 20 A. Not that I recall, no. 21 Q. When he indicated to you that he was verbally 22 reprimanding Officer Waddell, did he indicate that he 23 was doing it because he was not happy? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Okay. So is it the practice of the department, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2175 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1079 1 as you know it, to verbally counsel officers in the 2 presence of other officers? 3 A. No. I mean, if you're verbally counseling and 4 it's negative, you should have that person by the 5 themselves. 6 Q. Is that, typically, what occurs in your 7 department? 8 A. Typically. Well, back up. There could be 9 another person, depending on -- but it would be another 10 supervisor, maybe a lieutenant or another sergeant, if 11 it was starting to rise in severity, but if it was a 12 minor thing, you would do it one on one. 13 Q. Okay. Did Sergeant Pfarr ever indicate to you 14 that there was another supervisor present when he 15 verbally reprimanded Officer Waddell either in the field 16 or in the office? 17 A. Not that I recall, no. 18 Q. Okay. And then, again, you didn't hear about 19 this successful practical joke throughout the 20 department, correct? 21 A. No, I did not. 22 Q. Okay. Continuing on Page 17, Line 18. 23 (Audio playing.) 24 BY MS. CASTILLO: 25 Q. So we are stopping at Page 17, Line 25. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2176 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1080 1 When you say, "no other explanation in my mind 2 as to why Kevin would do this," what are you referring 3 to? 4 A. Other than the practical joke. 5 Q. Okay. Continuing on Page 18, Line 1. 6 (Audio playing.) 7 BY MS. CASTILLO: 8 Q. So at the point -- and we're stopping at Line 9 22 on Page 19. 10 You found it odd that Officer Waddell hadn't 11 told Sergeant Pfarr that you and he had talked about 12 playing a joke on him prior to the incident at the 13 Bentley? 14 A. Right. 15 Q. Okay. But you and Officer Waddell never had a 16 conversation about what the joke, actually, would be? 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. Okay. You didn't know -- well, nevermind. You 19 were not -- strike that, too. 20 Did -- did you ever ask Officer Waddell about 21 the Bentley incident or have you ever had a conversation 22 about why this would have occurred? 23 A. No. Not specifics, no. 24 Q. So as you sit here today, you have not read 25 Officer Waddell's statement about this case, have you? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2177 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1081 1 A. I haven't read his statement, no. I mean, 2 we've had general conversations about it and that -- I 3 mean, we've had the conversation that we've talked about 4 the joke, you know, but I've never said, hey, why did 5 you take them, did you take them because you wanted to 6 steal them or not, no. 7 Q. Okay. Did he ever, in his time that you two 8 have talked, ever say I wanted to take those emblems or 9 those hubcaps or take that for myself? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Okay. Line 22, Page 19, please. 12 (Audio playing.) 13 BY MS. CASTILLO: 14 Q. So when you were talking to Sergeant Pfarr the 15 first time around the sergeant promotion time, Sergeant 16 Pfarr never told you that Officer Waddell told him it 17 was a joke? 18 A. I want to make sure I follow your question. 19 Can you rephrase that one more time? 20 Q. The question on Line 23 posed to you by 21 Lieutenant Proll was, "So Kevin never mentioned to Chad 22 about it being a possible practical joke," and Chad's 23 response is, "That's what Chad told me." 24 A. Right. Chad never mentioned -- Chad said Kevin 25 never told him that it was a practical joke. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2178 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1082 1 Q. Ever? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Okay. The second time when you talked to him 4 around the time of special assignments and this came up 5 again, did he ever say at that point that Officer 6 Waddell had said it was a joke? 7 A. I don't think so. I don't recall there being a 8 different statement from Chad. 9 Q. Okay. Page 20, Line 1. 10 (Audio playing.) 11 BY MS. CASTILLO: 12 Q. We're stopping at Line 14 on Page 21. 13 At the point that you had the conversation with 14 Officer Waddell where he came over to borrow the blue 15 thread, was he on administrative leave for the other 16 internal affairs investigation? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And you're not part of that investigation, 19 correct? 20 A. Not at all. 21 Q. Okay. At the point that you had this 22 conversation with Officer Waddell, I think you testified 23 that you did not receive any written notice. 24 Did you know that you were going to be 25 interviewed for this investigation by Lieutenant Proll? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2179 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1083 1 A. I mean, I think I assumed at some point when he 2 interviewed. Number one, I certainly would want to be a 3 part of it because I was on scene, but I don't think I 4 had been noticed that you're going to have an interview 5 on this day or anything like that. 6 Q. Okay. And did Sergeant Pfarr ever tell you 7 that he was -- that he had indicated to you that you 8 were going to be a potential witness in the Bentley 9 case, as well? 10 A. I don't recall Sergeant Pfarr saying that. 11 Maybe he did, but it would have been an insignificant 12 point. As soon as I learned that the IA on the Bentley 13 was going on, I just, sort of, inferred -- I mean, he 14 did his job long enough, you realize when an incident 15 goes, if you have anything to do with it, you're going 16 to get called in to testify. I don't recall Chad 17 telling me that, but he very well could have. 18 Q. Do you know whether or not Sergeant Pfarr wrote 19 a memo about the Bentley incident? 20 A. Yes, he did. I do remember him telling me he 21 wrote a memo. 22 Q. Did you know when that memo, or thereabouts, 23 when it was written? 24 A. Prior to the IA. 25 Q. Right. Do you know whether or not he -- did he Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2180 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1084 1 tell you, at any point, whether or not he was ordered to 2 do that or he did it of his own volition? 3 A. He did tell me that he was told to write the 4 memo. 5 Q. Okay. Did he tell you, at the point where he 6 wrote -- where he was ordered -- or was he ordered to or 7 just asked to write a memo? 8 A. You know, I don't know the word that he used, 9 but I would take all those words to mean the same thing. 10 Q. Okay. Did he tell you, at the time he wrote 11 the memo, if he qualified the Bentley incident as a joke 12 or as a, you know, vandalism, theft, tampering of the 13 vehicle, or anything? 14 A. You know, I never saw the memo that he wrote. 15 My understanding is he was just writing what he saw and 16 observed and passing it up. I don't know how he 17 characterized it. 18 Q. So in your conversations with Sergeant Pfarr 19 leading up to the writing of the memo, he never 20 indicated to you, one way or another, if he took the 21 actions of Officer Waddell at the Bentley scene that 22 night as a joke or not? 23 A. No. I mean, I had told him about the 24 conversation, certainly, that we had, but, yeah, he 25 never indicated to me, one way or the other, that I can Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2181 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1085 1 remember, that, hey, I think it's a joke and this is how 2 I'm writing it, or I think it's a vandalism and this is 3 how I'm writing it. I just remember him telling me that 4 he had to write a memorandum on it and pass it up. 5 Q. Okay. And so you had told him about the 6 conversation you had with Officer Waddell about playing 7 a joke on him prior to his writing of the memo? 8 A. Right. Because it occurred at the time that he 9 first told me about it, which was prior to him writing 10 the memo. 11 Q. Do you know if that information ever got put 12 into his memo? Did he tell you whether or not? 13 A. Again, I have not seen the memo. I have no 14 idea. 15 Q. Okay. Continue audio. Line 15, Page 21. 16 (Audio playing.) 17 BY MS. CASTILLO: 18 Q. And we're stopping at Line 9, Page 22. 19 It was your understanding at that point that 20 the IA had something to do with the tow truck driver? 21 A. Something to do with the tow truck and the 22 Bentley. 23 Q. Okay. And that was the extent of what you knew 24 at that point? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2182 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1086 1 Q. Did you tell him that it was as a result of a 2 complaint brought by Sergeant Pfarr? 3 A. I don't recall. I don't think so. 4 Q. Okay. Starting at Line 10, please, Page 15. 5 (Audio playing.) 6 BY MS. CASTILLO: 7 Q. On Page 22, Line 11 through 13, Lieutenant 8 Proll asks you a question where he said, "We shouldn't 9 have decided to screw with Chad at that scene." 10 Did you two actually decide, collectively, to 11 screw with Chad at that particular scene? 12 A. No. We didn't decide anything. We just -- I 13 talked about it and we laughed about it and that was it. 14 Q. Okay. Going forward. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Hold on one second. This 16 might be a silly point, and I'm not sure this is the 17 right witness for it, but right when I convinced myself 18 I should be abbreviating administrative investigation as 19 AI, I see IAs all over the place. Is there a difference 20 between those two, or are those one and the same? 21 THE WITNESS: One and the same. To my 22 knowledge, I think my prior department called them IAs 23 and we call them AIs here. So potato potato. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Is that something we can 25 stipulate to? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2183 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1087 1 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 2 MR. PALMER: Yes. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Thank you. Good. 4 Another problem solved. Go ahead. 5 THE COURT REPORTER: Can we take a short break? 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: We're going to need a 7 break. 8 MS. CASTILLO: We can take one now. 9 (Recess.) 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: So we'll resume. Go 11 ahead, Ms. Castillo. 12 MS. CASTILLO: Thank you. We are resuming at 13 Page 23, Line 1, please. 14 (Audio playing.) 15 BY MS. CASTILLO: 16 Q. We're stopping at Page 24, Line 13. 17 This was where you earlier had discussed the 18 special assignments that we were talking about? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And you had said put in for the detective 21 assignment. Is that where you're saying the 22 Investigations Bureau? 23 A. Yes. Same thing. 24 Q. Okay. Going forward, Line 14, Page 24. 25 (Audio playing.) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2184 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1088 1 BY MS. CASTILLO: 2 Q. Okay. We're stopping at Line 23, Page 24. 3 Do you know whereabouts -- what month this was 4 in 2013? 5 A. I don't, but, again, those specialties, if I 6 remember correctly, all were supposed to start in 7 January. So this, probably, would have been December or 8 maybe even November. 9 Q. Okay. 10 A. I don't recall. Actually, it could have even 11 been a little bit before that because some of those 12 specialties, I think we chose them a little bit early 13 because there's so much impact on people shifting around 14 and putting people into new shifts. We try to do that 15 ahead of time. 16 So now that I think about it, it could have 17 easily been several months prior to the end of the year. 18 Could have been September, even. I don't know. 19 Q. Okay. And so Lieutenant Bledsoe came to you. 20 And when he came to you, he was, obviously, already 21 aware of this Bentley issue? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. Did he talk to you kind of like it was 24 common knowledge that you knew, as well? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2185 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1089 1 Q. Were you present when Sergeant Pfarr told 2 Lieutenant Bledsoe about the Bentley tow truck vehicle 3 wheel thing? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Okay. And he described it to you as a 6 potential theft issue? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Okay. Did he say at that point that there was 9 an internal affairs investigation going on? 10 A. Uh, no. 11 Q. Okay. And he described it then as an integrity 12 issue? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. And he said to you something to the 15 effect of it gave him a negative overall feel of Kevin? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Is this the first time you had heard this from 18 Lieutenant Bledsoe? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Did he elaborate, at all, or did you ask him 21 any questions about that? 22 A. About his negative overall feel? 23 Q. Right. 24 A. I don't think so. I don't remember. I don't 25 recall. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2186 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1090 1 Q. Okay. But, at this point, you already knew 2 what he was talking about when he mentioned the tow 3 truck vehicle wheel thing? 4 A. Yes. This conversation came after the 5 conversation I had with Sergeant Pfarr. 6 Q. Okay. And so was this common knowledge from -- 7 well, other than yourself, Sergeant Pfarr, and now 8 Lieutenant Bledsoe, are you aware of any other 9 supervisors who knew about the whole tow truck vehicle 10 Bentley thing? 11 A. No. Other than we have Lieutenant Smith in 12 here, and I'm not sure what his involvement was at the 13 time, but, no, I'm not aware of anyone else knowing. 14 Q. So Lieutenant Smith also knew? 15 A. Again, I don't know. I had in my report 16 earlier that Chad said he wasn't sure who he told. It 17 was either Smith or Bledsoe. So I can't rule out that 18 Smith may have had knowledge. I don't know. 19 Q. Okay. Did Lieutenant Bledsoe, at that point, 20 indicate to you that he was doing anything about this 21 potential theft or integrity issue? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Can we start at Line 24, Page 24, please? 24 (Audio playing.) 25 /// Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2187 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1091 1 BY MS. CASTILLO: 2 Q. We're at Page 26, Line 2. 3 Was this conversation about Officer Waddell 4 initiated by Sergeant Pfarr, to the best of your 5 recollection? 6 A. Uh, I thought we were still talking about 7 Bledsoe. 8 Q. You were talking about how -- 9 A. Oh, the discussion about future sergeant 10 candidates -- 11 Q. Correct. 12 A. -- with Pfarr? Was it initiated by Sergeant 13 Pfarr? 14 Q. Well, the conversation about Officer Waddell, 15 since he wasn't actually one of the potentials since he 16 had pulled his name. 17 A. You know, I don't know whether he initiated it 18 or I did, but it's frequent conversation when we hear of 19 potential sergeant tests coming up, is we literally look 20 down our list and try to decide who would make good 21 candidates for sergeants and sometimes some of those 22 people need a little nudge to put in for it. 23 So it's not uncommon to have those 24 conversations among sergeants to decide, hey, who should 25 we say, hey, you would be a really good candidate and Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2188 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1092 1 try to pump them up to help give them some confidence to 2 put in because it's such a laborious process. A lot of 3 people who would make good sergeants just, for whatever 4 reason, don't want to go through the headache of doing 5 it. So they don't. So sometimes a little helpful 6 encouragement, you know, helps. 7 Q. So if you pull your name off the list and then 8 you put back in for it, you have to go through the 9 testing process all over again? 10 A. Correct. And after hearing that last sentence 11 there, I think my testimony, and I think it's kind of 12 clear because it's easy to go back and look, it was a 13 little bit of a mistake. 14 The list that Kevin was on that finished first 15 had Sergeant Michael and Sergeant Pfarr on it. The list 16 where Sergeant Villanti promoted was, totally, a 17 separate list, two completely different things, and 18 Officer Waddell did not put in -- this refreshes my 19 recollection. He did not put in for sergeant that 20 go-around. There was two promotions that were made when 21 he was number one on the list, but that was Michael and 22 Pfarr, not Villanti, and I think, maybe, that was my 23 testimony earlier and it's just an error. 24 Q. Okay. So earlier when you talked about the 25 timing, was the timing still correct? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2189 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1093 1 A. Yeah. I don't think the timing is any 2 different. Just to clarify the sergeant list and what 3 was what, it's clear here in the statement, and I do 4 remember that, that he was not on the list when Villanti 5 promoted. 6 Q. Okay. And then he was on the list and got -- 7 A. For Michael and Pfarr, but then that list 8 expired. The lists are, generally, good for a year. 9 Once the year is up, if there's no more promotions and 10 the chief doesn't make a decision to extend the list, it 11 expires, and then if there's a new promotional process, 12 everybody has to start fresh, regardless of where you 13 were on the last list. 14 Q. Okay. And it's ranked one through how many? 15 A. However many put in. 16 Q. Okay. Starting again on Line 2, Page 26. 17 (Audio playing.) 18 BY MS. CASTILLO: 19 Q. Do you know anything about the investigation 20 that was the reason that Officer Waddell was placed on 21 administrative leave? 22 A. No. I was not involved in that investigation. 23 Q. Okay. Do you know what month the event took 24 place in about the time when Officer Waddell was 25 ultimately placed on administrative leave, if that Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2190 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1094 1 question makes sense? 2 A. So what month that he was placed on leave or 3 what month the event took place that placed him on 4 leave? 5 Q. Correct. 6 A. I don't know. I remember when he was placed on 7 leave very specifically because I was on a vacation when 8 I got the call, but I don't remember when that was, when 9 the incident occurred. 10 Q. Okay. Going forward. Line 13. 11 (Audio playing.) 12 BY MS. CASTILLO: 13 Q. We're stopping at Line 20 on Page 27. 14 Did -- at the point, on Line 15, where 15 Lieutenant Proll asked you a question, "Which would have 16 made everyone to believe Kevin told Chad that Brian and 17 I were playing a joke on him," when Lieutenant Proll 18 asked you that question, did you -- let me strike that. 19 Had Lieutenant Proll come to you and asked if 20 this was -- I'm sorry. Sergeant Pfarr. I'm getting 21 confused. Long day. 22 Had Sergeant Pfarr come to you at that point 23 and said Officer Waddell told me that you two had a 24 conversation about the two of you playing a joke on me, 25 you've testified now that you would have said, yes, we Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2191 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1095 1 had that conversation, correct? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And you've also testified that you've never had 4 the conversation about what that joke would be, correct? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. Have you ever played a joke similar to the 7 events that have been discussed in your interview with 8 Sergeant -- I'm sorry -- Lieutenant Proll? 9 A. Sure. I mean, I've played jokes -- I mean, 10 I've never played a joke where we removed anything off a 11 car or anything like that, but I was talking about 12 riding up the hill and that kind of stuff. There's been 13 pranks played, yes. 14 Q. Okay. And when I asked you about, like, the 15 specifics of this case, taking something off a car, did 16 you know other than what was told to you by Sergeant 17 Pfarr and Lieutenant Proll and Lieutenant Bledsoe, 18 anything about how that -- or what -- what, 19 specifically, was removed? 20 A. No. They were the only ones I got information 21 from. 22 Q. Okay. And did they tell you how it was 23 removed? 24 A. Um, I mean, I know about a screwdriver, but I 25 don't know if that's just because of Lieutenant Proll's Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2192 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1096 1 line of questioning or if that was told to me from one 2 of them. I don't know. 3 Q. Okay. And did they -- did anyone ever indicate 4 to you that any part of the vehicle was damaged in any 5 way? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Okay. And did any of them ever indicate to you 8 whether or not any of the property was ever removed from 9 the scene in any way? 10 A. No. As a matter of fact, I believe Sergeant 11 Pfarr said that, at some point, Kevin had placed the 12 hubcap back into the car. The car was on its roof. It 13 was upside down. So he had put it back into the roof, I 14 guess, of the car. 15 Q. Okay. And in terms of the -- so when 16 Lieutenant Proll asked you if anyone had come to you or 17 if anyone had been led to believe that Brian, you, and 18 Officer Waddell were playing a joke on him, would you 19 have -- as you sit here today, I guess, since this 20 question was never asked of you then, would you have 21 taken credit for this joke if it was, in fact, a joke on 22 that night? 23 A. I would have taken credit for having an idea of 24 a joke, but not for that particular one because, like I 25 said, we didn't discuss any particulars, just that, hey, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2193 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1097 1 it would be funny to play a joke on him. 2 Q. Okay. Continuing on, Line 22, Page 27. 3 (Audio playing.) 4 MS. CASTILLO: I'd like to move Appellant's W 5 in, please. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: Any objection to W? 7 MR. PALMER: No. 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: Without objection, W is 9 admitted. 10 MS. CASTILLO: Thank you. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Off the record for just a 12 second. 13 (Discussion off the record.) 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. We've had a 15 discussion about the agenda for today. We've reached a 16 good stopping point. We need to finish early today, 17 anyway. So when we get together next on August -- 18 anybody fill me in on the date. 19 MS. CASTILLO: 20th. 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: -- 20th, we'll resume 21 with the direct examination of Sergeant Amoroso and, 22 hopefully, we'll get that done in due course and move on 23 to the cross-examination, et cetera. 24 THE WITNESS: What time do we start? 25 MR. PALMER: 9:00 a.m., 8:30-ish. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2194 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1098 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: Let's decide right now. 2 What time? Do you want 8:30? Do you want 9:00? 3 THE WITNESS: Doesn't matter to me. I'm here 4 at 6:45. That's my normal workday. So I'm fine. 5 MS. CASTILLO: 9:00. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: Stick with 9:00? Okay. 7 So see everybody August 20 at 9:00 a.m. 8 MS. CASTILLO: Thank you. Do you want to 9 admonish him? 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Oh, I'm sorry. 11 One last item of business, Sergeant. I want to 12 direct you that, while the matter is pending, you're not 13 to discuss your testimony with anybody. Thanks very 14 much. 15 (The proceedings adjourned at 4:08 p.m.) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2195 ARBITRATION HEARING ON JULY 24, 2015 7/24/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1099 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) SS. 3 4 I, MELISSA PLOOY, Certified Shorthand Reporter, 5 licensed in the State of California, holding CSR License 6 No. 13068, do hereby certify: 7 That said proceeding was verbatim-reported by me by 8 the use of computer shorthand at the time and place 9 therein stated and thereafter transcribed into writing 10 under my direction. 11 I further certify that I am not of counsel nor 12 attorney for or related to the parties hereto, nor am I 13 in any way interested in the outcome of this action. 14 In compliance with Section 8016 of the Business and 15 Professions Code, I certify under penalty of perjury 16 that I am a Certified Shorthand Reporter with License 17 No. 13068 in full force and effect. 18 WITNESS my hand this ____________ day of 19 _____________, ________. 20 __________________________________ MELISSA PLOOY, CSR#13068 21 22 23 24 25 Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2196 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO In the Matter of the Appeal ) of the Dismissal of ) OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL, ) Appellant, ) and ) CSMCS Case No. ARB-14-0209 POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE ) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, ) VOLUME VI PAGES 1100- 1303 Hiring Authority. ) TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 2015 9:09 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. REPORTED BY MELISSA PLOOY, CSR #13068 Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2197 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1101 1 THE TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS WAS TAKEN AT THE 2 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO POLICE DEPARTMENT, 1042 WALNUT 3 STREET, CONFERENCE ROOM, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, 4 BEFORE MELISSA PLOOY, A CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER IN 5 AND FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 6 2015, COMMENCING AT THE HOUR OF 9:09 A.M. 7 8 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL 9 HEARING OFFICER: 10 SOUTHWESTERN LAW SCHOOL BY: CHRISTOPHER DAVID RUIZ CAMERON 11 PROFESSOR OF LAW 3050 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD 12 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010 213) 738-6749 13 CCAMERON@SWLAW.EDU 14 FOR THE APPELLANT: 15 CASTILLO HARPER, APC BY: KASEY A. CASTILLO, ESQ. 16 3333 CONCOURS STREET BUILDING 4, SUITE 4100 17 ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91764 909) 466-5600 18 KASEY@CASTILLOHARPER.COM 19 FOR THE HIRING AUTHORITY: 20 JONES & MAYER BY: GREGORY P. PALMER, ESQ. 21 3777 NORTH HARBOR BOULEVARD FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92835 22 (714) 446-1400 GPP@JONES-MAYER.COM 23 24 ALSO PRESENT: LAURA WADDELL, CAPTAIN CHRIS STALEY, CHRISTINE DIETRICK 25 Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2198 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1102 1 I N D E X 2 WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 3 SERGEANT BRIAN AMOROSO 1122 1137 1177, 1190 1189 4 LIEUTENANT BILL PROLL 1191 5 6 7 I N D E X T O E X H I B I T S 8 APPELLANT'S MARKED ADMITTED 9 EXHIBIT J 1254 10 EXHIBIT K 1254 11 EXHIBIT L 1254 12 EXHIBIT X 1256 1258 13 14 DEPARTMENT'S MARKED ADMITTED 15 EXHIBIT 8 1255 16 EXHIBIT 11 1255 17 EXHIBIT 23 1151 1254 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2199 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1103 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: Good morning, everybody. 2 This is, according to my record, day six of the appeal 3 regarding the termination of Officer Waddell. It's 4 August 20, 2015, and we're at the police department in a 5 conference room at 1042 Walnut Street today. 6 And our first order of business is to take care 7 of some renewed Pitchess motions that were refiled in 8 this matter and I want to outline what they are and go 9 over the standards and talk about some of the 10 considerations that I brought to the ruling on these and 11 then make my rulings and I'll allow the parties to make 12 their records, make their comments, and that sort of 13 thing. 14 These three Pitchess motions were to discover 15 the peace officer personnel files of, number one, 16 Sergeant Chad Pfarr; number two, Lieutenant Jeff Smith, 17 and, number three, Lieutenant Bill Proll. Each of the 18 motions was filed and served by the appellant on the 19 department's custodian of records on or about July 28th, 20 2015, and opposition was filed and certified with the 21 department's custodian of records on or about August 7, 22 2015, and then I received the reply to the opposition, 23 which was filed and served on or about August 13, 2015, 24 and I take it that the service issues that plagued us 25 last time are not at issue, at least, they didn't appear Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2200 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1104 1 to be raised here. 2 With respect to the standards, I want to 3 incorporate by reference the standards that I cited when 4 we got together on July 23rd and considered the original 5 Pitchess motions at that time under Evidence Code 1043 6 and 1045. And so according to my information, if you 7 look at the transcript for the July 23 hearing at Page 8 739, those are the standards that I'm going to apply 9 here, as modified by what I'm about to say. 10 My consideration of these motions benefited 11 from the extensive research and argument offered by both 12 of the parties and their papers and I had the 13 opportunity to look at the authorities that were cited 14 there, at least, several of them, and I'm not going to 15 cite all the cases here that are in the papers, but I 16 wanted to put on the record the two conclusions that 17 I've come to, which I'm not sure I fully appreciated the 18 first time through, but I hope I do now, two conclusions 19 that I've come to with respect to how those standards 20 should get applied here. 21 The first observation that I want to make is 22 that good cause turns on whether the contents of the 23 declaration that is submitted in support of a motion 24 properly alleges factual details, whether they're based 25 on personal knowledge or information and belief to Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2201 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1105 1 support the disclosure of the information sought. 2 And so I'm given to understand that if a 3 declaration is defected, then the motion must be denied, 4 and I was under a slightly different impression before 5 because I realize I'm not at liberty to rule based on 6 what I think the motion says or information that's in 7 the brief or that may have been referenced when we had 8 certain off-the-record discussions, and so I'm concerned 9 that I want to get this right and I don't want there to 10 be any basis for a court to rule differently because 11 they would have handled the contents of the declaration 12 differently, and if I'm wrong about that, then I'm sure 13 you'll tell me about it and take appropriate steps. So 14 that's the world that I'm living in, what's in the 15 declarations or what's not. So I'm going to spend some 16 time talking about that. 17 Second observation that I want to make is that 18 it appears, to me, anyway, that a declaration in support 19 of a Pitchess motion is sufficient if it expressly 20 connects what I'm going to call the dots of good cause, 21 how they relate to one another, and so what I looked for 22 in the declarations supporting these motions was three 23 things: A, the particular information sought, and I'll 24 just incorporate, by reference, what's in the motions, 25 but the personnel files of each of the three officers Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2202 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1106 1 were very similar. I suppose there were some slight 2 differences, but, for example, Sergeant Pfarr's is any 3 and all documentation, including, but not limited to, 4 any internal investigation or inquiry into Sergeant Chad 5 Pfarr's failure to supervise, or allegations thereof, 6 Officer Kevin Waddell in any capacity through and 7 including the time period of 2013 to 2014, any and all 8 discipline administered to Pfarr stemming from any 9 allegations of failure to supervise Appellant Waddell 10 during the time period of 2013 to 2014, any and all 11 evaluations, quarterly and annual, of Pfarr during the 12 time period of 2013 to 2014, and then, finally, 13 documentation related to copying, sealing, preserving, 14 et cetera, all of the foregoing. There's some 15 variations with the different folks, but that's what I'm 16 looking at. So just -- generically, I'm just referring 17 to them as the personnel files for each these, but it's 18 not the entire file that's being sought. It's limited 19 in time and space, or, at least, it's supposed to be. 20 So with respect to connecting the dots, the 21 first thing that's got to be in the declaration is an 22 identification of the particular information sought and 23 that would appear to be largely met. The second thing 24 that's required, Item B, is a legitimate and material 25 purpose for the information, such as it's going to Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2203 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1107 1 show -- it's going to establish a claim or the charge 2 or, conversely, the defense, or some issue related to 3 that for impeachment purposes, for example, for 4 dishonesty or something along those lines, disparate 5 treatment, some other issue that is important to 6 establishing or undermining claims or defenses, and the 7 information has to, somehow, affect those things, and I 8 had some concerns about whether that was met in these 9 declarations and I'll go over that in a second. 10 And then, finally, and, I think, most 11 importantly, is that there has to be an allegation -- we 12 might not have a complete factual record, but there has 13 to be an allegation of facts that would support the use 14 of the information. There's got to be some kind of 15 story there, and that was missing, for me, in a number 16 of these things, and I'm going to explain that in a 17 second. 18 So with respect to my concerns, I'm focusing on 19 the contents of each of the declarations of Ms. Naleway 20 that's dated July 28, 2015, and I'd like to take up, 21 first of all, the motion relating to Sergeant Pfarr. 22 With respect to what I'm about to say, I'm 23 going to reference what I said at the previous hearing 24 on July 23rd, which was recorded at Page 762 of the 25 transcript, which is that if I was wrong about the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2204 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1108 1 standards, I was implying I would revisit it, and I 2 think I misunderstood what's supposed to be in the 3 declaration versus the rest of the record, and so I'm 4 going to deny the motion to get his personnel file 5 without prejudice because it seems, to me, pretty 6 obvious that, at least, parts of it need to be produced, 7 but I don't see the basis for it spelled out in the 8 declaration, and I'm assuming that a court would rule 9 the same way. 10 So I'm looking at Page 8 of the motion and this 11 is -- well, Ms. Naleway's declaration, beginning at 12 Page -- Paragraph 2, it says, "The appellant is asking 13 for discovery detailed in the foregoing motion," and 14 then it says, in parens, "incorporated herein by 15 reference." 16 Well, what's being incorporated by reference is 17 what's being asked for, not the reasons for it, and 18 there are more substantial reasons that are given in the 19 brief than are given in the declaration, but I can't -- 20 I can't jump there, at least, based on what I 21 understand, just because it appears to be in the brief. 22 It needs to be in that declaration, and what's 23 incorporated is, merely, a description of what's asked 24 for, not the narrative. 25 Paragraph 3, "Kevin Waddell was terminated for Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2205 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1109 1 allegations of false statements or giving false 2 information to department's supervisor and for failure 3 to report for duty in a punctual manner." That's fine. 4 Paragraph 4, "Additionally, Kevin Waddell was 5 terminated for allegations of conduct detrimental to the 6 department by breaking or removing a vehicle part in 7 violation of California Vehicle Code 10852." 8 Paragraph 5, "It is our belief that Sergeant 9 Pfarr was disciplined and/or remediated after the 10 appellant was investigated for Sergeant Pfarr's," and 11 this is in quotations, "failure to supervise Officer 12 Waddell." 13 And that appears, to me, to be an allegation 14 based on information or belief, which is fine. The 15 problem I'm having is that statement isn't connected to 16 the need to get to the personnel file. 17 It says in Paragraph 6, "Additionally, the 18 allegations are based on information that was given to 19 the San Luis Police Department by Sergeant Chad Pfarr." 20 That's fine. 21 Then Paragraph 7 says, "All the materials 22 requested herein are directly relevant to the 23 credibility determinations necessary to determine this 24 case, as well as the multiple affirmative defenses to be 25 presented by the appellant throughout the course of the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2206 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1110 1 hearing." 2 Paragraph 7 seems, to me, to be defective 3 because it doesn't say whose credibility determinations. 4 I assume that's Sergeant Pfarr, but it doesn't say that. 5 And so lacking that allegation, I can't -- I don't think 6 I can go there. 7 Moreover -- and if there's anyone else's, I 8 suppose, it would come in for that purpose, too. 9 Moreover, the multiple affirmative defenses are not 10 identified in this document. What are they? And as 11 long as I'm on the subject, to what charges do they 12 relate? Is it to the Bentley charge? Is it to the CAT 13 shift charge? Is it to the lateness charge? I don't 14 know. I think those have to be spelled out. And that's 15 it. That's the substance of this document. 16 Paragraph 8 says, "Additionally, upon 17 information and belief, the information requested may 18 lead to the discovery of other evidence, which would 19 assist us in the" -- "with the preparation and 20 presentation of said appeal of termination." 21 Well, that might be, but I don't think that 22 that boilerplate possibility substitutes for having some 23 allegations as to where you're going to go. I don't 24 think that that helps, is my point. 25 You know, my sense, in teaching procedure, is Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2207 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1111 1 that California law gives a little bit more leeway for 2 fishing expeditions than the federal rules do, but not 3 in the area of officer personnel files. It's, sort of, 4 the other way around, as far as I can tell. If I'm 5 wrong about that, I'm sure you'll let me know. 6 So the bottom line here is that I fully expect 7 that there's some part of this file that needs to get 8 produced, but the dots have to be connected, and they're 9 not in this case. 10 So the next one I want to move on to is talking 11 about Lieutenant Proll's motion because, like Sergeant 12 Pfarr's, it seems, to me, it's relatively easy to 13 resolve, and my ruling there is that I would deny that 14 motion, as well, but for different reasons, which is I 15 don't really see how any -- I don't see how the defects 16 in this declaration, which is also by Ms. Naleway, dated 17 July 28, I don't see how they get fixed. If I'm wrong, 18 they can be fixed. So that's why my ruling is without 19 prejudice to refiling, but I have different issues here, 20 which concern me that good cause hasn't been 21 established. So looking at this declaration, Paragraphs 22 2, 3 and 4, basically, are the same as they were in the 23 declaration relating to Sergeant Pfarr. 24 Then Paragraph 5 says, "The allegations are 25 based on information that was given to the San Luis Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2208 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1112 1 Police Department by Lieutenant Bill Proll, 2 specifically, his administrative inquiry of Officer 3 Waddell regarding the Bentley incident," and then 4 there's a citation to the IA number 13-005P, which is 5 great because it focuses on a specific charge. That's 6 helpful. 7 But then Paragraph 6 says, "Based on testimony 8 that has been presented at the hearing thus far, the 9 department and the city relied substantially on the 10 internal affairs investigation that was conducted by 11 Lieutenant Proll and relied on his credibility 12 determination of the witnesses in this case." 13 I don't really agree with that. That's the 14 question that's for me. If the department decided that 15 they were going to believe certain witnesses, whether it 16 was through Lieutenant Proll or not, or whatever, 17 that's, really, not the focus of my concern. The 18 question now is whether there was cause to terminate 19 Officer Waddell, yes or no, and that's a determination 20 for me. It's not for Proll. 21 So there is an interesting theory here. 22 Starting at Paragraph 7 of this declaration, it says, 23 "Based on testimony presented at this hearing thus far, 24 it is clear that the decision-makers for the city and 25 the department relied substantially on Lieutenant Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2209 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1113 1 Proll's report and investigation regarding the Bentley 2 incident. Specifically, Captain Staley, who prepared 3 the executive recommendation, which went to Chief 4 Gesell, testified that he did not listen to the audio 5 recordings of the witness interviews." 6 And then, similarly, in Paragraph 8, it says, 7 "Likewise, the city manager, Katie Lichtig, who admitted 8 that she was the ultimate decision-maker in this case, 9 testified on July 24, 2015, that she could not remember 10 whether she had listened to the audio recordings or 11 not," and I took away from that that I assumed that she 12 hadn't. 13 So then we get to Paragraph 9, which says, "If 14 the decision-makers did not actually listen to the audio 15 recordings of the witness interviews in the current 16 case, it may be implied that they relied substantially 17 on the accuracy of Lieutenant Proll's report, putting 18 Lieutenant Proll's credibility and reliability as a 19 historian of events at issue in the current case." 20 I don't agree. I don't really care what 21 Lieutenant Proll's view is of their credibility or 22 liability. Those are questions for me now. 23 And to the extent that Lieutenant Proll got it 24 wrong in reporting the details of his interview with 25 Officer Waddell or anywhere else, that's easily Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2210 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1114 1 verifiable by reference to listening to the audio 2 recordings. We even have two transcripts of what took 3 place, but they don't seem to have material differences, 4 but if there are any, I'm, certainly, willing to hear 5 what they are. 6 So skipping down to Paragraph 13, I don't agree 7 with what it says. It says, "I have no other source for 8 obtaining the requested information." That's not true. 9 The recordings can be listened to. 10 So Proll seems, to me, to be a couple of 11 degrees of separation removed from being a percipient 12 witness whose credibility is at issue in any in this 13 matter. So, you know, whether he's made any false or 14 misleading statements in any official matter, that's an 15 issue that, in principle, I'm very interested in hearing 16 about, but I don't see how it makes any difference in 17 this particular case, and so I'm not sure how this 18 motion or the declaration could be modified, but if it 19 can, I'm, certainly, willing to entertain it, but, at 20 the moment, I don't see good cause. So that one's 21 denied. 22 Then the last one is Lieutenant Smith, which I 23 continue to be baffled by. So I hope I'm getting this 24 one right, and I thought this was a closer case, but 25 it's confusing, to me, and so I'm resolving my doubts Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2211 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1115 1 about it in favor of denying the motion again without 2 prejudice. 3 So with respect to Ms. Naleway's declaration 4 here, Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 are, pretty much, the same 5 as the previous two declarations. 6 Then we get to Paragraph 5 and it has what I 7 believe to be, kind of, an odd statement. It says, "It 8 is our information and belief," which it starts off 9 good, "that the proffered pretext for the termination of 10 appellant is based on allegations regarding false 11 statements to," T-O, "Lieutenant Smith regarding 12 permission to be late on a specific date versus prior 13 approval from Lieutenant Smith regarding being late 14 occasionally and thereafter flexing." 15 Now, apart from the prolixity of this 16 statement, I don't see how anything in Lieutenant 17 Smith's personnel file about whether he gave false or 18 misleading statements would have anything to do with 19 false statements made to him. That isn't the place we 20 would expect to find that information. So that's kind 21 of a non sequitur, to me, and that is repeated in 22 Paragraph 9 where it says, "Based on testimony that was 23 presented during the hearing, it is our belief that the 24 department relied on the credibility and reliability of 25 Lieutenant Smith." I get that. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2212 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1116 1 Then it says, "As a historian of events in the 2 case." That, I don't understand, at all. He's a 3 percipient witness. He testified that he never gave 4 permission for Officer Waddell to be late, and Officer 5 Waddell, I guess, has a different story that we'll hear 6 later, but I don't see him as a historian, but getting 7 to the point I just made about what's wrong with 8 Paragraph 5, again, it says, "Specifically, when 9 determining issues of false statements to Lieutenant 10 Smith," again, I don't see what can be in his personnel 11 file about statements made to him if he's the one that 12 didn't tell the truth or did something wrong or was 13 disciplined for failure to supervise. That's a 14 disconnection, to me. 15 In addition to the concerns I just expressed 16 about what's in Paragraph 9 relating to him being a 17 historian, which isn't a term that makes any sense, to 18 me, and, again, he was in front of me, I have to 19 evaluate whether he was telling the truth or not. 20 Now, back to Paragraph 5, this is, again, an 21 area where I'm struggling with this. There was an 22 attempt at Paragraph 5 to actually state the material 23 legitimate basis for the information. It says, "The 24 proffered pretext for the termination," but that raises 25 more questions than it answers for me because pretext Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2213 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1117 1 isn't a term that makes sense outside the context of 2 someone being terminated for being a member of a 3 protected class, and if that's your theory here, I 4 haven't -- I haven't heard that. He's not being 5 terminated, at least, hasn't been alleged, for his union 6 activity, because he's a member of a minority group or 7 he's LGBT, or anything else. 8 So, you know, pretext, as I understand it, is 9 the opportunity of the plaintiff or the victim to 10 explain why the supposed legitimate reason for 11 termination was a smoke screen. 12 In this case, it just doesn't seem to fit the 13 facts here. If Officer Waddell is accused of lying, for 14 example, about having permission, it doesn't seem to 15 matter, to me, whether the department had good motives 16 or evil motives. If he lied and that's against the 17 rules, then he gets terminated for that. 18 Now, if what's meant by this is that he is the 19 victim of disparate treatment, that other people 20 similarly situated to him were accused and/or 21 adjudicated of having lied and they didn't get 22 terminated, they got no punishment, they got a 23 suspension, then that's a disparate treatment case, but 24 those words don't appear, disparate treatment. They 25 don't appear in here anywhere. So that would make some Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2214 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1118 1 sense to me, and it seems like, then, the pendulum might 2 swing the other way in terms of granting access to the 3 information. 4 Now, along these lines, I want to just say that 5 with respect to both Lieutenant Smith and Pfarr, the 6 department has raised a good point. I'm not sure what 7 I'm going to do with it, but the point they're making 8 is, all right, well, if you're looking at these files 9 for disparate treatment evidence that the supervisor was 10 treated differently from Officer Waddell relating to, 11 somehow, the same incident and there's something unfair 12 about that, that's, typically, not disparate treatment, 13 as I understand it. 14 On the other hand, supervisors are usually held 15 to an even higher standard than rank and file employees. 16 And so if there's similar or misconduct by supervisor 17 and line employee arising out of the same, I guess, 18 transaction or occurrence, you know, that might be 19 discoverable, to me. That's a whole different thing 20 than saying that undermines their testimony or their 21 credibility, which I'm not reaching that issue here, but 22 as I've indicated earlier, I'm not trying to hide my 23 hand here. 24 I think if, somehow, Sergeant Pfarr's files can 25 get discovered, and the more that Lieutenant Smith's Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2215 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1119 1 file is like Sergeant Pfarr's, the more I'd be inclined 2 to say, well, we should take a peek at some of it to see 3 if there's something in there because, again, I 4 understand good cause. The question is whether I get 5 to, as you put it, stick my nose in the file and then 6 look around. So I get that. So I don't know if I get 7 to stick my nose in Lieutenant Smith's file, but there 8 needs to be more here than I've seen. 9 So just to go back and finish my discussion of 10 Lieutenant Smith, Paragraph 6 and 7 seem to be a little 11 closer to being on point for good cause. 6 says, 12 "Lieutenant Smith was appellant's specific supervisor on 13 the CAT shifts because testimony" -- excuse me -- "based 14 on testimony that was presented at the hearing. 15 Lieutenant Smith was appellant's supervisor in charge of 16 appellant's time cards for the CAT shift. 17 7 says, "It is our belief that Lieutenant Smith 18 was disciplined and/or remediated after the appellant 19 was investigated for this failure to supervise Officer 20 Waddell." 21 Well, if that's the case, then that allegation 22 is made on information and belief. That seems to be 23 what's required here. Again, based on these other two 24 paragraphs, the use of the word, "to," in Paragraphs 5 25 and 8, I don't know that -- that seems to contradict Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2216 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1120 1 what's here, but those two paragraphs seem, to me, to be 2 closer to the kind of connecting the dots that's needed 3 in order for me to stick my nose in the file. 4 So let me just finish Lieutenant Smith's by 5 referring to Paragraph 10, which, again, says that, "all 6 the materials requested herein are directly relevant to 7 the credibility of determinations necessary to determine 8 this case, as well as the multiple affirmative defenses 9 to be presented by appellant." 10 Again, credibility of who? I assume you're 11 referring to Lieutenant Smith, but it's not identified 12 here. That makes some sense to me because if Lieutenant 13 Smith says something different from Officer Waddell 14 about whether there was permission, you know, then I've 15 got to decide who I'm going to believe. 16 By the way, I don't know what Officer Waddell 17 says about that matter, other than what was in the 18 various interviews, but he chose his words very 19 carefully. So I'm not sure if he disagrees with 20 Lieutenant Smith, who is very clear, I didn't give my 21 permission. I don't know if -- I don't know where 22 you're going with that, but that ought to get explained 23 a little bit. 24 And, again, multiple affirmative defenses. 25 There's not a single affirmative defense referred to, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2217 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1121 1 other than this proffered pretext thing, which, as I 2 said earlier, answers a few more questions -- or raises 3 more questions than answers. 4 So that's my long-winded discussion of the 5 three motions, which I'm going to deny without 6 prejudice. So who would like to be heard first? 7 MS. CASTILLO: I can amend the declaration of 8 Ms. Naleway. So that's my intent. 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 10 MR. PALMER: I have nothing to say. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Fine. I just want 12 to say one more thing about this and then we can move 13 on, which is that the stipulation that was proposed by 14 the city back on day one in this thing is looking a lot 15 better to me all the time, and so I will -- not on the 16 record, but you guys might want to see if you can talk 17 about that. All right? 18 Okay. So enough of the professor's lecture. 19 Are we ready for our next witness, or continuing with 20 the same witness? 21 MS. CASTILLO: Yeah. 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: It's Sergeant Amoroso, 23 right? And we're still continuing with his direct; is 24 that right? 25 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2218 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1122 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. 2 Sergeant Amoroso, good morning. 3 THE WITNESS: Good morning, again. How are 4 you? 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: Very good. You're still 6 under oath. You remember that, of course? 7 THE WITNESS: I do. 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: Very good. We're 9 resuming with your direct examination, and it's still 10 Ms. Castillo who is up. So we'll just continue. 11 Ms. Castillo, go ahead. 12 MS. CASTILLO: Thank you. 13 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION 15 BY MS. CASTILLO: 16 Q. Good morning. 17 A. Good morning. 18 Q. I'll back up a little bit so I'm not... 19 A. Staring each other face-to-face. 20 Q. Right. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: If you want to scoot back 22 a little bit, you can. 23 THE WITNESS: Sure. 24 BY MS. CASTILLO: 25 Q. Okay. So at what point did you stop being the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2219 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1123 1 direct supervisor of the appellant? 2 A. That would have been -- let me think back my 3 years here. It would have been when I came out of the 4 bicycle unit, which was January 2014. 5 Q. Okay. And so, approximately, how long did you 6 directly supervise Appellant Waddell? 7 A. Two years and three months, I believe, is the 8 time I was in the bicycle unit. 9 Q. Okay. And during that time period as his 10 direct supervisor, did you have the occasion to write 11 evaluations for him? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. And can you give a general opinion of 14 his work product or work ethic? 15 A. Sure. He was a great officer. I had no 16 problems with him and we -- the unit that we were in, we 17 all got along well, which is important for a small unit 18 that works together day in and day out. Both he and his 19 partner were motivated, did the things they were 20 supposed to do as far as writing tickets and making 21 arrests and contacting drunks, which is most of that 22 job, as well as some public relations. 23 So, yeah, I had no problems with him. 24 Q. In terms of proactivity, do you have an opinion 25 on that? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2220 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1124 1 A. Yeah. He was proactive, and, again, you know, 2 that position, proactivity is kind of expected because a 3 large portion of that shift, we're not on calls. So 4 it's a matter of, literally, riding our bikes downtown 5 and looking for work. So we would do that frequently. 6 So he was proactive, as he should have been. 7 Q. Okay. What about on that particular 8 assignment? And you were the sergeant, correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. Was that an assignment where you had 11 constant oversight of your officers, meaning, did you 12 have constant visual on what they were doing? 13 A. Uh, yes and no. When I was riding with him and 14 working, yes, but at the time, this is mostly the case 15 with sergeants who have a lot of other duties. So there 16 would be many times I was at the station trying to 17 finish up other projects and they would be out, working 18 by themselves. 19 So we would have oversight when working with 20 them, but there were large portions of their shift where 21 they would be working on their own and they would just 22 let me know if there was something I needed to know and 23 I would catch up with them closer to bar-closing time 24 when it was busier. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: Can I stop for a second? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2221 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1125 1 I'm looking at the back of your head -- 2 THE WITNESS: You want me to move? 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: I think you should move. 4 THE WITNESS: My pleasure. 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 6 THE WITNESS: You got it. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: And if you can just scoot 8 back against the wall, and, that way, everybody can see 9 you and have a parallax view here. Thank you. 10 THE WITNESS: Sure. 11 BY MS. CASTILLO: 12 Q. On those times when you did not have visual 13 oversight of Officer Waddell, did you have any concerns 14 that he was not working or not being productive? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Was the assignment that he was working under 17 your supervision one where the officers were required to 18 turn in statistics to confirm their productivity? 19 A. No. You know, I should add, we do run 20 statistics when it would come time to do reviews, but 21 that was nothing that the officers turn in. It was 22 something where we, literally, run in the computer 23 system how many citations they wrote or how many arrests 24 they had. So there were statistics, but run by myself, 25 not produced by the officer. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2222 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1126 1 Q. Okay. And that was when they had annual 2 evaluations? 3 A. Annual and, also -- and I don't remember when 4 we switched. Now we have rotational. So it's every 5 three or four months, but it used to be bimonthly, every 6 other month. So I don't recall when the switch was, so 7 what would have applied during that period. 8 Q. Okay. Now, in -- so you would have been 9 Officer Waddell's supervisor in May of 2013, then, if 10 you ceased supervising him in January of 2014 then, 11 right? 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. Okay. And then were you aware that around the 14 time period of June of 2013, that he took a trip with 15 his family to Europe? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Okay. And during that time period, do you 18 recall being approached by Sergeant Pfarr? 19 A. You'd probably have to be more specific about 20 what I -- I don't know. 21 Q. Okay. Do you recall being approached by 22 Sergeant Pfarr about Officer Waddell being in the 23 office, watching a movie, at any point? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Okay. Do you know about when that occurred, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2223 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1127 1 when you were approached? 2 A. You know, around that time frame, if I remember 3 correctly, I think it was shortly before his trip. 4 Q. Okay. So you believe it would have been before 5 he left for his trip to Europe? 6 A. I thought so. That's my recollection, only 7 because that's when he was working a lot of double 8 shifts. 9 Q. Okay. And do you recall anything about the 10 conversation between yourself and Sergeant Pfarr 11 regarding that movie? 12 A. I do. Unfortunately, I don't recall a ton, but 13 it was something to the effect of Sergeant Pfarr had 14 gone into our downtown office, which is where the little 15 bicycle office is, and he had found Officer Waddell 16 watching a movie on a DVD player, computer, or 17 something. I remember asking him, well, was he on Code 18 7, you know, a break, or something, and I think Sergeant 19 Pfarr, at the time, you know, said, well, yeah, he could 20 have been. He just thought it was odd he was in there, 21 watching a movie, and thought he should have been out. 22 And I explained to Sergeant Pfarr, who, at the 23 time, hadn't worked bikes before, that it's really hard 24 to ride a bike for 12 hours nonstop, making circles 25 through downtown, and so we would frequently ride a Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2224 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1128 1 couple laps and then take a break in the office and then 2 come back out. 3 So I didn't find it that particularly odd, but 4 it would be if he went in, let's say, four times 5 throughout his shift, and every time he went in, he 6 found him in there, doing something, then that would 7 cause me concern, but just the one time, I said it could 8 have been a break, but, of course, I wasn't working. So 9 I had no idea what was going on. 10 Q. Did Sergeant Pfarr give you any more 11 information regarding how long Officer Waddell had been 12 watching the movie for? 13 A. You know, I don't recall. I don't think so, 14 but I don't remember that detail of the conversation. 15 Q. Nothing sticks out in your memory? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Okay. Did he give you any information about 18 what kind of movie he was watching? 19 A. I don't recall. I don't think so. 20 Q. Nothing sticks out in your memory? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Okay. Did he give you any kind of information 23 about the conversation he had with Officer Waddell when 24 he found him doing this? 25 A. Again, I don't recall. I'm sure that's Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2225 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1129 1 something I would have asked, was what did Kevin say, 2 how long he was in there for, or something. I don't 3 recall the answer. I just -- again, what I took away 4 from it was my response was, well, he was probably on a 5 break and tell him, when he's off break, to go back to 6 work, but I don't recall that part. 7 Q. Okay. Do you know, approximately, when 8 Sergeant Pfarr witnessed this to when he reported it to 9 you? 10 A. I don't recall. I don't know. 11 Q. As you sit here today, do you know if it was 12 close in time, meaning, did this happen the day before 13 and then he reported it to you, the direct supervisor, 14 or, as you sit here today, did it happen sometime before 15 and then it was brought up to you later? 16 A. I do recall there was some period of time, but, 17 unfortunately, I don't have any recollection if it was 18 two days or two months. I'm not sure. 19 Q. When this occurred, did Sergeant Pfarr indicate 20 to you whether or not he had early-counseled Officer 21 Waddell in any way for what he had witnessed? 22 A. It, certainly, sounded like they had a 23 conversation. I don't know if I would characterize it 24 as an official counseling, but, again, this is coming 25 from a sergeant who had -- he's now worked the unit, but Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2226 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1130 1 at the time, he had never worked on a bicycle before and 2 was not aware of what our normal habits were or if we 3 would spend time in that office. 4 You know, the office is kind of a -- tinted 5 windows and you really can't see what's going on inside 6 there unless you go inside, and patrol infrequently goes 7 in there. So unless you work the unit, you know, you 8 might be surprised to find people in there and not 9 realizing that people actually use that office 10 frequently. 11 Q. Okay. Did he say anything to you about pulling 12 Officer Waddell's statistics or that he believed he was 13 an unsatisfactory worker or anything at that point? Do 14 you recall anything about that? 15 A. You know, I do remember -- not those particular 16 details, but I recall that his opinion was that Kevin 17 was in there watching a movie because he wasn't working 18 for the shift that he was being paid for, but I don't 19 recall him saying that he was going to pull stats, but 20 maybe he did. Too long ago. 21 Q. Okay. And when you got that -- was it a 22 feeling that you got that opinion or did he communicate 23 that opinion to you? 24 A. No. He communicated it. I mean, that was his 25 insinuation, by explaining that he was watching the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2227 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1131 1 movie was -- because on a day shift like that, there's 2 no downtown supervision; whereas, on the night shift, I 3 would be working. 4 So on the day shift, anyone on that shift would 5 be working by themselves. So, I suppose, if they wanted 6 to sit in the room for six hours and then go back to the 7 station, they could, and unless somebody walked into the 8 office and saw them, they really wouldn't have any idea 9 what was going on. 10 So I think that was the insinuation from 11 Sergeant Pfarr, was I saw him in there watching a movie, 12 I think, maybe, he's laying up all day and not working. 13 Q. Okay. Based on what was communicated to you, 14 did you have a conversation with Officer Waddell about 15 what had been reported to you? 16 A. I don't have any recollection of that. I'm 17 sure I would have because that just seems to be the next 18 logical step to explain that, but I don't remember any 19 details of that conversation. 20 Q. Okay. Do you recall speaking to anyone else 21 about this situation or -- I mean, let me ask you. 22 Would you have expected that if Sergeant Pfarr 23 had walked in and actually witnessed something that was 24 a problem, that he would have handled the situation, 25 himself, as a supervisor, in that instance? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2228 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1132 1 A. Certainly. I mean, that would be a role of any 2 supervisor; however, this is a pretty mild allegation as 3 far as whether someone's watching a movie or not, is it 4 a break or not. 5 So I don't think it would be out of the 6 ordinary to just sit on it and notify that person's 7 direct supervisor who, maybe, would work with him in a 8 day or two and let them handle it if it was sort of a 9 gray area or not really sure what they were doing was 10 okay or not. 11 And, again, Sergeant Pfarr, not having worked 12 in the unit, may not have been comfortable knowing what 13 I'm okay with, what my guys do and don't do. So I don't 14 think it would have been that out of the ordinary for 15 him to sit on it for a short time and then notify me and 16 not handle it directly with him if he chose to do 17 that. 18 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not Sergeant 19 Pfarr had any conversation with Officer Waddell about 20 what he was doing, why he was in there, what he was 21 watching? 22 A. I don't know. I would assume he would have 23 asked them, but I don't know if they had a conversation 24 in the room or not. I was not there and don't recall if 25 he told me or not. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2229 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1133 1 Q. Okay. And did he ask you to have a 2 conversation with Officer Waddell about that? 3 A. Again, I don't know if he did or not. I'm sure 4 I would have, and I vaguely recall talking with Officer 5 Waddell about that. 6 Q. Okay. Do you recall, when Officer Waddell 7 returned from Europe, speaking to him in the sergeant's 8 office and communicating to him that you have the 9 impression that Sergeant Pfarr had it out for him? 10 A. I don't independently recollect that, but I 11 could have, easily, had that conversation with him based 12 on that information, yes. 13 Q. Did you have -- I mean, as you sit here today, 14 do you have the opinion that Sergeant Pfarr did not have 15 a positive opinion of Officer Waddell? 16 A. I don't think he did at that time, no. 17 Q. Did you, at any point, ever caution Officer 18 Waddell, as his supervisor, to be careful around 19 Sergeant Pfarr? 20 A. Again, I don't remember having that exact 21 conversation, but, again, based on the instance with him 22 coming into the video, I, certainly, would have said, 23 hey, you need to make sure that they see you out there 24 working and, you know, you don't want to have every time 25 he decides to pop his head in the office, and I think Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2230 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1134 1 that's something I would have told any of my guys, is, 2 hey, obviously, this sergeant is starting to keep track 3 of what's going on in the day shift, so make sure you're 4 doing what you're supposed to be doing out there. 5 Q. Okay. And in the following January, Sergeant 6 Pfarr would have become his direct supervisor on the 7 bike team, right? 8 A. Well, he took over for me, and I don't recall 9 when Officer Waddell and Officer Inglehart were due to 10 rotate out. I thought all those guys rotate at the same 11 time, but I could be wrong and I'd have to go back and 12 look at the schedule. 13 Q. Okay. In August of 2013, do you recall being 14 approached by Sergeant Pfarr to discuss the potential 15 sergeant candidates? 16 A. I don't recall the time frame, but I recall us 17 having that conversation, yes. 18 Q. Okay. And, at that point, do you recall 19 Sergeant Pfarr telling you about the Bentley incident? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Okay. And then -- and, kind of, him then 22 questioning the integrity of Officer Waddell? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Okay. And following that, sometime in 25 September, do you recall Lieutenant Bledsoe approaching Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2231 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1135 1 you about Sergeant Pfarr telling him about the Bentley 2 incident? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. And, at that point, isn't it true that 5 Lieutenant Bledsoe said, oh, it's a theft? 6 A. You know, it's possible. I don't recall him 7 using those words. I don't recall the details of the 8 conversation, but I do recall speaking to Lieutenant 9 Bledsoe and him bringing up the issue with the Bentley 10 and this hubcap issue, is what I recall being said. 11 Q. Okay. And he had been told about it by 12 Sergeant Pfarr? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. And he's talking to you about it, and 15 what -- what do you remember about that conversation? 16 A. We were, again, discussing candidates, and I 17 don't recall if this was for a sergeant's promotion or 18 for investigator positions, it was one of the two, but 19 that Lieutenant Bledsoe had a nonfavorable view of 20 Officer Waddell, partly due to this Bentley wheel issue, 21 as he had described it. 22 Q. Okay. And this is before Officer Waddell gets 23 put on administrative leave, right? 24 A. Yes. Because that was in December. 25 Q. And about when was this sergeant candidate Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2232 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1136 1 period? 2 A. You know, it would have been going on at the 3 same time, but as well as the investigator openings, and 4 I think it was, kind of, that September time frame 5 because the spots would have come up in January and we 6 try to do them ahead of time so we can arrange the 7 schedule because it, generally, creates a lot of 8 vacancies in other positions, depending on who gets it. 9 So I would say the fall is the best I could put it. 10 Q. Okay. So does the newest sergeant always get 11 rotated to the bicycle? 12 A. No. The newest sergeant, generally, will be 13 the Thursday, Friday, Saturday patrol sergeant, simply 14 because that's what nobody else wants, but, similarly, 15 nobody wants the downtown bicycle position, either. 16 So when it comes up on rotation, it, typically, 17 goes to the most junior sergeant because no one else is 18 volunteering for it, but there's not a rule for that. 19 It just seems to be the way that works out. 20 Q. Okay. Is there anyone else present when 21 Bledsoe was telling you what he had heard from Sergeant 22 Pfarr regarding the Bentley incident? 23 A. I don't believe so. 24 Q. And do you remember what he had, specifically, 25 communicated to you he had heard from Sergeant Pfarr? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2233 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1137 1 A. I don't remember specifics, other than the high 2 level -- something about Officer Waddell removing a 3 hubcap from the Bentley. 4 Q. And, at that point, was it communicated to you 5 that it had been a joke? 6 A. No. Did Lieutenant Bledsoe indicate that to 7 me? No. 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: Do you need a sec? We 9 can take a break. 10 MS. CASTILLO: I don't think I have anything 11 further. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: Cross-examination? 13 MR. PALMER: Yes. 14 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION 16 BY MR. PALMER: 17 Q. Good morning, Sergeant. 18 A. Good morning. 19 Q. Just now in your testimony, you said it's hard 20 to ride a bike on bike duty for a 12-hour shift? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. That wasn't what Sergeant Pfarr was talking to 23 you about, though, right? 24 A. Well, no. He was talking about walking into an 25 office and seeing him watching a movie. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2234 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1138 1 Q. I mean, the shift that Mr. Waddell was, 2 purportedly, on when Sergeant Pfarr walked in on him 3 watching a movie was not a 12-hour shift? 4 A. No. It was a 6-hour shift, but then he 5 followed that up with an additional 10-hour shift that 6 night. So it, really, would have been a 16-hour shift 7 for him that day. 8 Q. Did Sergeant Pfarr give you some idea of the 9 timing of when he found Mr. Waddell watching a movie? 10 A. I don't recall. I don't know. I don't think 11 so. 12 Q. It was during the CAT shift, though? 13 A. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, during the day shift. 14 Absolutely, yes. 15 Q. It wasn't during his later shift where he 16 worked -- 17 A. No. Because I would have been working the 18 night shift. So it was during the day, yes. 19 Q. So if Mr. Waddell was working the CAT shift, 20 that's a five-hour shift? 21 A. Five or six. I don't recall. I thought they 22 were six, but I could be wrong. 23 Q. 11: 00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.? Does that sound about 24 right? 25 A. Roughly. Sometimes they would be 10: 00, I Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2235 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1139 1 thought, or sometimes go till 5:00. But, yeah, in the 2 middle of the day. 3 Q. Okay. But we're solid it's a CAT shift? 4 A. Oh, absolutely, yes. 5 Q. However number of hours, there was a CAT shift? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. Let's talk about the CAT shift then. 8 During a typical CAT shift, whether it's five 9 or six hours, do you, typically, get a lunch break? 10 A. For five or six hours, probably not. 11 Q. But you're entitled to certain breaks along the 12 way? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. 15 minutes? 15 A. Yeah. A couple of coffee breaks. 16 Q. And is it true that the bike team, typically, 17 works a 10-hour shift, not a 12-hour shift? 18 A. Well, I could talk for 20 minutes about their 19 shift rotation because each officer has the ability to 20 switch it. 21 Some officers work four tens, some officers 22 have worked two eights and two twelves. When I was 23 there, I worked two tens, an eight and a twelve. So 24 depending on who you're talking about and the day of the 25 week, it could be anywhere between an eight-hour shift Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2236 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1140 1 and a twelve-hour shift. 2 Q. Okay. Now, as it relates -- as it relates to 3 you and Sergeant Pfarr back in 2013, who was more 4 responsible for the activity on the CAT shift, you or 5 Sergeant Pfarr? 6 A. Sergeant Pfarr. 7 Q. Okay. You were Mr. Waddell's direct 8 supervisor, correct? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. But not when he was on the CAT shift? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. So if anybody in this equation is going to 13 determine the proper productivity for a CAT shift 14 officer, it would be Sergeant Pfarr, not you? 15 A. Well, there's a caveat there because the CAT 16 shift being a downtown bicycle spot, there's sort of 17 a -- I would say we both would be because had he worked 18 bikes prior to that, then he would have a better idea of 19 what's expected or what is reasonable on a bicycle 20 shift. 21 So I think there is some input required from me 22 at that time as far as, you know, what's reasonable in 23 the shift, but, certainly, any direct supervisor would 24 be responsible for what someone is doing day in and day 25 out. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2237 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1141 1 Now, he wasn't a downtown supervisor. He was, 2 simply, the field sergeant. So he's responsible for 3 everybody working that day, regardless of assignment. 4 Q. Okay. I'm not trying to be overly technical 5 here, but the CAT shift does not, necessarily, mean 6 you're riding a bike all the time, does it? 7 A. No, not necessarily. Could be on foot. 8 Q. Could be a car, on foot? 9 A. Could be in a car. I think that position, when 10 they were flying in at the time, was really meant to be 11 on foot or on a bike. They wanted it more approachable 12 and not just drive around in cars. 13 Q. Okay. But not to put too fine a point on this, 14 when Mr. Waddell is working a CAT shift, you're not 15 there, are you? 16 A. No. Not at all. 17 Q. Sergeant Pfarr is there, right? 18 A. That is correct. Well, whichever date -- 19 Sergeant Pfarr wasn't there every shift, but whoever the 20 daytime sergeant is. 21 Q. Apparently, the shift we're talking about where 22 he was watching a movie, that was Sergeant Pfarr? 23 A. Yes. Absolutely. 24 Q. Now, when Sergeant Pfarr described observing 25 this activity by Mr. Waddell, am I getting the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2238 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1142 1 impression that, because of your experience and your 2 knowledge of Mr. Waddell, assuming it was just was a 3 one-time thing, you weren't overly concerned about it? 4 A. No, I wasn't overly concerned about it, no. 5 Q. Would it refresh your memory if I told you that 6 Sergeant Pfarr -- strike that. 7 Would it refresh your memory if I told you it 8 was a Marvel movie? 9 A. No, but it could be. 10 Q. Okay. You got the impression it was something 11 different than a police training video? 12 A. Oh, yeah. It was, absolutely, not a police 13 video. I remember it being a theatrical movie, but 14 which one, I have no clue. 15 Q. All right. And was your -- your lack of 16 extreme concern over this based upon your knowledge of 17 Mr. Waddell? 18 A. Um -- 19 Q. Your trust of him? 20 A. Oh, yes. 21 Q. Do you trust him? 22 A. Yes. Absolutely. 23 Q. And you worked with him, alongside of him? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. You know his work ethic? You just testified to Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2239 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1143 1 that. 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. So from your point of view, this was a one-time 4 thing, we'll note it, but we'll move on? 5 A. Yes. And, also, just coming from the respect 6 of I've worked almost five years on a bicycle downtown 7 and this goes to my point as what I was making earlier 8 about riding 12 hours around. 9 You know, in my opinion, as a supervisor of 10 that shift, it is much more strenuous than driving 11 around in a car all day, and what you're dealing with, 12 we would take breaks in that office more than what a 13 typical patrol officer would take in their shift and 14 it's because, literally, you're out, pedaling around, 15 and depending on weather and what you're dealing with, 16 this is also the office where we would do our reports 17 and things like that. 18 So it didn't cause me concern that he was in 19 the office because we would spend portions of the office 20 in the shift. 21 Q. Is your opinion of Mr. Waddell being a great 22 officer, motivated, proactive based upon the entire body 23 of work you have with him? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Do you see all the notebooks on these tables? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2240 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1144 1 A. Sure. 2 Q. There's an egg crate over in the corner with 3 even more notebooks? 4 A. Right. 5 Q. Would I be correct in saying you probably are 6 not familiar with the contents of these notebooks? 7 A. I have no clue what's in them. 8 Q. Beyond, maybe, what you've been told ad hoc by 9 people during this, prior to the internal affairs 10 investigation and after, do you probably -- other than 11 ad hoc statements, you probably don't know what's in 12 these notebooks, right? 13 A. I have no idea what's in these notebooks, other 14 than the labels that I can read. 15 Q. The testimony you gave this morning, I'm going 16 to couch it in the form of a warning. You tell me if 17 that word doesn't work well, but that's how I'm going to 18 couch it, that you told Mr. Waddell this sergeant is 19 starting to keep track of what's going on on days, so 20 you better make sure you're doing what you're supposed 21 to do, is warning the right word there? 22 A. I don't know that warning is the right word. 23 More of, hey, heads-up, you know, make sure you're out 24 there doing what you're supposed to do. 25 Q. Okay. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2241 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1145 1 A. Just, you know... 2 Q. And by this -- 3 A. Heads-up would be my best term. 4 Q. And by the quote, "this sergeant," you meant 5 Sergeant Pfarr? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. And is that not what we expect a police 8 sergeant to do? 9 A. Sure, it is. 10 Q. To make sure officers under their command are 11 doing what they're supposed to do? 12 A. Absolutely. 13 Q. Earning an honest paycheck? 14 A. Uh-huh. 15 Q. We've all established, pretty conclusively, I 16 think, in this hearing thus far, that the Bentley 17 accident occurred in February of 2013. Does that 18 comport with your memory? 19 A. That sounds about right. 20 Q. Okay. At that time, how long had you been a 21 San Luis Obispo Police Department -- let's just go 22 officer first. 23 A. Uh, eight years, give or take. 24 Q. Okay. And I'm not going to pull anything out 25 and say you're wrong. I'm just trying -- Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2242 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1146 1 A. Sure. I'm generalizing here. Plus or minus 2 six months. 3 Q. And how long is a sergeant? Again, same 4 benchmark -- 5 A. I would have been a sergeant for two years at 6 that point. 7 Q. And did you meet Mr. Waddell working here at 8 the San Luis Obispo Police Department? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. You didn't know him before? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Okay. About how many years did you know 13 Mr. Waddell before the Bentley accident occurred in 14 February of 2013? 15 A. Whatever date his start date was is when we 16 met. So I have no clue when that is. Five years prior, 17 maybe. 18 Q. We're talking years? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And, over time, you became friends? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Would you say good friends? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. I understand you're neighbors? 25 A. Correct. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2243 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1147 1 Q. What are we talking here? Next door? Across 2 the street? 3 A. No. Three blocks away. 4 Q. Okay. Do you visit with each other from time 5 to time over the years up until February 2013 at each 6 other's respective homes? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Have visits in each other's respective 9 driveways from time to time? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Do you and your family and his family 12 socialize? 13 A. They have on occasion. 14 Q. Parties at their house? 15 A. One at our house and gone out for drinks 16 before. 17 Q. Cards on Friday night? Nothing? 18 A. No cards. 19 Q. Camping vacation together? 20 A. No vacations. 21 Q. Would you say that he's probably your closest 22 friend at work? 23 A. Uh, close, but probably not the closest, no. 24 Q. But he's up there? 25 A. Yeah. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2244 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1148 1 Q. Okay. Would you say that prior to February 2 2013, the Bentley accident, that you spoke to each other 3 each day or every other day by any form of 4 communication? 5 A. Well, certainly, we worked together four days a 6 week. So I would characterize that as yes, but on days 7 off, we wouldn't, necessarily, talk to each other every 8 day, but... 9 Q. Okay. And had that been kind of consistent up 10 until February 2013 for those many years? 11 A. No. I mean, it -- the relationship grew over 12 time. Obviously, you know, in the beginning was just as 13 a coworker and then, you know, the friendship slowly 14 grew and they moved closer by, and kids, roughly, the 15 same age. And so, obviously, just as a typical 16 friendship develops, it developed about the -- you know, 17 not too far after -- or the before the time that I had 18 started supervising him, too. 19 Q. How long had you two been three-block neighbors 20 prior to February 2013? 21 A. I'd have to ask them when they moved. I have 22 no clue. 23 Q. You can't give a -- 24 A. No idea. It could be one year, it could be 25 three years, it could have been a month. I don't Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2245 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1149 1 remember when they moved into that house. I'm sure it's 2 easy to find out. 3 Q. You recall Mr. Waddell was on duty the day the 4 Bentley accident occurred? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And you heard the call come out? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Sounded like, in fact, you were on duty, as 9 well, right? 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. Were you two working together that day? 12 A. We were. 13 Q. In what capacity? 14 A. Downtown bicycle officers. 15 Q. And that shift ran when to when? 16 A. Depending on what time. I don't know what day 17 of the week it was, but it started at 5:00, 7:00, and 18 our shift ended at 3:00 a.m. 19 Q. Would I then be correct to say that the 20 accident call came out about the time of the end of your 21 shift? 22 A. Towards the end of the shift, that's correct. 23 Q. Sounded like a major accident? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Potential fatal? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2246 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1150 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And you and Mr. Waddell decided to roll out to 3 there? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. Was that a collective decision made by both of 6 you or did somebody take the lead on that? 7 A. I think I took the lead on that. Being that 8 Sergeant Pfarr, literally, was a brand new sergeant and 9 knowing Officer Waddell was on the traffic call-out 10 team, I said, hey, we need to go to that, and he agreed. 11 Q. Okay. Do you remember what your initial reason 12 for you, in particular, for going out to the accident 13 scene? 14 A. Yes. It was to make sure that Sergeant Pfarr 15 had all the support he needed and make sure that he was 16 making proper notifications if it was a fatal accident, 17 et cetera, and just wanted to be a resource for him 18 because that's a high-stress incident for a new sergeant 19 to be involved in. 20 Q. Was that the first reason for going out to the 21 scene that you articulated to Lieutenant Proll in your 22 interview? 23 A. I have no clue. 24 Q. Okay. Do you remember being interviewed by 25 Lieutenant Proll? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2247 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1151 1 A. I do, and if I had the transcript in front of 2 me, I could look at what order I gave him the reasons, 3 but... 4 Q. So before we go to the transcript, suffice it 5 to say you don't recall in what order you gave the 6 reasons for going out there at this point? 7 A. I do not, and I don't think that the order in 8 which I gave them to Lieutenant Proll necessarily means 9 that that's the order of importance. I can tell you 10 that the order of importance -- the reason for going out 11 there was I wanted to make sure Sergeant Pfarr had the 12 support from an experienced sergeant, at least, the most 13 experienced while working at the time, which was myself. 14 MS. CASTILLO: Are you adding to your book? 15 MR. PALMER: Can we take a five-minute break? 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: Sure. 17 (Recess.) 18 MR. PALMER: Thank you for that break. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: Sure. 20 MR. PALMER: I'd like to mark another exhibit, 21 Exhibit 23. It's a transcript of Sergeant Brian 22 Amoroso. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: I see you have a tab for 24 23 already here. 25 MR. PALMER: I do. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2248 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1152 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: So this looks like the 2 transcript of interview of Sergeant Amoroso by 3 Lieutenant Proll, January 7. Do we have a year for 4 that? 5 MR. PALMER: Um -- 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, it will come out. 7 Go ahead. 8 MR. PALMER: 2013, I presume. 9 MS. CASTILLO: '14. 10 MR. PALMER: Give me a second here. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Sure. 12 BY MR. PALMER: 13 Q. Okay. Sergeant Amoroso? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Do you have in front of you new Exhibit 23? 16 A. Yes, I do. 17 Q. Page 1, the middle paragraph that purports to 18 be you, do you see that, kind of, seven-line middle 19 paragraph there? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Could you read that to yourself? Tell me when 22 you're done. 23 A. Okay. 24 Q. And did I read that right that the first stated 25 reason you told Lieutenant Proll to go out there was to Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2249 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1153 1 see if people on the scene needed help? 2 A. It appears that way, yes. 3 Q. Okay. And you first said that you drove 4 separately there, you and Mr. Waddell drove separately? 5 A. That was on here, yes. 6 Q. If you keep reading down. 7 A. Yeah. I see that here. 8 Q. You drove the FST truck? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And Mr. Waddell drove a white Crown Vic? 11 A. That's what I had there, but I recall later in 12 there not being sure whether we drove together or 13 separately, unfortunately. 14 Q. I'll get to that. 15 A. Okay. 16 Q. And the reason that Mr. Waddell went there was 17 what? 18 A. He was the lead on what's called the total 19 station, which is a device used to map out major 20 accident scenes. 21 Q. That kind of specialized investigation is 22 typically used if it's a serious injury or fatal? 23 A. That's correct. And he was on the team that 24 would have been called out. So with someone already 25 being on duty, if we were to have a major accident, it Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2250 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1154 1 would just be common sense to get that person there so 2 they can make an assessment because they would, really, 3 know more than myself whether that team would be 4 covering that or not. 5 Q. Because you're not on that team? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. So the idea was drive separately because maybe 8 he would have to stay, not you, as part of it? 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. And then was it while you were explaining that 11 to Lieutenant Proll that you came up with another reason 12 for going there that relates to Sergeant Pfarr? 13 A. Uh, yes. 14 Q. If you look on Page 2. 15 A. Well, there's -- on Page 1, it says the main 16 reason. So I think that would be the -- is it the same 17 paragraph? 18 Q. It's a continuation. 19 A. Okay. 20 Q. Because Sergeant Pfarr was so new? 21 A. Right. 22 Q. Do you know -- again, we're talking February 23 2013 -- how long had it been since his promotion? 24 A. A week. I believe he promoted in January of 25 that year. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2251 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1155 1 Q. So you wanted to make sure he did all the right 2 things? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. In fact, I think, at one point, you told 5 Lieutenant Proll that if Pfarr had not been there, you 6 probably would not have gone? 7 A. Yes, if there was a more experienced sergeant 8 there. 9 Q. So I'm trying to reconcile that with the 10 original reason to go there. 11 A. Uh-huh. 12 Q. You said the original reason, on Page 1 of the 13 interview, was to see if the officers on the scene 14 needed help and you said you probably wouldn't have gone 15 if Pfarr hadn't been so new. 16 A. Well, what I kind of stated, and you're 17 twisting it around, was, again, not the first reason I 18 told Proll, but the main reason was because Sergeant 19 Pfarr was so new and it, clearly, says that on the 20 bottom of Page 1. 21 I'll read it as a quote. "The main reason for 22 me going is because Sergeant Pfarr was -- I don't 23 remember when he promoted, but it was fairly soon prior 24 to this incident. So I was going out to talk with him 25 to make sure he was doing all the right things that he Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2252 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1156 1 would need to do and proper notifications." 2 So that was the main reason I went, but as a 3 secondary reason, yes, we wanted to make sure if anybody 4 needed help, have Officer Waddell assist the scene to 5 see if -- well, I use CAT team, but I know that confuses 6 people, but the accident team needed to be called out, 7 et cetera. 8 Q. Nevertheless, when you and Mr. Waddell went 9 there, Sergeant Pfarr was not there yet? 10 A. No. He showed up after we got there, that's 11 correct. 12 Q. I'm sure if I asked you what the time period 13 was between your arrival and his, you probably wouldn't 14 be able to do that, right? 15 A. No, but, you know, it was not a significant 16 amount of time. I want to say it was probably less than 17 ten, probably closer to five to seven minutes would be a 18 guess. 19 Q. And you assisted Sergeant Pfarr at the scene? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. You and he, I think, talked about whether to 22 call out the accident investigation team? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And you discussed whether or not it might be 25 worth a call to the traffic sergeant? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2253 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1157 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. Okay. And you did not stay that long, I got 3 the impression? 4 A. I did not stay long. 20 minutes, maybe, would 5 be my guess, maybe 30. The radio logs would show how 6 long I was there, but I was not there for an extended 7 period of time. 8 Q. And, again, I'm not going to pull out the log 9 and show you, but you didn't stay that long? 10 A. No. 11 Q. But, at some point, eventually, you left? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. When you left, it's my understanding the 14 Bentley was still on its roof? 15 A. Yes, it was. 16 Q. And Sergeant Pfarr was still there when you 17 left? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Were you there long enough to recall if 20 Sergeant Pfarr left to go to the hospital and then 21 returned? 22 A. No. He was there the entire time I was there. 23 Q. Okay. And when you left, the accident callout 24 team was not on scene? 25 A. That's correct. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2254 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1158 1 Q. With the exception of, obviously, Mr. Waddell? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. All right. And, again, I think we've, pretty 4 much, established that, in February of 2013, although 5 Mr. Waddell worked different shifts, at least, you were 6 his direct line supervisor? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. All right. So you've clarified the main reason 9 for going there was to be helpful to Sergeant Pfarr 10 because he was new? 11 A. Yes. 12 MS. CASTILLO: Asked and answered. 13 MR. PALMER: I'm just setting up the next 14 question. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Go ahead. 16 BY MR. PALMER: 17 Q. Is that a yes? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And, yet, while you were there, you and 20 Mr. Waddell started to conspire to prank Sergeant Pfarr? 21 A. Yes, that's correct. 22 Q. And you had this conversation with Mr. Waddell 23 while both of you were at the scene? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. That did not -- that conversation didn't Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2255 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1159 1 include Sergeant Pfarr, did it? 2 A. Uh, no, no. He wasn't even there yet. 3 Q. And you discussed joking -- it would be a nice 4 joke to play? 5 A. Sure. 6 Q. And the reason for that was because Pfarr was, 7 again, so new as a sergeant? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And, unfortunately, I have to quote you here, 10 not trying to be vulgar, but you said in your interview, 11 "It would be funny to fuck with Pfarr." 12 A. Yes, it would. Or that's what I said. I'm 13 sorry. 14 Q. Did you understand, in your interview with 15 Lieutenant Proll, that the transcript of that interview 16 might be viewed by others later? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Did that concern you in terms of using words 19 like that? 20 MS. CASTILLO: Objection. Relevance. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: What do you mean? 22 MS. CASTILLO: Relevance. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: Overruled. Go ahead. 24 THE WITNESS: Yes. The reason I told 25 Lieutenant Proll was because that's the exact words that Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2256 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1160 1 I remember telling Officer Waddell. And so you don't 2 know me, but I have a big mouth, but I'm also one to 3 stand by what I say. That's what I said, so that's what 4 I told Lieutenant Proll. 5 BY MR. PALMER: 6 Q. Fair enough. You also used the term, "screw 7 with him," meaning Pfarr? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And haze him? 10 A. I may have used that. I don't know if I used 11 that term to Officer Waddell, but that's a term that 12 would mean the same thing, sure. 13 Q. I picked up the word haze in your interview. 14 A. In the interview, right. 15 Q. I don't need to point it out to you, right? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. All right. And so it's my understanding that 18 you started discussing with Mr. Waddell doing something 19 so ridiculous as to make Sergeant Pfarr react with an, 20 oh, my God, what are you doing? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And you both laughed about the idea? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. But it's my understanding, correct me if I'm 25 wrong, that was it? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2257 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1161 1 A. That was the end of the conversation. 2 Q. There was no discussion about what to do? 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q. No discussion about whether you would do 5 whatever you're going to do together or separately? 6 A. That was the end of the conversation. 7 Q. No discussion about what Mr. Waddell would do 8 to Pfarr on his own? 9 A. Nope. 10 Q. No plan hatched? 11 A. None. 12 Q. Okay. And then you left the scene? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. Was that conversation about -- I'm going to use 15 the word, messing, with Sergeant Pfarr, was that toward 16 the end of your time on scene or can you time it -- 17 A. No. It was more in the beginning because it 18 was before Sergeant Pfarr even got there. 19 Q. Oh, okay. I got the impression this discussion 20 was made while you were all watching Sergeant Pfarr 21 doing something. 22 A. No, no. This was before he even showed up. 23 Q. Okay. And you left the scene? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Do you know how you got back to the station, if Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2258 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1162 1 you drove there together? 2 A. I drove back in the FST truck that we got there 3 with, and, again, the part that I don't recall is 4 whether Officer Waddell drove someone else's vehicle 5 that was there to go back. The equipment that he needed 6 was at the station, the total station. So there was 7 some way in which he came back. I don't remember if he 8 drove someone else's car. I don't recall him coming 9 back with me, but those details are very hazy. I just 10 don't remember. 11 Q. They were in your interview? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And they still are today? 14 A. Yes, they still are. 15 Q. So it's my understanding you weren't there at 16 the scene when Mr. Waddell asked the tow truck driver 17 for a screwdriver? 18 A. No, I was not. 19 Q. You weren't there when the tow truck driver 20 gave him a screwdriver? 21 A. No, I was not. 22 Q. You weren't there when Mr. Waddell proclaimed 23 that he had a collection of car parts -- 24 A. No. 25 Q. -- taken from previous accidents? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2259 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1163 1 A. No. 2 Q. You weren't there when he used a pry tool to 3 try to pry the Bentley emblem off the trunk lid? 4 A. No. 5 Q. You weren't there when he tried to bend the 6 wings of the Bentley emblem off the trunk lid? 7 A. No. 8 Q. You weren't there when he used a cutting 9 instrument to try to cut the Bentley emblem off the 10 steering wheel? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Or took the wheel hubcap cover, with a B on it, 13 off? 14 A. No. 15 Q. You weren't there when he put, apparently, that 16 hubcap cover, or multiple hubcap covers, into an 17 evidence bag and walked around with it? 18 A. No. 19 Q. All right. So may I assume, after you left the 20 scene, you were end of watch? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. I assume you went home? 23 A. Absolutely. 24 Q. At some point? 25 A. Yep. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2260 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1164 1 Q. Now, Lieutenant Proll, in your interview, asked 2 you at this point where you just testified that you 3 didn't -- you weren't there when all these other things 4 went on involving Mr. Waddell. 5 When was the next time you heard about this 6 event being discussed? 7 A. When Sergeant Pfarr brought it up to me at 8 whatever date it was. It was months later, six months 9 later. If not, further. 10 Q. Ms. Castillo put that in August of 2013. I'm 11 not sure we even know the real date -- 12 A. That sounds pretty close. 13 Q. -- but if we mark the accident in February and 14 this discussion about sergeant candidates or special 15 assignments, whatever it was, it was, certainly, months 16 later? 17 A. Yes. Six months would be a good round figure. 18 Q. Okay. And that's the first time you heard this 19 thing being discussed, at all -- 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. -- after your discussion with Mr. Waddell at 22 the scene? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Okay. I understand, correct me if I'm wrong, 25 that it was Sergeant Pfarr and, also, Sergeant Villanti Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2261 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1165 1 with whom you are having this discussion, the sergeant 2 candidates, special assignments? 3 A. Yes. I believe so and I'm trying to recall if 4 Sergeant Villanti -- I don't recall Sergeant Villanti 5 being in the room at the time Sergeant Pfarr initially 6 brought this up to me, but if it's in my testimony with 7 Lieutenant Proll, then maybe he was, but I don't have a 8 recollection of that right now. 9 Q. Okay. Maybe it's me. It just seems odd, to 10 me, to us, that you have -- you're at the scene of the 11 Bentley accident, you have this discussion with 12 Mr. Waddell to mess with Sergeant Pfarr, no details 13 discussed, you leave, you go home, and the next time you 14 hear about this is from Sergeant Pfarr, maybe with 15 Sergeant Villanti on scene, as well, not that the next 16 time you heard about this event was from your good 17 friend and neighbor, Mr. Waddell. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: Is that a question? 19 BY MR. PALMER: 20 Q. Do you see how that seems odd, to me? 21 MS. CASTILLO: I -- 22 BY MR. PALMER: 23 Q. It seems, to me -- let me ask the question. 24 It seems, to me, that if you're good friends 25 with Mr. Waddell and you're neighbors, that Mr. Waddell Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2262 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1166 1 would have come to you, maybe, some day, or days, after 2 this event and talked to you about it. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: I don't hear a question. 4 I hear an argument. 5 THE WITNESS: That's what I'm waiting for. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: So if you want to ask him 7 did that happen. 8 BY MR. PALMER: 9 Q. Did that happen? 10 A. Did he come and talk to me about it? 11 Q. Yes. 12 A. No, he did not. 13 Q. There was no driveway discussion that you guys 14 had? 15 A. Not about this, no. 16 Q. Mr. Waddell didn't come to you, like, in the 17 day afterward and the next day and say, do you remember 18 that discussion messing with Sergeant Pfarr, that didn't 19 go very well? He never brought that up to you? 20 A. No, he didn't. 21 Q. Prior to Sergeant Pfarr describing this event 22 to you, and let's say it occurred in August, you had no 23 idea that Mr. Waddell had taken some items from that 24 Bentley as a way to mess with Sergeant Pfarr? 25 A. I had no idea. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2263 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1167 1 Q. Mr. Waddell didn't come to you the next couple 2 days after the event and say Sergeant Pfarr was very 3 angry at me? 4 A. No. 5 Q. And he, to use the phrase that has been 6 described about that part of the event, tore me a new 7 one? 8 A. No, he did not tell me that. 9 Q. So then let's go back to Sergeant Pfarr. 10 Sergeant Pfarr tells you in -- let's just use, for 11 general purposes, August 2013, tells you about this 12 Bentley incident as part of the discussion of sergeant 13 candidates, special assignments, whatever the topic of 14 discussion was. 15 What was your first reaction to that 16 information? 17 A. My first reaction was, no way, doesn't make any 18 sense. 19 Q. I think I also wrote down from your interview, 20 what the hell are you talking about? 21 A. Yeah. Sounds like something I would say. 22 Q. You didn't connect it up to anything? 23 A. No. 24 Q. You never heard of this? 25 A. No, never heard of it. It was completely out Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2264 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1168 1 of the blue, and I think my first response to him was 2 how come nobody told me about this because I'm a 3 supervisor. 4 Q. You're his direct supervisor? 5 A. Right. 6 Q. Kind of surprised you not knowing about it? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. For, what, essentially -- 9 A. Six months. 10 Q. You anticipated my question. 11 Would you have expected Sergeant Pfarr, if he's 12 going to reprimand one of your officers in your direct 13 line of supervision, to tell you about it? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Would you also expect one of your officers to 16 tell you about it? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. But he didn't? 19 A. No. Neither of them did. 20 Q. Did Sergeant Pfarr tell you that he, in air 21 quotes, tore Mr. Waddell a new one? 22 A. Yeah. I don't know if that was his quote or my 23 quote, but, yes, something to that effect. 24 Q. You were kind of annoyed by that, weren't you? 25 A. I was annoyed that I was left out of the loop, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2265 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1169 1 yes. 2 Q. That's what I mean. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Now, at some point, when Sergeant Pfarr is 5 discussing this, my impression, again, of your interview 6 could be wrong, tell me if I'm wrong, at some point when 7 you and Sergeant Pfarr were discussing this, it dawns on 8 you what we're talking about? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Tell me how that evolution occurred. 11 A. Well, again, initially, you know, my thought 12 was, no way, why would anybody do that, it doesn't make 13 any sense, and, again, it was such an insignificant 14 one-line conversation that Officer Waddell and I had at 15 2:00 in the morning on a night, and then as I'm 16 recalling the incident, it dawns on me, oh, yeah, we did 17 have this conversation about it would be fun to screw 18 with Chad, and that's all -- that was the end of it. 19 So I said that to him, we did have this 20 conversation before you got there, and that's the only 21 common sense explanation that makes any sense to me. 22 Q. And so when you connected the two things up in 23 your head with what Sergeant Pfarr was telling you, you 24 told him some part of the conversation you had with 25 Mr. Waddell on the scene? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2266 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1170 1 A. I told him the whole part of the conversation. 2 Q. Okay. And later on in your interview, you told 3 Lieutenant Proll that Mr. Waddell's acts on the scene 4 after your conversation would be the activity which 5 would be exactly what would have been -- you two have 6 been referring to as a funny joke planned on the 7 sergeant. Do you recall that? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Those choice of words? 10 A. Yeah. It would be that type of over-the-top 11 thing, would be, sort of, what we were referring to. 12 Q. Okay. I just need to peel that onion a little 13 bit. 14 A. Sure. 15 Q. I want to make sure I understand your 16 testimony. 17 Using a pry tool to damage the property of 18 another is exactly what you would have expected? 19 A. No. 20 MS. CASTILLO: Objection. Misstates testimony 21 and evidence. 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: Overruled. You can 23 answer. 24 THE WITNESS: No. 25 /// Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2267 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1171 1 BY MR. PALMER: 2 Q. Okay. Then why did you tell Lieutenant Proll 3 that it was the exact type of activity that you thought 4 would be funny? 5 A. Because we discussed it would be funny to do 6 something so ridiculous that it would shock a new 7 sergeant. 8 Now, certainly, you know, a vandalism would 9 exceed that, but, you know, if you're saying, oh, well, 10 you know, you tickled his ear, well, that really 11 wouldn't rise to the level of what we are talking about, 12 something that would make a new sergeant shake his head 13 and think that his officers were falling apart on him 14 when, in reality, it was just a prank. 15 Q. Okay. 16 A. That's what I meant by that. 17 Q. So using a pry tool to damage the property of 18 another, in view of a tow truck operator, would not be 19 what you would have expected Mr. Waddell to do in 20 conformance with your discussion? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Using a cutting tool to cut away steering wheel 23 leather would not be something you would expect 24 Mr. Waddell to do in conformance with your discussion? 25 A. No. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2268 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1172 1 Q. Taking the same question -- taking the wheel 2 cover off would not be something you would expect? 3 A. That one I have less heartache because it's not 4 permanently damaging anything, but, again, we did not 5 discuss any -- I don't know how many times I can keep 6 saying it. We didn't discuss anything related to it, 7 but, again, something that would shock the conscience of 8 the sergeant is what we were talking about. 9 Q. Okay. All right. So, again, just for the sake 10 of finding some sort of benchmark, in August of 2013, 11 after listening to this from Sergeant Pfarr and 12 connecting it up, sometime during your discussion with 13 Sergeant Pfarr to this conversation you had with 14 Mr. Waddell, I'm pretty certain, then, you had a 15 subsequent conversation with Mr. Waddell? 16 A. Yes, at some point. 17 Q. Do you know when? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Did you contact him about this event or did he 20 come to you? 21 A. I don't recall. If it's in my testimony, if 22 you give me the page, I can refresh it. 23 Q. It's not. 24 A. I don't recall having any -- 25 Q. That's why I'm asking you. It's not. There's Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2269 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1173 1 nothing in Lieutenant Proll's interview with you that 2 you did have a subsequent conversation with Mr. Waddell. 3 Seems, to me, you would have, but you didn't say that. 4 A. No, no. At that point, Sergeant Pfarr had 5 already notified two lieutenants of this incident. So 6 it was out of my hands at this point. 7 Q. Agreed. I'm not messing around with that. I'm 8 talking about after you find out from Sergeant Pfarr 9 this event occurred, which you have no knowledge of, 10 correct? 11 A. Right. 12 Q. Okay. It would seem, to me, that you would 13 have gone to Mr. Waddell and said, what's up? 14 A. Oh, no, we did not have that conversation. 15 Q. You did not? 16 A. No, we did not. I misunderstood what you were 17 talking about. 18 Q. It's probably -- I apologize. 19 Okay. Now, did you tell Lieutenant Proll that 20 you didn't even know if Mr. Waddell was joking or not? 21 A. I think that was in my testimony, yes, because 22 I don't know. 23 Q. Because you're not him. 24 A. I'm not him. Exactly. 25 Q. In fact, I think you articulated that there's Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2270 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1174 1 only -- from your point of view, there's only two 2 explanations for his conduct, correct? 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q. One, that he's committed a theft or taking some 5 personal item as a trophy or, two, he was joking, 6 correct? 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. Those are the only two you can come up with? 9 A. That's the only two I can come up with. 10 Q. And you don't know which one it is? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. I think your feeling is it's probably a joke, 13 correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. But you could be wrong? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. Okay. Did you find it -- strike that. 18 When Sergeant Pfarr was describing this event 19 to you in August of 2013 and adding to it with 20 different -- with additional facts that he spoke to him 21 and reprimanded him and tore him a new one, to use the 22 phrase that's in this case, did Sergeant Pfarr tell you 23 what Mr. Waddell's reaction to that was -- 24 A. He did. 25 Q. -- to Sergeant Pfarr? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2271 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1175 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. What did he say? 3 A. Uh, he was apologetic. 4 Q. Did you find it odd that Mr. Waddell, in that 5 discussion with Sergeant Pfarr after the accident scene 6 was closed, that he didn't bring you up? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. That he didn't bring your conversation with he 9 and you at the accident scene to Sergeant Pfarr that 10 night? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Because it would intend to explain or support 13 the fact that it was just a joke? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Is the real reason the fact that Mr. Waddell 16 did not bring up the fact that you and he had this 17 discussion with Sergeant Pfarr after both of those men 18 left the accident scene and went back to his office the 19 fact that this joke was, actually, never discussed that 20 night? That's the real reason, isn't it? 21 A. I don't think I follow your question. 22 Q. Is the real reason that there was no discussion 23 between Mr. Waddell -- that Mr. Waddell did not bring up 24 the fact that, hey, talk to Sergeant Amoroso, I spoke to 25 him not an hour ago about messing with you, is the real Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2272 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1176 1 reason Mr. Waddell didn't bring that up that night is 2 because that conversation really didn't occur? 3 A. You're suggesting that the conversation between 4 Officer Waddell and I about playing the prank never 5 occurred? 6 Q. I have to suggest things that I -- 7 A. So you're suggesting that my testimony here is 8 a lie? Is that what I'm hearing -- 9 Q. You can deny it, if you want. What's your 10 answer? 11 A. Everything that I've said has been 100 percent 12 the truth and I find it completely offensive that you're 13 going to sit here and accuse me of lying under oath. 14 Q. About a week and a half before your interview 15 with Mr. -- with Lieutenant Proll, you did have a 16 discussion with Mr. Waddell in your -- in one of your 17 driveways, correct? 18 A. Yes. In my driveway. 19 Q. You knew at that time that Mr. Waddell was on 20 administrative leave with pay? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And Mr. Waddell was -- as I interpreted it, he 23 was kind of griping about the fact that he hadn't heard 24 anything about being on administrative leave with pay 25 and what's going to happen and things like that? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2273 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1177 1 A. Yeah. He was waiting for the result of the 2 internal affairs investigation and was wondering when he 3 was going to get some news. 4 Q. And it was at that point you told him there was 5 another internal affairs investigation going on relating 6 to the Bentley incident? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And as soon as those words got out of your 9 mouth, you realized you probably shouldn't have said it? 10 A. Correct. 11 MR. PALMER: Nothing further. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: Redirect? 13 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 14 15 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 16 BY MS. CASTILLO: 17 Q. Mr. Palmer has made somewhat of a big deal out 18 of the fact that you and Mr. Waddell have a good 19 relationship. You remember that line of questioning? 20 A. I do. 21 Q. In your opinion, is Mr. Waddell a good person? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Good character? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Are those the type of people that you normally Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2274 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1178 1 associate with? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. You testified on cross-examination that you 4 recall this movie being a theatrical movie. Do you 5 remember that? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Was that what Sergeant Pfarr told you? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Do you have any other knowledge other than what 10 he told you, specifically? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Do you remember having any conversation with 13 Officer Waddell about what that movie was? 14 A. No, I don't remember. 15 Q. Okay. Do you have any information as to 16 whether or not Officer Waddell was eating while he was 17 watching a movie? 18 A. I don't recall. 19 Q. Okay. When Sergeant Pfarr came to you to talk 20 about his concern regarding Officer Waddell being in 21 that office, did he mention any concerns about any other 22 officers? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Okay. So when Mr. Palmer asked you about 25 Sergeant Pfarr being a concerned supervisor and isn't Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2275 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1179 1 this what supervisors do, was there an impression that 2 was made on you, one way or the other, that Sergeant 3 Pfarr was being a concerned supervisor or that he was 4 specifically concerned about Officer Waddell? 5 A. I think he was just a concerned supervisor and 6 was just checking on what was going on. 7 Q. Okay. In terms of that specific day, do you 8 recall any conversation with Sergeant Pfarr about 9 whether or not he had any communication or spent any 10 time with Officer Waddell after he saw him watching the 11 movie? Did they go and have coffee afterwards? Did 12 they go and spend any time together? Did they go and 13 have a conversation? Do you remember anything about 14 that? 15 A. I don't think so. I suppose, they could have, 16 but I don't recall him telling me anything like that. 17 Q. Okay. So, in your mind, was this a significant 18 event to Sergeant Pfarr? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Okay. But it was significant enough that -- 21 A. Well, significant enough to tell me about it. 22 Q. At some point close in time to it, correct? 23 A. Yeah. I mean, I guess, I'm determining or 24 identifying a significant event, meaning this guy needs 25 to come off the street immediately, it's a danger to the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2276 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1180 1 public. That's what I'm thinking significant means. 2 Q. But it's significant enough that Sergeant Pfarr 3 would come to you, Officer Waddell's direct supervisor, 4 and say, hey, I saw Officer Waddell in the downtown bike 5 office, watching a movie, just so you know, be aware, 6 right? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. Yet, six months later, after the Bentley 9 incident, you were never advised that maybe Officer 10 Waddell is committing thefts and collecting things from 11 crime scenes; is that right? 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. Must not have been that big of a deal to 14 Sergeant Pfarr? 15 MR. PALMER: Kind of argumentative. 16 MS. CASTILLO: Kind of. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: If you know what's in 18 Sergeant Pfarr's mind, I guess, you can testify to it, 19 but I don't see how you would. It is what it is. 20 BY MS. CASTILLO: 21 Q. When you had that conversation with Sergeant 22 Pfarr where he told you about the Bentley incident, only 23 as you were talking about potential candidates, right? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. Not because he, specifically, brought it to Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2277 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1181 1 your attention about Officer Waddell. 2 Did he tell you anything about Officer Waddell 3 taking it for a collection? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Did he tell you anything about the specific 6 parts that were removed? 7 A. My recollection was one hubcap. 8 Q. He didn't say anything about Bentley wings? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Or steering columns? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Or wing covers? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Or evidence bags? 15 A. No. Well, I take that back. He did say that 16 the cap was placed in a bag, yes. 17 Q. What did he say then? 18 A. Uh, that he confronted Officer Waddell and 19 Officer Waddell put the -- put it back in the car, but I 20 don't know if that meant in the bag or took it out of 21 the bag and put it in, but he did, I think, say 22 something about a bag. 23 Q. He didn't elaborate on this whole event to you? 24 A. No. It was brief. 25 Q. Okay. Did he say anything about cutting into Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2278 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1182 1 the steering wheel? 2 A. No. 3 Q. During that six-month period, did you ever hear 4 that the crime scene of this potential fatal traffic 5 collision had been tampered with and the criminal 6 investigation had been compromised by the criminal acts 7 of one of the police officers at the San Luis Obispo 8 Police Department? 9 A. No. 10 MR. PALMER: Objection. Factual -- there's got 11 to be a factual basis for every question. 12 MS. CASTILLO: I asked did he -- 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'm going to allow it in 14 this case. 15 THE WITNESS: No. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: I understood it was a 17 hypothetical, just for the record. Go ahead. 18 BY MS. CASTILLO: 19 Q. Well, did you see the air bag had deployed? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Okay. 22 A. You're talking about from the steering wheel? 23 Q. Right. 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Where it would have been cut. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2279 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1183 1 Did you ever hear that the car had been damaged 2 other than from a cause contributed to the drinking and 3 driving crash? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Is the culture within the police department to 6 play pranks? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And you hear about all the good ones, right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Those are made common knowledge, right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. You don't always hear about the ones that kind 13 of fall flat, do you? 14 A. You don't really hear about the ones you don't 15 hear about, I guess. 16 Q. Right. So Mr. Palmer asked you, you know, why 17 was it that, you know, if you had any knowledge as to 18 why you didn't hear about all of this from Officer 19 Waddell, and you didn't have an answer. Do you remember 20 that line of questioning? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Do you have any answers as to why you didn't 23 hear about this from Sergeant Pfarr? 24 A. No. No idea. 25 Q. You don't know why you didn't hear about this Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2280 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1184 1 from any of the other supervisors that he might have 2 spoken to, right, about this event that night? 3 A. No idea. 4 Q. Do you know if he reported it to his chain of 5 command that night? 6 A. I do not know. 7 Q. Extreme incident? No? 8 A. I do not know. 9 Q. Is he still your neighbor? 10 A. Kind of. 11 Q. What does that mean? 12 A. They still own the house, but they're currently 13 renting it out. So he lives in the same city, just a 14 little further away. 15 Q. When you were interviewed by Lieutenant Proll, 16 and he asked you it could either be a joke or it could 17 be a theft, one of those two options, right? 18 A. Uh-huh. 19 Q. And you said, knowing what I know about Officer 20 Waddell, I believe more along the lines of a joke. 21 Is that your impression or your opinion? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. And then they bring up DRMO, right? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Because then there's this thought that maybe, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2281 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1185 1 oh, well, he could be taking military surplus stuff, 2 too, right? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. Had you ever heard that, ever, prior to your 5 interview with Lieutenant Proll? 6 A. No. 7 Q. But if that was the case, then maybe that would 8 be something that would tip the scale towards uproot his 9 position to having any collections of other things? 10 MR. PALMER: Objection. Beyond the scope of 11 this witness, speculation. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: If you can answer, you 13 can answer. 14 THE WITNESS: Sure. I would agree. I would 15 think if someone has a proclivity to steal from one 16 area, then they would, potentially, do it in other 17 areas. 18 BY MS. CASTILLO: 19 Q. Now, when you say that you told Sergeant Pfarr 20 your entire conversation about your conversation with 21 Officer Waddell at the scene, hey, wouldn't it be funny 22 to play a joke, when Lieutenant Bledsoe came to you and 23 said, hey, have you heard about this Bentley incident, 24 did he happen to mention that Pfarr had told him, and I 25 heard that you and Officer Waddell had talked about Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2282 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1186 1 playing this joke on Sergeant Pfarr? 2 A. I remember Lieutenant Bledsoe talking about the 3 Bentley incident. I don't recall whether or not he had 4 heard of the prank at that point. 5 Q. Okay. 6 A. Or the talk of the prank. 7 Q. Okay. So you don't know if Sergeant Pfarr had 8 communicated to him that you and Officer Waddell had had 9 that conversation or not? 10 A. That's correct, I don't know. 11 Q. Okay. And you have not read any of the 12 investigations or statements or synopsis in this case, 13 other than what's in your transcript, right? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. So you have no idea what was done in the view 16 of anyone? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Okay. You say that when you had your 19 conversation with Sergeant Pfarr, that he communicated 20 to you that Officer Waddell was apologetic, right? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Did he tell you that Officer Waddell said he 23 was joking? 24 A. No. 25 Q. He never told you that part? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2283 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1187 1 A. I don't believe so. 2 Q. And, approximately, when were the -- so 3 Sergeant Pfarr had just been promoted in this time 4 period of February, correct? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. So when were the next set of promotions going 7 to take place for detectives after that? Fairly soon 8 thereafter? 9 A. No. Again, the interviews would have been, 10 like, in the August, September time frame to take effect 11 in the January following year time frame. 12 Q. Okay. 13 A. And promotion is not really the right word. 14 It's more of a shift -- yeah. 15 Q. Okay. And when you heard from Sergeant Pfarr 16 that he had tore a new one into Officer Waddell, the 17 impression that you got from that conversation was that 18 he had verbally counseled him and it was done, correct? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. And that he was angry at the time, right? 21 A. Referring to Sergeant Pfarr? 22 Q. Yes. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Now, after you made it known that you had 25 been -- or had spoken to Officer Waddell about wouldn't Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2284 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1188 1 it be funny if we messed with Sergeant Pfarr in any way, 2 did the department investigate you as a result of that? 3 A. No. 4 Q. And other than Lieutenant Proll saying, oh, 5 good job, and you say, well, I'm a lot like you, really, 6 nothing else happened, right? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. And when you said I'm a lot like you, what does 9 that mean? 10 A. Lieutenant Proll also has engaged in many 11 pranks over his career. 12 Q. Okay. And because that's the culture of the 13 department? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. But you would expect that if this was a real 16 theft, a real crime, that those people who had witnessed 17 it would have either stopped it in progress or treated 18 it as a real crime, written a report, grabbed the 19 officer, placed him on administrative leave, all of the 20 things that have happened at the San Luis Obispo Police 21 Department right before this incident with the other 22 police officers who have actually been accused of 23 crimes, right? 24 A. Yes. 25 MS. CASTILLO: I don't have anything else. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2285 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1189 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: Recross? 2 3 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 4 BY MR. PALMER: 5 Q. In terms of the conduct of Mr. Waddell at the 6 scene of the accident that night, would you expect those 7 things, putting on administrative leave, starting an IA, 8 reporting up the chain of command, would you have 9 expected those things, if somebody truly thought it was 10 a theft, to have been done by Sergeant Pfarr? 11 A. No, but the notification would be done 12 immediately to the lieutenant. And sergeants, that's 13 not our role to put someone on leave, but, certainly, 14 the notification would be made immediately, yes. 15 Q. But in terms of the on-scene supervisor that 16 night, that was Sergeant Pfarr? 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. So whatever notification reporting duties were 19 applicable to that night, it would have fallen on 20 Sergeant Pfarr? 21 A. That is correct. 22 Q. All right. And then whatever else comes of it 23 are decisions made at a higher pay grade than Sergeant 24 Pfarr? 25 A. It's the next guy's up problem. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2286 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1190 1 MR. PALMER: Nothing further. 2 3 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 4 BY MS. CASTILLO: 5 Q. But if someone is cutting into a steering 6 wheel, they would have waited and made a notification? 7 A. No. 8 Q. They would have stopped that, right? 9 A. Yes. Well, I would have stopped it. I don't 10 know what other people would do. 11 MS. CASTILLO: Okay. I don't have anything 12 else. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Anything else? 14 MR. PALMER: No. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Can we excuse Sergeant 16 Amoroso? 17 MR. PALMER: Yes. 18 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: You're excused. Thank 20 you, sir. 21 THE WITNESS: All right. Thank you. 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: Let's go off the record 23 for a sec. 24 (Recess.) 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: We're back on the record. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2287 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1191 1 Good morning, Lieutenant Proll. My name's Chris 2 Cameron. I'm the hearing officer. It's my job to make 3 sure we get your testimony. So let's get you to raise 4 your right hand. You can stand if you want. 5 Do you affirm the testimony that you are about 6 to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing 7 but the truth? 8 THE WITNESS: Yes. 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: You can sit down. 10 Do we have the spelling of Lieutenant Proll's 11 name? 12 THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Very good. Ms. Castillo, 14 you may proceed. 15 MS. CASTILLO: Thank you. 16 17 DIRECT EXAMINATION 18 BY MS. CASTILLO: 19 Q. Good morning. 20 A. Good morning. 21 Q. So you work for the San Luis Obispo Police 22 Department? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And how long have you been a sworn police 25 officer? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2288 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1192 1 A. I was a reserve officer here in 1984 and 1985 2 and I've been full time since 1986. 3 Q. And when -- so you became a full-time police 4 officer in '86. Did you promote at some point? 5 A. Yes. I promoted to sergeant in 2001 and to 6 lieutenant in 2005. 7 Q. Did you have any collateral assignments during 8 those periods? 9 A. In the supervisor periods? 10 Q. Well, during any of those periods. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. What were they? 13 A. I had special assignments. I was with the 14 Narcotic Task Force for five years, field training 15 officer, the firearms instructor, I was a downtown 16 bicycle officer, I was on the S.W.A.T. team. After 17 promoting, I was a downtown bicycle sergeant, I was the 18 lieutenant in investigations, I was an administrative 19 sergeant. 20 Q. Okay. And you're familiar with Officer 21 Waddell? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Have you ever directly supervised him? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And when was that? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2289 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1193 1 A. Just from recollection, I believe when he was a 2 downtown bicycle officer. 3 Q. What period, time period? 4 A. I don't recall without looking that up. 5 Q. Were you a sergeant or a lieutenant at the 6 time? 7 A. I believe I was a lieutenant while he was on 8 the bike. 9 Q. Okay. So sometime after 2005? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Did you ever write evaluations for him? 12 A. I'm not sure if I wrote the annual evaluations 13 for him. This is just from memory. I believe we have 14 sergeant promotability evaluations that, I believe, I 15 had written them for him. 16 Q. Okay. So during the time you were his direct 17 supervisor when he was on the bike team, you would have 18 been in his chain of command, but he would have had a 19 supervisor, a sergeant, over him, correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Okay. At some point, you were specifically 22 assigned to do an administrative investigation of 23 Officer Waddell, right? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And when were you specifically assigned to do Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2290 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1194 1 this investigation? 2 A. I believe, in December of 2013. 3 Q. And by whom? 4 A. Captain Storton, I believe, initially, gave me 5 the assignment. 6 Q. Do you know why you were assigned? Were you 7 told why? 8 A. I don't recall. 9 Q. Okay. And how did you -- we're calling it the 10 Bentley incident. 11 A. Okay. 12 Q. How did you first become aware of the Bentley 13 incident? 14 A. When it was assigned to me. 15 Q. You had not heard about the Bentley incident in 16 discussions through supervisors discussing promotability 17 of individuals? 18 A. Not that I remember. 19 Q. When you were assigned the Bentley incident, 20 were you provided a memorandum as a starting point? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Do you know how it was that the memorandum was 23 initiated? 24 A. I don't recall how that started. 25 Q. Prior to coming to testify today, what Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2291 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1195 1 materials did you review? 2 A. I reviewed the final AI report, I reviewed some 3 previous drafts that I had submitted during this time 4 period. That was it. 5 Q. Did you review any transcripts? 6 A. No, I did not. 7 Q. Any audio? 8 A. No, I did not. 9 Q. And where did you get the drafts? 10 A. Well, two different places. The -- a little 11 while ago, there was an e-mail of public records 12 request, or whatever, and so I looked at them when I 13 still had them on my computer, and then, yesterday, when 14 I met with Captain Staley and the city's attorney here. 15 Q. Prior to conducting this administrative 16 investigation of Officer Waddell, had you previously 17 conducted administrative investigations? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Approximately, how many? 20 A. I don't know if I'm including citizen 21 complaints. There are very few actual AIs in this 22 fashion with interviewing officers and those kind of 23 things, but just a handful. 24 Q. Okay. And so in this instance, who was the 25 first person that you interviewed? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2292 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1196 1 A. I believe the tow truck driver. 2 Q. And did you record that interview? 3 A. I did not. 4 Q. Why not? 5 A. I came upon the tow truck driver by accident. 6 I was on duty, parking downtown to go to Starbucks, and 7 right in front of our downtown police office was a 8 college tow truck and a driver getting in it and my 9 intention was to ask him how I would go about finding 10 who and how to contact a driver of the towed car of an 11 accident a long time earlier, and he asked about it and 12 I said it was a Bentley that rolled on Orcutt and 13 Johnson, and he said, that was me, so I said, oh, and 14 asked him if he had a minute because we were, literally, 15 five feet away or ten feet away from our downtown 16 office, and I wasn't planning on interviewing him that 17 night, although, I came across him. So I interviewed 18 him and did not have a tape recorder with me. 19 Q. Did you take notes? 20 A. I did. 21 Q. And how long did your interview with him last? 22 A. I could refer to -- I don't know if it's in 23 there or not, but I would venture to say it was, like, 24 20 minutes. 25 Q. And did you already have your questions written Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2293 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1197 1 or did you just, kind of, go off the cuff? 2 A. I don't know if I had written them by then, but 3 I did not use a script when I interviewed him. 4 Q. Okay. And so then after your interview, you, 5 essentially, summarized what he told you and you 6 included that in your IA, correct? 7 A. I wrote the IA paragraph on the interview with 8 the tow truck driver based on the notes I had taken 9 while interviewing him. 10 Q. All right. Based on the notes that you took, 11 how long after? 12 A. I don't recall. 13 Q. He makes a statement that you wrote in your 14 report that if he had to use his imagination from in 15 high school. What did he mean by that? Did you ask 16 him? 17 A. I don't recall. I remember the statement. I 18 think the statement -- the quote, kind of, spoke for 19 itself, what he was -- what he thought was going on. 20 Q. No. I mean, when he said, "If I had to use my 21 imagination from back in high school," did you ask him 22 when he meant by what his imagination from back in high 23 school was versus when he was talking to you? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And what did that mean? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2294 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1198 1 A. He told me that it was -- that it would have 2 been -- back in high school, it would have been taking a 3 vehicle part, or parts. 4 Q. What do you mean back in high school? I 5 don't... 6 A. That was part of his statement, but maybe that 7 was a high school thing that they did, or whatever, or 8 that he knew that friends did, or something. 9 Q. Did he tell you that? Because that wasn't in 10 your synopsis. 11 A. I don't recall the question I asked him, but 12 that was what I gathered from his statement to me. I 13 don't remember, exactly, what his statement was. 14 Q. That's why I'm asking, since you didn't record 15 it and you didn't write that part, what that meant. You 16 don't remember now? 17 A. I don't. 18 Q. Do you still have a copy of those notes from 19 your interview with the tow truck driver? 20 A. I don't. 21 Q. What did you do with them after you wrote your 22 synopsis? 23 A. I shredded them. 24 Q. Why? 25 A. I didn't need them anymore. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2295 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1199 1 Q. But you don't remember what some of the terms 2 that he said mean, as you sit here today. 3 Don't you think that, perhaps, those notes 4 could have helped you with your testimony? 5 MR. PALMER: Objection. Misstates the 6 testimony. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'm not sure what the 8 testimony was, but the question is whether it would help 9 you with your testimony. So do you think it would have 10 helped you with your testimony? 11 THE WITNESS: If I had kept the notes? 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: Uh-huh. 13 THE WITNESS: No. 14 BY MS. CASTILLO: 15 Q. Do you wear a -- do you -- when you are 16 working, are you dressed like you are today? 17 A. When I'm working as a patrol watchman, I'm in a 18 uniform. 19 Q. And you don't wear a recorder? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. There's no recording policy at San Luis Obispo? 22 A. There is. 23 Q. Just not for you? 24 A. Well, my primary role and function is in the 25 station. I don't interact with people I'm Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2296 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1200 1 investigating, or anything like that. 2 Q. So, then, after you talked to the tow truck 3 driver, who did you talk to? 4 A. If I could refer to my report to refresh my 5 memory. 6 Q. It's fine with me. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Is that okay with you? 8 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. For the 10 record, I take it, he's looking at Department Exhibit 8, 11 but he's just doing it to refresh his recollection. So 12 we're not referencing any particular pages right now. 13 THE WITNESS: I believe the first person I 14 interviewed was Officer Joshua Walsh. 15 BY MS. CASTILLO: 16 Q. Okay. And then Colleen Kevany? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And then Sergeant Amoroso? 19 A. I believe Officer Cudworth. 20 Q. Okay. Did you determine the people to 21 interview based on the event history? 22 A. For the most part, yes. I think, once or 23 twice, during an interview, someone would give me 24 another name of a person there, or something, because 25 not all the time everybody that's associated or had Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2297 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1201 1 anything to do with this call would be listed in our 2 records management system. 3 Q. Okay. Now, when you interviewed -- well, let 4 me ask you. 5 Overall, how many officers did you interview, 6 total? 7 A. Including sergeants and lieutenants? 8 Q. Correct. 9 A. I believe, 11. 10 Q. Okay. And then one civilian, right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And the only civilian that you interviewed was 13 the tow truck driver, right? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Okay. And the tow truck driver specifically 16 told you that he did not see anyone remove any vehicle 17 parts, right? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Okay. But when you asked him why someone would 20 borrow a screwdriver, he said, "If I could use my 21 imagination and I was back in high school, I could think 22 it was to remove vehicle parts," but then you didn't ask 23 him any reason why he was using his imagination back in 24 high school? We just talked about that, right? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2298 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1202 1 Q. Okay. And he never told you, during this 2 conversation, that he saw any removed vehicle parts, 3 right? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. And did you have the occasion, during this 6 interview with him, to ask him if he noted, as he towed 7 the vehicle, any damage that was nonspecific to the 8 crash? Did he bring it to your attention? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Okay. So other than that one civilian, did you 11 go and talk to any insurance adjustors? 12 A. I recall talking to one on the phone about 13 trying to get the photographs from the insurance 14 company, but I did not -- there was no interview. 15 Q. Okay. And did you get the photographs? 16 A. I believe so, yes. 17 Q. Did you get a photograph? 18 A. I don't recall how many it was. 19 Q. Well, you got -- which -- well, you attached 20 photographs to your report, right? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And do you know where you got those 23 photographs? 24 A. The majority of them, the four or five, I 25 think -- I don't even remember exactly when it was -- Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2299 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1203 1 from our evidence photos that were taken by an officer 2 at the scene. 3 Q. Okay. Now, you're a police officer with a 4 significant amount of time on, right? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. I assume you've done multiple investigations, 7 right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And so, usually, you say where you get 10 evidence, right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. So where in your investigation does it 13 say where you got the specific photographs? Do you 14 know? I mean, I can refer you to Page 24 where you 15 reference photographs, or investigation, and I see where 16 you say photographs taken at the scene by officers. 17 Are those the ones that you included or are 18 those the ones you checked? 19 A. The one I included, I believe, did not depict 20 any damage to the steering wheel, the ones that the 21 insurance adjustor sent me. 22 Q. Well, okay. That is my question. There are 23 photos. Where did they come from? 24 A. The two places. 25 Q. Okay. And which photos came from where? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2300 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1204 1 A. The ones showing the car at the accident scene 2 came from our officers photographing that night. The 3 one that appears to be an interior photo of the steering 4 wheel came from the insurance adjustor. 5 Q. Okay. Thank you. 6 Now, did you get any other information from the 7 insurance adjustor? 8 A. Not that I recall. 9 Q. Okay. So did you speak to the owner of the 10 Bentley? 11 A. I did not. 12 Q. Okay. When you spoke to the insurance 13 adjustor, did they say we are missing parts to our car? 14 A. They did not. 15 Q. Did they say there is cutting on this steering 16 wheel? 17 A. They did not. 18 Q. Did they say there are bent emblems or wings or 19 any kind of damage to the parts of the vehicle that are 20 inconsistent with this crash? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Did you ask those questions? 23 A. I did not. 24 Q. Did you go, because you were aware that the 25 Bentley was still at College Towing at this time, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2301 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1205 1 pursuant to your education, and take your own 2 photographs, Investigator Proll? 3 A. I don't know if the Bentley was at the thing 4 when I was assigned this. I had no knowledge of this 5 Bentley incident until it was almost a year, or so, 6 later. I have no knowledge if the Bentley was there. I 7 did not go to College Towing to look at the Bentley. 8 Q. Okay. Well, in the photographs that you did 9 get, the Bentley was pretty smashed up, right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. Do you know if the Bentley was -- well, 12 do you know what happened to the Bentley? 13 A. I don't. 14 Q. Did you endeavor to determine? 15 A. I did not. 16 Q. Did you -- I know you said you don't know if it 17 was at College Towing, but did you try to find it so you 18 could take your own photographs? 19 Because we've heard a lot of testimony about 20 damage and all of this about what vehicle tampering and 21 all of this. Did you do anything to prove that any of 22 this occurred? 23 A. I never went to look at the Bentley. 24 MS. CASTILLO: Do you think this is a good time 25 for a break? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2302 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1206 1 MR. PALMER: I was just looking up. 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. We're going to 3 take a break for lunch, take care of some other things. 4 We're going to be back at 1:30; is that right? 5 MR. PALMER: Yes. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: Lieutenant Proll, I want 7 to direct you not to discuss your testimony with anybody 8 and we'll see you back at 1:30. 9 THE WITNESS: Okay. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very much. 11 (Luncheon recess.) 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: Before we resume with the 13 testimony of Lieutenant Proll, we have a discovery issue 14 that related to one of the SDTs having to do with 15 turning over e-mails and drafts and there was an 16 objection raised by the department and I don't know if, 17 Ms. Castillo, you want to represent what you're looking 18 for and what you got in response that you're objecting 19 to. 20 MS. CASTILLO: Okay. We had subpoenaed, I 21 believe, all drafts of the internal affairs 22 investigations that have been prepared by the department 23 and the respondent had filed a motion to quash last time 24 we were here. That had been denied and the drafts had 25 been provided, or some of the drafts had been provided. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2303 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1207 1 We did receive versions of the various IAs. There were 2 a privileged log list provided to us. We did note that 3 one particular draft was not provided to us, and that 4 was an attachment to what is contained in an e-mail from 5 Chris Staley to Bill Proll. The subject is listed as 6 IA -- or sorry, AI 13005, the date of the e-mail is 7 Tuesday, May 27, 2014, and the attachment is labeled 8 Waddell AI 13005 Doc. According to -- 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: Do we have a date for 10 that? 11 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. May 27, 2014. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 13 MS. CASTILLO: We were given a privileged log 14 and we rerequested this from the assistant city attorney 15 and he pointed us to, I believe, entry 207 on the 16 privileged log, stating that it was attorney-client 17 privilege, even though this is from a captain to a 18 lieutenant. 19 So we ask that the document be brought to the 20 hearing today or an in-camera review by the hearing 21 officer, and we did not receive a response from the 22 assistant city attorney. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. So your -- this is 24 in response to my motion to enforce the subpoena or my 25 order earlier and an objection was interposed on behalf Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2304 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1208 1 of the department by the city attorney to provide any -- 2 and you want to go ahead and make that record? 3 MS. DIETRICK: I will represent that it was a 4 conveyance of my work product between one client staff 5 representative to another client staff representative to 6 implement the direction provided by advice of counsel 7 into the document. 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. And I will observe 9 that in issuing the order I did at the July 23rd 10 hearing, I believe it was without prejudice to whatever 11 privilege objections there might be made. So what I've 12 suggested to the parties is that to conduct an in-camera 13 review to confirm that. I'm not interested in having 14 any privileged information, but I think I should take a 15 look at it. So Ms. Dietrick is going to do a little 16 more research and, hopefully, we'll deal with that issue 17 today or tomorrow. 18 With respect to my understanding of the 19 appellant's position, Ms. Castillo represented, when we 20 were off the record, that it relates to the examination 21 of Lieutenant Proll, and so if that's the case and it 22 gets produced and he's not on the stand, we can always 23 get him back in this building and, hopefully, you can 24 continue with that examination. 25 MS. CASTILLO: Right. And, of course, we would Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2305 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1209 1 be satisfied with the document and any redactions 2 necessary. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. 4 MS. DIETRICK: It is my position it is not 5 possible to redact the document without reflecting my 6 work product and my impressions of where the document 7 had concerns or issues that required my legal advice and 8 attention. 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thanks for putting that 10 on the record. I assumed that was the case, but now 11 it's clear. All right. Very good. So we'll deal with 12 that next period of time. 13 All right. We're back with the direct 14 examination of Lieutenant Proll. Ms. Castillo, it's all 15 yours. 16 MS. CASTILLO: Thank you. 17 BY MS. CASTILLO: 18 Q. Good afternoon. So since we are talking about 19 drafts of the Bentley investigation, the ultimate report 20 that is listed as the Police Department's Exhibit, I 21 believe, 8, your memorandum to Chief Gesell, dated 22 February 28th, how many versions of this document did 23 you author? 24 A. I don't recall, exactly. I think I submitted 25 it for review three or four times. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2306 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1210 1 Q. And who did you submit it to review to? 2 A. Captain Staley. 3 Q. And when you submitted it to review, for what 4 purpose was it? 5 A. It's just our standard procedure of any written 6 product that gets through the chain of command for 7 additional ideas, corrections, that kind of stuff. 8 Q. Did you get any ideas or corrections from the 9 chief of police? 10 A. I believe so, yes. 11 Q. Now, you were assigned this investigation by 12 Captain Storton. Why were you submitting it to Captain 13 Staley? 14 A. Captain Staley was my direct supervisor. 15 Q. Was he supervising the investigation or was it 16 the person who assigned it to you supervising it? 17 A. I don't know. Just, my chain of command was 18 through Captain Staley. 19 Q. Was it reassigned, at some point, from Captain 20 Storton to Captain Staley? 21 A. I don't know. 22 Q. You don't know? 23 A. I don't know. 24 Q. When you were first told to conduct the 25 investigation, you were given the memorandum, right -- Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2307 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1211 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. -- from Sergeant Pfarr? 3 You have an introduction in your investigative 4 memorandum that says, "It was also mentioned that 5 Officer Waddell might have a collection of car parts 6 that he has taken from other accident scenes." 7 Where did you receive that information for 8 investigation? 9 A. I believe from the initial memorandum. 10 Q. Okay. Is the initial memorandum attached to 11 your report? 12 A. Not to the copy I have here. 13 Q. Have you reviewed the memorandum dated December 14 20th, 2013, to Captain Storton from Sergeant Pfarr 15 regarding Officer Waddell recently? 16 A. Not recently. 17 Q. When is the last time you reviewed the 18 memorandum? 19 A. I don't recall. I think when I was putting 20 this together. 21 Q. When you were putting this packet together is 22 the last time you reviewed this? 23 A. Yes. I was provided this copy, which does not 24 have that. 25 Q. How many times have you testified in court? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2308 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1212 1 A. I wouldn't be able to guess. 2 Q. A lot? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. You usually review your materials before you go 5 to court, though, right? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Why didn't you do that before you came here? 8 MR. PALMER: Objection. Misstates the 9 evidence. He said he did and told you what he reviewed. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah. You might want to 11 rephrase that. 12 BY MS. CASTILLO: 13 Q. Why didn't you review all of your materials for 14 your investigation before you came to testify today? 15 A. Well, I was given this as a copy and I went off 16 of this report that I did. 17 Q. I'll have you look at Appellant's Exhibit A. 18 MR. PALMER: He has his own copy. 19 MS. CASTILLO: Oh, you do? 20 MR. PALMER: Right here. 21 MS. CASTILLO: Why does it have... 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: Are we all on the same 23 page? 24 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. Appellant's Exhibit A. 25 /// Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2309 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1213 1 BY MS. CASTILLO: 2 Q. Okay. So this is the memorandum that you 3 received from Captain Storton, correct? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And this is how you initiated your 6 investigation, right? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Okay. This was the starting point, right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. In this memorandum, you see that 11 Sergeant Pfarr has the impression that Officer Waddell 12 is playing a joke on him, correct? Bottom paragraph, 13 "playing a joke on me." 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Okay. Since he was newly promoted. 16 When you spoke to the tow truck driver, right, 17 the tow truck driver who didn't see the removal of any 18 car parts, and he said, oh, why would someone borrow a 19 screwdriver, you remember that line of questioning that 20 you had with him? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Did you ask him about the possibility of a 23 joke, since it had, obviously, given the sergeant 24 impression of the possibility of a joke? 25 A. I did not. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2310 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1214 1 Q. Okay. Did you ask, during your interview with 2 Sergeant Pfarr, if he ever spoke to the tow truck 3 driver? 4 A. I don't recall. 5 Q. Okay. Because the tow truck driver was the 6 first person you spoke to, right? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. So you knew the tow truck driver never saw the 9 removal of any parts, right? 10 A. That's what he said, yes. 11 Q. Okay. And you know, having read the memorandum 12 that was written long after the fact, right, that 13 Sergeant Pfarr is looking at this from the eyes of a tow 14 truck driver, right, because you can see that in the 15 first paragraph on the second page, right? 16 MR. PALMER: If I can just look over his 17 shoulder. 18 THE WITNESS: What was your question? 19 BY MS. CASTILLO: 20 Q. If you had asked Sergeant Pfarr if he had a 21 conversation with the tow truck driver. 22 A. I did not. 23 Q. Okay. This memorandum indicates that Sergeant 24 Pfarr had a telephone conversation with Officer Waddell 25 wherein he was reprimanding Officer Waddell. You read Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2311 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1215 1 that, right? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Did you ask him what was said, specifically, 4 during that telephone conversation? 5 A. When Pfarr called Officer Waddell, he said 6 something to effect of, quote, "I can't believe you just 7 put me in that situation." 8 Q. Okay. Is that the entirety of the reprimand 9 that you were told? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. That's it? Anything else? 12 A. Anything else during that phone conversation? 13 Q. Correct. 14 A. I think Pfarr asked Officer Waddell to see him 15 in the sergeant's office when he was done. 16 Q. Okay. According to the memorandum that you 17 were given to start your investigation, Sergeant Pfarr 18 indicated that he ordered Officer Waddell to return the 19 car parts to the vehicle, which he did. You see that, 20 right? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Did you ask Sergeant Pfarr questions about that 23 during the course of your interview with him? 24 A. The first paragraph -- 25 Q. What are you referencing? I don't know what Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2312 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1216 1 you're looking at. 2 A. It's my report. 3 Q. Is that what is in Exhibit 8 of the 4 department's exhibits? 5 And which version are you looking at? The one 6 that has been admitted into evidence? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Okay. 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: I have that that's 10 Department's 8, a memo dated February 28, 2014. Is that 11 what we're looking at here? 12 MR. PALMER: That's what we're looking at. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 14 BY MS. CASTILLO: 15 Q. If you could read it and then have it refresh 16 your memory. I don't need you to read it to us. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah. You don't have to 18 testify from the document, just what you remember. 19 THE WITNESS: I asked him a question and he 20 told me he did not ask Officer Waddell to put the items 21 back while he was at the scene. 22 BY MS. CASTILLO: 23 Q. Okay. My question to you was, the memorandum 24 says that he ordered him to return the car parts to the 25 vehicle, right? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2313 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1217 1 So did you ask him about that during your 2 interview with him? Your response says you said you 3 didn't tell him to do that at the scene. 4 A. I don't, specifically, recall remembering if I 5 asked him that or not. 6 Q. Okay. All right. Officer Waddell then goes to 7 the sergeant's office and has further conversation with 8 Sergeant Pfarr, right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. And this discussion is a more elaborate 11 conversation about what had happened at the crash site, 12 right, to the best of your understanding? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. And it's more verbal counseling; is that 15 your understanding? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And the impression that you're left with after 18 interviewing with Sergeant Pfarr is that Appellant 19 Waddell was apologetic; is that right? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And said that he was joking, correct? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. In the -- this memo, right, says take a 24 Bentley badge and a lug nut cover, right? That's all it 25 was. What is a Bentley badge? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2314 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1218 1 A. I'm not sure what he's referring to there. 2 Q. Did you ever ask him? 3 A. Well, I assumed that he was referring to the 4 emblem on the back of the car. 5 Q. Okay. Why did you assume that? 6 A. Well, I think, from my limited knowledge of 7 cars and what the tow truck driver told me, that there 8 was no hood ornament on the Bentley and that this was 9 the other item on the car that had the Bentley logo on 10 it. 11 Q. Okay. Nothing in this memo says anything about 12 damage to the steering column, right? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. Or cutting anywhere of leather on the inside, 15 right? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. And Sergeant Pfarr never told you about 18 witnessing any kind of actions on the part of Officer 19 Waddell in that manner, right? 20 A. Specifically, what are you referring to? 21 Q. Anything in or around the steering wheel. 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. Okay. So back to the collection, Sergeant 24 Pfarr says you take -- he hears Waddell say to take the 25 Bentley emblem to add to his collection. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2315 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1219 1 Other than that, is there any further 2 information that you received in or around December 20th 3 before you initiate your investigation that leads you to 4 believe that Officer Waddell might have a collection of 5 car parts that he's taken from other accident scenes? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Okay. So his collection -- what collection 8 was -- did you find any other information about the 9 collection? Was it a collection of car parts? 10 A. I was going off what the statement was in this 11 memorandum. 12 Q. Okay. So other than his collection, you made 13 the assumption that it was car parts from other accident 14 scenes? 15 MR. PALMER: Objection. Misstates the 16 testimony. He didn't have to make an assumption. 17 MS. CASTILLO: I'm asking. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: She's asking. So I'm 19 going to allow that. 20 MR. PALMER: Okay. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: You can correct her if 22 that's not right. 23 THE WITNESS: That's what I believe it implied. 24 BY MS. CASTILLO: 25 Q. Okay. Up until you received this memorandum Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2316 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1220 1 for this specific investigation, you already testified 2 before lunch that none of the other supervisors had ever 3 mentioned this issue to you, this potential Bentley 4 incident. 5 Had any of the other officers who were present 6 at the scene ever come up to you and spoken about any of 7 these Bentley emblems and actions of Officer Waddell? 8 A. No. 9 Q. And any of the tow truck drivers or any other 10 citizens or civilians? 11 A. No. 12 Q. And prior to conducting your investigation, did 13 you go through the police department manual or the 14 personnel rules? How did you come up with the potential 15 allegations for this investigation? 16 A. I don't know if I, physically, went and looked 17 at the manual. I know, you know, what these come under 18 and that's what I went forward with. 19 Q. So you know what these allegations come under? 20 Is that what you said? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. You didn't use anything out of the 23 police department manual? 24 A. When I initially started the investigation, no. 25 Q. Or when you finished it? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2317 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1221 1 A. When I finished it, I took the verbiage 2 directly from the -- 3 Q. Personnel rules? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. But not the police department manual. 6 Do you -- well, okay. 7 The thought was that you began a criminal 8 investigation, right? 9 A. I was assigned an administrative investigation. 10 Q. Of a crime, right? 11 A. Well, based on this, I mean, this was one item 12 to tell me what I was looking into. At that point, I 13 didn't know what -- whether it was a personnel issue or 14 a crime. 15 Q. Well, you're investigating a Vehicle Code 16 violation, correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And in the State of California, those are 19 considered crimes, right? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Okay. So this investigation comes on the heels 22 of a separate instance of alleged dishonesty for Officer 23 Waddell, correct? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And you are aware of that investigation going Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2318 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1222 1 on, right? 2 A. I am now, obviously, but I don't know if I knew 3 the details of that when I was doing this. 4 Q. You didn't read the investigation regarding 5 text messages or anything like that during the course of 6 your investigation? 7 A. I don't remember when I read that report. 8 Q. You did read it, though, right? 9 A. I believe, at some point, I did read it, yes. 10 Q. Were you making findings on that report? 11 A. No. 12 Q. What would have been the purpose for you 13 reading that report? 14 A. I don't know. 15 Q. So you interview Colleen Kevany? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And she's a member of the traffic team, right? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And you interview her January 3rd, right, 2014? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. So this is almost a year after the Bentley 22 incident, right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Okay. And this one is recorded, right? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2319 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1223 1 Q. Because it's conducted in the station, right? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And you have access to a recorder now, right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And she goes to the Bentley scene because she's 6 part of the team that does the investigation, right? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. She writes a report? 9 A. I'm not sure, exactly, how they work that, if 10 one officer writes a report and the others are 11 assistants. I'm not sure if she wrote a report on this 12 or not. 13 Q. Now, did you collect the report on the Bentley 14 crash as part of your investigation? 15 A. I read it, I don't remember who wrote it, and I 16 didn't attach it to this report, I don't believe. 17 Q. Now, those investigators do very detailed and 18 thorough reports on these traffic collisions, right? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And the purpose of that is because if there is 21 a fatal, the person who is driving dies, they need to 22 know the exact cause of death, correct? 23 A. Amongst a whole bunch of other reasons, yes. 24 Q. Right. And there's potential lawsuits and all 25 of that, right? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2320 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1224 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Okay. And so they do a very thorough job in 3 documenting everything about the car, right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. And they take pictures of everything, 6 right? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Okay. So Colleen Kevany would have been one of 9 those people who had thoroughly documented the car, 10 right? 11 A. I'm not sure what her role is there. 12 Q. When you interviewed her, did you ask her, what 13 was your role there? 14 A. She told me that she was utilizing the total 15 station accident diagramming equipment. 16 Q. And what does that mean, to you? 17 A. I know it's a device that takes measurement and 18 stuff, but, after that, I don't know, exactly, what it 19 does. 20 Q. Did you ask her? 21 A. I did not. 22 Q. Okay. All right. And she said she's in charge 23 of the total station equipment, controlling the head of 24 the device. 25 When you said that you read the report, did you Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2321 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1225 1 write that anywhere in your report? 2 A. I don't believe it was in this investigation. 3 Q. So you didn't note that that was one of the 4 steps? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. Okay. And Colleen Kevany didn't mention to 7 you, during the course of your investigation with her, 8 that there was any damage that was unusual or that she 9 noted as a result of any kind of vehicle tampering, 10 correct? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. Okay. At one point during the interview with 13 Colleen Kevany, she says, "We were going to take a 14 little symbol off the front, a trophy for traffic. We 15 were messing around." Do you remember her indicating 16 that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Okay. And you asked her what she meant by 19 stating "we," right? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And the vehicle was totaled and it was a joke. 22 Do you remember that? 23 A. She stated that it was kind of a joke. 24 Q. Okay. And she said it was between she and 25 Waddell, right? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2322 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1226 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And then during the interview, do you recall 3 asking her if she ever had any conversation with Waddell 4 about that? 5 A. About the word, "we"? 6 Q. No. About the taking of any emblems and 7 keeping them. 8 A. Could I get that question again? 9 Q. Do you recall ever asking her if she had a 10 conversation with Waddell about taking and keeping 11 anything from the scene? 12 A. Well, I asked her -- you know, she told me that 13 she recalled the idea of taking the emblem was Officer 14 Waddell's. 15 Q. Okay. When did you ask her that? At what 16 point in the interview? 17 A. After she had told me that -- when she said, 18 yes, we were going to, and I asked her what she meant by 19 "we," she told me that she was just there and that 20 Officer Waddell said something like, quotes, "this would 21 be cool to put in traffic." 22 Q. Okay. Right. Did she ever say she had a 23 conversation with him? 24 I mean, obviously, she's saying he said that, 25 but that -- did they have a conversation together, is Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2323 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1227 1 what I'm asking you? 2 A. I don't recall. 3 Q. Okay. So she's saying that was said and it 4 appeared to be a joke and it appeared that he was going 5 to take it and take it to traffic, right? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. And she believed that it was not a joke 8 against Pfarr, right, but that it was -- this is going 9 to go and go up on the board in traffic, right? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. There's a big board in the traffic department 12 with stuff on it? 13 A. Not that I'm aware of. 14 Q. Well, what was she going -- where would it go 15 up in traffic? What's in traffic? 16 A. Traffic is -- 17 Q. Is there a place -- 18 A. -- cubicle, desk with bulletin boards and those 19 kind of things. 20 Q. Okay. So that's said and what does she say 21 happens next? 22 A. I asked her about whether a supervisor got 23 involved and anybody had said something like, quotes, 24 "you have to be kidding me, you're not going to put me 25 in this position," and she had told me that Sergeant Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2324 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1228 1 Pfarr was the one on scene and that he would have been 2 the one who made that statement. 3 Q. Okay. She says that she never saw Officer 4 Waddell put anything in a brown paper bag, right? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. Okay. And she says that she's never seen 7 Officer Waddell take anything from any other vehicles, 8 correct? 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. And during your interview, you felt that she 11 was being vague with her answers. What does that mean? 12 A. I could tell, from the beginning, that she was 13 in an uncomfortable position and that I was having to 14 ask other questions to elicit a response from her. 15 Q. And why do you say that? 16 A. It was a sense that I got when I was 17 interviewing her. 18 Q. When you typed the synopsis, did you listen to 19 your interview with her? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. So if I played that interview right now, you 22 would say that she was being vague with her answers? 23 A. Yes. And I was, physically, present with her 24 during the interview and saw body language and emotions 25 and stuff like that. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2325 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1229 1 Q. What emotions did you note? I don't see that 2 you noted emotions here. So what emotions do you 3 recall? 4 A. I could just -- I remember her being stressed 5 out at the line of questioning because she was being 6 asked about a fellow coworker. 7 Q. So she saw Waddell take the emblem and she 8 added "we," right? 9 Did she ever say that she tried to stop him? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Okay. Did she say that she ever reported it? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Did she -- she did tell you that she believed 14 it was kind of a joke? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And that it wasn't anything for personal gain, 17 just messing around? 18 A. I'm not sure if the personal gain definition -- 19 Q. Well, that's what she told you. I'm not asking 20 you your opinion. I'm saying, is that what she told 21 you? 22 A. Yeah. She told me the reason for taking the 23 part was to have it as a traffic trophy. 24 Q. Okay. Where are you looking? I'm looking at 25 your second paragraph on Page 6. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2326 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1230 1 A. I was on Page 7. 2 Q. Okay. 3 A. Yes. Her quote includes that it wasn't 4 anything for personal gain. 5 Q. Okay. So she believed that was a joke between 6 she and Waddell, just not against Pfarr, right? 7 That was her interpretation of what Waddell was 8 doing? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. So after you get all this information 11 from Officer Kevany, was she, then, put on 12 administrative leave? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Was she, then, disciplined? 15 MR. PALMER: Objection. Confidential and 16 privileged. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Sustained. Let's stay 18 away from that one. 19 BY MS. CASTILLO: 20 Q. During the course of your interview, or, at 21 least, your impression was that she was trying to take 22 some responsibility for taking the part. That's the 23 last sentence of your synopsis. 24 A. That's the last sentence of my interview with 25 her, but yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2327 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1231 1 Q. And is that based on her statements, alone, or 2 any other information that you had? 3 A. That was through her statements. 4 Q. Did you ever ask Officer Waddell if he had 5 spoken to Colleen Kevany about this? 6 A. I don't recall if I did or not. 7 Q. Why not? 8 A. I don't know. 9 Q. And her statement to you was she did not recall 10 any kind of confrontation or conversation between a 11 supervisor and Officer Waddell at the scene of the 12 Bentley regarding any kind of Bentley parts, right? 13 A. I don't understand the question. 14 Q. Well, any kind of "put that back," or anything 15 like that. She didn't overhear that, at least? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. So then, next, in January of 2014, you 18 interview Robert Cudworth, right? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And he's also a member of the traffic team, 21 right? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And he is someone else who is taking 24 measurements and seeing documentation, correct? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2328 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1232 1 Q. Okay. Does he mention any kind of damage to 2 the Bentley emblems or steering column or anything like 3 that during the course of your interview with him? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Okay. During the course of your interview with 6 Cudworth, which is recorded, the recorder malfunctions, 7 right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And this happens at 11 minutes, even though 10 your recording is 29 minutes, right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Why didn't you stop the interview, go get a new 13 battery? 14 A. I didn't know the recorder had malfunctioned. 15 Q. Have you listened to the recording? 16 A. I did when I was doing this. 17 Q. And you don't hear that the recorder is beeping 18 and that it's indicating that it's going to go out? 19 A. I don't remember that. 20 Q. Okay. When you -- when you realized that you 21 were missing the majority of your interview, did you 22 decide to reinterview Officer Cudworth? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Okay. So Officer Cudworth sees no taking of 25 any parts, right? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2329 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1233 1 The only thing that Officer Cudworth can add to 2 your investigation is that he hears the conversation 3 between Officer Waddell and Sergeant Pfarr, right? 4 A. Well, he heard a conversation between Waddell 5 and the tow truck driver, asking for a screwdriver. 6 Q. Okay. And then the conversation between 7 Waddell and Pfarr, right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. And that conversation is where -- and, 10 again, this is a year later, right? 11 And something to the effect of what are you 12 doing, what the heck are you thinking, or whatever, 13 right? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Okay. Does he give you any more information 16 about the characterizations of that, or the 17 characteristics of that conversation? 18 A. I wrote that he also thinks Pfarr told Waddell 19 that he better not be taking a car part from an accident 20 scene right before Pfarr left the scene. So that was 21 Cudworth's belief. 22 Q. I mean the tone, the tenor, any other people 23 standing around? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Is it angry? Is it admonishing? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2330 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1234 1 A. I don't know. 2 Q. Did you ask? 3 A. I don't recall. 4 Q. Okay. And Cudworth is on this traffic team 5 with Officer Waddell and tells you he's never heard 6 anything about Officer Waddell having any kind of 7 collection of car parts, right? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. Okay. And although Cudworth is there and 10 Cudworth is taking measurements and doing scene 11 documentation, he doesn't even observe Officer Waddell 12 remove anything, right? 13 MR. PALMER: Well, object to the way the 14 question is worded. Assumes a fact not in evidence that 15 those things were together. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, maybe you can break 17 it down a little bit. 18 BY MS. CASTILLO: 19 Q. Okay. He tells you during the course of his 20 interview that he was taking measurements and doing 21 scene documentation, right? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. That he leaves at the conclusion of the scene 24 investigation, right? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2331 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1235 1 Q. And that during the time he was there, that 2 Waddell was on scene manning the control unit of the 3 total station equipment, right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. That's he's present when Waddell is there with 6 the tow truck driver, right, according to your second 7 paragraph on Page 8? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. But although he is, at all times, 10 present on scene and working on the investigation, he 11 never witnesses Officer Waddell remove the Bentley 12 emblem, right? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. Okay. He never sees Waddell with this brown 15 paper bag, right? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. So after you interviewed Cudworth that same 18 day, then you interview Amoroso, right? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. And this is recorded, right? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And Amoroso goes to the scene at the same time 23 as Officer Waddell, right? This is information you're 24 provided? 25 A. Correct. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2332 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1236 1 Q. Okay. And before Sergeant Pfarr gets to the 2 scene, Sergeant Amoroso and Officer Waddell have a 3 conversation about wouldn't it be funny to play some 4 ridiculous joke on Sergeant Pfarr because he's a new 5 probationary sergeant, right? 6 A. Well, I think there's two versions to that 7 statement, one from Amoroso and one from Officer 8 Waddell, and Officer Waddell was not sure if it was that 9 night or the night before, but they did have that 10 conversation. 11 Q. Okay. I'm asking you about the statement you 12 obtained from Sergeant Amoroso because I'm going to go 13 through each individual statement with you. 14 A. Right. But the question you asked me -- 15 Q. Was about the interview with Sergeant Amoroso. 16 Only asking you about what he told you. Okay? 17 A. Okay. 18 Q. Okay. So he says they arrived on scene and, 19 prior to Sergeant Pfarr arriving, the two of them have a 20 conversation that goes something to the effect of, hey, 21 wouldn't it be funny if we played a prank on the new 22 sergeant, something totally ridiculous that freaks him 23 out because he's the new guy, paraphrasing, right? 24 A. Well, your question was before Sergeant Pfarr 25 arrived. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2333 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1237 1 Q. Right. 2 A. And my report says that he remembered having a 3 conversation with Waddell at the Bentley scene while 4 they were looking at Pfarr, who was standing nearby. 5 Q. Okay. At the Bentley scene where they had this 6 conversation, before they have contact with Sergeant 7 Pfarr. 8 THE WITNESS: Do you mind if I take my jacket 9 off? 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: No. It's fine with me. 11 You don't need my permission to do that. 12 BY MS. CASTILLO: 13 Q. So they have this conversation? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Okay. Standing nearby, right, practical joke, 16 and that Amoroso says he's the investigator of this 17 practical joke concept? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And nothing was discussed about who would do it 20 or what was to be done, right? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. And any kind of taking of a car part was not 23 discussed, right? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. Okay. So this conversation happens. You then Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2334 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1238 1 interview further. What was the purpose of asking about 2 DRMO? 3 Because the investigation you were handed had 4 to do with a collection of car parts and a Bentley 5 incident. 6 A. I don't recall who instructed me to ask about 7 that, but one of the captains asked me to ask about the 8 DRMO stuff. 9 Q. And what were you specifically instructed to 10 ask about? 11 A. Whether -- during my interview of people, 12 whether they thought he might have any DRMO stuff. 13 Q. Was there any issue with DRMO stuff being 14 missing? 15 A. Not that I'm aware of. 16 Q. Okay. So this was a fishing expedition then? 17 I mean, just ask about DRMO stuff, that was 18 your instruction? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. Did the captains give you any other 21 instructions for questions? 22 A. Not that I recall. 23 Q. Okay. When you spoke with Sergeant Amoroso, 24 did he tell you that Sergeant Pfarr had told him it was 25 a joke? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2335 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1239 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: Are you looking that over 2 because you're not sure or you don't remember? 3 THE WITNESS: I'm trying to -- to me, it's a 4 complicated question. Could you ask that again? 5 BY MS. CASTILLO: 6 Q. When you were interviewing Amoroso, did he 7 indicate to you that the impression he got from Pfarr 8 was that it was a joke at the time the two of them were 9 discussing it? 10 A. When Pfarr and Amoroso were discussing it? 11 Q. When it initially happened. 12 I understand that -- to give you some context, 13 since I understand you're confused, the Amoroso-Pfarr 14 conversation happened only because the discussion was 15 about sergeants, right? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Okay. Not because Pfarr was reporting to 18 Amoroso anything about his direct subordinate, correct? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. Okay. So Pfarr says, hey, maybe he's not a 21 great supervisor because of this Bentley incident, 22 right? 23 A. I don't understand that. 24 Q. Well, is that the context that you understood 25 it was communicated to Amoroso in? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2336 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1240 1 A. That Sergeant Pfarr was not a good supervisor? 2 Q. No. That, perhaps, Officer Waddell would not 3 be a good supervisor. 4 A. Well, we're, specifically, talking about my 5 interview with Amoroso, correct? 6 Q. Right. When he learned of this, it was not 7 because it was being reported to him in the context of, 8 hey, I have to tell you something about your direct 9 subordinate that's important for your knowledge of 10 supervising him? 11 A. Right. Pfarr and Amoroso were discussing who 12 they thought would make a good sergeant. 13 Q. Okay. Referring you to Page 10 of your 14 memorandum, the third paragraph down starts with, "Pfarr 15 told Amoroso that Waddell never mentioned to him that it 16 was possibly a practical joke." Do you see that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Okay. That was at the time that it was the 19 discussion of the supervisor candidates, correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And Pfarr never asked Amoroso if Waddell -- if 22 what Waddell did was a practical joke? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. Okay. At any time in your investigation, did 25 you learn that Amoroso had told Pfarr, we had a Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2337 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1241 1 conversation about playing a joke on you? 2 A. Is there a question there? 3 Q. That is the question. 4 Did you learn that, that Amoroso had told 5 Pfarr, we had a conversation right before that happened 6 about playing a joke on you? 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: If you remember. If you 8 don't remember, you don't remember. 9 THE WITNESS: I don't remember. 10 BY MS. CASTILLO: 11 Q. Okay. You, pretty much, interview everyone the 12 same day, right, other than the guy you run into and 13 just decide to interview him on the spot, right? 14 A. There were several on January 7th. 15 Q. And then after that, it goes to the 13th? 16 A. 25th, 27th. So several dates. 17 Q. Okay. And then you go into April where you're 18 showing Sergeant Pfarr photos, right? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. The next says you interviewed Officer 21 Waddell on January 27, 2013. That's, actually, a typo. 22 You mean 2013, right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And then you interview Lieutenant Bledsoe in 25 February, correct, and Officer Benson in February, and Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2338 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1242 1 Lieutenant Smith in February? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And your memorandum is dated February 28th, 4 right? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. When you interviewed George Berrios, you also 7 asked him about DRMO, right? 8 There's nothing in your synopsis about it, but 9 you listened to your interview. 10 A. Okay. 11 Q. Besides Amoroso and Berrios, were there other 12 people you asked DRMO to? 13 A. I don't recall. 14 Q. Why just those two? 15 A. Because George and Officer -- George and 16 Officer Waddell did the DRMO stuff together for the 17 department. 18 Q. Okay. And is that the only reason you chose to 19 interview George Berrios, because he was not working 20 during the collision and didn't even go to the call? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. Because your notice of interview to Officer 23 Waddell just said that you were going to interview about 24 an incident that happened on February 22nd, 2013. 25 Was there any questions about DRMO incidents on Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2339 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1243 1 February 22nd, 2013? 2 A. You mean Officer Waddell's interview? 3 Q. Well, I mean, you asked a bunch of DRMO 4 questions. Was there DRMO stuff from February 22nd, 5 2013? That's when you noticed him. 6 A. I don't recall. 7 Q. So then you interviewed Goodwin and she was 8 also part of the traffic team, right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And she was the supervisor, correct? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And she did not have any kind of information to 13 help you with your investigation, correct? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. She didn't hear anything, she didn't see 16 anything regarding the taking of a Bentley emblem or any 17 kind of damage to vehicles or anything like that, right? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. Other than her being there for a very short 20 period of time, she is a supervisor, had no knowledge of 21 this being an issue, right? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. And she was an on-scene supervisor, correct? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. So she did not have any conversation with the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2340 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1244 1 tow truck driver or anyone else that you were able to 2 ascertain from your investigation? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. Okay. About any kind of inappropriate actions 5 by law enforcement on scene that night? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. Okay. So then in January, on the 25th, you 8 interview Sergeant Pfarr, and you already have his 9 December 20th memo and you've interviewed these other 10 people now, right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. And Sergeant Pfarr says he's the second 13 officer on scene, but we already know that Amoroso is 14 there and Waddell is there before him, right? 15 A. I don't know for sure because I know, at one 16 time, in his testimony -- or I interviewed someone that 17 said Sergeant Pfarr left to get coffee for the officers 18 working there. So I'm not sure which time you're 19 referring to. 20 Q. I'm looking at your synopsis, Page 12. The 21 fourth sentence says he was the second officer on scene. 22 I don't know what time period because you don't write it 23 in your synopsis. 24 Do you know what you're referring to? 25 A. When I interviewed Pfarr, he told me that he Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2341 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1245 1 thought he was the second officer that arrived on scene. 2 Q. Okay. So did he indicate that he did not 3 notice Officer Waddell and Sergeant Amoroso there? Did 4 he tell you who he thought the first officer on scene 5 was, if he thinks he's the second? 6 A. Well, I think -- I mean, my recollection of 7 this is that he is the patrol supervisor. He would get 8 there before a downtown sergeant and a traffic officer 9 that would come out to do the investigation. So I'm not 10 sure what time frame we're talking about. 11 Q. Are you using logic or are you saying that is 12 what happened? 13 A. I'm going by what -- 14 Q. Do you have the event history? 15 A. I don't. 16 Q. Did you ever get it? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Where is it? You didn't put it in your -- 19 A. I looked at it in our records management 20 computer system. 21 Q. You didn't attach it to your investigation? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. Is there any other things that you looked at as 24 part of your investigation, but didn't attach? 25 A. Well, the police report, the times, all that Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2342 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1246 1 stuff is in one place. It's in our records management 2 system. I looked at that, I looked at the police report 3 and I looked at the times of people coming and going, 4 but I did not copy that. It's in our system. I did not 5 copy that for this report. 6 Q. Is there a reason that if you're doing an 7 investigation and you're looking at materials, that you 8 would not take those materials and put them into your 9 investigation document that you looked at them and 10 utilized them in your investigation? 11 A. I, actually, didn't think it was relevant to 12 this and I know that that is a system that I could go 13 look at at any time. 14 Q. You, obviously, thought it was enough to go 15 seek it out, right? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Just not relevant enough for us to look at? 18 Okay. So Pfarr tells you that he's the field 19 supervisor that night and his role is to be the on-scene 20 supervisor and he calls everyone out, right? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. And he sees Waddell and Amoroso arriving 23 in an FST truck, right? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Okay. He leaves and comes back, right? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2343 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1247 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Does he give you any kind of time frame? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Does he put Sergeant Amoroso in charge of the 5 scene? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Okay. He sees that Waddell is setting up the 8 total station, right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And he says that he's called out the traffic 11 team. 12 Does he say that he called out Officer 13 Waddell? 14 A. I don't recall how the mechanism of Sergeant 15 Amoroso and Officer Waddell leaving what I believe their 16 downtown assignment to go to this accident. 17 Q. Okay. Your synopsis, then, says he recalled 18 watching the tow truck driver roll the upside down 19 Bentley into an upright position. 20 Is this synopsis in chronological order? 21 A. Not necessarily. 22 Q. Okay. So is his statement in chronological 23 order? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Okay. So is your synopsis different than his Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2344 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1248 1 statement? 2 A. I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you 3 referring to the synopsis here? 4 Q. This is your memo and he gave you an interview, 5 right? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. I'm going through your memo, which says 8 that he sees Waddell setting up the total station laser 9 and the Bentley is still on scene, right, and then Pfarr 10 sees the tow truck driver roll the upside down Bentley 11 to an upright position, right? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And then we have three more pages of 14 information, right? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Okay. So if this is chronological, based on 17 your testimony, everything happens with Officer Waddell 18 and the screwdriver and the Bentley emblems when the 19 Bentley is upright. Is that what you're telling us, 20 through Sergeant Pfarr? 21 A. I'm not sure. 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: Can we go off the record 23 for a second? 24 (Recess.) 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: We're back on the record, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2345 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1249 1 and before we get back to the testimony of Lieutenant 2 Proll, something from the department on the discovery 3 issue. 4 MR. PALMER: Yes, and we should probably ask 5 Lieutenant Proll to step out for this portion. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah. 7 MR. PALMER: And I'll defer to Ms. Dietrick. 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. Go ahead. 9 MS. DIETRICK: So while we were proceeding with 10 Lieutenant Proll, I did have the opportunity to ask my 11 city attorney to do some research. We are comfortable 12 with the hearing officer conducting an in-camera review 13 of the document withheld, which, again, for the record, 14 we assert includes entirely work product and 15 attorney-client privileged communications. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: I take it -- 17 MS. DIETRICK: And mixed comments from others. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: And it might not be 19 apparent from the draft without your representation if 20 that's what it is, just that's what you're telling me? 21 MS. DIETRICK: That's correct. I think it will 22 be very easily apparent with a one-line explanation of 23 what you're looking at, and that is consistently 24 throughout the document all that is present. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: Just so that I can dot my Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2346 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1250 1 Is and cross my Ts, would you mind if I swore you as a 2 witness and then you can tell me this? 3 MS. DIETRICK: I am comfortable doing that, as 4 well. 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: Ms. Dietrick, could I get 6 you to raise your right hand? Do you affirm the 7 testimony that you're going to give on this discovery 8 issue is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the 9 truth? 10 MS. DIETRICK: I do. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Very good. So you had a 12 representation with respect to the earlier-referenced 13 document, which your name's not on it, but it contains 14 what you're asserting as attorney-client privileged 15 information that was communicated by one supervisor to 16 another. So go ahead and tell us about that. 17 MS. DIETRICK: My comments, as reflected in, 18 sort of, e-mail electronic review bubbles, which bear my 19 initials, are indicated throughout, tied to the document 20 at issue. I will attest that the -- what you will 21 review as the comment bubbles are my initials and are my 22 comments, reflect my work product, and that that is the 23 entirety of what's contained in the document and, 24 therefore, I would object to its production on the 25 grounds of attorney-client privilege and work product. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2347 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1251 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. Understood. 2 We already had the appellant's position on that stated. 3 Are we going to do that now or are we going to do that 4 later? 5 MR. PALMER: I say we do it now. 6 MS. DIETRICK: I'm happy to do it now. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. That 8 sounds -- 9 MS. CASTILLO: That's fine. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: -- like a good idea, 11 right? 12 MS. CASTILLO: Do you want us to step out 13 instead of moving everyone out? 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: Off the record for a sec. 15 (In-camera review.) 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: So I have reviewed, in 17 camera, just to clarify, an earlier draft that was the 18 subject of the subpoena of what has become, in its final 19 version, Department's Exhibit 8, which we've had some 20 testimony on from Lieutenant Proll, a memorandum to 21 Chief Gesell from Lieutenant Proll via Captain Staley, 22 and the department interposed objections that the 23 document was protected by the attorney-client privilege, 24 and I'm going to sustain that objection, and I want to 25 make two observations. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2348 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1252 1 First, I was impressed by the number of 2 comments and interlineations. There were at least 43 3 separate extensive comments that were made in little 4 bubbles on the draft, in addition to numerous 5 interlineations, which were not numbered. 6 And, second, this was also important to me, 7 Ms. Dietrick represented that the document was -- that 8 she reviewed and made these marks on was one of the last 9 versions of this document before it was put into final 10 form. She didn't say it was the last one or the 11 penultimate one, but that substantial other comments 12 from other people, which were not privileged, had 13 already been incorporated into the document. 14 And so, therefore, those drafts were, most 15 likely, I think they were, produced, or whatever you had 16 you represented was produced. So those are in the 17 possession of the appellant, or they should be. 18 So on that basis, I make my ruling and we 19 should move on. 20 MS. CASTILLO: Okay. Then on that basis, with 21 that, I would ask that this be marked, and it would be, 22 then, Appellant's -- 23 MR. PALMER: I think it's already P. 24 MS. CASTILLO: No. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: Is there a different Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2349 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1253 1 version of something of the same... 2 MS. CASTILLO: Oh, yeah. Okay. It's P. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: So you're going to ask 4 Lieutenant Proll about Appellant's P? 5 MS. CASTILLO: No. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: I've got P. Is that what 7 we're talking about, or no? 8 MS. CASTILLO: Yeah. Then we are -- okay. So 9 we did have W admitted then? I wanted to double-check 10 that. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Actually, we should 12 revisit that issue. My info, and if I'm wrong, let me 13 know, is that we had dealt with all the appellant's 14 exhibits, but not department's exhibits, for admission. 15 Do I have that wrong? My info is that all the 16 appellant's were admitted. 17 MR. PALMER: I thought I reserved -- still had 18 a standing reservation on two of them. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: I knew you weren't going 20 to take my word for that. 21 MR. PALMER: I could be wrong. 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, I usually keep a 23 running tab. So now I'm going to find it. 24 MR. PALMER: Okay. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes. J, K, L. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2350 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1254 1 MR. PALMER: No objection. 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: To J, K and L? 3 MR. PALMER: No objection. That's correct. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: So without objection, 5 Appellant's J, K and L, we will take care of this 6 housekeeping, those are admitted into evidence. 7 So my info, then, is that A through W have all 8 been marked. So your next would be X, if you have one. 9 MS. CASTILLO: I do. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: And while on the subject, 11 if you don't mind, this might not be the time, but I 12 still have a number of district exhibits we haven't 13 dealt with. We had testimony about District's 23. Did 14 you want to move the admission of that? 15 MR. PALMER: I do. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: Any objection to 23? 17 That was the transcript of Sergeant Amoroso. 18 MS. CASTILLO: No objection. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. So without 20 objection, District 23 is admitted. 21 And then we still have out there 4, 5, 6 and 8 22 and 11, by my count. 23 MR. PALMER: Yes. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: We can deal with those 25 later or we can -- are they okay with you? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2351 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1255 1 MS. CASTILLO: Let me see. I'm trying to get 2 to these exhibits. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: Sure. 11 are 4 photographs. I don't know if that was a continuing 5 issue for you. 6 MS. CASTILLO: He was the one who waited. 7 MR. PALMER: Well, yeah. I would move those 8 into evidence. 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: The photos as Exhibit 10 11? 11 MR. PALMER: Please, yes. 12 THE COURT: Any objection to 11? 13 MS. CASTILLO: No. 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: Without objection, 11 is 15 admitted. 16 That leaves me with 4, 5, 6 and 8. 17 MR. PALMER: I would move those. Sorry. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: We've been talking about 19 8. 20 MR. PALMER: Yes. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: So this is the time to 22 deal with that. 23 MS. CASTILLO: I don't have an objection. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Without objection, 8 is 25 admitted. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2352 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1256 1 How about 4, 5 or 6? Any thoughts about those? 2 Notice of Decision or Disciplinary Action is 4, 5 is 3 Notice of Intent to Administer Disciplinary Action. 4 MS. CASTILLO: I had asked to wait on 4, 5 and 5 6. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: We can hold those in 7 advance and deal with them later. So we're down to 8 those three, 4, 5 and 6. We'll deal with those another 9 time. 10 MS. CASTILLO: Thank you. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. So back to 12 Lieutenant Proll. 13 MS. CASTILLO: So I'm having X marked. 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. So X appears to be 15 Appellant's X, a one-page document to Officer Waddell 16 from Lieutenant Proll, dated January 13, 2014, subject 17 is personnel investigation. 18 BY MS. CASTILLO: 19 Q. And this, Lieutenant Proll, was the notice I 20 had just asked you about that you served on Officer 21 Waddell; is that right? 22 A. Is this the notice I served on him? Yes. 23 Q. Did you renotice him at any time with any other 24 notice before? 25 A. I want to think that there was a date change or Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2353 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1257 1 something because in my initial thing here, it indicates 2 Sergeant Gillham would be present, and then when I 3 actually did the interview with Officer Waddell, it was 4 Sergeant Fred Mickel. I don't recall if there was an 5 updated because this was served at -- to be at City Hall 6 on January 22nd. From memory, I'm recalling that we had 7 a date change with Attorney Berry Wilkinson, that the 8 interview was then conducted on the 27th. 9 Q. Okay. Do you know if you renoticed him with 10 another paperwork of any kind, other than a different 11 officer who would be present and a different date 12 change? 13 A. I don't remember, exactly. 14 Q. Okay. But do you know if you ever notified him 15 that you were expanding the scope, other than events 16 which occurred on February 22nd, 2013, during a traffic 17 collision investigation at Orcutt and Johnson? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Okay. So back to your interview with Sergeant 20 Pfarr. Again, that took place on January 25th, right? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. And -- 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'm sorry. Did you want 24 to move the admission of X? 25 MS. CASTILLO: Oh, yes. I can do that now. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2354 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1258 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: Any objection to X? 2 MR. PALMER: No objection. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: Without objection, X is 4 admitted. Go ahead. 5 MS. CASTILLO: Thank you. 6 BY MS. CASTILLO: 7 Q. As far as describing what he's witnessing in 8 terms of what Officer Waddell was doing in his 9 conversation with the tow truck driver, did he explain 10 to you why he was, specifically, watching Officer 11 Waddell? 12 A. He did not. 13 Q. Or why Officer Waddell caught his attention? 14 A. Other than he initially observed Officer 15 Waddell attempting to remove the vehicle's Bentley 16 emblem. 17 Q. Okay. But before that, he, obviously, saw him 18 talking to the tow truck driver, right? 19 A. In my statement, it's that he observed him, 20 then heard Waddell ask the tow truck driver for a 21 screwdriver. 22 Q. Okay. So Sergeant Pfarr tells you that Officer 23 Waddell tried to take the emblem and then goes to the 24 tow truck driver? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2355 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1259 1 Q. And he's 30 feet away, right? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And does he describe how he's doing this? 4 A. He does not. 5 Q. Do you ask? 6 A. I did not. 7 Q. We know it's not with the screwdriver, right? 8 So is he -- I mean, he doesn't tell you. So, I mean, 9 you're the investigator, he doesn't elaborate, at all? 10 He just makes that comment and you move on? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. Okay. He's not successful, right? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. Okay. Does he say anything about damage? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Okay. He then goes and talks to the tow truck 17 driver. At this time, he's talking to Officer Kevany -- 18 and I'm talking about Sergeant Pfarr -- right? Sergeant 19 Pfarr is talking to Officer Kevany? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Officer Waddell goes to talk to the tow truck 22 driver? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Does Sergeant Pfarr stop talking to Officer 25 Kevany? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2356 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1260 1 A. I don't know. 2 Q. Did you ask? 3 A. I did not. 4 Q. Okay. So then he says he hears Waddell ask for 5 the tow truck driver. Is he still 30 feet away from him 6 at this point? 7 A. I don't know. 8 Q. Okay. He says he hears the collection comment, 9 right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. What is the collection comment? "Add 12 the emblem to his collection," is what you have in 13 quotes, right? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Is that the extent of this comment? 16 A. That's what I put in quotes that Sergeant Pfarr 17 told me. 18 Q. Okay. So that is the extent of the quote, 19 then? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Okay. At that point, Sergeant Pfarr tells you 22 that he believes Waddell was playing a practical joke on 23 him, right? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And it is due to the fact that he was a newly Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2357 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1261 1 promoted sergeant? That is Sergeant Pfarr's idea, 2 right? That is his conception of why Officer Waddell 3 would say such a thing, do such a thing? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. And so Sergeant Pfarr then tells you 6 during this interview that he says something to Officer 7 Waddell, right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Is he still 30 feet away from him? 10 A. I don't know. 11 Q. Where is he standing in relation to the 12 Bentley? 13 A. I don't know. 14 Q. Is he standing to the rear? To the side? 15 A. I don't know. 16 Q. Where is Officer Benson? 17 A. I don't know. 18 Q. Did you have him draw a diagram? 19 A. No, I did not. 20 Q. Okay. And the car, right now, is on its 21 wheels, right? 22 A. I believe so, yes. 23 Q. Okay. And Pfarr says to Waddell, ha, ha, 24 funny, joke's over, I'm leaving, I don't want to see you 25 actually do this, right? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2358 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1262 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Okay. And Kevany is still standing there? 3 A. I believe so. 4 Q. Tow truck driver still standing there? 5 A. I don't know. 6 Q. When you interviewed the tow truck driver, did 7 he say that he ever left the scene without the Bentley? 8 A. No, he did not. 9 Q. So he was there at all times with the Bentley? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. And did Kevany ever leave until her job 12 was done? 13 A. Not that I know of. 14 Q. Okay. Pfarr left. We know Benson left, right? 15 A. I believe so, yes. 16 Q. Okay. At what point -- when Pfarr says this, 17 do we know who is around him? 18 Does Pfarr tell you, other than he says that to 19 Waddell, right? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Okay. Does he say how loud he says this? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Okay. Does he say that -- anything about 24 Benson to you? 25 A. No. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2359 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1263 1 Q. Okay. Does he say that he has any kind of 2 conversation with Officer Waddell at the scene where he 3 says something like, what the heck are you doing, or 4 anything other than, ha, ha, funny, joke's over, I'm 5 leaving now, I don't want to see you do this? 6 A. Not in my interview with Pfarr did that 7 statement come up. 8 Q. Okay. Because when you had interviewed 9 Cudworth at the beginning of January, Cudworth tells you 10 that what he recalls from the year prior, basically, was 11 that he believes Pfarr was asking Waddell what the heck 12 was he thinking about taking the emblem. 13 You remember conducting that interview, 14 right? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. But when you interview Pfarr, he doesn't say 17 anything about having that kind of conversation with 18 Waddell at the scene, right? 19 A. Regarding the quote, "what the heck"? 20 Q. Yeah. What the heck are you thinking taking 21 that emblem, or any kind of verbal counseling or 22 admonition at the scene. 23 A. No. 24 Q. Okay. And when you are -- when you interview 25 Amoroso, he tells you that Pfarr told him, I verbally Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2360 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1264 1 counseled him at the scene, right? 2 A. What was the question? 3 Q. When you interviewed Amoroso, he tells you, 4 Pfarr told me he verbally counseled him at the scene, 5 and then later, again, in the sergeant's office, right, 6 or confronted him? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Okay. But, again, when you interview Pfarr, 9 Pfarr says, oh, no, ha, ha, funny, joke's over, I'm 10 leaving now, I don't want to see you do it, right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. It's a lot different than a verbal counseling, 13 in your opinion, as a supervisor, wouldn't you agree? 14 A. It's different. I don't know to what extent 15 it's different. 16 Q. Well, one's laughing and one is counseling, 17 right? You can agree with me. It's okay. 18 A. Well, the statement from Amoroso was Pfarr told 19 Amoroso he counseled Waddell in the field. He didn't go 20 into, exactly, what he said about it. So it could be 21 along the same lines of -- 22 Q. Ha, ha, funny? 23 A. Right. 24 Q. Okay. So then Pfarr tells you, in his 25 interview, he gets in his car and drives away, right? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2361 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1265 1 A. My statement was that I wrote that he got in 2 his vehicle and began to drive away. 3 Q. Okay. He leaves, right? Drives, yes? 4 A. Well, I think there's a difference there of if 5 he said he got in his car and drove away and he didn't 6 see anything else, but he began to drive away, there's a 7 difference. 8 Q. Okay. He begins to drive away. Do you ask him 9 how far he gets? 10 A. I did not. 11 Q. Did you ask him does he stop the car at any 12 point? 13 A. I did not ask him that. 14 Q. He continues driving, right? 15 A. As far as I know, yes. 16 Q. Yeah. Okay. So he drives away, right? 17 He doesn't return to go talk to Officer 18 Waddell, does he? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Okay. So he sees, in the rearview mirror, 21 right, what Officer Waddell is doing, which is popping 22 off the cap to where you get to the lug nuts if you were 23 going to change the tire, right? 24 A. Well, in his mirror, he saw Waddell working on 25 the truck emblem, he then saw Waddell crouch down by one Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2362 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1266 1 of the wheels of the Bentley. 2 Q. Okay. And then what? 3 A. Pfarr saw Waddell pop off the wheel cover. 4 Q. Okay. And puts it in the brown paper bag, 5 right? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. This is what he says. And then he walks away 8 to where the police units are parked, and this is what 9 he tells you in his interview, right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. In his memo to Captain Storton in 12 December, he says, "As I walked to my car and start to 13 leave the scene, I saw him take the Bentley badge, as 14 well as the lug nut cover, and put these in a brown 15 evidence bag and start to walk to his car." So, in 16 December, he's walking, and, in January, he's driving 17 away. 18 Did you ask him was there some issue with what 19 he was doing at the time that he was watching Officer 20 Waddell? 21 A. I did not. 22 Q. Did you notice the difference? 23 A. I don't recall if I did or not. 24 Q. Okay. So he calls it a Bentley badge here in 25 the memo several times. In your synopsis, you call it Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2363 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1267 1 an emblem. 2 Did he use the term badge or emblem when he 3 talked to you in your interview with him? 4 A. I don't recall. 5 Q. Well, his word is badge, and he doesn't say 6 that it's the trunk area or that it's at the back of the 7 car anywhere in his memo, but you, when you interview, 8 or, at least, when you summarize, you talk about the 9 rear trunk cover -- or the rear trunk emblem is -- was 10 he able to recall that better in that month period now 11 that he was thinking about it? Did he indicate to you 12 that something had refreshed his memory? 13 A. He did not. 14 Q. Okay. So then he writes this memo and he says, 15 "I immediately telephoned Officer Waddell," right? 16 A. (Witness nods head.) 17 Q. When he's interviewing with you, he says, 18 "Before I could even call Officer Waddell, I get a text 19 message." 20 Here, he says he calls and then he gets the 21 text. Were you able to clarify the timeline? Which was 22 it? Did he get the text or did he make the call 23 first? 24 A. I'm going by what I asked him in my interview, 25 in that, before he dialed Waddell's number, he received Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2364 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1268 1 a text from him. 2 Q. But his words that he authored was that he 3 immediately telephoned Officer Waddell and then he 4 received a text message. So -- and as he's talking to 5 you, he says he called him at 5:08 on his cell phone. 6 Do you have any idea why he would know that 7 specific time? 8 A. I don't. 9 Q. Did he say I looked at my cell phone records 10 and noted what time it was? 11 A. He might have. I mean, I got that time from 12 somewhere. I don't recall where that came from. 13 Q. Did he provide his cell phone records to you? 14 A. I don't believe so. 15 Q. You don't believe so or you don't know or you 16 don't remember? 17 A. I don't remember. 18 Q. Well, you didn't attach them, but you haven't 19 attached a lot of things that you've looked at. 20 So do you -- is it possible that you received 21 telephone records in this case? 22 A. I don't think so. 23 Q. Okay. Now, he says he's put it into an 24 evidence bag and we have a text message sent that shows 25 car parts on the driver's floorboard of the Bentley, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2365 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1269 1 right? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And there are two loose parts, right? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. Okay. And these two loose parts are not 6 specific, are they? 7 A. He did not recall what type they were. 8 Q. Okay. And you asked him, right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. Because it would have been important to 11 know if they were the loose parts that had been removed, 12 right? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. So Sergeant Pfarr could not tell you if 15 they were the lug nut cover that he remembers seeing or 16 this badge or emblem? 17 A. Right. 18 Q. And he doesn't have any -- he just remembers 19 seeing a photo that was from Waddell, there was car 20 parts. 21 He believes it was the front floorboard of the 22 Bentley, right? 23 A. He stated it was on the front floorboard, yes. 24 Q. Well, did he note -- I mean, had he seen the 25 front floorboard of the Bentley? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2366 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1270 1 A. That's what he told me. 2 Q. Was there any other identifying marks on this 3 that would have identified it as the front floorboard of 4 the Bentley versus the front floorboard of the police 5 car or Waddell's personal vehicle? 6 A. I don't know. 7 Q. And we don't know what kind of car parts they 8 are? 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. Okay. And we don't have that photo, right? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. Okay. And there's no text in the message? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. Okay. So -- okay. 15 Was there a picture of this brown paper bag 16 anywhere that sergeant mentioned? 17 A. No. 18 Q. At any point in your interview with Sergeant 19 Pfarr, did he ever tell you that he had ordered Officer 20 Waddell to put car parts back? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Okay. He brought that up in his December 20th 23 memo, right, but he didn't mention that he had made that 24 order when he gave you this interview about, well, now I 25 think it's this major integrity issue and maybe a crime, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2367 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1271 1 so I ordered him to put the property back? 2 A. What's the question? 3 Q. He never mentioned that he made any kind of 4 direct order to this subordinate? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. Did you ask him how long his phone conversation 7 was with Officer Waddell? 8 A. I did not. 9 Q. Okay. And, obviously, Sergeant Pfarr is the 10 sergeant on the scene in control of this investigation 11 and crash, correct? That's the understanding you have? 12 A. Normally, the call-out traffic sergeant takes 13 over the on-scene supervision of a major traffic 14 accident. 15 Q. Okay. Well, but he's still a supervisor, 16 right? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Okay. And so he -- " he" being Sergeant 19 Pfarr -- at this point, told you that he had called 20 Officer Waddell's personal cell phone at this point, 21 right? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. And he says something to the effect of I 24 can't believe you just put me in that situation, right? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2368 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1272 1 Q. And Waddell says, I'm just being funny, I put 2 it back, and Pfarr says 99 percent sure that Waddell 3 said I was just joking, right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. At the point that Sergeant Pfarr is 6 having this conversation with Officer Waddell about the 7 position that Officer Waddell has just put him in, using 8 his words, they're, obviously, referring to this emblem 9 issue at the Bentley, right? 10 A. Yeah. It wasn't a position. It was a 11 situation, I guess. 12 Q. Sorry. Situation. Okay. 13 And this is the, I guess, verbal counseling 14 that is occurring on the phone, right? 15 A. I don't know if that's verbal counseling or 16 not. 17 Q. Okay. Well, if this supervisor actually 18 considered it misconduct, you would have thought that he 19 would have, at least, advised him that he was going to 20 be reporting it and provide him with a representative 21 and all of that, right? 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: You're asking him if he 23 agrees with that? 24 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2369 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1273 1 THE WITNESS: Yes. 2 BY MS. CASTILLO: 3 Q. And he didn't do that when he called Officer 4 Waddell and started talking to him about the situation 5 he just put him in, right? 6 MR. PALMER: Objection. Misstates the law 7 that's required. 8 MS. CASTILLO: I'm just asking. 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, if you know. 10 BY MS. CASTILLO: 11 Q. There was no discussion, that Sergeant Pfarr 12 told you about, along those lines? 13 A. Correct, but he did tell him to see him in the 14 sergeant's office when he was finished at the scene. 15 Q. Okay. And so that, then, happens, right? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And in that situation, with just the two of 18 them there? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Was there any kind of advisement that you were 21 told about by Sergeant Pfarr that Officer Waddell was 22 told you're going to be investigated for this, you need 23 to get a rep, anything like that? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Okay. You could be subject to some kind of Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2370 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1274 1 punitive action? He didn't tell you that he made any 2 kind of statements like that to Officer Waddell, right? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. Okay. And then Sergeant Pfarr, specifically, 5 tells you that had Officer Waddell said something like 6 he intended to actually remove the parts from the scene, 7 that he would have handled the situation differently, 8 right? 9 A. What paragraph are you getting that from? 10 Q. Well, I'm not -- 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: She doesn't have to get 12 it from a particular paragraph. She can ask a question 13 and -- 14 THE WITNESS: Do you mind asking me that again? 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: -- you can answer it as 16 best you can. 17 BY MS. CASTILLO: 18 Q. Had Officer Waddell made any kind of statement 19 to the effect that he actually intended to keep or take 20 any of those emblems for himself or to the traffic 21 division as a trophy, Sergeant Pfarr told you that he 22 would have handled the situation differently, right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. But he was never given any indication by 25 Officer Waddell that that was that intent, ever, right? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2371 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1275 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. Okay. When you interviewed Sergeant Pfarr in 3 January, this made it to the captain only because 4 promotions had come up, right? 5 A. Because of the discussion regarding the 6 promotions, yes. 7 Q. Okay. This didn't ever come to light because 8 Sergeant Pfarr was actually concerned there had been a 9 crime committed in February 2013, right? He never told 10 you that during the interview, did he? 11 A. He did not. 12 Q. Okay. And he did tell you that during his 13 conversation with Officer Waddell in the office, that 14 Officer Waddell showed a great deal of remorse for a 15 joke that went too far, right? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And he also told you that Waddell had told him, 18 meaning Sergeant Pfarr, that it was, in fact, a joke on 19 a new sergeant, correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And Pfarr also had told you during this 22 interview that he did not ever think that this would be 23 an issue again, right? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. Okay. But the reason that this came up was Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2372 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1276 1 because he believed there were integrity issues with 2 Officer Waddell, right? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Did he ever elaborate as to what those could 5 possibly be if this was not one of them? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Did you ever ask? 8 A. I did not. 9 Q. Pfarr told you during the course of your 10 interview with him that he is not aware of Waddell 11 having a collection of parts, nor has he ever seen 12 Waddell take any unauthorized items in the past, right? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. The only basis for this collection comment was 15 the offhand comment that Officer Waddell had made in his 16 presence as part of this joke, right? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Okay. So when you were told to ask about DRMO, 19 other than being told to ask about it by captains, and 20 you're not sure which, did you ever come across any 21 other information or evidence that there was any kind of 22 collection or any other issues regarding taking of 23 property by this individual? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Now, during the course of your investigation, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2373 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1277 1 you became aware that there were other lieutenants who 2 had knowledge of this Bentley issue prior to you being 3 assigned this investigation, right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And they had knowledge of this issue much 6 earlier than December 20th, 2013, when Pfarr wrote this 7 memo to Captain Storton, right? 8 A. I believe so, yes. 9 Q. And those lieutenants would be Bledsoe and 10 Smith, right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And you interviewed them as part of your 13 investigation, right? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And during your investigation, did you come 16 across any memorandums that those lieutenants wrote to 17 Captain Staley or Storton, notifying them that there was 18 this concern that Officer Waddell had committed this 19 misconduct at the scene of this traffic collision, 20 right? 21 A. The question was did I read any of the notes -- 22 Q. Did you come across any kind of notification by 23 lieutenants who had been aware of this, that it had been 24 documented, in any way, that Officer Waddell committed 25 some kind of misconduct at this traffic collision scene? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2374 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1278 1 Because there was, obviously, this awareness. 2 A. Yeah. I heard that Sergeant Pfarr went to 3 Lieutenant Bledsoe with this thing because of the 4 detective opening. 5 Q. Right. You heard that any time a promotion 6 came up, he went around and let people know that this 7 happened, right, a promotion, detective, sergeant, but 8 it was never reported as, hey, please look into this 9 because there's misconduct, right? It was, hey, he 10 could be promoted, let's talk about this, right? 11 A. That's why the initial Bentley thing came up, 12 yes. 13 Q. Okay. So other than, obviously, the sergeant 14 who was aware of it and then the lieutenants who became 15 aware of it, you never found any other memos that those 16 lieutenants then forwarded up the chain of command as 17 part of some kind of notification process that there was 18 this potential misconduct? 19 A. Not that I'm aware of. 20 Q. Okay. And you were never made aware of it by 21 any kind of citizen complaint or notification by anyone 22 around the time of February 22nd, 2013, right? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. And that tow truck driver had not seen anything 25 or was not aware of anything when you talked to him, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2375 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1279 1 right? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. Okay. Now, is Pfarr an individual who has 4 input into who becomes selected for supervisor 5 positions, based on hierarchy of this department? 6 A. There's a process for promotions and the 7 sergeants and lieutenants and captains are involved in 8 that process, yes. 9 Q. Okay. So he is someone who gets to comment on 10 the judgment of others? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. So you interview him in January, then 13 you go back in April and show him photos, right? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Do you -- when you showed him the photographs, 16 were those photographs that you had received from the 17 adjustor or were those the photographs that you had 18 received from the investigators? 19 A. From the police investigators. 20 Q. Okay. And do you know which investigators took 21 them? 22 A. I do not. 23 Q. And do you know at what point they were taken? 24 A. Before the car was towed, is the best I can 25 give you. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2376 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1280 1 Q. Okay. And the reason that you are showing 2 Pfarr the photographs is because, at some point, you 3 learn that one of the hubcaps had come off the Bentley 4 during the accident, right? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Okay. And the photos that you have show the 7 Bentley on its roof, right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. So this is before it gets flipped over, right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And Pfarr tells you, at the point that he's 12 watching it, that it does get flipped over, right? 13 You've talked about that earlier. Remember? 14 A. Yes. Pfarr told me that he was on scene as the 15 driver rolled the upside down Bentley into an upright 16 position. 17 Q. Okay. And you write in your synopsis that's 18 possible that the tow truck driver flips and hubcaps may 19 have come off. There's indication that one may have 20 come off during the accident, there's thought that one 21 may have come off by the actions of the tow truck 22 driver, there's also debris around, right? 23 A. Well, Officer Waddell told me that one of the 24 hubcaps came off during the accident. 25 Q. Okay. Do you have any -- well, you've seen the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2377 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1281 1 police report? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Is there anything in that police report that 4 says that's not true? 5 A. Not that I know of. 6 Q. Okay. Did you ask any of the other 7 investigators? 8 A. I did not. 9 Q. Okay. Then you write, "It's possible that 10 while the tow truck driver flipped over the car, one of 11 the hubcaps may have come off." 12 Did you ask the tow truck driver about that? 13 A. I did not. 14 Q. Okay. You saw him, you interviewed him on the 15 scene. 16 Did you get his contact information so you 17 could follow up if you had later questions? 18 A. I interviewed who at the scene? 19 Q. Well, not the scene, but the scene of 20 Starbucks. 21 A. Remember, he was the first interview -- 22 Q. Right. 23 A. -- and then comment about all four -- or one of 24 the hubcaps came off until much later. 25 Q. Right. And then you reinterviewed Pfarr. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2378 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1282 1 Did you then reinterview tow truck guy? 2 A. I did recall the tow truck driver, and I did 3 not ask him about if he remembered if all four hubcaps 4 were on or not. 5 Q. Why not? 6 A. I just didn't. 7 Q. Pfarr tells you he remembers something that the 8 tow truck driver says at the scene, right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And that's that the tow truck driver says he 11 can pull off some of the parts, right? 12 A. The quote is, "I can pull some of the parts off 13 and leave them on the side of the road as if they came 14 off in the accident and you can grab them later." 15 Q. And at what point is this said? 16 A. Pfarr told me he remembered the tow truck 17 driver said at the scene while retrieving the 18 screwdriver for Waddell. 19 Q. Did the tow truck driver say that to you when 20 you interviewed him at Starbucks? 21 A. He did not. 22 Q. And he says that he never saw Waddell pull 23 anything off the car, right? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. Did you ever ask him if he knew Officer Waddell Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2379 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1283 1 in any capacity, like, other than that he works for the 2 police department? 3 A. The tow truck driver specifically told me the 4 only one he knew at the scene that night was Officer 5 Kevany from previous accident scenes. 6 Q. So he doesn't even know who Officer Waddell is? 7 A. As far as I know, no. 8 Q. So now Sergeant Pfarr is saying I remember the 9 tow truck driver saying this, right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. It's not in his memo from December 20th, right? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. When you recall the tow truck driver, do you 14 ask him about this statement that Officer -- I'm 15 sorry -- Sergeant Pfarr now remembers? 16 A. Well, tow truck driver told me from -- you 17 know, he doesn't remember seeing any officers trying to 18 remove anything, no mention of taking hubcaps as a joke, 19 no observations of any removal of any parts. 20 Q. Right. My question is, though, did you ask him 21 does he remember saying, hey, I'll pull some of these 22 parts off for you? 23 A. I did not ask him that. 24 Q. And so Pfarr says this is at the same time he's 25 getting ready to leave the accident scene, right, he Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2380 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1284 1 tells you this? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Okay. Now, Pfarr says he hears this comment, 4 right, and then does not go up to the tow truck driver 5 and ask him what he means by that, or what they're 6 talking about? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. What's going -- like, why you would do that? 9 A. I don't know. That was between Pfarr and the 10 tow truck driver, but there was no mention of that. 11 Q. Why didn't you ask Sergeant Pfarr why you 12 didn't go and ask what that meant, sergeant? 13 A. I don't know. 14 Q. Well, if Sergeant Pfarr is concerned that there 15 is a theft, is this now his co-conspirator? 16 I mean, when you called the -- so you learned 17 this, now, in April. Do you go back and ask all these 18 other officers that you had interviewed if they heard 19 any of these statements? 20 A. I did not. 21 Q. Why not? Because this is a pretty important 22 statement, wouldn't you say? 23 A. Yes. From the standpoint of if they had heard 24 this from the beginning, they would have told me if they 25 remember it or if they had heard it. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2381 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1285 1 Q. Right, but only in April, when you show Pfarr 2 these photos does it pop in his brain. 3 Maybe, had you shown these photos, I don't 4 know, to the other people -- I mean, no? 5 MR. PALMER: Objection. Speculation. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: If you know. 7 BY MS. CASTILLO: 8 Q. Okay. Then you interview -- well, you 9 interview Waddell. You interview him in January, right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And this conversation we were just talking 12 about had happened in April, right? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Did you think that you should reinterview 15 Waddell and ask him about this additional information, 16 the comments with the tow truck driver about stuff that 17 had popped off during the accident or had flipped over 18 and fallen off or the tow truck driver colluding with 19 him and pulling parts off and leaving them by the side 20 of the road? 21 A. I did not. 22 Q. Okay. Is it 4:00? 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: A little after 4:30. 24 Stopping point or do you have more examination for this 25 witness? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2382 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1286 1 MS. CASTILLO: I do. I want to play an audio, 2 but it's going to be longer than a half-hour. So I'll 3 ask more questions about that tomorrow. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 5 BY MS. CASTILLO: 6 Q. So you call in Officer Waddell and you 7 interview him on the 27th and he's interviewed not at 8 the station, right? 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. And what's the reason you don't interview him 11 at the police station? 12 A. I don't know. This was a room that was 13 available. 14 Q. Okay. And the person who assists you is 15 Sergeant Fred Mickel. Why is he assisting you? 16 A. Just common practice, to have another employee 17 in the room. 18 Q. Okay. And he's Mirandized, right? 19 And the reason you Mirandized him is because 20 you were going to ask him about this Vehicle Code 21 violation, right? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you ultimately forward -- or does your 24 department, to your knowledge, ultimately forward this 25 to the district attorney's office for a possible Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2383 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1287 1 prosecution? 2 A. Not that I'm aware of. 3 Q. So you start off the interview with Officer 4 Waddell and he talks to you about the Bentley scene, 5 correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. And by the time he's interviewed about 8 this incident, it's almost a year, right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And his attorney at that time is Alison Berry 11 Wilkinson? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And prior to this interview, she makes 14 objections regarding the statute of limitations 15 happening in the past, right, or something to that 16 effect? 17 A. I don't know if they brought up the word, 18 statute of limitations. 19 Q. Well, she's saying it happened almost a year 20 ago? 21 A. Right. 22 Q. So she's putting the detective on notice the 23 timeline is coming to pass sometime soon, correct? 24 A. Her point was the recollection might not be 25 that great after a year. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2384 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1288 1 Q. Well, she's also telling you, the IA 2 investigator, that your one-year period time is ticking, 3 right? 4 A. I don't recall hearing that. 5 Q. How many investigations have you done, again? 6 A. Just a handful. 7 Q. Okay. So then Officer Waddell and you start 8 the conversation about the Bentley and the tow truck 9 driver and the screwdriver, right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. And he says, yes, I asked the tow truck 12 driver for a screwdriver. He never denies that, right? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. And he says that, in fact, he's dramatic and 15 obvious about this, right? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Okay. And he says that he believes that the 18 only thing that was ever removed was the cover over the 19 lug nuts, correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Okay. And were you ever part of this traffic 22 team that Officer Waddell was part of? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Okay. So you have this conversation, and does 25 Officer Waddell give you any kind of context as to where Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2385 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1289 1 everyone is as this is going on in relation to the car? 2 A. Not that I recall. 3 Q. Did you ask him? 4 A. Not that I recall. 5 Q. Okay. So we know the tow truck driver is 6 somewhere around, right? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. We know Sergeant Pfarr is somewhere around, 9 right? 10 A. Depending on what time you're talking about. 11 Q. Right. And we know that Kevany is somewhere 12 around, correct? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And Cudworth is somewhere around? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And other than those people, have you, in your 17 investigation, determined that there was, other than 18 Officer Benson being around at certain points, anyone 19 else in the actual vicinity of this car? 20 A. Well, as I mentioned earlier, other people -- 21 Officer Walsh had came by at some point, Sergeant 22 Amoroso was there briefly, Sergeant Goodwin was there 23 for a little while. So it just depends on what 24 specific -- 25 Q. I'm talking about when Officer Waddell was Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2386 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1290 1 being goofy with the emblem. I mean, the people who are 2 percipient. 3 A. Okay. 4 Q. So Cudworth at some points, Benson at some 5 points, Pfarr at some points, tow truck driver at some 6 points, Kevany at some points. Amoroso no, right? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. And Goodwin leaves, correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. So that's five people, right? 11 A. Okay. 12 Q. Okay. During the course of your investigation, 13 and you said Walsh, but looking at Walsh's statement, he 14 sees nothing, knows nothing, right? Right? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. Okay. So other than those five people, did you 17 determine that there were, potentially, any other 18 percipient witnesses, at all? 19 A. I don't believe so. 20 Q. Okay. And during the course of your 21 investigation, I mean, we know you've talked to the 22 adjustors. 23 We presume you talked to the owner at some 24 appoint, right? 25 Other than Benson, has anyone reported to you Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2387 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1291 1 any kind of damage? 2 A. By Officer Waddell? 3 Q. Correct. 4 A. No. 5 Q. Okay. So Officer Waddell says he removes one 6 hubcap and another hubcap fell off during crash, right? 7 He tells you this? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. He says he did not place either hubcap 10 in a large brown evidence bag, right? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. He does not recall if he placed any items 13 related to the investigation in a brown paper bag, 14 right? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Did you ever do any kind of investigation into 17 whether or not anything was tagged into evidence in a 18 brown bag, at all? 19 A. I did not. 20 Q. Okay. So you don't know if Sergeant Pfarr, in 21 seeing any kind of brown bag, was actually seeing 22 Officer Waddell with an evidence bag with evidence? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. Okay. When you looked at that police report 25 that you saw, there was an evidence sheet, right? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2388 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1292 1 A. I don't recall. 2 Q. There would be, right? Usually, police reports 3 have evidence sheets? 4 A. No. 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: There should be, is what 6 you're asking? 7 MS. CASTILLO: Right. 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: Is that the practice? 9 THE WITNESS: On certain things that the -- 10 traffic collision report is on a state form rather than 11 our regular forms. 12 BY MS. CASTILLO: 13 Q. But if things were collected as evidence, they 14 would be tagged and marked? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. You just don't remember if there was anything? 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. Okay. He told you he had never any intention 19 of taking the items, right? 20 A. Never intending on taking items away from the 21 scene. 22 Q. Well, I'm reading on your Page 17 where it said 23 never any intentions on taking the items and he had no 24 need from them. 25 A. In the third paragraph, though, it talks about Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2389 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1293 1 never intending on taking items away from the scene. 2 Q. Okay. So both, not taking them and not taking 3 them from the scene? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. Okay. The sole reason was he was messing with 6 Pfarr, and then he admits to you, during his interview, 7 that it was a poor decision due to the timing and the 8 people around, right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. He tells you that he instigated the prank 11 because of the conversation that he and Amoroso had 12 about playing a prank on Pfarr, right? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And we heard some testimony about that. 15 Do you ask him more about that question? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Okay. What does he tell you? 18 A. He told me their conversation didn't contain 19 any specifics on what the prank would be and he believed 20 that conversation took place either that shift or the 21 day before. 22 Q. Took place that same shift, but it could have 23 been the day before? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Okay. And, again, this was a year later that Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2390 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1294 1 you're interviewing him? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Okay. Designed to be light-hearted. Okay. 4 Something to do with the close working 5 relationships between the two sergeants, what did that 6 mean? 7 A. Not sure. 8 Q. Did Sergeant Pfarr and Sergeant Amoroso have a 9 close working relationship? 10 A. They do. 11 Q. Okay. They're friends? 12 A. I would hope that we're all friends here, but 13 yes. 14 Q. Okay. And, at this time, Pfarr was a newer 15 sergeant, right? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Did you ask Waddell about the conversation with 18 Officer Benson or did he volunteer that information to 19 you? Do you remember? 20 A. I don't recall. 21 Q. Okay. But he tells you that he had a 22 conversation with Benson? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Okay. And that was after the fact, right? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2391 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1295 1 Q. Did he say that Benson said anything to him 2 about damaging the vehicle in any way, or his concerns 3 that he had? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Compromised a crime scene? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Okay. Did he say anything about the thin 8 material that was on this Bentley emblem? 9 A. The thin material? 10 Q. Right. Benson's impressions. 11 A. Not that I recall. 12 Q. Okay. Waddell indicated to you that the only 13 item that was removed from the vehicle was the lug nut 14 cover, correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And that anything else would have actually 17 caused damage, so he did not do any of that, right? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Okay. Now, you did not go and look at the lug 20 nut covers on the tires of the Bentley. 21 Any of those photographs that you saw, did they 22 show a closeup of how those would, in fact, be 23 removed? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Okay. All right. Waddell told you, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2392 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1296 1 specifically, that he believed that this prank was not 2 well-received by Sergeant Pfarr, right? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Have you ever played jokes on coworkers at this 5 department? 6 A. Yes, I have. 7 Q. Have some of them gone over well? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And people hear about them, right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And then some of them have not gone over well? 12 A. Are you referring to my practical jokes? 13 Q. Right. Or are your practical jokes always 14 good? 15 A. I don't know of any that didn't go over well. 16 Q. So yours are always good. 17 Is that, kind of, the culture at this 18 department, that people play jokes on coworkers? 19 A. It happens from time to time. 20 Q. Okay. Because this is the type of job in 21 having the ability to get through it is a good thing? 22 A. Yes. But I have friends in all sorts of other 23 occupations that are constantly doing practical jokes. 24 I don't think it's just because it's a police job. 25 Q. Well, I'm not saying that it's just a police Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2393 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1297 1 job, but it's not unusual in a police department with 2 coworkers to joke around with each other, right? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. And it's, certainly, not unusual at this police 5 department, right? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. And you've been here how many years? 8 A. 30 years. 9 Q. And, in fact, when you were interviewing 10 Sergeant Amoroso and you told him, oh, good job, he 11 said, yeah, I'm like you, right? 12 A. I don't recall that, specifically, but 13 something to that nature. 14 Q. And that was after he had told you we had just 15 talked about playing a joke on Sergeant Pfarr, right? 16 A. I don't recall that conversation with him, 17 unless I listened to it again. 18 Q. And, again, the last time you listened to it 19 was January of 2014, right? 20 A. Yes, when I was preparing this. 21 Q. Okay. Waddell told you that he had a phone 22 conversation with Pfarr, he had an office conversation 23 with Pfarr, and at both of those times, that Pfarr told 24 him, hey, not a good idea, right? 25 A. What was the question? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2394 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1298 1 Q. During both conversations, subsequent to this 2 joke that went wrong, Pfarr specifically told Waddell 3 that was a bad idea, right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. And Pfarr -- or Waddell, at least, 6 communicated to you that Pfarr told him that he spoke to 7 everyone who had been there, like Kevany, that he had 8 handled it and it was done, right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. And Waddell also said that he spoke to 11 Benson and said he made a bad decision in that way, 12 right? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. And so then, ultimately, no one at the 15 department talks about this again, right, until 16 promotion time? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. There's no IA done, right? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Sergeant Pfarr doesn't ask for a further 21 investigation, he just handles it as a supervisor at 22 that time, right? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. Okay. When -- when you -- at this point in the 25 interview when you're talking to Waddell and he has told Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2395 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1299 1 you it was a joke, I was joking, it was intended to be a 2 joke on Pfarr, but, ultimately, it was a joke, I was 3 never going to take these, I was never going to keep 4 these, I never damaged any part because I popped off a 5 hubcap that was meant to be popped off, you learned that 6 the tow truck driver never actually saw anything be 7 removed from the vehicle, you know that the coworkers of 8 Waddell either thought that it was a joke and/or did not 9 see anything and/or were told, specifically, by Pfarr, 10 according to Pfarr, that it was handled and done, you've 11 learned from Pfarr that he believed it was a joke and he 12 handled it at that point, right, at this point in your 13 interview, right? I'm setting up for a question. Okay? 14 MR. PALMER: Objection. Compound, vague and 15 ambiguous, unintelligible. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: Let's break it down. 17 BY MS. CASTILLO: 18 Q. Okay. I'll break it down more. 19 You were talking to Waddell in this interview 20 part. Okay? Ready? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. You have learned from the tow truck 23 driver that he did not see any car parts be removed. 24 Okay? 25 All he did was give someone a screwdriver and Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2396 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1300 1 he doesn't even know the guy's name, right? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. You learned that. You've learned that Kevany 4 thought it was a joke to take something to the traffic 5 division, but that never actually happened. Okay? You 6 learned that, right, from her interview? I'm recapping 7 for you. 8 A. Well, I want to make sure it's accurate. 9 Q. I'm paraphrasing. She actually thought it was 10 going to be a joke to leave with it and take it? 11 A. But she also thought it was going to end up on 12 the wall in traffic. 13 Q. Right. She thought completely taking it was 14 going to be a funny joke, right? You learned that? 15 A. Okay. 16 Q. Okay. And that she was in on it, right? You 17 learned that? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Okay. You learned that Cudworth is around, he 20 doesn't see or hear any of this, but he tells you that 21 he thinks that Sergeant Pfarr says, what the heck are 22 you doing, even though Sergeant Pfarr says nothing like 23 that. So if you want to consider that, I don't care. 24 You've heard from Benson, right? Whatever 25 Benson says, damage, he saw it all, right? And then Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2397 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1301 1 you've had your memo from Pfarr and your conversation 2 with Pfarr, right? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. You've also had your conversation with 5 Amoroso. Okay? 6 At the point that you have had all this 7 information from Pfarr where he says, on that night, I 8 believed Waddell was joking, that I handled it, as a 9 supervisor, that nothing left the scene, he doesn't say 10 that there was any damage, he doesn't return to the 11 scene to check all this. 12 You hear all of this, also, from Waddell, 13 right? You learn that it only becomes a potential issue 14 at the time of promotions, that it becomes, maybe, this 15 10852, right? 16 At the point where you're told -- 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: I hear a lot of rights. 18 I don't hear a lot of answers over here. So I don't 19 know if that means you don't agree, or what. 20 BY MS. CASTILLO: 21 Q. Do you not agree? 22 A. Well, I mean, you were talking about who was 23 taking it as a joke, and Cudworth, specifically -- you 24 were trying to say that everybody thought it was a joke 25 and that he, specifically, didn't think it was a joke. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2398 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1302 1 Q. I guess we -- well, okay. Let's stop and I'll 2 just play everyone's audio tomorrow. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: That's probably a good 4 idea. So we're going to take a break at this point in 5 the direct examination of Lieutenant Proll. 6 Lieutenant, you're still directed not to 7 discuss your testimony here with anybody. 8 We're going to resume tomorrow at 9:00; is that 9 right? But we're back in City Hall? 10 MS. DIETRICK: We are in the utilities 11 building. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: Back in utilities at 879 13 Morro? 14 MS. DIETRICK: Yes. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: How wonderful. Very 16 good. Okay. So we'll stand in recess until then 17 tomorrow. Thank you. 18 MS. CASTILLO: Okay. Thanks. 19 (The proceedings adjourned at 5:00 p.m.) 20 21 22 23 24 25 Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2399 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 20, 2015, VOL. 6 8/20/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1303 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) SS. 3 4 I, MELISSA PLOOY, Certified Shorthand Reporter, 5 licensed in the State of California, holding CSR License 6 No. 13068, do hereby certify: 7 That said proceeding was verbatim-reported by me by 8 the use of computer shorthand at the time and place 9 therein stated and thereafter transcribed into writing 10 under my direction. 11 I further certify that I am not of counsel nor 12 attorney for or related to the parties hereto, nor am I 13 in any way interested in the outcome of this action. 14 In compliance with Section 8016 of the Business and 15 Professions Code, I certify under penalty of perjury 16 that I am a Certified Shorthand Reporter with License 17 No. 13068 in full force and effect. 18 WITNESS my hand this ____________ day of 19 _____________, ________. 20 __________________________________ MELISSA PLOOY, CSR#13068 21 22 23 24 25 Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2400 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1304 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO In the Matter of the Appeal ) of the Dismissal of ) OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL, ) Appellant, ) and ) CSMCS Case No. ARB-14-0209 POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE ) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, ) VOLUME VII PAGES 1304- 1474 Hiring Authority. ) TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA FRIDAY, AUGUST 21, 2015 9:05 A.M. - 4:58 P.M. REPORTED BY MELISSA PLOOY, CSR #13068 MCDANIEL REPORTING Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2401 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1305 1 THE TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS WAS TAKEN AT THE 2 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, 879 MORRO 3 STREET, CONFERENCE ROOM, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, 4 BEFORE MELISSA PLOOY, A CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER IN 5 AND FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON FRIDAY, AUGUST 21, 6 2015, COMMENCING AT THE HOUR OF 9:05 A.M. 7 8 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL 9 HEARING OFFICER: 10 SOUTHWESTERN LAW SCHOOL BY: CHRISTOPHER DAVID RUIZ CAMERON 11 PROFESSOR OF LAW 3050 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD 12 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010 213) 738-6749 13 CCAMERON@SWLAW.EDU 14 FOR THE APPELLANT: 15 CASTILLO HARPER, APC BY: KASEY A. CASTILLO, ESQ. 16 3333 CONCOURS STREET BUILDING 4, SUITE 4100 17 ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91764 909) 466-5600 18 KASEY@CASTILLOHARPER.COM 19 FOR THE HIRING AUTHORITY: 20 JONES & MAYER BY: GREGORY P. PALMER, ESQ. 21 3777 NORTH HARBOR BOULEVARD FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92835 22 (714) 446-1400 GPP@JONES-MAYER.COM 23 24 ALSO PRESENT: LAURA WADDELL, CAPTAIN CHRIS STALEY, CHRISTINE DIETRICK 25 Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2402 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1306 1 I N D E X 2 WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 3 LIEUTENANT BILL PROLL 1317 1362 1404, 1430 1430 4 SERGEANT CHAD PFARR 1432 5 6 I N D E X T O E X H I B I T S 7 APPELLANT'S MARKED ADMITTED 8 EXHIBIT Y 1322 1336 9 EXHIBIT Y- A 1322 1336 10 EXHIBIT Y- B 1322 1336 11 EXHIBIT Y-C 1329 1336 12 EXHIBIT Y-D 1329 1336 13 EXHIBIT Y- E 1331 1336 14 EXHIBIT Y-F 1335 1336 15 EXHIBIT Z 1359 1359 16 EXHIBIT AA 1360 17 EXHIBIT BB 1360 1362 18 EXHIBIT CC 1466 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2403 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1307 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: This is day seven of the 2 hearing of the appeal of Officer Waddell. It's Friday, 3 August 21st, 2015. We're here in the Utility Building 4 at 879 Morro Street, and before we get going with 5 resuming the testimony of Lieutenant Proll, we've got 6 what appears to be a discovery issue that I'd like to 7 put on the record. 8 First of all, can I have the appearances of the 9 advocates, first of all, on behalf of the department? 10 MR. PALMER: Good morning. Greg Palmer for the 11 City of San Luis Obispo Police Department. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. And for the 13 appellant? 14 MS. CASTILLO: Kasey Castillo. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Very good. So we went on 16 the record because Ms. Castillo is making a motion to 17 compel discovery in effect and I thought it would be 18 best if you would summarize it. So go ahead. 19 MS. CASTILLO: I'm sorry. I thought we were on 20 the record previously. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: Since we need to have a 22 response, I think we should do it. So I'm sorry for 23 making you repeat it. 24 MS. CASTILLO: Not a problem. 25 We had previously sent subpoenas and public Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2404 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1308 1 record requests for the police report in this case, the 2 traffic collision report, to include all the photographs 3 as -- 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: This is with respect to 5 the Bentley event? 6 MS. CASTILLO: Correct. And we were provided 7 the report, we were provided some photographs. We would 8 like to know the identity of the owner of the Bentley. 9 We were not provided that information. I believe that 10 it is public record, and once we have that information, 11 we can do our own investigation. 12 That being said, I think that there is plenty 13 of authority that should compel the department to turn 14 over that information, and if you'd like me to continue 15 what I've said off the record, I can, but I believe that 16 the basis for the denial that the city attorney's office 17 gave was that my client was not the victim of any -- 18 well, I can restate what they said. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, that can be 20 represented by the city or the department. 21 The question I ask, which I'd like to have on 22 the record, is the purpose for which -- what are you 23 looking for in the police report that would be relevance 24 to the appeal? That's what I want you to talk about. 25 MS. CASTILLO: The relevance to the appeal is Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2405 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1309 1 that there is an allegation that my client committed a 2 violation of Vehicle Code Section 10852, and I believe 3 that if this Bentley still exists, photographic evidence 4 can, potentially, be obtained if the car has not been 5 totaled. I don't know. We're not able to actually 6 interview the owner of the Bentley or the insurance 7 adjustor. That was never done in this case by the 8 department, and I think that it should be done, if it's 9 possible. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, here's what I'd 11 like to understand, and then I want to hear from 12 Mr. Palmer. I didn't think it was in dispute that the 13 appellant removed one or more items from the Bentley. 14 The hubcap got popped off, as I recall. I thought 15 that's what he said in one of the interviews. 16 So are you looking for evidence that the items 17 were never removed in the first place because they'd 18 still be on there, or that they didn't get put back, 19 which everybody -- I thought that was undisputed, the 20 item got put back on the floorboard. 21 So what would I get out of looking at the 22 pictures? 23 MS. CASTILLO: Well, I don't know, exactly, 24 what the -- if you look at the difference in the 25 evidence, I don't know what the department is actually Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2406 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1310 1 relying on, specifically, because we have multiple 2 statements from multiple witnesses, we also have, 3 additionally, evidence of potential damage. I don't 4 think that that's been proven or corroborated. 5 I also think that if we are looking at some as 6 a potential crime, that's something that, I think, is 7 relevant because we have an allegation of a crime that 8 was sustained. There's an issue of intent here that I 9 believe that has to be proven, and, additionally, I 10 believe that what is relevant at this time also would be 11 the potential for not only the issue that is whether or 12 not the -- well, let me back up. 13 The appellant is not contesting, at all, 14 removing one of the hubcaps. I will -- we'll stipulate 15 to that right now, but I do think that the rest of the 16 issue, I think that -- 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: He denies having removed 18 the emblem on the rear deck or the -- 19 MS. CASTILLO: 100 percent, absolutely. 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: -- and also the one that 21 was on the steering wheel cover, or whatever? 22 MS. CASTILLO: Absolutely. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: That's what I thought. 24 All right. Mr. Palmer? 25 MR. PALMER: Thank you. I'll try to be Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2407 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1311 1 succinct, but there's a lot of moving parts in this 2 motion. 3 First off, I kind of have to defer a little bit 4 to the city attorney's office because I think, as 5 everybody around the table has been aware, my focus has 6 been putting on the evidence, the trial, organizing the 7 witnesses, and the city attorney's office has been the 8 primary location where the response to the subpoenas 9 duces tecums and the PRAs that have been filed by 10 Mr. Waddell -- 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: And I want to observe 12 Ms. Dietrick is not present; at least, not this morning. 13 MR. PALMER: Thank you. That being said, with 14 that difference on the record, I do have some things to 15 say. 16 Mr. Waddell sent subpoena duces tecum and a 17 Public Records Act request. I believe they sought the 18 same or similar items in terms of what we're talking 19 about with the traffic collision report. 20 Let's talk about the Public Records Act request 21 first. The traffic collision report is exempt from 22 public disclosure. 23 MS. CASTILLO: I'm sorry. I misspoke. I was 24 reading the wrong item. That was -- that was under a 25 subpoena. Sorry. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2408 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1312 1 MR. PALMER: Well, then, I guess, the whole 2 Public Records Act discussion is moot. It is exempt 3 from public disclosure, period. What was in there in 4 the response from the city attorney's office was 5 accurate. Under 6254(f) of the Government Code, and 6 Vehicle Code Section 20012, there's only certain people 7 that are entitled to a traffic accident report. 8 Mr. Waddell doesn't fit any of those categories. 9 In terms of the subpoena duces tecum, I 10 remember having a discussion with members of the city 11 attorney's office about how to respond to the request of 12 the traffic accident report. We agreed, collectively, 13 that a redacted report would be appropriate, and that's 14 why she has a redacted reported. Again, I have to defer 15 to the city attorney's office in terms of the extent of 16 the redaction because that was their laboring oar. 17 I'm not sure how -- let me go back. The only 18 part of this event involving the accident that is a 19 public record is that which is over in court. They can 20 go over there, they can do an index search, try to find 21 a -- try to use the date and the time and figure out who 22 the defendant is, and whatever the court has, that's a 23 public record. 24 What the San Luis Obispo Police Department 25 still has related to that event is not a public record, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2409 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1313 1 and many times under -- I think it's Penal Code Section 2 962, especially in a felony, the court record does not 3 contain the police reports. It only contains the 4 complaint, the docket. In misdemeanors, it has the 5 police report, but not -- especially not in felonies. 6 Most counties operate like that, for the exact same 7 reason, that we don't want to have police reports made a 8 public record because they're in a court file. 9 I don't understand the relevance of talking 10 with the driver. From all the information that I have 11 in this case, from the record that we've amassed thus 12 far, the driver and the passenger were taken to the 13 hospital well before the events that bring us here to 14 this table. 15 Mr. Waddell is not charged with a crime. 16 Ms. Castillo has said that many times, he is not charged 17 with a crime. We are not in criminal court. He's 18 charged with violating the administrative rules of the 19 department by committing a criminal offense, 20 administratively. That is way different from being 21 charged with a crime. Concept of Brady versus Maryland 22 does not apply here, at all. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, that raises a 24 different issue. I'm sorry to interrupt here. 25 MR. PALMER: It's okay. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2410 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1314 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: There's four charges, and 2 one of them is as you stated it, as I recall, but I 3 would assume that except for the beyond a reasonable 4 doubt standard, and maybe I'm wrong about that, that all 5 the other elements of that offense would have to be 6 proved in this proceeding, but let's just put that 7 aside, okay, for a second because even if it's not 8 established, there's another charge that's, 9 essentially -- I forgot how it was worded, but it's 10 violating the words of the department or conduct on 11 becoming for removing this private property from the 12 scene. 13 So whether that's one piece or three pieces 14 doesn't seem to make any difference to me, and I 15 thought, really, that this case was about the defense 16 that this is a prank and a joke and this is the kind of 17 thing that if it doesn't go on all the time with respect 18 to this, that it isn't that serious of an offense to 19 warrant termination. I thought that was, really, what 20 the essence of the Bentley event argument is about. Am 21 I missing something there? 22 In other words, I don't know that I'm going to 23 gain any more information from finding he put back one 24 piece or three pieces. 25 MS. CASTILLO: Well, I, actually, have no idea Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2411 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1315 1 what the department's actual position is because we have 2 yet to actually hear from the chief. So I have no idea 3 what -- 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, I'm jumping to the 5 end. I'm assuming they're going to say he took three 6 and you're going to say that he took one and put it 7 back. I mean, if that's -- if I'm misstating your 8 position, you can correct me, Mr. Palmer. 9 MR. PALMER: No. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. So I don't see 11 what's to be gained by getting any more information from 12 that. I'm already telling you that, to me, you know, 13 these are three items from the vehicle. Whether it's 14 one or three doesn't seem to -- that doesn't seem to be 15 the issue to me. The issue is what's the meaning of 16 taking them and/or putting them back. That's what I'm 17 working with here, which seems, to me, to be a question 18 of law, not one of fact. That's where I'm at here. 19 So on that basis, while it would seem, to me, 20 that, at some level, you would be entitled to public 21 information about this, and Mr. Palmer has suggested the 22 court record aspect, I don't, personally, see what I'm 23 going to get out of the information to enlighten this 24 appeal. 25 More to the point, and I'm glad that we're on Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2412 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1316 1 the record here, I might as well say that, for my money, 2 this Bentley event is just much less important than the 3 information about the CAT shift event because of the 4 claim of dishonesty. 5 If I had to decide this case based solely on 6 the Bentley event, I could not uphold this termination. 7 I just don't see that. So if that helps you, at all, 8 you know, I'm putting it out there right now. 9 So I'm going to deny this motion because I just 10 don't see how even if you were to get all this 11 information and it were to show that those other two 12 pieces weren't removed, it wouldn't really change the 13 posture of this case, at least, not in my eyes. All 14 right? 15 MS. CASTILLO: Okay. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: So let's move on. Are we 17 ready -- is there any other business we need to take 18 care of? 19 MS. CASTILLO: No. Can we have, like, five 20 minutes? 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah. Sure. 22 (Recess.) 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: We're back on the record 24 and we're continuing with the direct examination of 25 Lieutenant Proll. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2413 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1317 1 Lieutenant Proll, you recall you're still under 2 oath? 3 THE WITNESS: Yes. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Very good. Ms. Castillo, 5 you may proceed. 6 MS. CASTILLO: Thank you. 7 8 DIRECT EXAMINATION 9 BY MS. CASTILLO: 10 Q. Good morning. How are you? 11 A. Good. 12 Q. Good. 13 MR. PALMER: I was going to say, you guys are 14 real close. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Do you want to scoot down 16 a little bit? 17 THE WITNESS: No. I'm fine. 18 BY MS. CASTILLO: 19 Q. I won't bite you. 20 Okay. So yesterday when we left off, we were 21 talking about your administrative interview, including 22 that of Officer Waddell, and then your report. 23 Do you remember those questions? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Okay. And, ultimately, how many drafts of your Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2414 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1318 1 report do you recall there ended up being? 2 A. I think three or four. 3 Q. Were those three or four that you audited -- or 4 edited, or authored? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Okay. And who else participated in the 7 editing? 8 A. I submitted them to Captain Staley. 9 Q. Okay. And so he participated in the editing? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And who else? 12 A. I believe Chief Gesell and City Attorney 13 Christine Dietrick. 14 Q. Okay. And then did they come back to you to 15 review for accuracy? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And do you know what the date was on the final 18 edited version? 19 A. Just so you know, they didn't edit it. They 20 suggested comments or changes, or whatever, but they 21 didn't edit my document. 22 Q. What do you mean by that? 23 A. Well, they did not change my document. I 24 changed the document. 25 Q. Okay. So what does that mean? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2415 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1319 1 A. They wrote using -- you know, word tracking and 2 stuff, they wrote comments or suggestions or changes 3 and, in one case, I used the word, "dead," and the 4 suggestion was to use the word, " deceased." So I went 5 back, took the word, "dead," out and put the word, 6 "deceased." 7 So they did not alter my document. They added 8 comments and suggestions. 9 Q. Okay. So it was just word tense? Is that what 10 you're saying? 11 A. No. There was other things. A majority of 12 different tenses of words and different suggested ways 13 of saying things. 14 Q. Okay. And what other kind of edits? 15 A. I don't recall, specifically. 16 Q. Okay. When you reviewed those drafts the other 17 day, not yesterday, but the day before, in preparation 18 for your hearing, what other kind of substantive edits 19 did you notice? 20 A. There was things of, you know, was this a quote 21 or this should be a quote, different, like I said, 22 tenses of verbs, add to this if there's something there 23 to add, those kind of suggestions. 24 Q. Did you notice any text that was removed? 25 A. Of the three other people removed? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2416 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1320 1 Q. Yeah. 2 A. Suggesting that I remove it? 3 Q. Right. 4 A. Probably. 5 Q. Probably? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. Why? Just not relevant? 8 A. Under their review, they didn't think it was 9 relevant for this investigation. 10 Q. So the witness statements weren't relevant? 11 A. I'm not sure what, specifically, you're 12 referring to, but there was suggestions to remove 13 certain parts of my investigation. 14 MS. CASTILLO: Okay. So this will be 15 Appellant's Y. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Looks like we're 17 having a gigantic document. 18 MS. CASTILLO: Yeah. 19 MR. PALMER: I only have limited room in the 20 notebooks, Kasey. 21 MS. CASTILLO: I know. 22 BY MS. CASTILLO: 23 Q. Okay. So your investigation has been marked as 24 Department's Exhibit 8, right? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2417 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1321 1 Q. Okay. And it's dated February 28th, 2014, 2 correct? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. And this is a memo that you sent to 5 Captain Staley -- well, to Chief Gesell via Captain 6 Staley, right? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Okay. Now, I'm going to show you the first 9 document. These are going to be collectively marked as 10 Y, but they -- maybe we need, like, two minutes. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. We're going to 12 have a copy of that for everybody? 13 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Let's go off the 15 record for a second. 16 (Pause in proceedings.) 17 MS. CASTILLO: So handing you what I'm marking 18 Y and Y- A. It's very tricky. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: So we can't mark them all 20 as Y? 21 MS. CASTILLO: Yeah. There's going to be Y- A, 22 Y- B, Y... 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: So the cover sheet is Y, 24 all by itself? 25 MS. CASTILLO: Correct. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2418 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1322 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: And the next one is Y- A 2 and B, C, D, E, F for the pages? 3 MS. CASTILLO: Correct. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. So the document's 5 multiple pages. It looks like it's got, I don't know, 6 15 or 20 pages here and the cover that's Y is an e-mail 7 from Steve Gesell to Bill Proll, subject, Waddell 8 AI13005P, and the date is March 28, 2014. 9 BY MS. CASTILLO: 10 Q. Okay. So you've been handed Y and Y- A, right? 11 Right? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And this is -- Y is an e-mail from Chief 14 Gesell, right? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. To you, CCing your Captain Staley, right? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And this is returning your draft of Department 19 Exhibit 8? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Okay. And was this the first draft that you 22 sent for review? 23 A. I don't know. 24 Q. Was this -- this is a working draft, obviously, 25 right? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2419 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1323 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Okay. And because the original is authored 3 February 28th? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. And so if I look at Y- A and I see any 6 kind of notes, the initials, G.S., are those the 7 chief's? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. And in this e-mail, it says, "See my 10 note," under conclusion. 11 And as I flip through this, there's some 12 interlineations, right? Those are the chief's edits? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. Now, when you sent this to the chief, 15 did you also send him all your notes? 16 A. No, I did not. 17 Q. Did you send him your audios? 18 A. No, I did not. 19 Q. Okay. So, like, for example, there's not page 20 numbers here, but, I guess, if I go backwards, it's 21 easier. One, two, three, four, five, six pages from the 22 back, and we get to the fifth page from the back that 23 starts with Officer Benson, do you see that? Right. 24 You're on it. 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2420 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1324 1 Q. Okay. If you look at the bottom paragraph 2 where it says Officer Benson and it's crossed out, 3 "knows," and it was written in, "was confident." 4 Did you talk to the chief about Officer Benson 5 feeling confident or was that just his edit? 6 A. That was his edit that I agreed with. 7 Q. Okay. Did he talk to Officer Benson about his 8 confidence level, do you know? 9 A. I don't think so. 10 Q. Okay. So where he says, "See my note," in the 11 conclusion, where it says, "one citizen," where the -- 12 where you make the conclusion that there was this 13 overwhelming evidence witnessed by other employees and 14 at least one citizen that know about -- where it says 15 note in the conclusion, what was he referencing? 16 A. I don't know. 17 Q. Well, we know that the citizen that you 18 interviewed was the tow truck driver who didn't witness 19 it. So did you talk to him about his note? 20 A. I did not. 21 Q. Because this is, obviously, incorrect, right? 22 A. What was the question? 23 Q. Well, the e-mail says, "see my note," under 24 conclusion. 25 A. Right. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2421 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1325 1 Q. You go to conclusion and you see the chief's 2 note, "citizen," right? 3 A. Well, I don't see a note. 4 Q. Well, it says G.S. 42, like his 42nd correction 5 or note there. 6 A. Okay. 7 Q. Okay. Right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. So now you see his note under 10 conclusion, right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. Do you know what he was referring to? 13 A. I don't. 14 Q. Well, he told you to look at it. Did you look 15 at it? 16 A. Yes. And, from this, I can't tell what he was 17 referring to. 18 Q. Did you ask him? 19 A. I did not. 20 Q. Okay. Well, okay. Anyways, what did your 21 original say? 22 A. I don't know. 23 Q. Well, do you have your original? 24 A. I have my final. 25 Q. Well, right. Do you have your original? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2422 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1326 1 A. Not here. 2 Q. What was that word before? 3 A. I don't know. 4 Q. Okay. Can I ask you to look here where it 5 says -- where he changed it to theft on 41? What was 6 that word before? 7 A. I can't tell from the document that you're 8 showing me what the word was before. 9 Q. Well, you wrote this, right? 10 A. Yeah. And I don't remember what words I used a 11 year ago. 12 Q. I know, but your chief, the Skelly officer, 13 changed all these words. 14 Do you remember what your investigation 15 originally said? 16 A. I don't. 17 Q. Okay. Let's go back to -- just real quick 18 here, I want to look at one more thing. Page 2. 19 A. Okay. 20 Q. The synopsis. The whole synopsis is written by 21 the chief. Do you see this? 22 A. Yes. That synopsis was not written by the 23 chief. 24 Q. Well, it looks like it was. 25 A. Yeah. I don't know -- I don't believe in any Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2423 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1327 1 documents that anyone other than me wrote a paragraph. 2 There was corrections and notes and stuff, but -- 3 Q. Well, if you look at the way this edit was, it 4 looks like this entire thing. There's a line starting 5 at, "on," and a line ending at "2013." 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: Can I make an observation 7 for the record? And you can tell me if I'm wrong. It's 8 a little light here, but it looks like the way that the 9 changes are recorded here for this comment on the second 10 page of the memo, this is Y, Appellant's Y- B, for that 11 synopsis paragraph, it says G.S. 1, it looks like 12 there's a bunch of it that's bold-faced, which is most 13 of that paragraph, and the rest is a little lighter. Is 14 that what you're talking about? 15 MS. CASTILLO: No. This is the copying of it. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: Oh, okay. 17 MS. CASTILLO: Here's my original. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. So the part that 19 is indicated as being changed is in brackets? Is that 20 how it's -- 21 MS. CASTILLO: Yeah. So it starts with O and 22 the word, "on." 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: Oh, okay. 24 MS. CASTILLO: And then ends where the -- 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: O, where the first Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2424 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1328 1 paragraph is -- okay. So that's the basis of your 2 statement or question, that it looks like that G.S., who 3 is the chief, I take it, wrote this whole synopsis; is 4 that right? 5 MS. CASTILLO: Correct. 6 MR. PALMER: I would object there's no 7 foundation for that. There's no facts in evidence. 8 MS. CASTILLO: That's why I'm asking. 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, I guess, we're 10 trying to find out, and I don't know if Lieutenant Proll 11 knows the answer, but you can give it a shot. 12 THE WITNESS: In no part of this did anybody 13 other than me write a paragraph. Like I said, there was 14 corrections and additions, but this was my writing. 15 BY MS. CASTILLO: 16 Q. Okay. So what did the original paragraph say 17 then? Because this has, obviously, been edited, right? 18 A. I don't recall. 19 Q. So where's the interlineation then? 20 A. I don't know. 21 Q. Okay. So how can you show us what was edited? 22 A. I don't know. I don't recall this from, you 23 know, more than a year ago. 24 Q. Okay. Well, you looked at drafts two days ago. 25 Were there other drafts that you looked at? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2425 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1329 1 A. I, briefly, looked at the -- like I said, the 2 three or four drafts. 3 Q. So you looked at this draft then, right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. So then we'll just move on. 6 So I'm going to give you now C and D that's 7 part of Y. Okay? 8 A. Okay. 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. So we're 10 marking, as Appellant's Y-C and D, a couple more of, I 11 assume, different versions of these same documents. Y-C 12 is an e-mail from Chris Staley to Bill Proll, once 13 again, same subject as Waddell AI, but there's a two 14 after the number and the date is March 26, 2014. 15 BY MS. CASTILLO: 16 Q. Okay. So this is an e-mail and now there's a P 17 behind -- or a number two. This is from your captain to 18 you, right? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. This is on the 26th. 21 This draft is dated before the draft I just 22 gave you, right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Okay. It has a two in front of it where the 25 last one didn't. Do you see that? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2426 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1330 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Okay. Is this draft the draft that came from 3 the captain straight to you? 4 A. I don't recall. 5 Q. Okay. Well, let's look through this one now. 6 Do you know about any kind of changes in this 7 one? 8 I have a question. This is just another edited 9 version, right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. Was this -- so then if I see S.C., whose 12 initials are those? 13 A. Captain Staley, I believe. 14 Q. Okay. And he's the one who wrote executive 15 recommendation to the chief about the discipline for 16 Officer Waddell, right? 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. Okay. So he's also participating in the 19 editing of your investigation? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. Okay. And did you give him the audios of your 22 interviews? 23 A. The final, I did. 24 Q. Okay. And one more. So this will be -- okay. 25 This one doesn't have an e-mail. All right. This one Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2427 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1331 1 is... 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. So we're 3 marking as -- 4 MS. CASTILLO: E. 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: -- Y- E, and this is 6 another version of the, once again, the February 20th, 7 memo. 8 MS. CASTILLO: Right. 9 BY MS. CASTILLO: 10 Q. So this is one more version, right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And then there was what's already been 13 previously marked as Appellant's P, which is the version 14 that we were not provided, which had all of the city 15 attorney commentary, right? 16 MR. PALMER: Objection. I don't know that he 17 would know that. 18 BY MS. CASTILLO: 19 Q. Well, I'm sorry. For the record, we have 20 what's been previously marked -- I'll show you what's 21 been marked as P, is an e-mail from Captain Staley to 22 you. Same IA number, right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Okay. And this is dated May 27th, 2014, right? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2428 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1332 1 Q. And this is the same IA document? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Okay. And this is just the e-mail with an 4 attachment, right? 5 A. As far as I can tell, yes. 6 Q. Okay. But I can't show you this document 7 because it's super secret. 8 Now, can you look at -- which one is that? 9 Okay. I'm going to have you look at Appellant's -- or 10 sorry -- Department's 8. If you look at what is marked 11 as Appellant's Y-C and Department's Exhibit 8 and look 12 at -- 13 MR. PALMER: Y-C or Y-D? 14 MS. CASTILLO: Y-C. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Y- E is the last one. 16 MR. PALMER: Y-C is an e-mail. 17 MS. CASTILLO: I'm sorry. Y-D. Thank you. It 18 looked like a C. 19 BY MS. CASTILLO: 20 Q. So and then look at Smith's statement. 21 Now, this -- obviously, these are the 22 redactions that Captain Staley is making, right? In 23 Y-D, right? Is that in the Department's 8, correct? 24 A. Okay. 25 Q. Okay. And a lot of this has to do, actually, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2429 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1333 1 with the CAT investigation, right? 2 A. A lot of this paragraph? 3 Q. Correct. 4 A. Some of it, yes. 5 Q. Some of it has to do with Officer Waddell was 6 watching a movie, right? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Okay. And so you are not just conducting a 9 Bentley investigation, are you also conducting part of 10 investigation into CAT IA? 11 Are you, like, a co-investigator on that? 12 A. I did not investigate the CAT IA. 13 Q. Okay. So -- but you are interviewing 14 Lieutenant Smith about some of that information from 15 Sergeant Pfarr, or is -- you're just getting background? 16 Is that what -- I mean, how did that come up? 17 A. I don't recall. 18 Q. Okay. Can I see the exhibit binder, please? 19 Okay. Appellant's -- okay. 20 So you -- your original draft to the captain 21 was February 28th, right? 22 A. The final was February 28th, I believe. 23 Q. No, no, no. 24 A. The original, yes. 25 Q. Because all these drafts are dated after that. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2430 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1334 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Okay. Remember I asked you yesterday about why 3 you would be reading the CAT investigation and you said 4 you did not know? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Okay. So Appellant's D is when you received 7 it. Okay? 8 A. Okay. 9 Q. So, obviously, you got it before you started 10 writing all of your IA, right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. So with all of the CAT IA in mind, you 13 were authoring your investigation, right? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Okay. And you interview Lieutenant Bledsoe in 16 your IA, right? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. The investigator in the CAT IA, right? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. And you know he thinks that Officer 21 Waddell is dishonest, right? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Because you read his findings in his IA, right? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And there is overwhelming evidence in that IA, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2431 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1335 1 right? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Okay. And what time and date did you interview 4 Lieutenant Bledsoe? 5 A. February 5th at 11: 20 a.m. 6 Q. Okay. And you got his investigation and CAT IA 7 on February 5th at 2008, right? P.M.? 8 A. Yes. 9 MS. CASTILLO: I didn't realize there was one 10 more draft. So that was Y-F. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 12 MS. CASTILLO: We can just go ahead and admit 13 it. I don't even need to go through it. 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: So we'll mark it as Y-F, 15 this last one. 16 MS. CASTILLO: Y-F. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 18 BY MS. CASTILLO: 19 Q. This is yours, right? Same as Department 8? 20 A. Yes. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: It's another version of 22 Department 8; is that right? 23 THE WITNESS: Yes. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 25 THE WITNESS: Who was this one for? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2432 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1336 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: Does Mr. Palmer have it 2 yet? 3 MR. PALMER: Got it. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: I've got it. 5 MS. CASTILLO: There's no other weird initials 6 in here, I don't think, that we haven't covered. So 7 then I would just ask that Y- A through F be admitted. 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: Any objection? 9 MR. PALMER: No. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Without objection, Y and 11 Y- A, B, C, D, E and F are admitted into evidence. 12 MS. CASTILLO: Can we take a five-minute break 13 then? 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: Sure. Let's take five. 15 (Recess.) 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: We're back on the record 17 and we're moving on here. Go ahead, Ms. Castillo. 18 MS. CASTILLO: Okay. We're going to play 19 audio. 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: Oh, we have audio here. 21 So we don't need the court reporter to record what's on 22 the audio, right? 23 MS. CASTILLO: Correct. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: We're going to identify 25 that and mark it as an exhibit, or maybe it's already Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2433 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1337 1 been marked. 2 MS. CASTILLO: Right. And then this is our 3 Exhibit C, and then, like we did last time, I'll 4 probably -- 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: You're playing Exhibit 6 B? 7 MS. CASTILLO: C. 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: C. Okay. 9 MS. CASTILLO: And then -- yes. It's the Pfarr 10 audio. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Could you identify it, 12 the date and the principals and all that stuff for the 13 record? 14 MS. CASTILLO: Right. It's Lieutenant Proll's 15 interview on January 25th with Sergeant Pfarr, and I 16 probably only have a few limited questions and then be 17 done with this witness and you can do whatever you want, 18 and then, after him, if Sergeant Pfarr is available to 19 come back... 20 CAPTAIN STALEY: Yes. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. Okay. Good. 22 MR. PALMER: Are we starting at the beginning 23 or somewhere in the middle? 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: So we're going to play -- 25 I guess, it's a portion of that interview you've Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2434 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1338 1 identified in Appellant's C; is that right? 2 And we're trying to get a sense of is it the 3 middle? Is it the end? Do you have a minute number to 4 record? 5 MS. CASTILLO: Um, I don't know if there's an 6 actual minute number. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Is there, then -- just so 8 those of us can follow along, is there a verbatim or a 9 transcript that -- 10 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. It's Exhibit C. 11 MR. PALMER: And, also, 17. 12 MS. CASTILLO: 17 of -- 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Department 17; is that 14 right? 15 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 17 (Audio playing.) 18 MS. CASTILLO: So we're on Page 21 -- 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: Of Appellant's C. 20 BY MS. CASTILLO: 21 Q. In this interview with Sergeant Pfarr, he did 22 tell you that Kevin notified him that it was because he 23 was a new sergeant? "Him," being Sergeant Pfarr. 24 A. I'm not sure. I'm on Page 14 of the 25 transcript. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2435 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1339 1 MR. PALMER: He's on Department's Exhibit 17. 2 You're on C. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: So we want the witness to 4 look at C? 5 MS. CASTILLO: Let me see. This might be 6 easier. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah. Let's all look at 8 the same document. 9 MS. CASTILLO: Yeah. I think C is easier. 10 MR. PALMER: What page? 11 BY MS. CASTILLO: 12 Q. 22. I'm sorry. Okay. So Line 9 through 12. 13 Do you see that? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. "You know what? Yeah. He did say that he kind 16 of brushed it over with the tow truck driver and, at the 17 time, let him know that it was a new sergeant." Do you 18 see that? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. So Kevin did tell Sergeant Pfarr the basis of 21 the joke was because Sergeant Pfarr was new, right? 22 A. According to this, yes. 23 Q. According to Sergeant Pfarr? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Okay. And that it was just a joke and all that Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2436 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1340 1 stuff, right? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Okay. Picking back up at, I believe, Line 13 4 on Page 22 of Exhibit C. 5 (Audio playing.) 6 BY MS. CASTILLO: 7 Q. Page 24 of Appellant's C, Line 9. 8 Who is Corey, Lieutenant Proll? 9 A. Corey Pierce was a former officer of San Luis 10 Police Department. 11 Q. And what did Corey do? 12 A. Corey was terminated after an administrative 13 investigation. 14 Q. I know, but he's kind of comparing him. Did 15 you understand the comparison? 16 A. Yes. I'm not intricately familiar with Corey's 17 case, though. 18 Q. It wasn't public or anything like that then? 19 A. Well, his termination was public. I'm not -- 20 as to the specifics of what he did, I'm not educated 21 enough to comment on. 22 Q. Okay. Was it anything along the same lines of 23 what Officer Waddell was accused of here? 24 A. I think there was a theft allegation and 25 conduct with informants and stuff like that -- Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2437 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1341 1 Q. Okay. 2 A. -- associated with Cory Pierce. 3 Q. Okay. Continuing at Line 11 on Page 24. 4 (Audio playing.) 5 BY MS. CASTILLO: 6 Q. Page 25, Line 24. 7 So at that point, according to Sergeant Pfarr, 8 he had come to the conclusion that it was a joke. Is 9 that your understanding, Lieutenant Proll? 10 A. In the office that night, yes. 11 Q. Okay. So the investigation that you were 12 tasked with doing at this point is to determine what, 13 exactly? 14 A. To determine what happened at the incident at 15 the scene with the Bentley. 16 Q. Okay. So to determine if there was, actually, 17 a joke? 18 A. Just to determine what happened there. 19 (Audio playing.) 20 BY MS. CASTILLO: 21 Q. We are at Page 26, Line 3. 22 Yesterday, we talked about your interview with 23 Colleen Kevany. Do you remember that? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And we talked about how she believed that she Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2438 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1342 1 was in on the joke of Officer Waddell, right? 2 MR. PALMER: Objection. Misstates testimony. 3 It was a trophy, not a joke. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. It is what it is. 5 BY MS. CASTILLO: 6 Q. Do you remember our conversation regarding 7 Colleen Kevany? 8 A. I remember discussing Colleen Kevany, yes. 9 Q. Okay. And how her interview -- she indicated 10 that she believed, or whatever -- or do you remember 11 what her interview was? 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: Maybe he should go back 13 to the exhibit where it was summarized. Isn't that what 14 he was testifying about yesterday? 15 MS. CASTILLO: Maybe we should enter her 16 transcript as an exhibit. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 18 BY MS. CASTILLO: 19 Q. You've not seen transcripts, right? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. And you've not listened to interviews, right? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. Okay. So you're going to need some time to 24 read this, and I need to make one more copy of this. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: Do we need to take a Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2439 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1343 1 break -- 2 MS. CASTILLO: Probably. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: -- to make copies? 4 MS. CASTILLO: I can have these after a lunch 5 break. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: Can we, maybe, postpone 7 examining the witness until after lunch on that 8 question? 9 MS. CASTILLO: Absolutely. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: We can go on with other 11 things. 12 MR. PALMER: It's only 11: 00. 13 MS. CASTILLO: Perfect. 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: In the meantime, forge 15 ahead with some other things? 16 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Great. 18 MS. CASTILLO: Let me just make a note. Okay. 19 Go ahead. We are resuming at Line 4, Page 26. 20 (Audio playing.) 21 BY MS. CASTILLO: 22 Q. Line 23, Page 27. 23 So what, exactly, were you saying there to 24 Sergeant Pfarr? 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, is there certain Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2440 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1344 1 words in the testimony you don't understand? 2 BY MS. CASTILLO: 3 Q. Right. The context that you were 4 suppositioning. 5 Did you believe it was a theft or did you 6 believe it was a joke, since you're fact-finding at this 7 point? 8 A. That was what I was trying to find out from 9 Sergeant Pfarr. 10 Q. You were trying to find that out from Sergeant 11 Pfarr? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. But you were suggesting that he, personally, 14 minimize it, or not? 15 A. No. 16 Q. No? Okay. 17 (Audio playing.) 18 BY MS. CASTILLO: 19 Q. Page 29, Line 16. 20 Previously, I had asked you about the 21 conversation where Sergeant Pfarr had related to you 22 that Officer Waddell had told you that he had spoken 23 with the tow truck driver and said, I was just messing 24 with the new sergeant. Do you remember that? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2441 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1345 1 Q. And now, Sergeant Pfarr is saying that he's 2 telling you, I was stupid, I was just trying to be 3 funny, and you ask him, did he ever elaborate, saying I 4 was just messing with you because you are the new 5 sergeant, and he says no. Do you see that? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. But he had told him that that was the 8 intention, correct? 9 MR. PALMER: Objection. Vague and ambiguous as 10 to who "him" is. 11 MS. CASTILLO: Sergeant Pfarr. 12 THE WITNESS: Previously, yes. 13 BY MS. CASTILLO: 14 Q. Okay. So did you ask him why he had just told 15 you that, in fact, he had said that he had been messing 16 with him because he was a new sergeant? 17 A. I did not. 18 Q. Okay. Sergeant Pfarr tells you, at the top of 19 this page, that he's never worked with Kevin, right? 20 A. He made a statement. The only thing I can tell 21 you is I've never worked with Kevin. I don't have near 22 the amount of time that those guys do. 23 Q. Okay. But you know, having read the CAT 24 investigation, that he has worked with Kevin because 25 he's been his supervisor before, right? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2442 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1346 1 A. Yes, but I don't know if he's referencing the 2 time of the accident that he hadn't worked with Kevin 3 then. 4 So I don't know, time-wise, when Sergeant Pfarr 5 is working with Kevin. 6 Q. Okay. And are we talking about, like, in the 7 entirety of his whole career at the police department? 8 A. I don't know. 9 Q. Did you ask? 10 A. I did not. 11 Q. Okay. And then he's saying that he could have 12 been intending to steal it, yet, on that evening after 13 that conversation in the office, he told you at the 14 beginning of this interview that he left with the 15 understanding that it was a joke and that's how he felt, 16 right? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Okay. So as your interview progresses, now he 19 is coming around to the thought that there could be this 20 intent to steal. Do you agree with me? 21 A. I think his mind changed prior to me 22 interviewing him on whether it could have been a 23 practical joke or not. 24 Q. Or did his mind change as you start talking to 25 him and talking him into that? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2443 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1347 1 A. Is that a question? 2 Q. Yes. 3 A. No. I believe his mind was changed prior to 4 this interview. 5 Q. Okay. Or was that after you said that Colleen 6 Kevany and Officer Cudworth said there is no way that 7 could have been a joke? 8 Is that -- I mean, what was the purpose in 9 telling Sergeant Pfarr what Colleen Kevany and Officer 10 Cudworth had said? 11 A. Colleen Kevany said two different things. 12 Q. No. My question is -- 13 MR. PALMER: Object. Let him answer the 14 question. 15 BY MS. CASTILLO: 16 Q. What was the purpose in telling them -- telling 17 him what their impressions were? 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: What was the question 19 that he got asked before? 20 (Record read by the court reporter.) 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: And that was the question 22 you asked again, what was the purpose? 23 MS. CASTILLO: In telling him, Sergeant Pfarr, 24 what their impressions were. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: You can answer that, if Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2444 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1348 1 you know. 2 THE WITNESS: On what I believe from Colleen 3 Kevany? 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, what was your 5 purpose, I think? 6 THE WITNESS: My purpose was, in my interview 7 with Colleen Kevany, her overall theme was, yes, she did 8 say it was kind of a joke, but that she believed this 9 item was going to be removed from the scene as a trophy. 10 So I was bringing that information up to Sergeant Pfarr. 11 BY MS. CASTILLO: 12 Q. Okay. My question was, what was the purpose in 13 telling him if the joke -- if his impression was that it 14 was a joke, right, and that's your investigation -- 15 A. I was telling Sergeant Pfarr that there was 16 people that did not think it was a joke. 17 Q. Okay. And what was the purpose of that? 18 A. Just informing him of what I had found in my 19 investigation. 20 Q. Do you need him to, also, draw a conclusion? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Okay. So what was the purpose in telling him? 23 A. The purpose was to inform Sergeant Pfarr that 24 there was other opinions out there on why this incident 25 came up from the Bentley. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2445 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1349 1 Q. Okay. And why was that important to you, as a 2 fact-finder? 3 A. I think it was important that Sergeant Pfarr 4 knew that there was other opinions out there. 5 Q. Why? He's not making a finding or a 6 recommendation, right? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. Okay. And he believed he had already handled 9 it and he made an assessment that night as a percipient 10 witness, right? 11 A. Right. But since then, his opinion had been 12 changing. 13 Q. His opinion was that management needed to know 14 about it for the purpose of promotions, right? 15 A. Well, his opinion was that it might not have 16 been a practical joke. 17 Q. Is that what his opinion was? 18 A. It was a possibility, yes. 19 Q. And that -- is that what he said to you at the 20 beginning of his interview or as the interview went on? 21 A. I believe that part was in what he told 22 Lieutenant Smith and Lieutenant Bledsoe. 23 Q. Okay. So, again, my question was, why did you 24 think it was important that you tell what Colleen and 25 Officer Cudworth said? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2446 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1350 1 A. I was providing information to him regarding 2 what I had revealed in the investigation to see what his 3 opinion would be of that. 4 Q. Okay. Let's start again at -- I guess, we're 5 at Line 17 on Page 29. 6 (Audio playing.) 7 BY MS. CASTILLO: 8 Q. So we're at Page 30 of Line 3. 9 So, again, you've completely forgot that he had 10 already told you that he had already mentioned that 11 Kevin had hold him it was because of him being a new 12 sergeant, right? 13 MR. PALMER: Objection. Argumentative. 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: I didn't catch what the 15 question was. Can you read it back? 16 (Record read by the court reporter.) 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: You're asking him if he 18 forgot? 19 BY MS. CASTILLO: 20 Q. Forgotten -- did you forget that when you were 21 asking, and don't you think -- 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'll allow that. 23 BY MS. CASTILLO: 24 Q. -- if he's in the dog house, the first thing he 25 would be trying to do is explain why he was being funny Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2447 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1351 1 or why he was messing around, saying, sorry, Chad, 2 you're a new sergeant, I was messing with you? 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: You can answer. 4 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't forget. I was 5 asking a question. 6 MS. CASTILLO: Okay. I guess, the rest of your 7 statement we can play. 8 (Audio playing.) 9 BY MS. CASTILLO: 10 Q. So, at this point, are you still conducting an 11 investigation or are you just telling him everything 12 that you've learned so far? 13 A. I'm conducting an investigation. 14 Q. Because I don't think he answered your question 15 after you made the comment about the interesting things 16 and all of that. 17 So did he ever answer back to you why -- strike 18 that. 19 Anyways, I think we're back on Line 18, Page 31 20 of Appellant's C. 21 (Audio playing.) 22 BY MS. CASTILLO: 23 Q. Page 32. Are you trying to convince him that 24 it's not funny at this point? 25 A. No. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2448 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1352 1 Q. So what are you -- what are you doing here when 2 you're saying, how funny is it? 3 I mean, are you asking him to agree with you or 4 make an assessment? What are you asking? 5 A. I'm investigating what he thought happened at 6 the Bentley scene. 7 Q. Okay. And did, during your investigation, you 8 ever learn of any officers who had been in on the joke? 9 A. Well, Officer Kevany said that we were going to 10 take this item as a trophy for the traffic board, or 11 something. 12 Q. Okay. So we've covered Officer Kevany. 13 Any of the other officers, since you made the 14 comment, "There were a bunch of officers there, we were 15 joking about it, we decided to do it"? 16 A. I'm giving him an example of is this what 17 happened. 18 Q. Right. And so since you've given him a bunch 19 of examples and information about what you've learned in 20 your investigation, did you learn that there were a 21 bunch of officers there that were joking about it and 22 then you showed up and we decided to do it, did you 23 learn that for the purposes of your hypothetical? 24 MR. PALMER: Misstates the evidence. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, I'll let him parse Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2449 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1353 1 it out. He's been pretty good at it so far. 2 THE WITNESS: No. 3 BY MS. CASTILLO: 4 Q. What was -- why did you say that then? 5 A. I was trying to talk to Sergeant Pfarr about, 6 hey, if this scenario occurred and you had all these 7 people doing this, is that what happened. 8 Q. Okay. And if it wasn't what happened, is that 9 the only possible scenario? Did you ask him that? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Line 24, Page 32. 12 (Audio playing.) 13 BY MS. CASTILLO: 14 Q. So your question is, "I think if his intention 15 was as a practical joke and he gets called on for it, he 16 would be going overboard, in my experience, to explain 17 to you why he was going to be funny that you're a new 18 sergeant." 19 So what is your question? 20 A. I was expressing an opinion and he commented, 21 "right, right." 22 Q. Why are you giving opinions? 23 A. I was still investigating, trying to find out 24 what Sergeant Pfarr think happened at the Bentley scene. 25 Q. I believe we're now on Line 6, Page 33. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2450 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1354 1 (Audio playing.) 2 BY MS. CASTILLO: 3 Q. This is Page 33, Line 13. 4 So now you are talking about Sergeant Amoroso, 5 who had the conversation with Officer Waddell, right, on 6 the way out there? 7 A. This says on the way out there. The previous 8 thing was either that night or the night before. 9 Q. Okay. But right before this, you had told 10 Sergeant Pfarr that no one had talked about this being a 11 joke, right, when you had mentioned Cudworth and Kevany, 12 right? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. So why did you say that previously then? 15 A. Because I'm interviewing somebody. I'm not -- 16 Q. Telling the truth? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Line 14, Page 33. 19 (Audio playing.) 20 BY MS. CASTILLO: 21 Q. Lieutenant Proll, Sergeant Pfarr makes a 22 comment to you that says, having seen Kevin work since 23 then, he's now not sure if the Bentley event was a joke. 24 Do you see that? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2451 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1355 1 Q. What about his work was relevant to that 2 evening? 3 A. I don't know. That was a conclusion that 4 Sergeant Pfarr made. 5 Q. Okay. As the investigator, did you follow up 6 on that comment? 7 Because that, for him, is the definitive 8 difference, right? He's just said right there, "Now, 9 having seen Kevin work since that night, I am not sure." 10 Because, that night, he was totally sure when 11 he left that it was a joke, but now, having seen Kevin 12 work since then, "I'm not sure." So that's the turning 13 difference for him. 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, that's your 15 opinion. 16 MS. CASTILLO: Right. That's Sergeant Pfarr's 17 opinion. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: No. That's your opinion. 19 MS. CASTILLO: Well, that's what it says. 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: What it means is a 21 different story. 22 BY MS. CASTILLO: 23 Q. Did you ask him what it meant? 24 A. I did not. 25 Q. Okay. Line 6, Page 34. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2452 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1356 1 (Audio playing.) 2 BY MS. CASTILLO: 3 Q. "So, obviously, you can tell how serious this 4 is in conjunction with the other thing going on, 5 correct?" 6 What do you -- what are you referring to? 7 A. Another administrative investigation concerning 8 Officer Waddell. 9 Q. Okay. So you're referencing to Sergeant Pfarr 10 the other IA? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And what was the purpose in that? 13 A. In my comment on how serious it was that these 14 two things were occurring. 15 Q. And joined together? 16 A. I didn't know they were joined together. 17 Q. Well, you knew that Officer Waddell was on 18 administrative leave at this point for that other 19 administrative investigation? 20 A. Right. But your question was was I familiar 21 with them being joined together, and I wasn't. 22 Q. Line 23, Page 38. 23 (Audio playing.) 24 BY MS. CASTILLO: 25 Q. Page 42, Line 21. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2453 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1357 1 How did Sergeant Pfarr know you were talking to 2 him on Monday? 3 A. I don't know. 4 Q. You didn't tell him ahead of time? 5 A. Not that I recall. 6 Q. Okay. Page 22, Line -- I'm sorry. Page 42, 7 Line 22. 8 (Audio playing.) 9 BY MS. CASTILLO: 10 Q. Page 42, Line 25. 11 So you're asking the witness to help you out 12 with the investigation by getting questions from him? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. Page 43, Line 1. 15 (Audio playing.) 16 BY MS. CASTILLO: 17 Q. So Page 44, Line 18. 18 Was this the work that he was talking about 19 earlier, does this answer that question for you? 20 A. This was Officer Pfarr's opinion of what he was 21 telling me. 22 Q. Okay. Line 20, Page 44. 23 (Audio playing.) 24 BY MS. CASTILLO: 25 Q. So what was the sequence? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2454 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1358 1 A. Sequence of what? 2 Q. Well, of the text and the phone call. 3 A. I don't know. 4 Q. He didn't give you the information he said he 5 was going to get? 6 A. I think he -- this is from recollection, that 7 he might have been able to find what time he made a 8 call, and then I remember something of me asking, during 9 Officer Waddell's interview, if he or his attorney could 10 get me that information from his phone, but I believe 11 that Sergeant Pfarr only had limited information to tell 12 me at what time he made a phone call to Officer Waddell. 13 Q. But he -- so he could tell you what time he 14 made a phone call, but he couldn't tell you what time he 15 received a text message? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. Really? 18 A. I think it had something to do with the 19 Apple -- I don't know if it was an Apple device, or not, 20 but the text message was not retained, or something. 21 MS. CASTILLO: It's noon. Do you want to take 22 a lunch break? 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: Off the record for a 24 second. 25 (Luncheon recess.) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2455 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1359 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: We're going to go back on 2 the record and we're resuming with the direct 3 examination of Lieutenant Proll, and, Ms. Castillo, I 4 think you had some documents for us. 5 MS. CASTILLO: Right. I have certified 6 transcripts of audio recordings of Lieutenant Proll's 7 interviews with Officer Robert Cudworth, conducted on 8 January 7th, 2014, which I premarked as Exhibit Z. 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 10 MS. CASTILLO: I don't intend to ask any 11 questions if that can -- I'd just ask -- 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: So you just want to offer 13 that into evidence? 14 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Any objection to Z? 16 MR. PALMER: No objection. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Without objection, Z is 18 admitted. 19 MS. CASTILLO: Marked as Appellant's double A, 20 I have a certified transcript of the audio-recorded 21 interview of Officer Colleen Kevany from January 3rd, 22 2014, conducted by Lieutenant Proll, and I would ask 23 that that also be admitted into evidence. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Any objection to AA? 25 MR. PALMER: No. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2456 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1360 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. Thank you. 2 MS. CASTILLO: And then I've premarked, as 3 Appellant's Exhibit BB, an e-mail that I have brief 4 questions about. 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. This is an e-mail 6 by -- from Chris Staley to Bill Proll regarding 7 confidential personnel matter, dated June 18, 2014. 8 That's BB. 9 BY MS. CASTILLO: 10 Q. This is a three-page document. Lieutenant 11 Proll, I don't know if you've seen the entirety of this. 12 If you'd like to take a minute to look at it, I am just 13 going to ask you about the end of the e-mail chain, 14 which is at the top of Page 1. Okay? 15 A. Okay. 16 Q. Okay. So this appears that, on June 18th of 17 2014, you received an e-mail from Captain Staley. Do 18 you see that? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. And this was after he had received an 21 e-mail from the chief regarding needing the complete 22 personnel file regarding -- or not personnel file, but 23 investigation on the Waddell administrative 24 investigation to give to the city manager. Do you see 25 that? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2457 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1361 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Okay. And your response to the captain at that 3 time was asking what the status of the last narrative 4 was, if that could be the final narrative. Do you see 5 that? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. So as of June 18th, 2014, do you know 8 what version or draft you were working with? 9 A. I don't. 10 Q. Okay. Do you know what the title was of that 11 final edited version? 12 A. I don't. 13 Q. Can you look at appellant's exhibit book and 14 Appellant's Exhibit S? 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: We're looking at S? 16 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 18 BY MS. CASTILLO: 19 Q. Okay. Listed in that list of attachments -- do 20 you see at the top? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. There's what appears to be your document number 23 for your AI, and then it says, "Final edited." Do you 24 see that? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2458 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1362 1 Q. Okay. Do you know what that draft looks like? 2 A. I don't. 3 Q. Okay. I don't, either. 4 Do you know what number would be behind that 5 version, like, one or two or P, or anything like that? 6 A. I don't. 7 Q. Okay. Can I move BB into evidence? 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: Any objection to BB? 9 MR. PALMER: No. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Then it's admitted. 11 Thank you. 12 MS. CASTILLO: I have nothing further. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Cross-examination? 14 MR. PALMER: Yes. 15 16 CROSS-EXAMINATION 17 BY MR. PALMER: 18 Q. Good afternoon, Lieutenant. 19 A. Good afternoon. 20 Q. Ms. Castillo asked you how many internal 21 affairs investigations you had done prior to this one 22 and I think the answer that I heard was that you had 23 done a few involving -- not including citizens' 24 complaints. 25 How many have you done, including citizens' Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2459 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1363 1 complaints, internal affairs? 2 A. Well, it takes a little explanation. If I get 3 assigned a citizen complaint, sometimes it's, merely, 4 calling the person and having a discussion over the 5 phone with them. Other times, it's writing a short memo 6 with the citizen complaint, adjudicating it, but I've 7 done a few -- anywhere from three to five actual AI 8 interviews with findings and stuff like that. 9 Q. Okay. Ms. Castillo asked you about whether or 10 not you were part of the department requirement to -- 11 let me ask it this way. 12 Are general police officers in the San Luis 13 Obispo Police Department, are they required to carry a 14 recorder - audiotape recorder with them on duty? 15 A. They're not required to carry a tape recorder 16 on duty. There's some provisions in the operations 17 directive about having their in-car video mic on when 18 talking to the public or doing things like that. 19 Q. Okay. You know some departments do have a 20 requirement, they issue audiotape recorders and the 21 officers are required to audiotape-record every on-duty 22 official contact? Are you familiar with those 23 departments? 24 A. I've heard of them. 25 Q. San Luis Obispo is not one of those? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2460 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1364 1 A. No. 2 Q. So there is some sort of technology with an 3 in-dash camera audiotape recording? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. But that's different from a tape recorder on a 6 belt? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And were you, as a requirement of your 9 employment, required to carry an audiotape recorder 10 around with you all the time while you were on duty? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Were you required to audiotape-record every 13 interview you do? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Can you turn to Department's Exhibit 8 in my 16 book, please? Page 2, thereof. 17 We talked a little bit about the paragraph 18 underneath the headnote, synopsis. Do you remember 19 that? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Were you the original author of this paragraph? 22 A. I believe so, yes. 23 Q. Okay. Do you know, exactly, what sort of 24 changes or modifications it went through as it went 25 through different levels of editing? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2461 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1365 1 A. I don't. 2 Q. Looking back at it now, can you say with some 3 certainty that the paragraph that we see here now in 4 Exhibit 8 is, pretty much, the way you originally 5 authored it? 6 A. Without the changes or with the changes? 7 Q. With the changes. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. Now, I did a little checking while you 10 were testifying and I want to ask a general question 11 first and then go in. 12 I want to ask you to articulate the process by 13 which -- you're doing an internal affairs investigation 14 and you do some interviews, right? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And some are tape-recorded? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Tell me, just in general terms, in summary 19 terms, the process by which you take that raw material 20 audiotape recording and then start preparing the summary 21 of your interview with that person for your report. 22 Take me through the process you use. 23 A. The main thing is relistening to the tape 24 recordings, which is a painstaking exercise, to 25 determine what words were said in quotes, and it was Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2462 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1366 1 kind of embarrassing when you see the ums and that kind 2 of stuff, but I can't say the amount of hours I spent 3 rewinding and going through each tape recording to 4 accurately reflect what was said. 5 Q. It sounded, to me, like you do, kind of, what I 6 do when I do an internal affairs investigation. Correct 7 me if you do something different than what I do. 8 What I do is I put earbuds in, I play the tape 9 recording -- the audiotape recording of the interview, I 10 listen to my question, hopefully, it's cogent, I listen 11 to the answer, hopefully, there's something in there, 12 and I combine them, if they are combinable. If the 13 witness was responsive to my question, I combine the 14 question and the answer into a statement that then goes 15 into the report. Is that what you do? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And do you, kind of, just go from chronological 18 point of view? 19 A. I try to. It does get a little complicated 20 when you go back, and, especially, when, after 21 interviewing a couple people, you now have more 22 information than you had. As you go on, you get more 23 information, but, yes, there's times I would go back and 24 ask a question that wasn't in chronological order. 25 Q. Right. We're going to do what we -- at least, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2463 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1367 1 what I love to refer to in hearings like this, which is 2 called toggling. 3 Go to Page 12 of Exhibit 8. Now, keeping your 4 hand on Page 12 of Exhibit 8, I want you to turn to 5 Exhibit 17. Are you there? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. Exhibit 17, for the record, is a 8 transcript of an interview that you had with Sergeant 9 Chad Pfarr? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And if we go back to Page 12 of Exhibit 8, is 12 that the summary of that same interview? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. I'm looking at the first entry under 15 interview with Chad Pfarr in Exhibit 8. The second 16 sentence is, "Pfarr told me he responded to an accident 17 involving a Bentley." Do you see that? 18 A. Yes. I believe it's the third sentence. 19 Q. Okay. And if you keep your finger there -- 20 third sentence or the second sentence? "Pfarr told me 21 he responded to an accident involving the Bentley. He 22 believes he was the second officer on the scene." Those 23 are the second and third sentences. 24 A. Right. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: I think it's the third Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2464 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1368 1 and fourth sentence. 2 MR. PALMER: Oh, you're right. I'm sorry. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'm not a math major, 4 that's why I went to law school, but -- 5 BY MR. PALMER: 6 Q. Okay. So it's the third and fourth sentences? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. If you go to Exhibit 17, does that -- does the 9 source material for that statement -- basically, do we 10 find that on the top half of the fist page of Exhibit 11 17? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Is that an illustration of what we were talking 14 about before about how you prepare these summaries? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And do you try to be accurate? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And I'm not going to go through it, but I've 19 gone through the first three or four pages and they, 20 pretty much, track with the first 10 or 12 sentences of 21 your summary. Does that sound like what you did? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you remember when Ms. Castillo pointed out 24 that, at some point, you were sent the administrative 25 investigative report prepared by Lieutenant Bledsoe on Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2465 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1369 1 the CAT shift event? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Okay. Sitting where you are now, do you have a 4 recollection of why you were sent that? 5 A. I don't. 6 Q. Was there some sort of change to the internal 7 affairs or the administrative investigation -- 8 investigative report structure or formatting around this 9 time? 10 A. Yes. I believe we went to the Lexipol format 11 from our old police department operations guide. 12 Q. About when in relation to when you were doing 13 this investigation in preparing your report did you do 14 that? 15 A. I don't know exactly when, but it happened 16 during it because it was brought to my attention that I 17 think I might have been using an old format or I needed 18 the new format. 19 Q. Do you think that was the reason they sent you 20 Bledsoe's IA? 21 MS. CASTILLO: Objection. Relevance. 22 MR. PALMER: Just asking. 23 MS. CASTILLO: Also, calls for speculation. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'm going to allow it. 25 If you know. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2466 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1370 1 THE WITNESS: I think that was why. 2 BY MR. PALMER: 3 Q. Did you review Lieutenant Bledsoe's internal 4 investigation? 5 A. I did. 6 Q. Do you recall if you reviewed it for 7 substantive content or, simply, formatting content? 8 A. I read it, but I paid more attention to the 9 format headings and the synopsis conclusion titles and 10 those kind of things. 11 Q. And did you follow that same format when you 12 prepared the structure of your report? 13 A. I believe I did, yes. 14 Q. Officer Kevany. Do you remember interviewing 15 her? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Okay. And I think Ms. Castillo pointed out -- 18 are you on Page 6 of Exhibit 8? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Ms. Castillo pointed out that, in the last 21 sentence to the second paragraph, Kevany was referencing 22 the taking of the item as a joke between she and 23 Waddell. Do you see that there? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Actually, I think the vehicle was totaled and Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2467 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1371 1 it was just kind of a joke. 2 Do you remember Ms. Castillo pointing that out? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Did Officer Kevany give more information about 5 this joke later on in your interview? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And how did she characterize it, if you recall? 8 A. Well, I asked her questions about whether she 9 thought this could have been a joke or not. 10 Q. She said it was definitely not a joke played on 11 Sergeant Pfarr? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. In fact, it was definitely not a joke played on 14 Sergeant Pfarr because he was a brand new supervisor? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. It was, simply, for a traffic trophy? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Did she also make reference to the fact that 19 she would expect Mr. Waddell to have known that that was 20 wrong, as well? 21 A. Yes. She said, "I would hope somebody would 22 not put a supervisor in that position." 23 Q. And that's quoted, right -- 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. -- in Exhibit 8 on Page 7? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2468 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1372 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. When you quote things in your summary, does 3 that mean something in terms of the actual recorded 4 interview? 5 A. Yes. That was an exact statement. 6 Q. So we should be able to find it in Officer 7 Kevany's interview right now? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Which has now been made part of the record? 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: That's an appellant 11 exhibit? 12 MR. PALMER: I think it's double A. 13 BY MR. PALMER: 14 Q. Do you have double A? Maybe I took your copy. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: It's one of the new ones. 16 So it should be there somewhere. 17 THE WITNESS: The one time, she gave me two and 18 I gave each one to you. 19 MR. PALMER: Did you? 20 MS. CASTILLO: Here's an extra one. 21 MR. PALMER: Thank you. 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Great. 23 BY MR. PALMER: 24 Q. Go to Page 9 of double A. Start reading at 25 Line 21. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2469 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1373 1 A. "Had you heard anything during this that it was 2 a joke on Chad because he was a brand new supervisor?" 3 Q. And the answer was? 4 A. "No." 5 Q. Go to Page 9 of your Exhibit 8. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And for everybody's reference, this is part of 8 the summary of the interview you had with Sergeant Brian 9 Amoroso? Starts on Page 8. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. The bottom paragraph -- the bottom 12 partial paragraph on Page 9 starts off, "Amoroso told 13 me"? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Do you remember talking with Ms. Castillo about 16 the contents of that paragraph? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And, particularly, the part of Sergeant 19 Amoroso's statement there where, "I had a conversation 20 with Mr. Waddell about playing a joke on him," key 21 phrase here, "well, they were looking at Pfarr, who was 22 standing nearby." Do you remember that? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Right now, do you know what part of the 25 transcript of your interview with Sergeant Amoroso led Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2470 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1374 1 you to put that sentence in there? 2 A. I don't. 3 Q. Okay. Exhibit -- keep your -- we're going to 4 do toggling again. Okay? Keep your hand there and go 5 to Exhibit 23, Page 9. 6 Page 9, middle paragraph attributed to Amoroso, 7 do you see that there? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Read that to yourself. Tell us when you're 10 done. 11 A. The one starting with, "well," or, "yes"? 12 Q. The one starting with, "Well, I, you know." 13 A. "Well, I, you know" -- 14 Q. Just read it to yourself and tell me when 15 you're done. 16 A. Okay. 17 Q. Did you see something in that paragraph that 18 connects up with your summary of it on Page 9 of Exhibit 19 8? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. How does it connect up? 22 A. Well, the sentence was, "Chad, I remember 23 having a conversation with Kevin on scene while we were 24 looking at you." 25 Q. And in your summary, you summarize that they Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2471 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1375 1 were looking at Pfarr, who was standing nearby? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Do you know if that's what Sergeant Amoroso 4 testified to in this hearing? 5 A. I would assume so. 6 Q. As I understand it, there was only two people 7 at the time of these events who had the primary 8 responsibility for the DRMO equipment. 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. That was Waddell and Berrios? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Was the only reason you interviewed Berrios is 13 because of that? 14 A. I don't recall. I've known that the two of 15 them worked on traffic together and stuff like that. I 16 don't recall if that was the only reason. 17 Q. Do you recall if at -- let me ask it this way. 18 At various times in other people's interviews, 19 did you ask them who else was at the scene? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. That was a pretty common question throughout 22 your interviews? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And were you trying to figure out the entire 25 potential population of people you needed to talk to? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2472 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1376 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Do you recall, at some point, somebody telling 3 you that Officer Berrios might have been there? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Would that have been another reason to 6 interview Officer Berrios? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Okay. Go back to -- I think we're done with 9 Amoroso at this point. Go back to 8. You -- on Page 4 10 of Exhibit 8, you went back and spoke to the tow truck 11 driver on March 31, 2014? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And you didn't create a separate headnote with 14 a separate paragraph, you just added to the original 15 summary? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. And I think you did that a couple of times? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Was one of the -- well, let's ask it this way. 20 What was the reason you interviewed Janice 21 Goodwin? 22 A. Well, she was listed and I know, from other 23 interviews, that she was at the scene. She was the 24 traffic supervisor. 25 Q. Did she have much information that was helpful Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2473 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1377 1 to you in making your decision? 2 A. I don't believe so. No. 3 Q. You interviewed her? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Probably because somebody brought up her name 6 as being present at some point? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Trying to be complete? Were you trying to be 9 complete? 10 A. Yes, I was. 11 Q. Aside from the fact that you've done a few 12 administrative investigations both from internally and 13 externally, citizens' complaint-driven complaints, would 14 it be safe to say you've done a number of 15 criminal-type-related investigations over your 30 years 16 in law enforcement? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Care to take a guess how many witness 19 interviews you've done? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Thousands? Hundreds? 22 A. Hundreds. 23 Q. And have you had a situation where you've been 24 in an investigation, not just an internal affairs 25 investigation, just an investigation where you Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2474 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1378 1 interviewed a number of witnesses about the same or 2 similar events? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Have you noticed that witnesses will often say 5 things differently from one another, even though they 6 were at the same event? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. It's pretty common, isn't it? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Did you know there was a jury instruction right 11 around that point? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Okay. You had the night -- well, maybe you 14 didn't, but did you think about your testimony last 15 night after ending yesterday, or did you just forget it? 16 A. I thought about it a little. 17 Q. You're still on Exhibit 8? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Go to Page 13. The bottom paragraph, 20 Ms. Castillo and you spent some time on this about the 21 time marker, 5:08 a.m., on Sergeant Pfarr's cell phone? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Did you think about that last night, at all? 24 A. I did. 25 Q. Did you come up with anything? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2475 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1379 1 A. Well, seeing the stuff today, I remembered I 2 got it from somewhere and I just couldn't think of 3 where, but then seeing it, I remember Chad provided that 4 time to me, but there was no other information on it. 5 Q. Okay. So we've had the discussion there that 6 you had at the end of the interview with Chad that he 7 was, maybe, going to check his AT&T account and get back 8 to you? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And he did that? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And he came back with you and it was pretty 13 scant information? 14 A. I think the only item was the time of the 15 morning that the call was. 16 Q. So that 5:08 a.m. time stamp marker for this 17 call came from Chad? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. After your interview was done when he was going 20 to follow up on what he was going to follow up on? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Go to Page 15 of Exhibit 8. 23 You and Ms. Castillo spent some time talking 24 about the bottom two paragraphs there with regard to 25 showing Sergeant Pfarr some photographs? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2476 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1380 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Is this another illustration where you went 3 back and talked to a witness again and just added to 4 your narrative summary? 5 A. Yes, it is. 6 Q. Now, keep, again, toggling. Keep your hand on 7 Page 15 of Exhibit 8 and go over to Exhibit 11. Exhibit 8 11-A is sort of a half-page or five-eighths page 9 covering a photograph of a steering wheel. 10 Do you remember the source for this 11 photograph? 12 A. Not positive, but I believe it was from the 13 insurance company. 14 Q. Okay. The next six -- the next six 15 photographs, which have been submarked 11-B through G, 16 do you know the source for these photographs? 17 A. Yes. These were the photographs taken at the 18 scene by San Luis Police personnel, and this is my 19 writing. 20 Q. I was going to ask you about that. 21 Some of them have some annotations? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. That's your writing? 24 A. It is. 25 Q. Like, on 11-C, it says, "Rear emblem"? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2477 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1381 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Is the Bentley depicted in this photograph 3 still on its roof or on its wheels? 4 A. It is, I believe, on its roof. 5 Q. So it hadn't been flipped yet? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. And your understanding of this event involving 8 Mr. Waddell was after the car was flipped or before? 9 A. After. 10 Q. Okay. 11-D has some annotations. It's kind of 11 hard to read, but it says, "Left rear, right rear"? 12 A. I have, "Left rear, left front." 13 Q. Misread it. You're right. Those are your 14 annotations? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And, again, is the vehicle still on its roof? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. 11-E has an annotation. I think it's left 19 rear? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Is that yours? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Still on its roof? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. 11-F, do you see any annotations? It's very Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2478 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1382 1 hard to read and discern them, but I'm just going to 2 ask. 3 A. I don't see any. 4 Q. Okay. How about 11-G? 5 A. I don't see any. 6 Q. Okay. And all of these photographs here, 11-B 7 through G, were taken during the time when the Bentley 8 was still on its roof? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. I'm going to go -- I think, during the 11 lunch break, I put Appellant's Exhibit -- all the 12 Appellant's Exhibit Ys, all the Ys, in the book. Can 13 you go over to the Ys, please? Is it in there? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Y- A. All right. The fourth page from the end 16 of the document -- 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. -- are you on there at the bottom where it has 19 headnote, "Conclusion"? Is that where you're at? 20 A. It has the conclusion paragraph and then 21 exhibits? 22 Q. Yes. 23 A. Okay. 24 Q. Okay. We're on the same page. All right. 25 Do you remember you and Ms. Castillo spending Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2479 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1383 1 some time on this paragraph? 2 A. On the conclusion paragraph? 3 Q. Yes, sir. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. As you sit here today, do you know 6 whether this was your first draft of this document, 7 second, third, fourth? Can you tell? 8 A. I can't. 9 Q. Are you fairly sure that it was somewhere past 10 your first draft? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. Do you recall, sitting here today, the 13 structure and word choice of this paragraph in your very 14 first draft? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Okay. And can you tell us what it said in 17 regard to the last sentence, "This was witnessed"? 18 A. I believe the same. I'm not -- I'm not sure. 19 Q. Okay. It says, "This was witnessed by other 20 employees." We'll stop the sentence right there for a 21 moment. 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. That would be based upon any number of 24 employees that we've talked about throughout this 25 hearing, right? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2480 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1384 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And, at least, one citizen? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Can you tell me who that is? 5 A. The tow truck driver. 6 Q. All right. Now, when you talked to the tow 7 truck driver, his name was Brady, right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Did he have much to add? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Did he say that he saw Mr. Waddell fiddling 12 with the emblem on the trunk lid? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Did he say he saw Mr. Waddell fiddling with the 15 steering wheel leather? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Did he say he saw Mr. Waddell removing one of 18 the wheel hubcap covers? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Okay. Nevertheless, was Mr. Brady there during 21 this whole event? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. You hit Brady up cold, didn't you? He 24 didn't know you were coming? 25 A. Correct. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2481 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1385 1 Q. You just found him in the street, some corner 2 in San Luis Obispo, and just hit him up? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Did you get a sense -- I mean, you've been 5 investigating crimes and other allegations for 30 years, 6 right? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you tend to get a sense of people when you 9 do that a number of years? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Did you get a sense Mr. Brady really didn't 12 want to play along with you? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. He didn't really want to be involved? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. He, maybe, knows something, but he didn't want 17 to tell you that he knew something? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. That was the impression you got? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Okay. Is the sole basis -- going, now, back to 22 Appellant's Y, submarked A. 23 Is the sole basis for this sentence, "This was 24 witnessed by other employees," which you've talked 25 about, and at least one citizen, that wasn't just based Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2482 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1386 1 upon what Brady said was it? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. That was based upon who? 4 A. The totality of the circumstances, other people 5 saying that he was right there when all this was going 6 on and that kind of stuff. 7 Q. Including Mr. Waddell? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Did he say the tow truck driver was there? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Did he say the tow truck driver saw him remove 12 the wheel hubcap cover? 13 A. No. 14 Q. I can point you to Page 17 of his transcript, 15 but I probably don't need to do that because you have a 16 memory of that, right? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Is that part of the basis of putting down 19 there, "at least one citizen"? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And back to Y- A, this change here, tracks, 22 apparently, to G.S., which would be the chief? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And do you know, exactly, what change it was? 25 A. I don't. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2483 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1387 1 Q. Okay. Did that sentence -- did that paragraph 2 structure and wording stay kind of consistent as we go 3 through all of these edits? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. If you go to Y-D -- are you at Y-D, again, the 6 fourth page in from the end of the document? Conclusion 7 right down there at the bottom. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Is it, pretty much, the same, at least, with 10 regard to that final sentence thereof? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And then if we go to Y- E, four pages in from 13 the end of the document, same paragraph, right? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. It's the same sentence, right? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Y-F, same paragraph, same sentence? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And then let's look at your final version 8, 20 Page 24 of Exhibit 8. 21 Do you see conclusion headnote just sitting 22 down there as an orphan? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. I hate orphans. 25 Then you go over to Page 25? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2484 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1388 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Do you see a paragraph there? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Is it under allegation number two? 5 A. Oh, sorry. Yes, I do. Yes, it is. 6 Q. It's the -- is it the same paragraph? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Same wording? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Maybe some different punctuation in there, but 11 same words? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. Previously, it was under just the 14 headnote of conclusion. Now it's under conclusion under 15 subheadnote allegation two? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Do you know why that was? 18 A. I don't. 19 Q. Maybe it's because of the formatting? 20 When you looked at Bledsoe's investigation, did 21 you follow that? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Could be. All right. I'm going to -- if I 24 may, I'm going to use that whiteboard. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: You may. This is going Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2485 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1389 1 to be demonstration. We're not putting this into 2 evidence. 3 BY MR. PALMER: 4 Q. We don't have to keep it. I want to use the 5 same sort of format of questioning that Ms. Castillo 6 did. 7 Remember the sort of questions she asked you 8 that were all -- many were prefaced with what you had? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. In relation to what you had from the tow 11 truck driver, Sean Brady, all right, did you have that 12 while he did not see an officer remove any parts from 13 the Bentley, the hubcaps could be easily removed. He 14 thought an officer borrowed a screwdriver -- if an 15 officer borrowed a screwdriver, it would have been to 16 remove car parts, and that he didn't get the impression 17 that anything that night was a joke. 18 Is that a fair interpretation of what you got 19 from Mr. Brady? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Joel Walsh. Did you get anything useful from 22 him? 23 A. Josh Walsh. 24 Q. Josh Walsh. Sorry. 25 A. No. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2486 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1390 1 Q. Okay. I'm going to make a column on my 2 what-you-had chart. Do you see that? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Do you know what that symbol means? 5 A. Nothing. 6 Q. You have nothing. Okay. 7 Is that accurate? You got nothing from Walsh, 8 right? 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. Kevany, Officer Colleen Kevany, she was there, 11 correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. You got from her that Mr. Waddell brought up 14 taking of a car part as a trophy for traffic? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. You got from her that, since the vehicle was 17 totaled, it was a joke between she and Waddell? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. But that it had nothing to do with 20 Sergeant Pfarr? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. You got from her that while she never actually 23 saw Mr. Waddell take the part, she did hear him being 24 corrected by his sergeant, saying, you have to be 25 kidding me? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2487 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1391 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And not put me in this position. Do you 3 remember her saying that about what Sergeant Pfarr said? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. You also got from her that this was definitely 6 not a practical joke played on Sergeant Pfarr because of 7 him being a new sergeant? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. Another column. Does that make sense? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Are you with me? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Did you also get from Officer Kevany that if 14 Sergeant Pfarr wasn't there that night, Officer Kevany 15 thought Waddell would have taken the part and it would 16 have been on the board in traffic? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Cudworth. Robert Cudworth. Did you get from 19 Officer Cudworth that he heard Mr. Waddell ask the tow 20 truck driver for a screwdriver? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And that the reason for this was Mr. Waddell 23 had the idea to take -- to try to take an emblem from 24 the Bentley? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2488 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1392 1 Q. And that so he heard Sergeant Pfarr say to 2 Waddell, "What the heck"? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Officer Cudworth didn't think it was a 5 practical joke, did he? 6 A. No. 7 Q. You had that from him, right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. He first heard it portrayed as a practical joke 10 when you interviewed him, right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And if Mr. Waddell did take something for his 13 personal gain, you got that from Cudworth, right? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. So he was, yet, another person who said this 16 was not a practical joke? 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. Sergeant Amoroso. Did you get from Sergeant 19 Amoroso that he was the instigator of this concept of 20 playing a practical joke? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Although, he was not present at the time it was 23 implemented? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. And did you also get from Sergeant Amoroso that Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2489 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1393 1 using a pry tool to remove a vehicle part would be 2 exactly the type of activity they discussed? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Okay. Did he -- did you get from Sergeant 5 Amoroso that he was not sure if Waddell was actually 6 doing a practical joke? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. So what you get out of Amoroso, correct me if 9 I'm wrong, is that he thought up the concept of a 10 practical joke, but he wasn't present when it was done? 11 A. And it didn't include or didn't reference the 12 taking of a car part. 13 Q. Okay. I'm going to put a column for practical 14 joke. Because Amoroso does call it a practical joke, 15 right? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. But he wasn't present? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. And there was no plan? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. All right. Officer Berrios, did you get 22 anything from him helpful? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Janice Goodwin, what did you get from her, not 25 all that helpful, except I did note that she said there Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2490 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1394 1 was no practice in traffic of keeping trophies. Did you 2 get that from her? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. So, at least, as it relates to Berrios and 5 Goodwin, I'm going to put them both over here in the 6 you've got nothing column. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Are you with me on that? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Lieutenant Bledsoe, the only thing you get from 11 him is after-the-fact knowledge when he heard about it, 12 correct? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Same thing with Smith? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Officer Benson. What you had from Officer 17 Benson was he arrived later in the event? 18 The accident investigation team was there, the 19 tow truck was there? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. In fact, I think he saw that the tow truck 22 driver was dragging the vehicle and he was there for 23 about less than ten minutes? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. He saw Officer Waddell trying to pry the rear Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2491 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1395 1 emblem off the trunk lid? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. This was when the vehicle was upright? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Which would have been different from the 6 pictures in 11? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. A later period of time. 9 And that he and Sergeant Pfarr looked at each 10 other while he was doing that? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. He heard Officer Waddell ask the tow truck 13 driver for a screwdriver? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Tried to remove the trunk emblem and then move 16 to the steering wheel? 17 A. Waddell gave up on the trunk emblem and then 18 moved to something else, and then Waddell tried to 19 remove the steering wheel emblem. 20 Q. There you go. And, eventually, did remove one 21 of the wheel hubcap covers? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And that you also get from Officer Benson that 24 he was confronted by Sergeant Pfarr about that? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2492 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1396 1 Q. He put the part back, meaning Waddell? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And Officer Berrios did not think this was a 4 practical joke, either? 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: Benson, you mean? 6 MR. PALMER: I'm sorry. Benson is what I mean. 7 THE WITNESS: Correct. 8 BY MR. PALMER: 9 Q. So not a practical joke. I'm going to put 10 Benson in that column. You with me? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Also, nothing that -- although Brady was being 13 kind of, perhaps, not completely forthcoming with you, 14 none of what he saw he thought was a practical joke out 15 there that night, right? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. So we put Brady in the not a practical joke. 18 Who does that leave? Mr. Waddell? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. What's he say? 21 A. Said that it was a joke. 22 Q. Who is left? 23 A. Pfarr. 24 Q. What's he say? 25 A. Not sure. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2493 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1397 1 Q. He's evolving, isn't he? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. He kind of starts over here, doesn't he? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And then he moves over to here? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. That chart, does that visually illustrate what 8 you tried to explain, that there's very few people in 9 this equation who thought it was a practical joke? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And the two people who we put in the column 12 that say it was a practical joke are neighbors and are 13 good friends? 14 A. Yes. 15 MS. CASTILLO: Are you done with this chart? 16 MR. PALMER: Uh-huh. 17 BY MR. PALMER: 18 Q. And let me put a finer point on this. 19 From Mr. Waddell, correct me if I'm wrong, you 20 had the following: He responded to the accident? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. He admitted asking the tow truck driver for a 23 screwdriver? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. He admitted removing the wheel hub cover from Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2494 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1398 1 what he believed was the right rear passenger side? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. He admitted picking up a second wheel hub cover 4 from the front wheel, which came off in the crash? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. He was certain that the tow operator saw him 7 doing these things. Did he tell you that? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Did that form the basis of your paragraph 10 there, "Conduct was witnessed by other employees and at 11 least one citizen"? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Did you also get from Mr. Waddell that he was 14 sure Officer Benson saw what he was doing? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Sure that Sergeant Pfarr saw what he was doing? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And did you also get from Officer Waddell that, 19 in his mind, the Bentley emblem was unique and cool? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Did you also get from Officer Waddell that 22 Sergeant Pfarr walked away saying, quote, "I can't be 23 here for this"? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. All of this comes from Officer Waddell, right? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2495