Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdministrative Record Part 6ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1399 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Do you also get from him that Sergeant Pfarr 3 called him and told him he put him in a bad spot and to 4 put those parts back? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And Mr. Waddell did, indeed, put the wheel 7 covers back in the driver's seat of the Bentley, 8 according to him? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And he said that he realized he made a bad 11 choice and he takes responsibility for it? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Can those things, alone -- without regard to 14 what Mr. Amoroso says and the other officers say, can 15 those facts, alone, coming from Mr. Waddell, support 16 your finding? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. On their own? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Why? You made two conclusions there, you made 21 two findings, allegation one and two. 22 A. Well, allegation one, he, clearly, removed at 23 least one part from the vehicle without the vehicle 24 owner's permission. 25 Q. Let me stop you there. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2496 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1400 1 Whether, indeed, it was a joke or not, did he 2 engage in that conduct? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Was the items he removed his personal property? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Were they the property of another? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Does the fact that he was engaging in a joke 9 change the fact that he did remove the property of 10 another from the car? 11 A. No, it does not. 12 Q. Please go on. 13 A. Secondly, the evidence showed that knowingly 14 and willfully attempted to remove the vehicle part that 15 did not belong to him. That was the Vehicle Code 16 section one. 17 Q. Thank you. Going back, again, to -- did -- did 18 you find it necessary -- strike that. 19 During some of your interviews, did the CAT 20 shift event and some of the facts from the CAT shift 21 event creep into some of your interview? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Did you elicit those things? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Did they come up from the witness or from you? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2497 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1401 1 A. I believe, from the witness. 2 Q. In what context? 3 A. To, kind of, explain why all this was coming 4 up. 5 Q. Late? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Rather than at the time? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. The way I -- the way I noticed it was that the 10 event occurred on February 22nd of 2013. Sergeant Pfarr 11 saw what he saw and did what he did. Okay? Are you 12 with me? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And then the basis for my writing Pfarr up 15 there with an arrow, his mind starts evolving, doesn't 16 it? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And was part of -- from your point of view, was 19 part of the reason his mind started evolving because he 20 was working closer with Mr. Waddell than he had before? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And that he saw him do and not do certain 23 things? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. One of them was how he acted on the CAT shift? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2498 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1402 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. So to explain how his brain evolved, he had to, 3 necessarily, go through the CAT shift stuff? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Is that how you saw it? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. You weren't investigating the CAT shift event, 8 were you? 9 A. No. 10 Q. But could you avoid the overlap? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Same thing with Smith and Bledsoe? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. You've been here 30 years? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. You were here for part of the '80s? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Is a practical joke different now than what it 19 was in the '80s? 20 A. Yes. 21 MS. CASTILLO: Objection. Relevance. 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: Overruled. I'll allow 23 it. 24 THE WITNESS: Yes. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: Are you going to get him Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2499 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1403 1 to say how so? 2 MR. PALMER: Sure. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: Otherwise, it won't do me 4 any good. I don't know if it does me any good, anyway, 5 but I will be curious to see. 6 THE WITNESS: One aspect of public scrutiny of 7 law enforcement and government employees and the 8 professionalism has risen to where the practical jokes 9 of yesterday would not be appropriate today and not -- 10 not in the eyes of the public or police administrators 11 or anybody. 12 BY MR. PALMER: 13 Q. Do you agree with me practical jokes now have 14 to be carefully constructed? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Have to know who your audience is, or your 17 potential audience is? 18 A. And even that, I mean, things change. So yes. 19 Q. Was it your experience in doing practical 20 jokes, either being the butt of them or being the 21 instigator in them, that not all, but the majority of 22 practical jokes go through some planning before they're 23 implemented? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And with exception of, perhaps, the butt, or Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2500 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1404 1 butts, of the joke, there can sometimes be a lot of 2 people involved in it? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Who already know what they're doing? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And who have already discussed it and are on 7 the same page? 8 A. Yes. 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: You know, I really 10 don't -- you haven't qualified him as an expert on 11 practical jokes, although, he might be, but this isn't 12 going anywhere for me. 13 MR. PALMER: I'll move on. 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 15 MR. PALMER: Nothing further. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: Redirect? 17 MS. CASTILLO: Thanks. 18 19 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 20 BY MS. CASTILLO: 21 Q. We've already heard that your first interview 22 with the tow truck driver was not recorded. 23 Your second interview with him was not recorded 24 either, correct? 25 A. Correct. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2501 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1405 1 Q. And your second interview with Sergeant Pfarr 2 was not recorded, correct? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. And in the transcript that we have of Officer 5 Cudworth, it cuts off, correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. And did you have an opportunity, at all, 8 to look at the transcript of Officer Cudworth? 9 A. I did not. 10 Q. Okay. The part of your synopsis in Exhibit 8 11 where you say that he said it was not a joke and that it 12 was for personal gain is not in the transcript. So I 13 will represent that to you. So that would be in the 14 unrecorded part. 15 Also, in the unrecorded part -- and so I'm 16 going to ask you a question about this, is -- well, let 17 me back up. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: Can I just ask a 19 question? There was a second interview of Sergeant 20 Pfarr that was not recorded? Is that what you testified 21 to? 22 THE WITNESS: Yes. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 24 BY MS. CASTILLO: 25 Q. Okay. In the recorded part of Officer Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2502 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1406 1 Cudworth, he says that he never saw Officer Waddell take 2 anything, and you recall that from your interview with 3 him, right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. And he also says that all he heard was 6 the request for this screwdriver, right? You remember 7 that part, right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. But -- and I don't know. So I have to 10 rely on you. 11 Did you ever ask him if he had any conversation 12 with Officer Waddell about a joke? 13 A. I did not ask him that. 14 Q. Okay. So it was just his observations that it 15 didn't appear to be a joke, right? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. Okay. And Officer Cudworth says that he 18 recalls Sergeant Pfarr at the scene saying, don't do 19 this, right? 20 A. Well, the quote was, "What the heck." 21 Q. Okay. But that was at the scene, right? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. Which is not what Sergeant Pfarr ever 24 told you, right? 25 A. The exact wording? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2503 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1407 1 Q. Or anything similar to, right? 2 Because Sergeant Pfarr said, ha, ha, funny, I'm 3 leaving, right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And Sergeant Pfarr also said, put that back, at 6 the scene, right? 7 Or he said that he said that on the phone, but 8 Cudworth and Kevany both said that was said at the 9 scene, right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. And, in fact, Officer Cudworth said he 12 saw Pfarr talking to Waddell at the scene and he assumed 13 he was going to tell him, what are you doing, what the 14 heck are you doing, knock it off, right? 15 A. Yes. And that he better not be taking any car 16 part from an accident scene right before Pfarr left the 17 scene. 18 Q. Right. That was an assumption made by 19 Cudworth, right? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Just like it was an assumption that it wasn't a 22 joke, right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Those are all assumptions Cudworth made, right? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2504 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1408 1 Q. Because he had no personal knowledge whether or 2 not it was a joke, right? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. Okay. So Cudworth -- in this chart over here, 5 where it was not a practical joke, that was based on an 6 assumption, not actual knowledge, right? 7 A. It was his belief that it was a practical joke. 8 Q. Right. Because he had no conversation with 9 Officer Waddell, right? 10 A. Well, I think, the totality of the 11 circumstances, he's viewing this -- 12 Q. Right. He had no conversation with Officer 13 Waddell, right? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. Okay. In fact, he told you, I wasn't part of 16 the conversation, I didn't hear it, right? 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. Okay. So that's what Cudworth said. 19 Now, going to Kevany, you also didn't have the 20 opportunity to review this transcript, did you? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Okay. Do you have Appellant's Exhibit AA? 23 She's also in your what you had not a practical 24 joke chart. Do you see that? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2505 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1409 1 Q. Okay. And you're agreeing with this chart up 2 here, right? 3 A. Yes. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Which one are we looking 5 at now? 6 MS. CASTILLO: Appellant's double A. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: That's Kevany? 8 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 10 BY MS. CASTILLO: 11 Q. Can you look at Page 5? 12 A. I don't know where that one is. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Is this it, here? 14 THE WITNESS: Yeah. AA. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah. 16 BY MS. CASTILLO: 17 Q. Let's start with Page 5, Line 12. So you're 18 interviewing Kevany and she talk -- you ask her about 19 Officer Waddell removing anything from the vehicle and 20 she's saying trophy for traffic, nothing for personal 21 gain, we were just messing around. Do you see that 22 starting at Line 7? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And you ask her, "So you said we. Does that 25 collectively mean you guys decided to do that?" You see Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2506 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1410 1 that, going to Line 12? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And she responds, "No." Do you see that? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. Did she ever, at any point during your 6 interview with her, tell you that she had a conversation 7 with Officer Waddell about this joke? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Did Officer Waddell, at any point during his 10 interview with you, tell you that he had a conversation 11 with Colleen Kevany about this joke? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Okay. Then on Page 6 at Line 9, you ask her, 14 "Okay. So you say a joke." 15 Okay. And now we're going to go ahead, Page 7, 16 Page 8, and I'm going to refer you to Page 9, Line 2. 17 Her answer, "Yeah. Oh, yeah, and it wasn't anything 18 done maliciously. It was kind of a joke, I thought." 19 Do you see that? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Line 18. "There would be no further 22 investigation on the car and it was just kind of a joke 23 to put this in the office?" That's your question. Her 24 answer on 20, "Yeah." You see that? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2507 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1411 1 Q. Okay. And then Mr. Palmer, then, had you skip 2 all the way down to 21 about this. "Had you heard 3 anything during this that it was a joke on Chad because 4 he was a brand new supervisor?" "No." 5 So she believed it was a joke, she just didn't 6 know it was a joke on Chad; would you agree with that? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Okay. So she just said a million times that it 9 was a joke, but you're not going to characterize it as a 10 joke on Chad? Is that what you're saying? 11 A. I don't understand that question. 12 Q. She said it was kind of a joke. It was a joke. 13 I believed it was a joke. Yes, it was a joke. 14 And you're saying, no, it wasn't a joke? 15 A. I don't think so. 16 Q. Okay. "It was kind of a joke, I thought." 17 Those are her words, right? Look at Line 2. 18 A. Yeah. I'm just looking at my interview with 19 her. 20 Q. This is your interview with her. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: We should be looking at 22 the same thing, transcript. 23 MS. CASTILLO: I have the transcript. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: You're looking at your 25 report, and rather than Exhibit 8, it should be Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2508 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1412 1 Appellant's Exhibit AA. 2 THE WITNESS: Okay. So what was the question? 3 BY MS. CASTILLO: 4 Q. Did you listen to this? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Okay. These are your questions and her 7 answers, right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And she said, "It was kind of a joke, I 10 thought," right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. She didn't believe it was a joke on the new 13 supervisor, correct? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. But she believed it was a joke, correct? 16 A. According to this here, yes. 17 Q. According to her, correct? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Okay. And, in fact, if you go to Page 10, when 20 you ask her again if she had known it was a joke on 21 Chad, on Line 10, she says, "I'll tell you, I didn't 22 hear that." Do you see that? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Okay. And then on Line 11, she says that she 25 saw Officer Waddell and Sergeant Pfarr at the scene and Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2509 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1413 1 Sergeant Pfarr, at the scene, saying, "You've got to be 2 kidding me. You're not going to put me in this 3 position," right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. It wasn't back at the department, right? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. It was at the scene, right? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. Okay. And that's also what Cudworth said, 10 right? 11 A. Regarding -- 12 Q. The conversation at the scene between Waddell 13 and Pfarr. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Okay. Going to Page 11, "Did you see Kevin 16 place anything into a large brown paper bag?" "No." 17 "Did you see Kevin go towards his car with a 18 brown paper bag?" And she says, "I don't remember 19 that." 20 And then Line 23, "Do you remember the items, 21 if it was put into a brown paper bag?" Going on to Page 22 12, "No. I mean, they were tossed back inside, just 23 loose, yes." Do you see that? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Page 12. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2510 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1414 1 Did anyone else, between -- or besides Sergeant 2 Pfarr ever tell you that there was anything with this 3 brown paper bag? 4 A. I don't believe so. 5 Q. He's the only person who saw this brown paper 6 bag out of all the witnesses that you interviewed? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. Okay. Now, let me ask you again. 9 Was this as he was driving away, as he said in 10 his interview, or was this as he was walking away, as he 11 said in his memo? 12 A. I don't know. 13 Q. Okay. And, again, she confirms that the 14 conversation of "you've got to be kidding me," on Page 15 12, was right there at the scene, according to Lines 14 16 and 16. 17 Do you remember documenting that in your 18 report? 19 A. Of what statement? 20 Q. The conversation, the admonishment of, hey, 21 don't do this, was right at the scene -- 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. -- not later. 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. All right. So you write in Department's 8 that Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2511 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1415 1 she was evasive and you didn't think she was 2 forthcoming. Remember all that? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. Why? 5 A. Because I, personally, interviewed her. 6 Q. Yeah. Okay. 7 So, what, she didn't answer any of your 8 questions? 9 A. She answered questions. 10 Q. Okay. So what about her not answering 11 questions was evasive? Was there lag time? 12 A. It was her nervousness, her body language. 13 Q. Did you document, specifically, what drew you 14 to that conclusion? 15 A. Those were my observations. 16 Q. Okay. But, I mean, did you document that? You 17 wrote evasive, but you didn't write anything else about 18 that in your report. 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. Okay. Just a minute ago, after Mr. Palmer 21 suggested it to you, you said that the -- Mr. Brady was 22 uncooperative and not forthcoming. 23 I did not see that anywhere in your report. 24 How come you didn't write about that? 25 A. I don't know. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2512 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1416 1 Q. Did you just, suddenly, recall that two years 2 later? 3 A. I, adamantly, remember the interviews of the 4 tow truck driver and Officer Kevany. 5 Q. Did you just fail to document his body language 6 and his nervousness and his failure to be forthcoming 7 about what he remembered at the scene? 8 A. I documented what he had told me. 9 Q. Right, but not his lack of cooperativeness, as 10 Mr. Palmer suggested, right? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. Because you stopped him cold, right? Was, I 13 think, that the reason? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. Did you prep the other witnesses who came into 16 your office that day for interviews? 17 A. No, I did not. 18 Q. Okay. Again, can I refer you to Page 14? So, 19 Line 3, you ask her, "Do you think Kevin knows that it 20 shouldn't be done?" And she, in her evasiveness, says, 21 "Yeah. I would hope so. I knew it, too, but it seemed 22 kind of funny at the time. It was meant to be just a 23 joke." 24 And your belief was that this, again, was not 25 Colleen Kevany telling you that this was a joke and Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2513 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1417 1 that's what you wrote in your report? 2 A. I don't understand the question. 3 Q. Did you write in your report that Colleen 4 Kevany did not think this was a joke? 5 A. I wrote that Kevany said the taking of the 6 emblem was definitely not a joke being played on 7 Sergeant Pfarr because he was a brand new supervisor. 8 Q. Well, you did write that, but you left out the 9 whole part about it being a joke, correct? 10 MR. PALMER: Objection. Misstates the 11 evidence. It's right there in the earlier part of his 12 summary. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, the witness has 14 testified, and I think maybe this chart's incomplete, 15 that it was -- that she didn't consider it to be a 16 practical joke on Sergeant Pfarr. 17 So you've established she used the term, joke, 18 many times, but not in that context. So I don't know 19 what more we're going to get out of him. He said what 20 he said and that's it. 21 BY MS. CASTILLO: 22 Q. If you painstakingly wrote in your report, as 23 you testified on direct -- or cross, chronologically, 24 why, when you received these edits from your 25 supervisors, would you allow them to change your words Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2514 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1418 1 if they had not had transcripts or audios of your 2 interviews? 3 A. I did not allow them to change my words. They 4 were suggestions that I mixed in with what I had put, 5 and then if it makes sense to me and it was a better 6 tense of the word or a better way to explain something, 7 I used it. 8 Q. Did you ever disregard any of the changes made 9 by your chief? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. You did? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Can you point to some of them? 14 A. I can't. 15 Q. Okay. You testified -- when I asked you if you 16 knew why you received the IA from Lieutenant Bledsoe, 17 his IA, right, you said I don't know? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And then when Mr. Palmer asked you, you said I 20 don't know. And then when he suggested it was, maybe, 21 because of Lexipol, then you said, oh, yes, that sounds 22 right. Do you remember that? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Okay. And it was because, maybe, Lieutenant 25 Bledsoe was going to show you how to do formatting. Do Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2515 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1419 1 you remember that? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Okay. Were you aware that when you received 4 that, that he was not done with his investigation? 5 A. I did not know that. 6 Q. Okay. How is it that you received that? Did 7 you ask him for a copy? 8 A. I believe so, when I heard or figured out that 9 I was using a previous format. Because when I asked 10 him, and I recollect this now, that that's what happened 11 a year and a half ago. 12 Q. Okay. And so you were assigned this 13 investigation by Captain Storton? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And then you were reporting to Captain Staley? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And you couldn't go to Captain Staley and say, 18 hey, what is the new format I'm supposed to use? 19 A. I did not know there was a new format when they 20 started this. 21 Q. But when you realized it and now you went to 22 your witness and asked him for his ongoing investigation 23 of the same person -- 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, wait. I don't know 25 if that's established. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2516 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1420 1 Did you ask for Lieutenant Bledsoe's draft 2 about Officer Waddell or did you just ask him for a 3 form? 4 THE WITNESS: No. I asked him for the draft. 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 6 BY MS. CASTILLO: 7 Q. So you couldn't get another IA of a different 8 person? 9 A. We have very few IAs at this department and, in 10 my mind, that was one that would be correct because we 11 had just recently changed the Lexipol. We don't have 12 these going on every month. We have very few of these. 13 Q. I have your Lexipol from that time period, 14 which says how to do it and the format. You could have 15 followed this, right? And it tells you how. Have you 16 seen this before? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. It would have been available to you, right, 19 Lieutenant? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. You didn't need to look at Officer Waddell's 22 other investigation with findings on his credibility in 23 order to figure out how to write an IA, right? 24 A. Well, there's a difference in that this shows 25 you the titles and everything. The example was how the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2517 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1421 1 document should flow with interviews and stuff like 2 that. 3 Q. Okay. This says, "Introduction," and what an 4 introduction is, right? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. Then it says, "Synopsis," and what a synopsis 7 is, right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. And then it says, "Summary of 10 allegations, list them separately, including policy. 11 Provide summary, separate findings." You see that, 12 right? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And then, "Evidence," and it tells you what to 15 do there, right? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And then, "Conclusion," and it tells you what 18 to do there, right? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And then, "Exhibits," and it tells you what to 21 do there, right? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. That sounds like exactly what you wrote, right? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. So are you telling me that this is different Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2518 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1422 1 than what you were provided by -- 2 A. Absolutely. 3 Q. Where? How? 4 A. Seeing a completed -- or, at that time, I 5 thought it was a completed document, is definitely 6 different than looking at what the titles are. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: I want to observe it's 8 about five after 3:00, or so. Do you have some more on 9 redirect? 10 MS. CASTILLO: Um -- 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'm thinking this might 12 be a good time to take a break, unless you're almost 13 done. 14 MS. CASTILLO: We can take a break. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Let's stretch our legs. 16 (Recess.) 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: So we're back on the 18 record and we're continuing with the redirect 19 examination of Lieutenant Proll. Ms. Castillo? 20 MS. CASTILLO: Okay. I will make copies of 21 this and have it next time. 22 MR. PALMER: I won't object. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: Oh. Do we need to do 24 that right now? 25 MS. CASTILLO: I can do that at our next break. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2519 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1423 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 2 BY MS. CASTILLO: 3 Q. Lieutenant Proll, you, on cross, were talking 4 to Mr. Palmer about your interview of George Berrios. 5 Do you remember that? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And that was, I believe, the inference that you 8 had been suggested to interview him by other people, 9 like Sergeant Pfarr? Do you remember that? 10 A. I don't. 11 Q. I mean, I'm not asking you to look at anything. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: It wouldn't, probably, be 13 in there. Either you remember it or you don't. 14 THE WITNESS: I don't. 15 BY MS. CASTILLO: 16 Q. What do you remember about that conversation on 17 cross-examination? 18 A. I think the conversation was did you, at 19 certain points, find out different people were involved, 20 were at the scene or weren't at the scene. 21 Q. And you knew George Berrios was not at the 22 scene? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. And you had been asked by the captain to 25 interview about DRMO? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2520 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1424 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Did you remember, yet, what captain that was? 3 A. No. 4 Q. So knowing that George Berrios was not there, 5 how was it that you decided to interview him? 6 A. Well, he was the other DRMO person. 7 Q. Okay. 8 A. And I believe there was some mention, in one of 9 my earlier interviews before that, that Officer Berrios 10 was there. 11 Q. And who was -- 12 A. I'd have to look. 13 Q. Okay. It probably wasn't Mr. Brady, who didn't 14 know anyone but Colleen Kevany, right? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. And Josh Walsh didn't say George Berrios? 17 A. Well, before I answer, I'd like to look at... 18 Q. What are you referencing, first of all? 19 A. My copy of my memo. 20 Q. Okay. Well, I will tell you the people you 21 interviewed before George Berrios were Colleen Kevany, 22 Cudworth and Amoroso and Josh Walsh. 23 Do you remember if any of those people said 24 George Berrios was there? 25 A. I don't remember. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2521 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1425 1 Q. Okay. But it would have had to have been one 2 of those people, right? Right? 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: If you know. 4 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 5 BY MS. CASTILLO: 6 Q. Well, if it wasn't DRMO-related and the only -- 7 because your testimony on cross now was that he might 8 have been there and that was one of the reasons, not 9 just because of DRMO, right? 10 A. Correct. I could have got the information that 11 he might have been there from another source. 12 Q. Well, not the event history, right? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. Okay. So it would have been this other source 15 that would have been Josh Walsh, Colleen Kevany, Robert 16 Cudworth or Brian Amoroso, right? 17 Unless you have some other witness that we 18 don't know about that you didn't document, correct? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. Okay. Did you ever come across any photographs 21 that were after the Bentley was on its wheels? 22 A. I believe the one that I saw today from what I 23 thought was the insurance adjustor. 24 Q. Okay. Other than that one? 25 A. No. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2522 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1426 1 Q. Okay. On cross-examination, Mr. Palmer asked 2 you about the impression that Mr. Brady had that there 3 was not a practical joke going on. Do you remember 4 that? 5 A. No. 6 Q. You don't remember just testifying about that? 7 A. That Mr. Brady said it was not a practical 8 joke? 9 Q. Well, he ended up in the not practical joke. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: It wasn't that he said 11 it. This was under the what you had chalked earlier and 12 had Brady there and asked you if you agreed and you said 13 yes. 14 BY MS. CASTILLO: 15 Q. Do you agree with that chart still? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. But you never asked him about a practical joke, 18 right? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. So this is an assumption on your part, right? 21 Are you reading something? 22 A. I was referring to this. 23 Q. Well, I need you to answer my questions and not 24 read. 25 A. I'm trying to find the answer so I don't give Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2523 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1427 1 you an incorrect answer. 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, I appreciate that 3 you've been diligent about consulting that, but she's 4 entitled to get an answer, whether you remember it or 5 not, and if there's specific info there that you, 6 somehow, missed, Mr. Palmer is more than capable of 7 directing you to it on cross-examination. 8 So if you don't remember, you don't remember. 9 If you remember, then -- 10 THE WITNESS: I don't remember. 11 BY MS. CASTILLO: 12 Q. How did you get the insurance adjustor 13 photograph? Was that faxed to you? It was not 14 e-mailed, right? 15 A. I don't recall. 16 Q. Well, it is not the best quality. It's not 17 color, right? 18 A. I don't believe the one in here is color. I 19 don't recall what the one I turned in attached to the 20 report was. 21 Q. Is it any different than what you've seen in 22 Exhibit 11? 23 A. Not that I recall. 24 Q. Okay. So Officer Waddell said that he assumed 25 the tow truck driver saw what he was doing, right? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2524 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1428 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Okay. But the tow truck driver said he didn't, 3 correct? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. Okay. So your finding and your conclusion was 6 based on what Officer Waddell was speculating as to and 7 not actual fact, right? 8 A. My conclusion was based on the totality of my 9 investigation. 10 Q. That was a yes or no question. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Let's try it again. I 12 didn't hear the yes or no part, but I may have missed 13 it. 14 BY MS. CASTILLO: 15 Q. Your conclusion was based on the speculation of 16 Officer Waddell believing that the citizen tow truck 17 driver saw what he was doing, when, in fact, he said he 18 didn't, and your response was totality, right? 19 So, I guess, my yes or no would be, since your 20 answer's going to be the totality, right, isn't it 21 true -- okay. 22 So, yes or no, isn't it true that it wasn't a 23 citizen that saw it, that it would have only been the 24 police officers? 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: So what's the "it" in Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2525 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1429 1 that? 2 MS. CASTILLO: Whatever was written in his 3 conclusion on Page 8. Can you turn to it? Referencing 4 the citizen. 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: Page 25? 6 BY MS. CASTILLO: 7 Q. At least one citizen, right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. So this conduct that violated the Vehicle Code 10 witnessed by, at least, one citizen, right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. That is based on the speculation of 13 Officer Waddell, only, correct? 14 A. No. 15 Q. What is that based on? 16 A. That's -- the conclusion is based on my 17 totality of the circumstances investigating this 18 incident. 19 Q. Okay. Even though the driver said he didn't 20 see anything? 21 A. Correct. 22 MS. CASTILLO: I don't have anything else. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: Recross? 24 MR. PALMER: Just one area of inquiry. 25 /// Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2526 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1430 1 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. PALMER: 3 Q. Exhibit 8, Page 5, your reinterview of the tow 4 truck driver, Brady, March 31, 2013. Do you have that 5 paragraph? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Middle of the paragraph, "I asked Brady if any 8 of the officers at the scene mentioned taking hubcaps as 9 part of a joke." 10 Is that what forms the basis of putting Brady 11 in the not-a-practical-joke column? 12 A. Yes. 13 MR. PALMER: Nothing further. 14 MS. CASTILLO: Wait. Where? I'm trying to see 15 where you're pointing to. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: Redirect? 17 MS. CASTILLO: Wait. I didn't see where he was 18 pointing at. No, not on that. I do have one more 19 thing. 20 21 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 22 BY MS. CASTILLO: 23 Q. Can you look at Department's Exhibit 7, please? 24 This is Lieutenant Bledsoe's investigation to Captain 25 Staley, to Chief Gesell; is that right? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2527 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1431 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Is this what you received from Lieutenant 3 Bledsoe? 4 A. I believe so; although, you had mentioned it 5 wasn't a complete one. So I wasn't sure if, when I got 6 it, it was complete or not. 7 Q. Okay. This is what you were looking at for 8 format, right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. Can you look at his conclusion on Page 11 14? Conclusion, one line, exhibits, and then yours on 12 25. Yours restates the allegations. 13 You didn't, exactly, follow his format, did 14 you? 15 A. It doesn't look like it. 16 MS. CASTILLO: Okay. Nothing further. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Anything on recross? 18 MR. PALMER: The horse is dead. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: So are we done with 20 Lieutenant Proll and can we excuse him? 21 MS. CASTILLO: I believe so. 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: Very good. Thanks, 23 Lieutenant. You're free to go. 24 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: Let's go off the record Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2528 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1432 1 for a second. 2 (Recess.) 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: We're back on the record. 4 The appellant has called Sergeant Pfarr on direct. 5 Sergeant Pfarr, you testified earlier. So 6 you're still under oath. Do you remember that? 7 THE WITNESS: I do. 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: Very good. Ms. Castillo, 9 you may proceed. 10 MS. CASTILLO: Thank you. 11 12 DIRECT EXAMINATION 13 BY MS. CASTILLO: 14 Q. Hi. 15 A. Hello. 16 Q. Since your testimony last time, have you 17 reviewed any documents in this case? 18 A. No. Oh, actually, I take that back. Yes, I 19 have. I reviewed my memo prepared for Captain Storton 20 regarding the car parts. 21 Q. Okay. So the memo from the 20th? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. Okay. Did you review any transcripts or your 24 synopsis? 25 A. No. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2529 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1433 1 Q. Okay. Did you review any of the information 2 from the testing IA? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Okay. What did you say to Colleen Kevany and 5 Cudworth at the scene regarding the emblems on the 6 Bentley? 7 A. Nothing, I don't believe. 8 Q. Do you have any idea why both of those officers 9 would say that you said at the scene, what the heck are 10 you doing, or something to the effect of, and I'm 11 paraphrasing, why would you be doing this? 12 A. I don't believe I made any statements to them 13 about that. I talked to them at the police department 14 after we got back from the scene. 15 Q. Okay. I'm asking you, do you have any idea why 16 both of those officers would say that you made 17 statements at the scene to Officer Waddell that they 18 overheard? 19 A. No, unless your paraphrase is not 100 percent 20 accurate, then it's the comment I made about, okay, 21 funny joke, I'm out of here. 22 Q. No, not that comment. 23 A. I don't believe I said anything else. 24 Q. Okay. In terms of the Bentley investigation, 25 when you went to Captain Storton about this and a memo Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2530 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1434 1 was drafted, at that point, you absolutely believed that 2 Officer Waddell had intended to steal the emblems, 3 correct? 4 A. I believe so. 5 Q. And that was based on the fact that now you had 6 worked with him over some period of time and you believe 7 that he was lazy? 8 A. No. That's not why I believed it, but, partly, 9 because I worked with him for an extended period of time 10 at that point. 11 Q. Okay. When you were interviewed by Lieutenant 12 Proll, you said to him that you believed that he was 13 lazy, correct? 14 A. I believe I said that. 15 Q. Okay. And that you believed -- after watching 16 him work for some period of time, now you believed that 17 his work caused you to change your opinion from the 18 night of the Bentley incident to -- from a joke to a 19 theft, right? 20 A. It was also my naivety at the time, and having 21 been a supervisor a little bit longer by the December 22 time, I think that played into it, as much as my 23 observing his work habits. 24 Q. Okay. So his work habits factored into his 25 intent; is that what you're saying? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2531 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1435 1 A. No, that's not what I'm saying. 2 Q. You're naivety? 3 A. I think his work habits helped shine a light on 4 the level of naivety that I had that night. 5 Q. And how so? 6 A. We all grow and mature as we go through our 7 profession and I think I matured a little bit and saw 8 things that made me think perhaps Kevin is not the 9 person I thought he was. 10 Q. Okay. So from February to August? Is that the 11 time period? 12 A. Well, up until December. 13 Q. What happened in December? 14 A. When I talked to Captain Storton. I thought 15 that's what you were talking about. 16 Q. Well, you started talking to people about your 17 opinion of Kevin around the time of promotions, though, 18 right? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. Which would have been August, September, right? 21 A. About that time. 22 Q. Okay. So it wasn't December, it was August, 23 right? 24 A. Um, I think I told them, at the time, that I 25 had reservations about him being in the position like Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2532 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1436 1 that, not that I believed he absolutely intended to 2 steal any car parts. I don't believe I told him that at 3 that time. 4 Q. A judgment issue, right? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. But you also had a judgment issue that night 7 because you didn't report it, right? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. Did you have reservations about you being a 10 supervisor? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Okay. On the night of the Bentley incident, 13 Officer Waddell told you that this was a joke because 14 you were a new supervisor, correct? 15 A. Um, I think that I -- yeah. That was implied. 16 Q. He told you that, right? 17 A. Yeah. We had that conversation. 18 Q. And you told Lieutenant Proll that, right? 19 A. When? 20 Q. When you were interviewed. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And then do you recall later telling Lieutenant 23 Proll that didn't happen? 24 A. I don't remember that, no. 25 Q. Okay. When you were -- did you talk to Colleen Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2533 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1437 1 Kevany before or after you spoke with Officer Waddell 2 when you were in the office? 3 A. Well, I talked to her at the scene because she 4 was giving me the walk-through and I made the comment 5 about what is he doing, joke's over, ha, ha, whatever 6 the exact verbiage was, and then I talked to her again 7 at the station. 8 Q. Right. And then when you talked to Officer 9 Waddell at the station, was that before or after Colleen 10 Kevany? 11 A. I don't recall. I don't know. 12 Q. Was it before or after the phone call with 13 Officer Waddell? 14 A. I would have talked to her after the phone call 15 because that was done on the way back to the station. 16 Q. Okay. Do you know, were you one of the last 17 people at the scene of the Bentley investigation? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Do you know who was? 20 A. No. Because I wasn't there. 21 Q. Okay. Well, you were the supervisor working 22 that incident, right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Okay. Officer Waddell and Colleen Kevany were 25 working that particular incident, right? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2534 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1438 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And you said you also talked to Cudworth, 3 right? 4 A. I think I said I believe I did, but I wasn't 5 sure. 6 Q. You don't know? 7 A. I don't recall if I talked to Cudworth or not. 8 Q. But you did tell some people that you handled 9 it with every single individual who would have witnessed 10 it, right? 11 A. Um, I think I told that to Lieutenant Proll. 12 Q. Okay. So that would have included all the 13 officers on scene, right? 14 A. Oh. I know I didn't talk to every officer. I 15 believe, in the context when I was talking to Lieutenant 16 Proll, I told him I believe I talked to everybody, 17 everybody that I could remember. I also believe there 18 was people during that interview that he told me were 19 there and I said I don't remember that person being 20 there, I have to check the radio logs. 21 So my memory is not 100 percent about who was 22 there the last ten minutes that I was there. 23 Q. Okay. So who did you talk to about having 24 handled it? 25 A. I don't know what you just asked. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2535 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1439 1 Q. You told -- you told someone that you had 2 handled it, right? 3 A. I believe Lieutenant Proll and I talked about 4 that. 5 Q. And you said you don't remember every single 6 person who was there. 7 Who do you remember being there besides Waddell 8 and Kevany? 9 A. Cudworth was there and I don't remember, at 10 that point, who else had left or who was still around. 11 I believe Chitty might have still been there. 12 Q. Did you talk to Chitty? 13 A. I don't believe so, but I think at the point of 14 the interview you're referring to, the people I recall 15 being there was Kevany and Cudworth. 16 Q. Did you talk to Cudworth? 17 A. I believe it was very briefly, but I don't know 18 for sure, is what I said. 19 Q. What about Benson? 20 A. I never talked to Benson. 21 Q. Did you -- you left with Benson, though, right? 22 A. I don't remember Benson being at the scene. 23 Q. At all? 24 A. I don't remember that. Not to say he wasn't. 25 I was -- I had a focused task, that I was there to get Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2536 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1440 1 intelligence from Officer Kevany, and that's what I did. 2 I didn't take an inventory of who was all at the scene 3 at the time. 4 Q. You didn't say anything to Benson like, let's 5 leave before we're both in the IA with him? 6 A. I may have said that. I'm just telling you I 7 don't remember it. 8 Q. At the time that you were speaking to Sergeant 9 Amoroso about the Bentley incident, did he tell you that 10 he had had the conversation with Officer Waddell prior 11 to the joke that they were planning to play a prank on 12 you? 13 A. I don't remember talking to Sergeant Amoroso 14 about the Bentley incident. 15 Q. You never had a conversation with him around 16 the time of promotions or discussions on candidates 17 about the suitability of Officer Waddell? 18 A. I don't believe I did. I don't remember that. 19 Q. Who did you talk to? 20 A. I know I talked to Kevany, I know I talked to 21 Waddell, and, at the time, I don't -- before I talked to 22 Lieutenants Smith and Bledsoe, I don't remember talking 23 to anybody else about it. 24 Q. Why did you go to Smith and Bledsoe, 25 specifically? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2537 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1441 1 A. Because they were the lieutenants. One was my 2 lieutenant and the other was the lieutenant over at the 3 Investigations Bureau who would be overseeing the 4 personnel selected where Kevin was applying. 5 Q. What about Lieutenant Proll? 6 A. He was my supervisor. 7 Q. So why didn't you go to him? 8 A. Well, because I, initially, went to Lieutenant 9 Bledsoe. 10 Actually, I don't know if he was my supervisor 11 at the time. Lieutenant Smith was my supervisor at the 12 time at nights. 13 Q. Okay. And so if Smith was your supervisor, you 14 went to him, right? 15 A. I went to Bledsoe first and told him and he 16 said make sure you let your supervisor know what 17 happened. 18 Q. And you went to Bledsoe because... 19 A. Because Kevin was applying for a position where 20 he would be working for Lieutenant Bledsoe. 21 Q. Okay. And Smith because he was your 22 supervisor? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. What about Waddell's supervisor? Who was he? 25 A. That would have been Sergeant Amoroso at the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2538 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1442 1 time, but for this incident, it would have been Sergeant 2 Goodwin, but she had already -- she wasn't around. 3 Q. What about -- who was Waddell's lieutenant? 4 A. I believe, at the time, it would have been 5 Lieutenant Proll. 6 Q. And you didn't advise him, right? 7 A. No. I gave it to the other lieutenants and let 8 them handle it. 9 Q. And they didn't do anything with the 10 information, is your understanding, right? 11 A. Correct. At the time. 12 Q. Okay. At the time that you begin feeling that 13 there is this problem with Officer Waddell, is this in 14 the summer of 2013? 15 A. I guess, I'm not sure what you're asking. 16 Q. Well, the work ethic or as you're observing his 17 work habits. 18 A. Um -- 19 Q. Whatever causes you to bring this information 20 to light. 21 A. I think it's when I went to the lieutenants 22 that I thought, okay, maybe there's an issue here. 23 Q. Right. So is this in the summertime? 24 A. Yeah. Around summer, fall. 25 Q. Okay. And so this was in your mind when the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2539 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1443 1 texting incident happened in October, obviously, right? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And you already had, obviously, a lesser 4 opinion of Officer Waddell at this point, correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. When Lieutenant Smith asked you if there could 7 be any kind of miscommunication and for you to think 8 about it and then get back to him, why didn't you do 9 that? 10 A. I don't know what you're talking about, 11 miscommunication. 12 Q. You don't remember that conversation, according 13 to Lieutenant Smith? 14 A. I haven't talked to Lieutenant Smith about this 15 since he asked me to write a memo. 16 Q. Right. I'm talking about according to your 17 interview and his interview. You don't recall that 18 conversation? 19 A. I wasn't present during his interview. 20 Q. I know. I'm saying that information was 21 presented. You don't recall that conversation? 22 A. No. 23 Q. As a supervisor, what would have been the 24 penalty that -- based on your experience, for Officer 25 Waddell for being late to work? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2540 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1444 1 MR. PALMER: Well, objection. Speculation. 2 MS. CASTILLO: Based on your experience. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'll allow it if you 4 know. 5 THE WITNESS: I've had a couple people show up 6 late and I wrote them supervisor observations that they 7 were late. 8 BY MS. CASTILLO: 9 Q. And what does that mean? 10 A. They get a notice in their annual file for the 11 purposes of annual evaluations. 12 Q. Are there any days off associated with that? 13 A. Depends on the person. 14 Q. I mean, is there a suspension associated with 15 the supervisor's observation? 16 A. Well, there, absolutely, could be at some 17 point, but the first time somebody ever shows up late, 18 they probably wouldn't get a suspension. 19 Q. Okay. When Lieutenant Proll asked you in the 20 Bentley interview if you understood how important the 21 Bentley interview was in conjunction with the texting 22 interview and you said yes, what was your understanding? 23 A. I thought he was just saying the totality of 24 both incidents combined because it could have a 25 significant impact on Kevin. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2541 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1445 1 Q. And why would that be? 2 A. He was lying and, potentially, stealing parts. 3 Q. So, in your mind, were they being looked at 4 together? 5 A. Well, no. They were being investigated 6 separately, but then -- 7 Q. Right. 8 A. -- the punishment for them would, obviously, be 9 considered at the same time, I would guess. I'm not 10 privy to those conversations, but... 11 Q. But was that what you took away from Lieutenant 12 Proll's comment? 13 A. Well, I think my "yes, I understand" was more 14 of a I get that this is a serious series of events, but 15 I can't speak to exactly what he was saying. 16 Q. You said, "I understand." 17 So is -- when he said in conjunction with the 18 other. 19 A. That it's significant and serious. 20 Q. Okay. Did you ever send him those questions 21 that you offered to draft for him? 22 A. Yeah. 23 Q. But you didn't look at your phone bill, right? 24 A. I did. 25 Q. And you were able to get the time of your call? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2542 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1446 1 A. I was able to see that the call had been made, 2 but there was other things I couldn't see, like the time 3 the photo came through. 4 Q. And then you didn't see what was in the photo, 5 right? 6 A. I saw what was in the photo the night it was 7 sent. 8 Q. Right. And what was that, specifically? 9 A. It was the emblem from the car that was on the 10 floorboard of the -- I believe, the driver's floorboard. 11 Q. What do you mean, emblems? 12 A. The Bentley. 13 Q. I know, but what -- like, was it the wheel 14 cover? Was it the back? 15 A. I believe it was the Bentley badge. I don't 16 know -- I just remember seeing the Bentley badge. I 17 don't know if it was on -- I don't know what part it was 18 on. 19 Q. You don't know what it was from? 20 A. It was from the Bentley. I don't know, 21 exactly, what part it was. I couldn't say, no. 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. It was enough that I saw that the intended 24 message was the parts were back, and I understood that. 25 Q. Okay. And how many pieces? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2543 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1447 1 A. I believe there was two. 2 Q. At the point that Officer Waddell told you that 3 he was joking, sorry, remorseful, you believed that he 4 was sincere, correct? 5 A. I did that night, yeah. 6 Q. Okay. Other than you seeing him in the office, 7 watching a movie that one time that you cited to us? 8 A. Two times. 9 Q. Oh, there were two times he watched a movie? 10 A. Uh-huh. 11 Q. When was the other time? 12 A. About two weeks later. 13 Q. Okay. This is the first time I've heard about 14 this. Can you tell us more about it? 15 A. It was the same type of event, walked out, was 16 watching a movie, said he was on his lunch break and 17 that was it. 18 Q. Okay. Tell us the month that this happened 19 now. 20 A. It was, like, two weeks after the first one. 21 Q. Why didn't you mention this in any of the 22 interviews that you gave? 23 A. It wasn't asked in any of the interviews. It 24 wasn't what was being investigated, and I did talk to 25 Lieutenant Smith about it. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2544 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1448 1 Q. You did? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. You talked to both Lieutenant Proll and you 4 talked to the other lieutenant, and, both times, you 5 mentioned a movie? You never said two events where 6 there were movie-watching? 7 A. Is that a question. 8 Q. Yes. 9 A. Okay. I'll agree with you. 10 Q. And you already testified here before. 11 Now you're saying there was another second 12 movie event? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Did you mention that to Sergeant Amoroso when 15 you told him about the first time you caught him 16 watching a movie? 17 A. No. 18 Q. What movie was it this time? 19 A. I don't recall. The computer was on. 20 Q. And what is he eating this time? 21 A. I don't recall. 22 Q. And what time of day was it this time? 23 A. Around lunchtime. 24 Q. And was it a CAT shift? 25 A. I believe so because it was during the daytime. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2545 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1449 1 Q. And did you tell Lieutenant Smith this? 2 A. No. Oh, no. I did tell Lieutenant Smith. 3 Q. Oh, you did? 4 A. I didn't tell anybody else. 5 Q. So Lieutenant Smith would know about the second 6 movie event, too? 7 A. I don't know if he would or not. 8 Q. Well, you told him about it, right? 9 So if I asked him about it, he's going to 10 remember that you actually said, twice, Officer Waddell 11 was watching the movie? 12 MR. PALMER: Objection. Speculative. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah. You can ask 14 Lieutenant Smith what he remembers. 15 BY MS. CASTILLO: 16 Q. Okay. And this was two weeks after the first 17 time, right? 18 A. Approximately. 19 Q. Okay. And what month was this? 20 A. I don't know. 21 Q. Didn't document it? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Did you counsel Officer Waddell? 24 A. Um, no. 25 Q. You didn't say anything to him about it? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2546 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1450 1 A. He said he was on his lunch break. Whatever he 2 does on his lunch break is his business. 3 Q. But you, obviously, had a problem with it, 4 right? 5 A. Well, personally, yes, I did. 6 Q. I thought CAT officers were not allowed to have 7 lunch breaks, according to you? 8 A. And that's why I took issue with it. 9 Q. So are they allowed to have lunch breaks or are 10 they not allowed to have lunch breaks? 11 A. I don't believe so. It's a four or five-hour 12 overtime assignment. 13 Q. Okay. Well, you're the supervisor. Are they 14 or are they not? It's, obviously, an issue. 15 A. I would have to go with the earlier, but that's 16 exactly why I didn't make an issue of it. 17 Q. Well, it's formulated your negative opinion of 18 Officer Waddell, which led you to change your mind from 19 a joke to a possible theft, correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. So did you not consult the MOU before you made 22 this negative opinion? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Okay. You also said, when you were interviewed 25 the second time by Lieutenant Proll, that, then, you Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2547 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1451 1 remembered that there was some conversation between 2 Officer Waddell and the tow truck driver about maybe the 3 tow truck driver could take these parts off and leave 4 them at the side of the road. Do you remember that? 5 A. I do, now that you say that. 6 Q. Why didn't you mention that ever in your memo 7 or in the first interview? 8 A. I didn't remember until you just brought it up. 9 Q. Or until you were interviewed the second time 10 in April? 11 A. I brought it up with Lieutenant Proll. I 12 didn't remember up until that point. 13 Q. You didn't remember until April, a year and 14 some months after it happened? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. Okay. You didn't think that that was something 17 that you needed to mention in terms of the interview 18 that might need to happen with the tow truck driver or 19 Lieutenant Proll when you were thinking of questions 20 that might be relevant to the investigation? 21 A. Clearly not because I didn't remember it. 22 Q. Well, I know you had offered to assist with 23 Officer Waddell's questions. 24 How did you know when Officer Waddell's 25 interview was? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2548 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1452 1 A. I have no idea. I'm guessing I was told at 2 some point that I was going to be interviewed. 3 Q. No. Officer Waddell's interview. 4 A. I'm guessing, at that point, it came up and 5 somebody said everybody's going to get interviewed. We 6 all knew he was going to get interviewed at some point. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: We don't want too much 8 guessing here. Which interview are we talking about? 9 MS. CASTILLO: Officer Waddell's. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: For which event? 11 MS. CASTILLO: This Bentley interview. 12 THE WITNESS: He was on administrative leave 13 and he was going to be back in the building. I don't 14 know how I was told. 15 BY MS. CASTILLO: 16 Q. When you heard the statements that Lieutenant 17 Proll told you about in regards to what Kevany and 18 Cudworth said and you disagreed with some of them, were 19 you shocked with what they said? 20 A. I was surprised with Lieutenant Proll's 21 interpretation of what Officer Kevany had said. 22 Q. And why was that? 23 A. She had been talking to me, and the way he 24 mentioned it in the interview, it made it sound like 25 Officer Kevany was taking responsibility and actually Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2549 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1453 1 stole the parts herself or took the parts off herself 2 and that would surprise me because that, absolutely, did 3 not happen. 4 Q. Is that how he relayed it to you, based on your 5 recollection? 6 A. That's how I understood it when he relayed that 7 information. 8 Q. Okay. What is your relationship like with 9 Sergeant Amoroso? 10 A. We talk at work, but not away from work. We 11 don't do things, socially. 12 Q. Are you friends? 13 A. I think of him as a friend, we just don't 14 socialize away from work. I take that back, every once 15 in a while, we do. 16 Q. You go to dinner? 17 A. No. We ride motorcycles. So once in a while, 18 we'll go on a motorcycle ride together. 19 Q. Okay. In your memorandum, you say that you 20 were walking away when you saw the parts being put back, 21 and then in your interview, you said that you were 22 driving away. Which was it? 23 A. I never saw any parts being put back. I saw 24 parts being put in the bag and walked to the FST truck, 25 and that's as I was driving away. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2550 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1454 1 Q. In your memo, you said that it was as you were 2 walking away. 3 A. It's not accurate. I was driving away. 4 Q. So it was more accurate when you give your 5 interview after you wrote your memo? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Did something refresh your recollection later? 8 A. No. I don't think you're interpreting my memo 9 correctly. 10 Q. You don't think I'm reading your memo 11 correctly? 12 A. If you'd like to pull it out, we can go over it 13 word-by-word and I can tell you what I meant, but I 14 think you're misinterpreting what I wrote because I 15 don't think I wrote that I was walking away and saw him 16 steal car parts. 17 Q. I didn't say that. 18 A. Or put car parts back. 19 Q. At any point, did you ever tell Officer Kevany 20 that Waddell had informed you that he was playing a 21 joke? 22 A. I don't remember if I did or not. 23 Q. Okay. 24 A. I'm sure I probably did because that's what I 25 thought was happening at the time. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2551 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1455 1 Q. Did you ever characterize Waddell's actions to 2 Officer Kevany as stealing or intending to steal? 3 A. I don't remember. 4 Q. If you were aware that night that he had 5 informed you it was a joke, you wouldn't have done that, 6 right? 7 A. I don't believe so. We might have talked about 8 how it could be interpreted that way, but I don't 9 recall. 10 Q. So you don't recall having any conversation 11 with Sergeant Amoroso about the Bentley incident? 12 A. I don't. 13 Q. Did you ever talk to Sergeant Amoroso about 14 sergeant candidates? 15 A. I'm sure we probably did. I just don't 16 remember, specifically, talking about the Bentley 17 incident with him. I'm not saying I didn't. I just 18 don't recall doing that. 19 Q. But isn't this stuff -- isn't this Bentley 20 incident the topic that you would bring up to anyone who 21 wanted to hear about Officer Waddell and your opinion of 22 him? 23 A. No. I wouldn't discuss that with just anyone. 24 Q. You wouldn't? 25 A. No. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2552 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1456 1 Q. Who would you -- you would only discuss it with 2 the two lieutenants, Smith and Bledsoe? 3 A. No. I probably would talk to Sergeant Amoroso 4 about it, I just don't remember that. You said so you 5 talked to anybody and I wanted to clarify I don't just 6 go around talking to all the officers about Officer 7 Waddell's issues. 8 Q. Okay. So other than you may have -- you -- 9 okay. So are you saying you -- well, besides the two 10 lieutenants that you have mentioned, who else would you 11 have talked to about the Bentley incident with? 12 A. I don't know. I remember talking to the people 13 I've already mentioned. I can't say for sure that I did 14 or did not talk to Sergeant Amoroso. 15 Q. Okay. And then who else would you have 16 discussed sergeant candidates with? 17 A. I never discuss sergeant candidates with 18 anybody because I was one of those candidates. I wasn't 19 having conversations like that. 20 Q. Okay. But you did have that discussion. So -- 21 A. I just told you I don't recall having that 22 discussion. 23 Q. Okay. You had it with those two people, right? 24 A. Lieutenants Smith and Bledsoe. 25 Q. Okay. So it wasn't like a group conversation, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2553 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1457 1 right? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. That's all I was asking. 4 You also mentioned this to Captain Staley? 5 A. Mentioned what? 6 Q. The Bentley incident. 7 A. I'm sure, at some point, we talked about it. I 8 don't recall having a conversation, specifically, to the 9 Bentley incident, though. 10 Q. And then you did talk to Captain Storton, 11 right? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. And what did you tell Captain Storton? 14 A. I'm not -- I guess I'm not sure what you're 15 asking. 16 Q. Well, about your impressions. 17 He ultimately asked you to write a memo, 18 right? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. So what did you tell him? 21 A. I told him about what happened. 22 Q. Is it exactly the same as what's written in 23 your memo? 24 A. That's very, very -- I can't say verbatim what 25 I told him a year ago, but it's very in line with what's Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2554 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1458 1 in the memo. 2 Q. And were you asked to go to Captain Storton? 3 A. Captain Storton called me into his office, yes. 4 Q. And was that based on something you had told 5 the lieutenants or did you go there, yourself? 6 A. I don't know why he called me there. I mean, I 7 don't know what caused him to call me there. I know 8 what he wanted once I got there. 9 Q. Right. 10 MS. CASTILLO: Can we have a five-minute 11 break? 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Let's take five 13 minutes. Please don't discuss your testimony with 14 anybody. 15 (Recess.) 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. So we're back on 17 the record with the direct of Sergeant Pfarr. 18 BY MS. CASTILLO: 19 Q. Okay. Appellant's Exhibit A is your memo. 20 This is the one you just reviewed, right, the December 21 one? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. So I had asked you the question about 24 leaving and seeing the car parts -- Officer Waddell with 25 the car parts. Did you remember that? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2555 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1459 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And that was the conversation where, were you 3 walking, were you driving, right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And I believe that's covered in your bottom 6 paragraph onto, maybe, the next page. Do you want to 7 refresh your recollection as to what you wrote in your 8 memo? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. What was your question? 12 Q. What did you write in December 20th, happened? 13 A. "I walked to my car and started to leave the 14 scene." 15 So what I meant by that is, as I was leaving 16 the scene, I saw him take those parts. 17 Q. Okay. And then what happened? 18 A. I drove away. 19 Q. Okay. And after you drove away is when you 20 believe he put the car parts back, correct? 21 A. Well, it would have had to have been after I 22 left because as I was leaving, he was walking to the FST 23 truck. 24 Q. Okay. Now, you write this in December, right? 25 A. Correct. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2556 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1460 1 Q. And you have a conversation with Captain 2 Storton. Did you ever read his memo? 3 A. Captain Storton's memo? 4 Q. Yes. 5 A. I didn't know Captain Storton prepared a memo. 6 Q. After his conversation with you, you never read 7 it? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Okay. He wrote a memo in February of 2014 to 10 Lieutenant Proll on this topic after speaking with you 11 in December of 2013 that said you came to his office and 12 discussed this encounter that you had with Officer 13 Waddell. 14 So is this when you said that he called you to 15 talk to him? This would have been that one? 16 A. Yes. I only went to his office once to discuss 17 this. 18 Q. Okay. And he says that, according to you, you 19 approached him to question him about the emblem. Is 20 that a misstatement? 21 MR. PALMER: Are we looking at an exhibit? 22 MS. CASTILLO: No. Well, I guess, yes because 23 if you look at Appellant's Y, one of the drafts had this 24 and that was redacted out. We can figure out which one 25 it was. Okay. It would be -- Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2557 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1461 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: Y- A? 2 MS. CASTILLO: Was it Y- A? Yeah, it's Y- A, 3 Exhibit 3, attached below. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: There's an Exhibit 3 to 5 Y- A? 6 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Yeah. I'll just 8 note for the record the pages don't appear to be 9 numbered on this draft, but a few pages from the end, 10 there's something marked Exhibit Number 3. 11 BY MS. CASTILLO: 12 Q. You can follow along, if you want. 13 A. Where would you like me to go? 14 Q. It's Y- A, Exhibit 3. 15 MR. PALMER: Last three pages. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: This is Y- A. 17 THE WITNESS: Okay. Exhibit 3, dated August 7, 18 2015? 19 BY MS. CASTILLO: 20 Q. Right. 21 A. You're looking at February 27th and I'm looking 22 at one August 7th. 23 Q. Yeah. That was interlineated by who knows who. 24 February 24th, 2014, the one I -- 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, I'll just observe, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2558 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1462 1 for the record, that there appears to be a glitch on 2 here because the interlineated date says August 7, 2015. 3 That was just a couple weeks ago. So that couldn't be 4 right. The date that's marked out is March 24, 2014, 5 which, presumably, is closer to events. 6 BY MS. CASTILLO: 7 Q. Yeah. Who knows? Okay. The copy I have says 8 February 27th. We'll figure it out. 9 Okay. Third paragraph. " Sergeant Pfarr 10 approached Officer Waddell to question him about the 11 emblem." Is that a misstatement? 12 MR. PALMER: Well, I would object. I don't 13 know that this witness is qualified to talk about a memo 14 that wasn't authored by him. 15 BY MS. CASTILLO: 16 Q. Well, I'm asking because he said -- according 17 to Captain Storton's memo, he had a conversation with 18 you and documented it. 19 A. I am not aware of anything that he documented. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. I'm aware I had a conversation with him in his 22 office. 23 Q. Okay. But I'm going to ask you about that 24 conversation. All right? 25 A. Okay. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2559 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1463 1 Q. Did you ever approach Officer Waddell to 2 question him about the emblem? 3 A. Well, I told him to meet me in my office. 4 Q. Okay. This is -- read the whole paragraph and 5 then let me know if it -- this is at the scene. So I'm 6 going to set the tone for you. 7 MR. PALMER: Well, I object to that. The 8 premise is not really clear that it's at the scene. 9 MS. CASTILLO: How about read the whole 10 document and let me know if you understand what the 11 premise is. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. So read the 13 document. I'm going to allow questions to be asked 14 about what happened or not. The fact that it happens to 15 be in this memo, I don't think that makes any 16 difference, one way or the other, but I don't assume 17 that the witness knows anything about the actual 18 document. 19 MS. CASTILLO: Well, that's okay. I'll recall 20 Captain Storton, anyways. 21 THE WITNESS: Okay. 22 BY MS. CASTILLO: 23 Q. Okay. You did have a conversation with Captain 24 Storton, correct? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2560 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1464 1 Q. Does this memorandum accurately reflect your 2 conversation with Captain Storton? 3 A. It does not. 4 Q. And that is because this says that you had a 5 conversation with Officer Waddell at the scene? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. Okay. And this says that you thought he must 8 be kidding at the scene? 9 A. That was correct. 10 Q. Okay. And this is because you -- it says that 11 you told him to put the emblem back and then left the 12 scene, right? 13 A. I don't know what you just asked. 14 Q. This says you told Officer Waddell to put the 15 emblem back and left the scene, right? And that is 16 inaccurate? 17 A. That is inaccurate. I didn't say that right 18 then. 19 Q. The date on Page 2 where it says you were so 20 concerned that you later went to Lieutenant Bledsoe and 21 Lieutenant Smith, subbed him around September 2013, is 22 that accurate as to the time, 2013 of September? 23 A. About his September 2013 about the time I went 24 to Lieutenant Bledsoe and Smith? Is that what you're 25 asking? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2561 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1465 1 Q. Yes. 2 A. I believe it was about the time. 3 Q. Okay. 4 A. It was whenever those detective assignments 5 were becoming -- the orals were. 6 Q. I only have a couple more. 7 Regarding your conversation with Lieutenant 8 Smith about Sergeant Pfarr -- 9 A. About who? 10 Q. Sorry. I'm looking at your memorandum. 11 You wrote a memorandum to Lieutenant Smith in 12 October, right? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. So the month before when you were so concerned 15 about this Bentley issue, the month after is when you 16 went and had the texting issue with Officer Waddell, 17 right? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. Okay. At the time that you reported the 20 Bentley issue to the two lieutenants, did they indicate 21 that they were going to do anything about the Bentley 22 issue, to you? 23 A. They did not, one way or another. 24 Q. Okay. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: Do we have a new Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2562 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1466 1 document? 2 MS. CASTILLO: We do. It's this, but I don't 3 know if you want to -- are you going to make me call 4 Storton? 5 MR. PALMER: I'm not going to make you do a 6 dang thing other than what you want to do. 7 MS. CASTILLO: I'm just asking if you're not 8 going to. Are you going to? 9 MR. PALMER: I don't plan to call Captain 10 Storton at this point. 11 MS. CASTILLO: I'm going to ask that this be 12 admitted, unless you are going to object. I'm not, 13 necessarily, going to call him again. I'll have it 14 marked as -- 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: If you want to offer it, 16 you should offer it. 17 MS. CASTILLO: I don't even know what number 18 we're on, or letter. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: We're up to CC. 20 Appellant's CC is the next sequence. 21 MS. CASTILLO: This is out of the packet, IA 22 packet. 23 MR. PALMER: Okay. 24 MS. CASTILLO: That's why the date is 25 different, I guess. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2563 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1467 1 MR. PALMER: It's not already an exhibit? 2 MS. CASTILLO: Not in your book. Appellant's 3 CC. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: So we're marking, as 5 Appellant's CC, a memorandum dated February 27, 2014, to 6 Lieutenant Proll from Captain Storton and the subject 7 says Waddell investigation. 8 BY MS. CASTILLO: 9 Q. Okay. During your conversation with Lieutenant 10 Smith, did you both decide that you needed to 11 immediately address the issue with Officer Waddell or 12 was there some discussion that there would be a time 13 period to think about what had occurred and whether or 14 not there was a miscommunication? 15 A. No. I was told to immediately address it. 16 Q. And what did -- what -- what did that entail? 17 A. Let him know that Lieutenant Smith was going to 18 be contacting him at some point in the near future and 19 that -- basically, that we knew he had lied. 20 Q. And how did you know that he had lied? Was 21 that because the two of you had had a discussion 22 together about what Waddell had told you? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. Okay. So you relayed what Waddell had told you 25 to Lieutenant Smith? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2564 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1468 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Did Lieutenant Smith ever talk to Officer 3 Waddell? 4 A. I don't know. 5 Q. But not that you're aware of, correct? 6 A. I have no idea, one way or another. 7 Q. Okay. When Officer Waddell called you, was it 8 his request to come to the sergeant's office to speak to 9 you? 10 A. I'm sorry. When Waddell called me, did he 11 request to come to the sergeant's office? 12 Q. Yeah. 13 A. No. I called him and told him to come to the 14 sergeant's office. 15 Q. And what was the purpose in that? 16 A. Are you talking about after I'd already talked 17 to Lieutenant Smith and discovered that there was a lie? 18 Q. I'm talking about when you asked Officer 19 Waddell to come in and speak with you. 20 MR. PALMER: Objection. Vague as to time. 21 BY MS. CASTILLO: 22 Q. Well, were there two times that you asked him 23 to come and speak to you? 24 A. I texted him and asked him to stop by when he 25 got to work so I could discuss what happened and he came Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2565 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1469 1 to the office and told me that he talked to Lieutenant 2 Smith and Lieutenant Smith gave him permission to come 3 in late and then I called him again after my 4 conversation with Lieutenant Smith and said come to the 5 office because we need to talk. 6 Q. Okay. When he said that he had been given 7 permission to come in late, what were his exact words? 8 A. He -- I'm going to paraphrase. 9 Q. No. I need his exact words. 10 A. I don't recall his exact verbatim words. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Then that's your 12 testimony. 13 BY MS. CASTILLO: 14 Q. Did you document them at the time, after? 15 A. I immediately wrote my memo within minutes. 16 Q. Okay. So you wrote your memo within minutes. 17 There are no quotes attributed to Officer 18 Waddell in your memorandum. Do you need to look at -- 19 A. Because I attached the photographs of the text 20 messages that he sent me. 21 Q. Okay. I understand what the text messages say, 22 but you had a conversation with Officer Waddell, 23 correct? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. To clarify what the text messages meant, right? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2566 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1470 1 A. Correct. No, no, not to clarify what the text 2 messages meant. That is not true. 3 Q. Oh, you didn't? 4 A. I called him back and said Lieutenant Smith 5 told me you didn't have this conversation, he will be in 6 touch with you. 7 Q. Okay. So the text messages speak for 8 themselves, is your position? 9 A. As far as I know, yes. 10 Q. Okay. And when you spoke with Officer Waddell 11 in the office, there was no further communication about 12 what the text messages meant or any of the 13 communications between Officer Waddell and Lieutenant 14 Smith, right? 15 A. He started to apologize and I cut him off. 16 Q. And when he was apologizing, what did he say, 17 specifically, since you wrote your memo right away? 18 A. He said something to the effect of I didn't 19 mean to -- something along those lines. 20 Q. You wrote, "Sorry. I thought he and I talked 21 about it. I didn't mean to," and then it stops and 22 that's where you cut him off? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. You didn't let him finish the sentence? 25 A. No. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2567 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1471 1 Q. You didn't let him explain what he was getting 2 at, at all? 3 A. No. Correct. I was trying to protect him. 4 There was going to be a time and a place for him to give 5 an explanation as to what he did. 6 Q. Okay. But you had already decided that you did 7 not want to hear the explanation and it was a lie at 8 this point? 9 MR. PALMER: Objection. Mischaracterizes his 10 testimony. 11 MS. CASTILLO: I'm asking if that's what his 12 decision was. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'll allow it. 14 THE WITNESS: In my opinion, at that point, he 15 had lied, which was serious, and I didn't want him to 16 say something silly at the time, trying to dig himself 17 out of a hole. 18 BY MS. CASTILLO: 19 Q. Did he ask you to have a conference call with 20 him and Lieutenant Smith? 21 A. I don't know. He may have, but I don't 22 remember that. 23 Q. He may have, but you don't remember that. 24 Okay. You didn't write that -- 25 A. I'm not going to say no because I don't Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2568 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1472 1 remember him asking for a conference call. 2 Q. Well, okay. Did you accuse him of lying, at 3 all, during this conversation? 4 A. I don't know if I said you're lying, but that 5 was what was implied when I talked to him, if I didn't 6 flat-out say you lied. 7 Q. You said, "I told Officer Waddell you never had 8 the conversation he told me about and I informed him I 9 was documenting the incident. Officer Waddell told me 10 I'm sorry, I thought he and I talked about it, I didn't 11 mean to," and you cut him off. You would not let him 12 make any further statements? 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: We already established 14 that. 15 BY MS. CASTILLO: 16 Q. So, at this point, your decision's already made 17 up, right? 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: The witness hasn't 19 testified he made any decisions. I don't think he's the 20 decision-maker. 21 BY MS. CASTILLO: 22 Q. Did you have any opinion at this point? 23 A. My opinion was he had lied. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: I want to note it's just 25 about 5:00. Do we think we can finish up with this Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2569 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1473 1 witness? 2 MS. CASTILLO: I don't want to commit to that. 3 So I'll say, since he has to come back for cross, 4 anyway... 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: Let's go off the record 6 for a second. 7 (Discussion off the record.) 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: So it's about 5:00. 9 We've reached the point where we think we're going to 10 take a recess and we'll resume at our next hearing on 11 September 2 with the direct examination of Sergeant 12 Pfarr by the appellant. 13 I'll ask Sergeant Pfarr, to remind you that 14 you're still under oath and you're still admonished not 15 to discuss your testimony with anybody. 16 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: And thank you very much, 18 and we'll see you next time. 19 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 20 (The proceedings adjourned at 4:58 p.m.) 21 22 23 24 25 Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2570 ARBITRATION HEARING ON AUGUST 21, 2015, VOL. 7 8/21/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1474 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 2571 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 VIII PAGES 1475- 1545 Hiring Authority. ) TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2015 9:06 A.M. - 11: 43 A.M. REPORTED BY MELISSA PLOOY, CSR #13068 Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2572 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1476 1 THE TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS WAS TAKEN AT THE 2 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL, 990 PALM STREET, 3 CONFERENCE ROOM, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, BEFORE 4 MELISSA PLOOY, A CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER IN AND FOR 5 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 6 2015, COMMENCING AT THE HOUR OF 9:06 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 2573 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1477 1 I N D E X 2 WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 3 SERGEANT CHAD PFARR 1479 1521 1527 4 5 I N D E X T O E X H I B I T S 6 APPELLANT'S MARKED ADMITTED 7 EXHIBIT DD 1540 8 EXHIBIT EE 1541 9 EXHIBIT FF 1543 10 EXHIBIT GG 1543 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2574 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1478 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: We're on the record. 2 It's 9:06 a.m. It's Wednesday, September 2nd, 2015. 3 We're here for day number eight in the appeal of Officer 4 Kevin Waddell and we're back in the main hearing room at 5 City Hall at 990 Palm Street. 6 I'm Chris Cameron. I'm the hearing officer in 7 this matter, and let's get the appearances of counsel, 8 first of all, on behalf of the department. 9 MR. PALMER: Greg Palmer. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Very good. I see you're 11 accompanied by city attorney, as well? 12 MS. DIETRICK: Christine Dietrick. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. And Captain 14 Staley is with you? 15 CAPTAIN STALEY: Correct. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: And then on behalf of the 17 appellant. 18 MS. CASTILLO: Kasey Castillo, and the 19 appellant, Kevin Waddell, is present, along with his 20 wife, Laura Waddell. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: Good morning. 22 MS. WADDELL: Good morning. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: Very good. We are 24 continuing with the direct examination of Sergeant 25 Pfarr, who has been called by the appellant. We took Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2575 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1479 1 care of one matter of preliminary business, which is 2 that a couple of folks have to leave by noon. So we're 3 going to get as far as we can with his direct and then 4 we'll break at noon. 5 Ms. Castillo, you had the floor. You may 6 resume. 7 MS. CASTILLO: Thank you. 8 9 DIRECT EXAMINATION 10 BY MS. CASTILLO: 11 Q. Good morning. 12 A. Good morning. 13 Q. The last time we talked -- or the last time you 14 were testifying, I believe that we were speaking about 15 the texting IA. 16 Do you remember that, where the incident that 17 occurred on the 19th of October? 18 A. I'm familiar with the incident. I don't know 19 which part you're talking about, though. I don't 20 remember where we left off. 21 Q. Okay. Fair enough. So I want to ask you 22 questions about that today. Okay? 23 A. Okay. 24 Q. At what point were you uncertain who Detective 25 Stahnke's partner for the CAT shift was on the 19th? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2576 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1480 1 A. I wasn't uncertain. There was some time where 2 I questioned whether I had the information right, but I 3 believed it was Kevin. 4 Q. And that was based on what? 5 A. My earlier conversation with Detective Stahnke 6 the day before. 7 Q. So that would have been on the 18th, then. 8 Do you remember if that was in the morning or 9 the afternoon? 10 A. It was around 5:15 in the evening. 11 Q. I'm sorry. In the evening? Is that what you 12 said? 13 A. When I talked to Detective Stahnke. 14 Q. And was that as part -- was that part of 15 another CAT shift? 16 A. No. He was detective. He was leaving home -- 17 leaving to go home and I said have a good weekend and he 18 said I'll be back in, working CAT overtime with Kevin 19 tomorrow. 20 Q. Okay. I want to go through the conversation 21 that you had with Officer Waddell the morning of the 22 19th. 23 What is it that you recall, specifically, that 24 he said to you in regards to why he was late? 25 A. Are you talking about via the text? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2577 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1481 1 Q. I'm talking about what he said to you. 2 A. It was just, all our conversation that day, the 3 reason he was late is because he wanted to attend his 4 daughter's dance function, whatever it was. I don't 5 recall if it was a recital or a practice. 6 Q. Okay. And when did this conversation occur? 7 A. It started on the text message, and then when 8 he arrived in the office after I asked him to come in, 9 he repeated the same thing. 10 Q. Okay. And, approximately, what time was that 11 conversation in the office? 12 A. About 11: 20, 11: 30, somewhere around there. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. No. It was later than that because he didn't 15 show up at 11: 30. So it was closer to 11: 40, 11: 50, 16 somewhere in that general area. 17 Q. Okay. And other than the reason, what else did 18 he say to you during that conversation? 19 A. That he had talked with Lieutenant Smith the 20 night before in the locker room and made arrangements to 21 come in late. 22 Q. And by making arrangements, what were the 23 specific arrangements? 24 A. What I had said, that he was going to go to a 25 dance event with his daughter and wanted to come in Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2578 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1482 1 late. I'm not sure what else you're looking for. 2 Q. Okay. No, no. In terms of making 3 arrangements, you said why he wanted to come in late. 4 Are you saying that he told Lieutenant Smith 5 that? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. 8 A. That's what he told me he told Lieutenant 9 Smith. 10 Q. So your testimony is that, in this conversation 11 that you had in the office with Officer Waddell, he told 12 you that the day before, that he spoke with Lieutenant 13 Smith in the locker room and that he had made 14 arrangements with him, that he had wanted to go to this 15 dance recital or practice, or whatever, specifically? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And by making arrangements, other than what he 18 wanted to be late for, did he make arrangements for 19 coverage? Did he make arrangements in terms of flexing 20 his time? What do you mean by making arrangements? 21 A. I meant he had a conversation with Lieutenant 22 Smith, according to him. 23 Q. And last time we spoke, I asked you, I don't 24 know if you remember this or not, if you could remember 25 any of the specific verbiage because, in your memo, you Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2579 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1483 1 didn't attribute any direct quotes to Officer Waddell. 2 Do you remember that line of questioning? 3 A. I remember -- are you talking about the excuse 4 for coming in late and wanting to apologize where I cut 5 him off? 6 Q. No. I'm talking about when I asked you, 7 specifically, what words Officer Waddell had used when 8 he communicated to you what the conversation was with 9 Lieutenant Smith, if you recalled anything specific 10 because you didn't attribute any direct quotes to 11 Officer Waddell. 12 A. I attached the text message conversation to the 13 memo as his attribute -- to attribute whatever words he 14 said so it wouldn't be messed up in translation or 15 anything like that. 16 Q. Okay. So other than the text messages, 17 everything else was paraphrased, right? 18 A. Yes. It was a recount of the text message 19 conversation. 20 Q. Okay. When you spoke with Lieutenant Smith on 21 the telephone, what information did you give him after a 22 conversation with Officer Waddell? 23 A. Just that I didn't need to talk to him anymore, 24 that the problem had been worked out, he said what are 25 you talking about, I said nevermind, Kevin talked to you Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2580 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1484 1 and made arrangements to come in late, and Lieutenant 2 Smith said, no, he didn't. 3 Q. Okay. And then -- 4 A. Then he told me to call Kevin in and let him 5 know that he had been caught, or however you want to say 6 that, that there was an issue and that he would be 7 talking to him soon. 8 Q. He, as in Lieutenant Smith, would be talking to 9 him soon? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. And is this the point where he ordered you to 12 write the memo about the incident? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. When Officer Waddell arrived in your office in 15 response to your request, was that because you called 16 him over the radio? 17 A. Yes. I believe I called him over the radio. 18 Q. Okay. And, I believe, in your -- in your 19 interview with Lieutenant Bledsoe, you had indicated 20 that Officer Waddell would have heard the tone in your 21 voice that you were angry with him? 22 A. No. I said he would not have heard the tone of 23 my voice on the radio. 24 Q. Because you were calm at that point? 25 A. No, I wasn't calm. I was quite upset, but I Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2581 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1485 1 don't make it the business of everybody in the 2 department to hear me get upset with an officer over the 3 radio. 4 Q. Okay. At the point that he walked into your 5 office, by your testimony, you were quite upset, and, in 6 your mind, there was no possibility of miscommunication, 7 right? 8 A. I, personally, didn't believe there was 9 miscommunication. 10 Q. What was the point of calling him into the 11 office if you were not going to listen to an 12 explanation, other than to tell him you were upset? 13 A. That was my only point, to tell him that -- 14 Q. Just to say that you were angry? 15 A. No. To let him know that the gig's up, so to 16 speak, don't say anything else silly, don't talk, don't 17 try to dig yourself out of it, there's an appropriate 18 time and place to do that, and trying to dig yourself 19 out of a hole right now might not be the best idea for 20 you, is what my thoughts were in telling him no. 21 Q. And he was not ordered to write a memo at that 22 point, though, right? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Did you tell him, at that point, that you 25 believed he was a liar? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2582 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1486 1 A. I said I talked to Lieutenant Smith and you 2 didn't have that conversation with him in the locker 3 room, something to that effect. That was the message 4 that was conveyed to Kevin. 5 Q. As in you're dishonest? 6 A. I didn't say you're dishonest, no. 7 Q. What were you inferring then? 8 A. Oh, that he had lied. That was the inference, 9 absolutely. 10 Q. And what was Officer Waddell's reaction to your 11 inference? 12 A. Just same as we talked about last time. He was 13 trying to start talking, said something like, what I 14 meant to say was, or what I meant to -- and that's when 15 I cut him off. 16 Q. Did he ask you to call Lieutenant Smith right 17 then so that the three of you could have a conference 18 call and clear it up? 19 A. I don't remember that coming up. 20 Q. And if he did make that request, what would 21 have been your response? 22 A. I probably would have said no. 23 Q. Why? 24 A. Because it was Lieutenant Smith's day off and 25 he was supposed to be off, with Detective Stahnke Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2583 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1487 1 working. 2 Q. Well, you called him on his day off, right? 3 A. That was for very different circumstances. 4 Q. It was the same circumstance, wasn't it? 5 A. No. It was to find out if the scheduling had 6 been messed up, but it wasn't to argue on the phone 7 whether he lied or not. That wasn't my place. That's 8 not what I was there to do. 9 Q. So you would have denied him the opportunity to 10 squash the incident right there? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Right after Officer Waddell left your office, 13 did you begin typing your memo? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And how long did it take you to complete? 16 A. I don't remember. 17 Q. City's 9 is your memo. 18 A. Okay. 19 Q. It appears to be a two-page document? 20 A. Yes. Not counting the text message 21 conversation. 22 Q. Right. Well, you didn't text those, right? 23 A. No. 24 Q. And you didn't do any other investigation, 25 right, into this memo? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2584 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1488 1 A. I guess, I don't know what you're asking. 2 Q. Well, your memo is just what you heard what 3 just happened, nothing else, right? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. Okay. How long -- after looking at this 6 two-page document, does it refresh your memory as to how 7 long it would have taken you to write this? 8 A. No. I don't recall how -- I don't know. 9 Q. More than ten minutes? 10 A. I would guess. 11 Q. Do you know -- it's dated the 19th. Did you 12 submit it the same date? 13 A. I put it on Lieutenant Smith's desk the same 14 day. He didn't get it until the following Monday or 15 Tuesday, whenever he was back to work. 16 Q. Looking at the second paragraph, and it says on 17 10/ 12/ 13. Is that a typo? 18 A. No. 19 Q. So what happened on 10/ 12? 20 A. That was when he was late to work the first 21 time. 22 Q. Okay. So the 10/ 12 late shift recount starts 23 on the second paragraph and goes, roughly, down this 24 page. 25 Your conversation with Officer Waddell doesn't Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2585 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1489 1 start till, roughly, the second page, right? 2 A. The last paragraph of the first page. 3 Q. Okay. Prior to the 19th, had you documented 4 anything about the 12th? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Okay. So the 12th was the first time that he 7 was late, is what you're saying? 8 A. Well, of what's documented in this memo, yes. 9 Q. Okay. Is there documentation somewhere else 10 about lateness? 11 A. I don't know. 12 Q. Well, from you. 13 A. Not from me. 14 Q. Well, you said first. So -- 15 A. I'm sure we've all been late before. I know 16 I've been late before, but we're talking about these two 17 incidents, right? 18 Q. Well -- 19 A. I don't want to testify that Kevin's never been 20 late to work before because I don't know that. It's 21 been a long time. 22 Q. So when you were interviewed by the 23 investigator on this matter and you were presented with 24 the text messages, those text messages were never 25 actually explained to you in person by Officer Waddell, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2586 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1490 1 right? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Do you have an iPhone? 4 A. I do. 5 Q. Do you have auto correct in your iPhone? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Have you ever experienced when auto correct has 8 changed your intended words -- 9 A. A word, yes. 10 Q. -- to something else? 11 A. A word, yes. 12 Q. A word or a phrase? 13 A. I've never had an entire text message be 14 changed from what it was meant to be to something else, 15 no. 16 Q. Well, what -- 17 A. But I've had words be changed. 18 Q. Words. 19 Generally speaking, is it your practice to have 20 perfect punctuation in text messages? 21 A. It depends on who I'm talking to. 22 Q. Can I have you look at Department's 10? 23 A. Okay. 24 Q. These are the text messages that you took a 25 screen shot of? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2587 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1491 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. So the time at the top says 12: 14 p.m. Do you 3 see that? 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Which page are we looking 5 at? Page 2? 6 MS. CASTILLO: Department's Exhibit 10. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Page 2 or Page 1, or does 8 it matter? 9 MS. CASTILLO: The first page. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Oh, you're not talking 11 about the time of the message, you're talking about 12 what's at the top where it says AT&T? 13 MS. CASTILLO: Correct. 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 15 THE WITNESS: Yes. 16 BY MS. CASTILLO: 17 Q. Okay. And so you took a screen shot of this, 18 and then what? E-mailed it to yourself? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. As Exhibit A to your memo, right? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. So would 12: 14 p.m. be about the time you were 23 writing your memo? 24 A. That's the time I took the screen shot. 25 Q. My question was, is that about the time you Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2588 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1492 1 were preparing your memo or is that -- 2 A. It would be, roughly, that time. 3 Q. Okay. So I see in City's 9, which is your 4 memo, you don't go into the content of the text message 5 because the text message speaks for itself; is that -- 6 that's what you've testified to, right? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Okay. You write in the fourth paragraph of 9 your memo that, approximately, 11: 05 hours, you went to 10 find Officer Waddell and you could not. 11 You, also, were unable to locate his car in the 12 parking lot, right? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. Okay. And that's because the shift started at 15 11: 00, right? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Okay. And this is where you were looking for 18 him in the hallway, right, or in the locker room? Where 19 were you looking for him? 20 A. Yes. I walked down the hallway to check the 21 schedule and he wasn't there. 22 Q. Okay. So you walked down the hallway, checked 23 the schedule and he wasn't there. 24 Did you go look for his car in the parking lot 25 before you found Detective Stahnke, or after? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2589 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1493 1 A. I don't remember. 2 Q. Okay. 3 A. You can look out the window right next to my 4 office and you can see out there. So it's not like I 5 went out to the parking lot and scoured the big, huge 6 parking lot. So I'm not sure if it was right before or 7 after I talked to Stahnke. 8 Q. Okay. Got you. 9 Is your memo written chronologically, do you 10 think? 11 A. Yeah. 12 Q. Okay. All right. Now, Detective Stahnke, on 13 Page 2 of your memo, says that he had received a text 14 from Officer Waddell, advising he was going to be 30 15 minutes late, right? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. Did you ever see that text message? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Did you ever ask what time that text was sent? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Do you have any idea what time that text was 22 sent? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Do you know if that text message was sent the 25 day before, on the 18th? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2590 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1494 1 A. I don't know. 2 Q. Okay. And then you have your conversation with 3 Officer Waddell at 11: 40 in your office, right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Why do you know it's 11: 40 at that point? 6 A. Because that's when he got to work and just the 7 chron -- the chronology of how everything happened. I 8 mean, it may have been two minutes before, two minutes 9 after. 10 Q. Okay. So -- now -- okay. When you had the -- 11 I'm sorry. 12 Okay. Were you -- you had indicated that you 13 were planning on discussing Officer Waddell's tardiness 14 from the 12th on the 19th already, right? 15 A. Correct. I was going to. 16 Q. And was that because you were instructed to do 17 so? 18 A. I had a conversation with Lieutenant Smith 19 about it where I informed him I was going to -- we 20 talked about it and, at the end of the meeting, I told 21 him I was going to have that conversation. 22 Q. And when did that occur? 23 A. In passing, sometime the week before. 24 Q. So was it a meeting or was it in passing? 25 A. It was a quick -- I was walking by his office Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2591 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1495 1 and saw he was there and wanted to touch base with him. 2 So I stuck my head in the door and said, hey, by the 3 way, this is what's going on. It wasn't a formal 4 scheduled meeting. 5 Q. How late was Officer Waddell on the 11th? 6 A. Ten, fifteen minutes with he finally got there, 7 something like that. 8 MR. PALMER: Objection. Misstates testimony. 9 11th or 12th? Unless I heard something wrong. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Which one? Do we know? 11 THE WITNESS: We're talking about the 12th 12 right now. 13 BY MS. CASTILLO: 14 Q. We're talking about the 12th? 15 A. Yes. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Thank you. 17 BY MS. CASTILLO: 18 Q. And your earlier testimony was this was the 19 first time it had happened, right? 20 MR. PALMER: Objection. Misstates testimony. 21 BY MS. CASTILLO: 22 Q. Well, the first time you had witnessed it or 23 wanted to bring it up, right? 24 A. That was the fist one documented in this memo. 25 Kevin had been late prior, but it was not documented. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2592 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1496 1 Q. How many times? 2 A. I can think of one time prior to this one, that 3 I'm aware of. 4 Q. When was that? 5 A. Within weeks prior to this. 6 Q. Okay. And so when you talked to Lieutenant 7 Smith in passing and you wanted to bring up the lateness 8 on the 19th, why didn't you document the two times? 9 A. I didn't bring up the lateness on the 19th when 10 I met with him prior. That hadn't happened yet. 11 Q. Right. So when you were going to meet with him 12 on the 19th about the 12th, why didn't you bring up the 13 second time -- or why didn't you document the second 14 time or the first time? 15 A. The first time didn't seem like that big a 16 deal, to me. He was running late, had what seemed like 17 a valid excuse. When he showed up, it wasn't keeping 18 another officer waiting. So we had a quick word about 19 it and that was it. I don't document on paper every 20 time someone does something bone-headed. It's a 21 technical police term. 22 Q. What was the excuse the first time? 23 A. That he had forgotten to get gas. 24 Q. And so what was his excuse on the 12th? 25 A. I'm sorry. The 12th was the gas. The one Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2593 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1497 1 before that, I forget what it was. I don't even know if 2 he gave an excuse. 3 Q. Okay. When you talked to Smith in passing 4 about the one late issue you wanted to address, did you 5 also bring up the one or two movie-watching issues? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And why didn't you document those then, as 8 well? 9 A. My conversation with Lieutenant Smith was let's 10 just have a talk with him and see how that goes. 11 Q. So did you ever have that talk then? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Okay. But you ended up documenting the 12th 14 late here. 15 A. Right. 16 Q. So just the other stuff you just chose not to 17 document then, right? 18 A. I guess not. 19 Q. Okay. And those -- so at this point in 20 October, you've now been a sergeant for how long? 21 A. About ten months. 22 Q. Ten months. And in this time period, have you 23 been doing the same kind of procedure with going to 24 Lieutenant Smith every time you notice other officers 25 occasionally being late or doing other bone- headed Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2594 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1498 1 things and then wanting to document them and/or have 2 conversations? 3 A. I'm not sure I understand your question. 4 Q. Well, in this ten-month time period, surely, 5 there were other officers that you must have noticed had 6 been late one time before. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Okay. And had you had conversations with them? 9 A. Well, verbal conversations and write-ups. 10 Q. So you've written other officers up for being 11 late in this ten-month time period? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And was it after one time or two times being 14 late? 15 A. The one write-up I'm thinking of right now was 16 the first time they were late. 17 Q. Anyone else that you had issues with for 18 movie-watching or lack of productivity -- 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. -- or proactiveness? 21 And these were all reported to Lieutenant Smith 22 or other lieutenants? 23 A. They would have been -- I believe, just -- 24 excuse me. I believe, Lieutenant Smith, but they 25 weren't all reported. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2595 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1499 1 Q. And why Lieutenant Smith? Were they all CAT 2 officers? 3 A. No. He was the day watch lieutenant when I was 4 assigned to day watch. 5 Q. Were they all day watch officers? 6 A. No. For the first few months of my promotion, 7 it was on night watch, and he was the night watch 8 lieutenant then. 9 Q. So they were night -- 10 A. We rotated every four months. So the first 11 four months of October, I was working nights with 12 Lieutenant Smith as a night watch commander, and then 13 in -- after the first four months, we rotated to days. 14 Actually, I take that back. We did two 15 rotations in nights and rotated days together. So it 16 just happened to be Lieutenant Smith was my lieutenant 17 during the first ten months of being promoted. 18 Q. In this other write-up that you issued after 19 the first time, was that for only a 10 or 15-minute 20 lateness, as well? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Was it much longer? 23 A. After about 30 minutes, I made a phone call. 24 Q. What was your reasoning for wanting to have the 25 CAT shifts reassigned from Officer Waddell? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2596 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1500 1 A. Lack of productivity. 2 Q. That's the only reason? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Did you ever talk to any of the other 5 sergeants, who happened to supervise the CAT officers, 6 about the productivity of the officers? 7 A. I'm sure we probably did. I don't recall any 8 specific conversations, though. 9 Q. Do you recall any specific conversations about 10 Officer Waddell's lack of productivity? 11 A. I don't. 12 Q. Can you look at Appellant's Exhibit F, please? 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: F, you said? 14 MS. CASTILLO: Yes, F. Am I talking too quiet? 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: How are you? Are you 16 hearing her okay? 17 THE COURT REPORTER: Yeah. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 19 THE WITNESS: Okay. 20 BY MS. CASTILLO: 21 Q. It's a sketch -- 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. -- that Lieutenant Smith drew for us of a CAT 24 overtime sign-up sheet. 25 Does this, kind of, look like what would be Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2597 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1501 1 posted? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Okay. The CAT sheet for the 19th that was 4 blank, at the point, where you went out to the hallway 5 to check the overtime sheet, did it look like this or 6 did it look like a typed sheet? 7 A. It was typed. Well, the form is typed, and 8 then officers handwrite in their names. 9 Q. Okay. The sheets that -- or the e-mails that 10 go out where the officers are assigned after people sign 11 up, right, do those ever get posted anywhere? 12 A. I think we were posting them. 13 Q. Where would those have been posted? 14 A. Well, I think, initially, this goes out in the 15 hall and everybody can sign up on it and Lieutenant 16 Smith was pulling this one with the officers' 17 handwritten names in and he was posting with the dates 18 and who, actually, was assigned. 19 Q. Okay. So the actual e-mail was getting posted 20 then? 21 A. No. The e-mail was going out to the officers, 22 but the sign-up sheet was usually in the hall. That's 23 where I went to look for it. 24 Q. Okay. Right. So this is the sign-up sheet, 25 right? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2598 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1502 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. And then the assigned e-mail goes out, right? 3 A. To the officers, yes. 4 Q. Okay. Is there, then, a third document that is 5 a sheet that has who is assigned that is, basically, the 6 same as what's in the e-mail, but it's posted? 7 A. No. They would get put in the schedule. 8 Q. Just in the computer schedule then? 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. What's that called, again? SpeedShift? 11 A. SpeedShift. 12 Q. But that's not posted, that's in the computer, 13 right? 14 A. SpeedShift is just in the computer. 15 Q. So this hallway document that you would have 16 gone to look for would have been a sign-up sheet? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. After these are assigned, the sign-up sheets 19 that have all the people who originally signed up but 20 that didn't get assigned, do they go back on the wall? 21 A. I have no idea what you just asked. Sorry. 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: Try it again. 23 BY MS. CASTILLO: 24 Q. So the sign-up sheet where the officers -- two 25 officers, four officers, no officers -- Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2599 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1503 1 A. Okay. 2 Q. -- after they sign up or don't sign up and then 3 Lieutenant Smith takes it down, types his e-mail of who 4 he picks, puts his schedule, also, into SpeedShift? 5 A. Generally, that would stay on the board after 6 he was done. Sometimes it didn't, but, generally, it 7 would. 8 Q. He then takes this back -- 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. -- and puts it back up? 11 A. Yeah. And, that way, officers -- if somebody 12 can't work or something changed and they say, hey, I 13 can't work this one that I signed up for that I was 14 given, he can look at that one and say, hey, do you want 15 this for this day, I can't make it, afterall. 16 Q. Okay. But this sheet, right, which is the -- 17 where people sign in, is not the final, right? 18 So would Lieutenant Smith have circled who got 19 the overtime or put a star by their name? I mean, how 20 would you know who won the overtime spot? 21 A. When you got the e-mail. 22 Q. Okay. So then this -- 23 A. And sometimes officers come up and cross their 24 name out because, hey, I thought I was going to work 25 this and I can't work it now. So they cross it out and Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2600 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1504 1 consider it not there. 2 Q. Okay. So the -- but the -- okay. 3 How far in advance did the shifts get posted? 4 A. Usually, just shortly before the beginning of 5 the month. 6 Q. And you confirmed, via this sign-up sheet, that 7 Officer Waddell was, indeed, working, you sent him the 8 text message, and then you saw Stahnke confirmed all 9 this? 10 A. No. He was not on the sign-up sheet. It was 11 blank for the 19th and it was blank on SpeedShift. 12 That's why I put the call in to Lieutenant Smith, to 13 begin with. 14 Q. Is that what you remember today? 15 A. I'm sorry. I'm reading. 16 Q. Yeah. 17 A. I'm reading from the 12th. 18 Q. What are you doing? 19 A. I'm sitting here, looking at the 12th. 20 Q. How are you -- okay. 21 So what is your recollection of the 19th? 22 A. That he wasn't there and that Stahnke said he 23 was going to be there. 24 Q. Okay. Right, but I'm talking about the sign-up 25 sheet. You said you're reading. What were you reading? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2601 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1505 1 A. Just now, I was reading the memo from the 12th. 2 Q. And, today, you're saying that it was blank, 3 right? 4 A. For the 12th. 5 Q. Now, just -- actually, I have a few more 6 questions. 7 Just looking at 10, Department's 10 -- 8 A. The text messages? 9 Q. Correct. You're the dark gray bubbles, right? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. Your fourth bubble says, "That made no sense. 12 Stop by when you get here." 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. That's when you ask him for the clarification, 15 right? 16 A. No. I said, "That made no sense. Stop by when 17 you get here." I didn't ask him for any clarification. 18 When he got there, I was anticipating some 19 clarification. 20 Q. Okay. So "stop by when you get here" was when 21 you were anticipating further clarification, right? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. Because you did not understand his first text 24 message, right? 25 A. Correct. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2602 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1506 1 Q. And then he sent you one more text message, 2 right? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. The -- you just testified that after Smith 5 would formalize who works CAT and then repost this with 6 Appellant's F, if someone can't work it or crosses their 7 name off, is it then up to the officers to work out, 8 amongst themselves, if something changes with the extra 9 people? 10 A. Like, the day before? 11 Q. I mean -- 12 A. Usually, in advance, there's nothing written 13 down, but, typically, a week before I had signed up for 14 an overtime shift, if I can't make it, I'll find a 15 replacement and say to Lieutenant Smith I can't make it, 16 but Officer Kemp is going to cover for me and is it okay 17 if we switch names, sure, no problem, let's switch the 18 name out. 19 Q. In SpeedShift? 20 A. On the sign-up -- yeah, in SpeedShift. 21 Q. What happens if it's the day before? 22 A. Then, usually, you would have to call the watch 23 commander and say, hey, I'm not going to be in tomorrow, 24 something came up, I've got a family emergency, or 25 whatever the case may be. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2603 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1507 1 Q. And the watch commander changes it in 2 SpeedShift? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. What if it's sooner than that? What's the 5 protocol then? 6 A. Either way, once it's in SpeedShift, it's an 7 assigned shift, it's an assigned overtime shift. So if 8 you can't work it, you have to go through the formal 9 process. 10 Q. Well, I think that's what I'm getting at. What 11 is the normal process? 12 A. You need to notify whoever is on duty that day. 13 If it's far enough in advance, you can just walk in to 14 Lieutenant Smith and say, hey, boss, I can't make this 15 day, I'm really sorry, can I get out of it, and, most of 16 the time, they'll say, yeah, sure, I have a bunch of 17 other names I can call and I'll make arrangements. 18 Q. Right. Because it's overtime, right? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. Everyone wants it? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. But if it's not far enough in advance... 23 A. Then you call the on-duty supervisor and make 24 arrangements. 25 Q. Okay. And that's for coverage, right? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2604 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1508 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. And you're not aware of any times when the 3 officers would just make coverage arrangements between 4 themselves? 5 A. And not tell anybody? 6 Q. Yeah. 7 A. Um, I'm not aware of any. I'm not going to say 8 it's never happened, but I'm not aware of any. 9 Q. Okay. Prior to your supervision of Officer 10 Waddell, how much time had you spent working with him 11 previously? 12 A. Not a lot. 13 Q. Not a lot? 14 A. No. Just S.W.A.T. team training days, and 15 prior to -- prior to that, not much. I think I had, 16 maybe, two rotations while we were working on the same 17 end-of-the-week nights, but he was assigned downtown and 18 I was patrol. 19 Q. And it was only when you became his supervisor 20 that you then had these issues with him, correct? 21 A. I didn't have issues because he wasn't mine to 22 have issues with prior to that, correct. 23 Q. You testified previously that you knew that the 24 lieutenants were aware of the Bentley incident and 25 didn't do anything with the information at the time, but Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2605 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1509 1 then, later, it came back up, right? 2 A. That's my understanding. 3 Q. Okay. And it came back up after the texting IA 4 when Officer Waddell was put on administrative leave, 5 right? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And do you know how that occurred? 8 A. Are you talking about my conversation with 9 Captain Storton? 10 Q. Is that how it came back up? 11 A. That's -- well, that's when I was aware it came 12 back up. 13 Q. Okay. Can you explain that? 14 A. It's the same as what we talked about before. 15 Captain Storton asked me if there would be any reason 16 that Kevin would be nervous around me, if I had 17 disciplined him prior, and he wanted to know about a 18 prior discipline issue. So I asked if he was referring 19 about the Bentley, and he said, tell me about that. 20 Q. What do you mean nervous around you? That's 21 what -- Captain Storton asked you if Kevin would have a 22 reason to be nervous around you? 23 A. Correct. Something to that. I don't know if 24 that's the exact words he used, but that was the implied 25 question. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2606 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1510 1 Q. And were you called into Captain Storton's 2 office for this? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And, at that point, you said, are you talking 5 about the Bentley incident? 6 A. Something to that effect, yes. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'm sorry. Do we have a 8 time frame for this? I don't know if you asked a 9 question already, or, if not, I'm asking. 10 When did this interview occur? This is with 11 Captain Storton. 12 THE WITNESS: Yes. Between -- I would say 13 early December, if I recall correctly. 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: December 2013, around 15 then? 16 THE WITNESS: Yes. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 18 THE WITNESS: Sorry. I thought you meant the 19 time frame for how much longer we were going to be 20 asking questions. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: No. I can understand why 22 one might ask that, since I'm constantly bringing that 23 up; although, I am thinking of a potty break here. Is 24 that okay? 25 MS. CASTILLO: Yeah. We can take a break. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2607 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1511 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: So why don't we take five 2 or ten. 3 (Recess.) 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: So we're back on the 5 record and, Ms. Castillo, you still have the floor. 6 MS. CASTILLO: Okay. Thank you. 7 BY MS. CASTILLO: 8 Q. Okay. We were just talking about your 9 conversation with Captain Storton. Okay. This was 10 after Officer Waddell was placed on administrative 11 leave. 12 If I told you that was the 12th of December, 13 would that refresh your recollection? 14 A. Sounds about right. 15 Q. Okay. So it would have been after that? 16 A. I think I said in December. 17 Q. So, after that, do you have any kind of time 18 frame after that, approximately, when you were called 19 in? 20 A. I don't. 21 Q. Okay. And he asked you had you ever 22 disciplined him, was he nervous about you -- or around 23 you and you said are you talking about the Bentley 24 incident. 25 Why didn't you bring up, you know, when you had Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2608 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1512 1 caught him watching movies or being late or anything 2 like that? Why did you immediately go to the Bentley, 3 which you thought was a joke? 4 A. I thought that's what he was talking about. 5 Q. Well, why? 6 A. I guess, because he had been out and people 7 were starting to wonder why, nobody was talking and 8 there were a lot of officers present during that and 9 that -- in my mind, that's probably something that was 10 brought to his attention and he wanted to hear about it, 11 either that or the lieutenants told him about it, is 12 what I assumed. 13 Q. But you knew he was out -- 14 A. But I don't know why he brought... 15 Q. But you knew he was out on administrative leave 16 because you had reported that he had lied to you and 17 Lieutenant Smith about having preexisting permission, 18 right? 19 A. I knew that's why he was out. 20 Q. So you just assumed he was speaking about 21 something from almost a whole year before that had never 22 been talked about in the department, ever? 23 A. Yes. That's what I thought he was talking 24 about. 25 Q. And do you know how Captain Storton was made Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2609 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1513 1 aware of the Bentley incident? Because you just stated 2 that the lieutenant asked you about it, obviously. 3 A. I don't know, for sure, how he became aware of 4 it. 5 Q. How do you think? 6 A. Either from the lieutenants or from me or other 7 officers talking to him. 8 Q. And you say, "from me." Would that have been 9 the first time you would have brought it up to Captain 10 Storton? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Did you have any knowledge of whether or not 13 Lieutenant Smith brought it up to Captain Storton prior 14 to your conversation with him? 15 A. I don't know who talked to him about it, if 16 anyone, prior to me bringing it up. 17 Q. Did you ever have a conversation with Captain 18 Staley about it? 19 A. Not -- no. 20 Q. Okay. And so when he said is this about -- you 21 said is this about the Bentley incident, did he say yes, 22 or did he just say, no, I'm asking you about discipline 23 and nervousness? 24 MR. PALMER: Objection. Asked and answered. 25 /// Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2610 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1514 1 BY MS. CASTILLO: 2 Q. Well, because you asked him -- I can withdraw 3 that. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'll let him -- all 5 right. Go ahead. 6 BY MS. CASTILLO: 7 Q. You asked him a question in response to his 8 question? Is that what happened? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. So what was his response to you? 11 A. It was something to the effect of tell me about 12 that. 13 Q. And what did he tell you -- or what did you 14 tell him? Sorry. 15 A. Everything we've already talked about. I 16 rehashed the entire Bentley incident. 17 Q. And at the time that you did this, did you get 18 the impression that he was aware of it? 19 A. I didn't know one way or another. 20 Q. Did he ask you questions or just let you give a 21 narrative? 22 A. I think he asked a couple, few questions, but I 23 don't recall what they were. I think just a couple 24 clarifying stuff, if I remember correctly. 25 Q. So after you told him about the Bentley Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2611 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1515 1 incident, did he go back to his original question where 2 he had asked you about previous discipline on Officer 3 Waddell, any other time you made him nervous, and say, 4 okay, other than this Bentley incident? 5 A. I don't believe so. 6 Q. Did you ever get the impression that you made 7 Officer Waddell nervous? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Did you ever communicate that to any of the 10 lieutenants? 11 A. That I made him nervous? 12 Q. Right. 13 A. I don't know how that would have come up. 14 Q. Okay. So when -- 15 A. No. I don't believe I did, unless -- no. Not 16 to my knowledge. 17 Q. Did you ask Captain Storton why he was asking 18 about the nervousness? 19 A. Yeah. The crux of this whole conversation was 20 when Kevin told you that he had permission previously, 21 was that a mistake of the mind or the heart? Did he 22 intentionally lie to you because he feared that you were 23 going to get him in some huge amount of trouble because 24 of some prior incident you guys had, or what, is the way 25 I took it. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2612 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1516 1 Q. Okay. So when you were called in by Captain 2 Storton, he initially started off the conversation to 3 ask you about the texting conversation or the -- the 4 lateness issue between you, Smith and Officer Waddell? 5 A. I think that was what motivated him to call me 6 in, but we didn't discuss that issue. 7 Q. Start from the beginning. 8 A. It was a, hey, this -- we're going into the -- 9 kind of the penalty phase of this investigation and I'm 10 looking to see if you ever had any prior issues with 11 Kevin. 12 So, I guess, we -- the conversation was 13 prompted by the texting, but we didn't discuss the 14 details of the texting, if that makes sense. 15 Q. Okay. Prior issues with Kevin. So as in kind 16 of a history of animosity or hostility or something like 17 that? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. And you say no, correct? 20 A. Yes, that's correct. 21 Q. And did he ask you about a history of integrity 22 problems at that point? 23 A. He might have, but I don't recall that. 24 Q. You don't -- as you sit here today, you 25 don't -- Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2613 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1517 1 A. No. 2 Q. You remember the other, but not that? 3 A. Yeah. That's not something that made a lasting 4 impression in that conversation. 5 Q. Okay. Then -- then the impression you got 6 is -- so he says we're coming into the penalty phase and 7 something to the effect of I want to understand if this 8 was a mistake of the mind or of the heart? 9 A. That's -- like I said before, that's not what 10 he said, but that's the way I took his questioning, is 11 we're trying to figure out what happened. 12 Q. Okay. 13 A. Or why it happened. 14 Q. Okay. And then, at that point, he's asking if 15 he feared you, or something like that? I wrote that 16 down, but I don't know if that's what I wrote or if -- 17 is that something you said? 18 A. He asked if we had any prior issues. I don't 19 remember if he said or I said was Kevin -- does Kevin 20 fear you. I don't think that's something he would have 21 said. 22 Q. Okay. And so he's asking you what and why it 23 happened and so can you -- can you kind of relay exactly 24 how he asks you this? 25 MR. PALMER: Objection. Asked and answered. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2614 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1518 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah. Let's move on to 2 something else. 3 BY MS. CASTILLO: 4 Q. So your response is, I believe the Bentley, and 5 that's what then happens, right? 6 MR. PALMER: Objection. Unintelligible. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Do you understand the 8 question? 9 THE WITNESS: No. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Let's try it again. 11 BY MS. CASTILLO: 12 Q. So he asks you what and why and that's what you 13 believe was the motivation. I'm just kind of recapping 14 to make sure I get the timing right. 15 And then he goes, well, I'm just -- prior 16 issues and then you say are you asking about the 17 Bentley, right? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. Okay. Now, you were not interviewed about this 20 texting IA by Captain Storton, right? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. You were interviewed by -- 23 A. By Lieutenant Bledsoe. 24 Q. Right. Twice, right? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2615 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1519 1 Q. At any point in those interviews, do you 2 remember being asked those kinds of questions by 3 Lieutenant Bledsoe what -- 4 MR. PALMER: Objection. Vague what kind of 5 questions. 6 MS. CASTILLO: The motivation. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Do you understand? 8 THE WITNESS: I don't believe Lieutenant 9 Bledsoe asked me about his motivation. 10 BY MS. CASTILLO: 11 Q. Or prior issues? 12 A. I don't believe he did. He was specific to the 13 texting issue. 14 Q. Okay. And this wasn't recorded, right, this 15 meeting with Captain Storton? 16 A. I believe it was. 17 Q. You believe it was? 18 A. I think. I don't know. I believe it was, 19 though. 20 Q. Did you see a recorder on the table? 21 A. Yeah. I don't know if it malfunctioned or not, 22 but... 23 Q. Well, and he told you he was recording? 24 MR. PALMER: Objection. Pronoun, "he," vague. 25 MS. CASTILLO: Captain Storton. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2616 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1520 1 THE WITNESS: Captain Storton never recorded 2 anything. We were talking about Lieutenant Bledsoe and 3 my IA review. 4 MS. CASTILLO: No. I'm sorry. I was talking 5 about Captain Storton. 6 MR. PALMER: I'm going to interpose an 7 objection to most of this line of questioning is asked 8 and answered and I don't know what the goal is. Is it 9 to ask him the same question a different way the 40th 10 time and hope we get a different answer? 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: So where are we going 12 with this, Ms. Castillo? 13 MS. CASTILLO: Well, we're -- I'm asking not 14 about Lieutenant Bledsoe, at all. So I think we're on a 15 different page. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: You're asking about... 17 MS. CASTILLO: Captain Storton's conversation 18 with him in his office. So if we're on a different 19 page -- 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: Let's see if we can, 21 perhaps, dispose of this line of questioning sooner 22 rather than later, but go ahead. 23 BY MS. CASTILLO: 24 Q. Was there a recorder on the table with you and 25 Captain Storton? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2617 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1521 1 A. No, there was not. 2 Q. Okay. That clears up the last five questions. 3 I apologize. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yay. 5 MS. CASTILLO: And I'm almost done anyways. I 6 can be done. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: So ready for 8 cross-examination? 9 MR. PALMER: Yes. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. Go ahead. 11 12 CROSS-EXAMINATION 13 BY MR. PALMER: 14 Q. Good morning, Sergeant. 15 A. Good morning. 16 Q. Do you recall the line of questioning 17 Ms. Castillo had with you about her suggestion that you 18 and Mr. Waddell and Lieutenant Smith get on the phone on 19 October 19th and try to hash this out? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And you said that you would have denied him 22 that opportunity if that had been his request? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And you said that because Lieutenant Smith was 25 off duty, there's no reason to bother him at home while Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2618 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1522 1 he was off duty for that type of conversation? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. Would it have also been in your mind that there 4 could be a potential Public Safety Officers Procedural 5 Bill of Rights violation doing something like that? 6 A. Yes. Absolutely. That's what I testified to 7 last time. 8 Q. Because was it in your mind at that point in 9 time that Mr. Waddell had, at least, in your mind, 10 committed potential misconduct? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And do you think getting on the phone with 13 Lieutenant Smith would have, invariably, led to a round 14 of questioning? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Would that have been violative of the Public 17 Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. You said you -- you said whether or not you 20 have always tried to have perfect punctuation in text 21 messages depends on who I'm talking to? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. What did you mean by that? 24 A. My text to my brother and wife get fairly 25 sloppy. If I'm talking to one of the captains via text, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2619 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1523 1 I try to be a little more professional. 2 Q. Would it also be safe to say that if you're 3 talking or texting with somebody about a serious matter, 4 you try to be more careful, as well? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. When Mr. Waddell text you, was he texting you 7 as his supervisor? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Exhibit 10, since we're talking about texting. 10 A. Okay. 11 Q. The first text from Mr. Waddell in response to 12 yours did not make sense to you, correct? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. Okay. Do you know if the reason it didn't make 15 sense to you is because of the way Mr. Waddell typed it 16 or was it because of auto correct? 17 A. I don't know. 18 Q. I'm trying to break down these words. "Yes," 19 period, "sorry" -- excuse me -- "sorry," period. 20 Is there any ambiguity or vagueness in that 21 part of his response? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Okay. "I have worked out ahead of one with" -- 24 and that -- do you interpret the next word to be -- set 25 of letters to be LT? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2620 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1524 1 A. I do now. When I first saw it, I thought it 2 was -- 3 MS. CASTILLO: Objection. Relevance. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Overruled. You can 5 answer. 6 THE WITNESS: I do now. When I first read 7 this, I thought it was the word, it, and not the 8 abbreviation for lieutenant. 9 BY MR. PALMER: 10 Q. Okay. Fair enough. So "with it Smith" is the 11 way you interpreted it when it first came in? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. Did that make any sense to you? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Okay. "I'm on the way in now." That's clear 16 and unambiguous? 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. The second text from Mr. Waddell, you have to 19 go to the second page to get the entire thing of Exhibit 20 10? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Is there any ambiguity there? 23 A. No. 24 Q. In terms of how you interpreted it the day you 25 received it, were you clear and unambiguous as to what Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2621 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1525 1 it meant? 2 A. I was. 3 Q. Do you think there was any influence, at all, 4 possibly, in his second text message, any auto correct 5 influence in that message? 6 A. No. 7 Q. The issue of Mr. Waddell's lateness on October 8 12th was discussed between you and Ms. Castillo. Do you 9 recall that? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. Did his lateness -- actually, let me go 12 back and come back in. 13 Part of October 12th was he was late upon 14 arriving for his shift, correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Did he also leave early from his shift? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Okay. Did the October 12th thing, his lateness 19 and leaving early, become an event which required 20 documentation only because of the October 19th event? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Until the October 19th event occurred, would 23 the October 12th event ever have required documentation, 24 in your mind? 25 A. It depended on the officer, but in this case, I Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2622 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1526 1 would -- obviously, I did not, and no. 2 Q. Okay. When you say dependent upon the officer, 3 do you mean, by that, that it depended upon how 4 Mr. Waddell reacted to you on October 19th, had you been 5 able to have the conversation with him about October 6 12th? 7 A. In part. Part of it would have been that, but 8 also coupled with was this the fourth time in the last 9 month he had been tardy to work. 10 Q. Okay. Prior to -- let's forget the October 11 19th part of this event. Okay? 12 A. Okay. 13 Q. So you're on duty as you normally were on 14 October 19th, you were planning to have this 15 conversation with him when he came in on October 19th 16 about the October 12th event. You with me so far? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Had he been on time that day, would you have 19 had that conversation with him? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Let's imagine that he responded positively to 22 your conversation. Okay? 23 A. Okay. 24 Q. At that point, would you have felt any need to 25 document it? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2623 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1527 1 A. No. 2 MR. PALMER: Nothing further. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: Anything on redirect? 4 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 5 6 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 7 BY MS. CASTILLO: 8 Q. Your testimony was that you did not want to 9 participate in a conference call with your lieutenant 10 and yourself and Officer Waddell at Officer Waddell's 11 request because of potential POBAR issues because you 12 suspected that he had committed misconduct, right? 13 MR. PALMER: Objection. Misstates the 14 evidence. 15 BY MS. CASTILLO: 16 Q. I'm sorry. What was -- 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, it is what it is. 18 If you have a correction to what she said, you can say 19 it. Otherwise -- 20 BY MS. CASTILLO: 21 Q. What was your reason? 22 A. That it was definitely, potentially, punitive 23 and I was trying to protect Kevin from saying something 24 stupid. 25 Q. Even if he wanted to -- Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2624 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1528 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. -- have that conversation? 3 But back in February, you called him into your 4 office and let him have it. I think the words was chew 5 his ass on the Bentley matter, right? 6 A. We talked about the Bentley issue, yes. 7 Q. You chewed his ass, right? 8 A. Sure. 9 Q. And he had a conversation with you then, right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And he responded and said all kinds of things 12 in response to your questions, right, and statements, 13 right? 14 A. No. I told him -- no. 15 Q. No? You didn't have a conversation or you did? 16 A. We had a conversation. We didn't talk about 17 all kinds of things. 18 Q. Well, what did you talk about? 19 A. I told him the ramifications of the actions and 20 how disappointed I was with him. 21 Q. Okay. And you suspected him of misconduct 22 then, as well as, right? 23 A. I didn't know. 24 Q. You didn't know? 25 A. I didn't believe so that night. Obviously, it Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2625 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1529 1 was improper, but I didn't anticipate it becoming 2 something that was potentially punitive after that. 3 Q. You didn't? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. Ramifications and improper, but you didn't 6 think there could be potential punitive action arising 7 from what happened? 8 A. Not that night, no. 9 Q. Oh, not that night? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. But maybe later? 12 A. Well, now I believe there's -- it's, obviously, 13 punitive. 14 Q. Well, as you sit here today, right? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. So back to the texting questions of 17 Mr. Palmer's, you agreed that you are a little more 18 professional when you text message with your captain, 19 right? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. There's not really anything unprofessional in 22 these text messages, is there, in terms of language and 23 tone, right? 24 A. No. 25 Q. So what we're talking about is words and Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2626 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1530 1 punctuation that are at issue here, right? 2 A. Yes. When you asked before, you said 3 punctuation. So I took that to mean misspelled words. 4 Q. Well, we have the issue of one and it versus 5 lieutenant, right? There was a couple of issues, 6 correct? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. Okay. But what you did not -- you had 9 confusion with text one of Kevin's, correct? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. But with text two, in your mind, on that 12 day, there was no ambiguity, whatsoever, right? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. There was with text one, however, right? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. So half of your conversation you didn't 17 understand, fair? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. Did you know what Kevin was doing on the other 20 end of that conversation as he was texting you? 21 A. No idea. 22 Q. Did you know if he was multitasking, in any 23 way? 24 A. I don't have any idea what he was doing. 25 Q. Is there a reason you didn't call him versus Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2627 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1531 1 texting him? 2 A. No. 3 Q. You just said something about the fourth 4 wouldn't have required documentation -- I'm sorry. 5 The 12th wouldn't have required documentation 6 for his lateness, and then you said something about it 7 being the fourth time in the last month with him being 8 late to work? 9 A. No, that's not what I said. 10 Q. That's why -- I don't understand what you said. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: So let's clarify that. 12 THE WITNESS: Mr. Palmer asked when would I 13 document something like that or why wouldn't I document 14 that, and my explanation was, if it's an employee 15 problem, if this is becoming a progressive problem and 16 he's doing it every other day, then, obviously, there's 17 going to be documentation of that, but one time in a 18 series of months with a valid excuse and positive 19 response to my questioning would not require written 20 documentation. 21 BY MS. CASTILLO: 22 Q. Okay. So then why did you document the 12th in 23 your memo about the texting? Why not just write your 24 memo about the conversation regarding the text message? 25 A. Because it was an ongoing problem at this point Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2628 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1532 1 and Lieutenant Smith asked me to. 2 Q. Lieutenant Smith, when he asked you to write 3 the memo, also asked you to document the lateness? 4 A. Yes. It was part of our conversation. 5 Q. But you only did that one time, right? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. And this ongoing problem was only the problem 8 that you had noticed. 9 Other than the conversation that you had with 10 Officer Waddell and the conversation that you had with 11 Lieutenant Smith and then attaching your text messages 12 and then him asking you to also document the lateness, 13 was there anything else he asked you to include in your 14 memorandum? 15 A. Not that I recall. 16 Q. If he left early on the 12th, did you call him 17 to come back? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Why not? 20 A. Because it was quarter till, if I recall 21 correctly. What am I going to do? Call him back for 15 22 minutes? By the time he got back and dressed out, it 23 would be 20 after. 24 Q. And do you know why he was late -- I mean, why 25 he left early? Do you know anything about that? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2629 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1533 1 A. I believe it was childcare issues. 2 Q. What do you mean you believe? 3 A. I believe Officer Inglehart told me it was 4 childcare issues. 5 Q. Did you ever have a conversation with Officer 6 Waddell about it? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Do you know if Officer Waddell had ever had a 9 conversation with anyone else about those childcare 10 issues on the 12th? 11 A. I didn't hear the last. On the 12th? 12 Q. Right. 13 A. I don't know. I believe I got it from Officer 14 Inglehart. Bill and they were friends. So I'm sure he 15 talked to him about it. 16 Q. Do you know where Officer Inglehart got his 17 information? 18 A. I just said from Waddell. 19 Q. No. You said you assumed, but did you -- 20 A. Well, they worked together and he said he had 21 to leave early because he had childcare issues. So I'm 22 not sure what else that could mean. 23 MS. CASTILLO: I think I don't have anything 24 else. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: Anything on recross? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2630 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1534 1 MR. PALMER: No. 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: May we excuse this 3 witness now? Are we all done with him? 4 MS. CASTILLO: I believe so. 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: You're not sure? 6 MS. CASTILLO: We still have the Pitchess 7 motion to do. 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: Right. That's true. 9 Okay. 10 Sergeant Pfarr, thank you very much for your 11 help here. I don't know if we're going to have you back 12 or not, but we'll let you know. 13 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very much. And 15 please don't discuss your testimony with anybody else 16 while the matter's still going. 17 THE WITNESS: Understood. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 19 MR. PALMER: Could we go off the record for a 20 minute? 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes, we may. 22 (Discussion off the record.) 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: So we're back on the 24 record and, at this time, Ms. Castillo would like to 25 play some of the recorded AI interview of -- or Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2631 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1535 1 interviews of Sergeant Pfarr, and we've excused him. So 2 he's not going to be asked any questions. This was, 3 hopefully, in the interest of saving some time. We may 4 be following along on the transcripts, but it's been 5 asked that the hearing officer listen to the testimony. 6 So I've said that that's fine. 7 And, Mr. Palmer, did you want to interpose an 8 objection for the record? 9 MR. PALMER: Yes, please. I would object to 10 playing the tape. I think it's unduly time-consuming. 11 I know we don't have the equivalent of 352 here, but 12 that's what we're talking about. We can mark the tape, 13 we can mark the disk as an exhibit. You could listen to 14 it at your leisure after the evidence is closed, she can 15 refer to whatever she wants to on the recording in 16 argument. It's just an undue waste of time. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. I'm going to 18 allow it, with the caveat that we're not going to spend 19 more than the amount of time between now and lunch 20 listening to it, right? 21 MS. CASTILLO: There's two interviews for a 22 total of 18 minutes, grand total. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. So I'm going to -- 24 ordinarily, I would agree with you. This is a 25 termination appeal. I'm giving the appellant the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2632 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1536 1 benefit of the doubt here. So I will listen to it. We 2 will relieve the court reporter of the necessity of 3 recording, again, what was said. 4 And if either of the parties have any 5 observations they want to make in the spirit of 6 listening to it as an argument, I'm happy to take that 7 into consideration. 8 So are we ready for the first cue-up? And you 9 want to identify what we're listening to and, perhaps, 10 give us an idea of where it is in the documents? 11 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. The appellant has 12 previously submitted and admitted the transcript of 13 Sergeant Pfarr's interview. What number letter is that? 14 Well, for identification purposes, the city, at least, 15 has it as 15. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: So City or Department 17 15 -- 18 MS. CASTILLO: I'm sorry. It's 15. With the 19 department it's -- no. I'm sorry. 20 MR. PALMER: 12. 21 MS. CASTILLO: 12 and -- 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: 12. 23 MS. CASTILLO: 12 and 16. 24 MR. PALMER: There you go. 25 MS. CASTILLO: We have Exhibit C. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2633 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1537 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: Exhibit B, you say? 2 MS. CASTILLO: C. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: C. Okay. The one I 4 don't have in front of me, of course. 5 MR. PALMER: It's the Bentley. 6 MS. CASTILLO: Okay. So I'll need to admit our 7 transcripts of this one still, but if you want to follow 8 along, you can follow along with the department's 9 exhibit, and I'll get those ready. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. Just to note 11 this for the record, what's going to get played is there 12 were two or three different interviews here; is that 13 right? 14 Department's 12 is an interview of Sergeant 15 Pfarr by Lieutenant Bledsoe on November 15, 2013, I 16 guess. 17 MS. CASTILLO: Right. So we're going to play 18 that first. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. I'm just 20 noting all these for the record. 21 Then we're going to also listen to, at some 22 point, Department 16, which is an interview of Sergeant 23 Pfarr by Lieutenant Bledsoe on December 13, and then -- 24 MS. CASTILLO: I misspoke on RC. RC is of the 25 Bentley. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2634 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1538 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: So no go. So it's those 2 two? 3 MS. CASTILLO: Right. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Thank you. 5 MS. CASTILLO: I will get those ready while -- 6 yeah. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: So just one more thing. 8 So these are related to the CAT shift event; is that 9 right? 10 MS. CASTILLO: Correct. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. Just wanted 12 it noted. 13 (Audio playing.) 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: So we've completed 15 listening to the portions of the interviews of Sergeant 16 Pfarr that were identified and cued up for us by 17 Ms. Castillo. Now we're going to take care of some more 18 housekeeping related to marking documents and, possibly, 19 considering their admission. 20 So are we up to now talking about Appellant's 21 30, or did we mark it already? 22 MS. CASTILLO: DD, right? 23 MR. PALMER: That would be the next one. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'll catch up with you on 25 that. It wouldn't be 30. It would be DD. That's Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2635 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1539 1 right, but I believe it's the 30th document. So we're 2 going to identify this as... 3 MS. CASTILLO: San Luis Obispo Police 4 Department Policy Manual from 2014-01-08. 5 MR. PALMER: I'm sorry. What is it, again? 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: It's a policy manual. 7 And you had a date for that. Well, we can just pass it 8 out and we'll all take a look at it. 9 So it's a portion of the policy manual. Looks 10 like it's two pages, and the date that's at the bottom 11 is 2014-01-08, and it says on here Lexipol, LLC. 12 Is that a company or term I should be familiar 13 with? Since you mentioned that earlier, I just wondered 14 if that's... 15 MS. CASTILLO: Right. I think we had testimony 16 from Lieutenant Proll last time of the change in their 17 policy manual. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. All right. 19 MR. PALMER: I think these -- at least, mine 20 looks like the pages were stapled in reverse. 21 MS. CASTILLO: Were they? 22 MR. PALMER: On mine. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah. It looks like Page 24 435 and 434 are transposed. 25 MS. CASTILLO: Sorry about that. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2636 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1540 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: And maybe just to clarify 2 what the record is, it looks like this deals with 3 portions of Section 1020.6, 7 and 8. 4 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. We just -- the question 5 was -- last time dealt with 1020.6. 2, and, I believe, 6 1020.7. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. It related to 8 personnel complaints and administrative investigation 9 format. Okay. 10 MS. CASTILLO: Correct. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Any objection to DD? 12 MR. PALMER: No. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Without objection, DD is 14 admitted. 15 MS. CASTILLO: Okay. Then I also have -- since 16 we're doing this now, I have what we would mark as -- I 17 guess, we're at EE. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 19 MS. CASTILLO: And this will be the complete 20 audio files for both investigations. 21 MR. PALMER: So these are all the interview 22 recordings? 23 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 24 MR. PALMER: Every single one of them? 25 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2637 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1541 1 MR. PALMER: Of both investigations? 2 MS. CASTILLO: Well, the ones we got. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: For both the CAT shift 4 and the Bentley -- 5 MR. PALMER: Don't be snarky. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: -- events; is that right? 7 MS. CASTILLO: Right. The portion of 8 Cudworth's. 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: So just for the record, 10 it's what the appellant received, that's what's being 11 offered, all of those files, audio files? 12 MS. CASTILLO: Correct. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. So any 14 objection to EE? 15 MR. PALMER: Only that I don't know, actually, 16 what's on the tape. I'll take it at face value and 17 reserve any comments to be made on it, but no. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. So I'm going 19 to admit EE. If there's any clarification or other 20 issues that need to come up, we'll deal with that at the 21 appropriate time. Okay? 22 MS. CASTILLO: All right. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: And is there another one 24 for the witness file? 25 MS. CASTILLO: I do have an extra one. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2638 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1542 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. So, Mr. Palmer, 2 I'll just put that right here. 3 MR. PALMER: Thank you. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Uh-huh. 5 MS. CASTILLO: I'm just double-checking that I 6 have copies. Okay. So then Appellant's FF -- 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 8 MS. CASTILLO: -- will be the November 15th 9 audio certified transcript of Sergeant Chad Pfarr's 10 interview and the CAT interview with Lieutenant Bledsoe. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: So this November 15th 12 interview of Sergeant Pfarr, that's what we heard a 13 little earlier? 14 MS. CASTILLO: That's the first. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: And that's not included 16 within EE? 17 MS. CASTILLO: It is. It's the certified 18 transcript of the appellant. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: Oh. This is the 20 transcript then, not the audio file. Okay. 21 MS. CASTILLO: Right. 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 23 MS. CASTILLO: The accompanying. I think I 24 might be short one. 25 MR. PALMER: Okay. I can make a copy. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2639 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1543 1 MS. CASTILLO: Or I can e-mail you a PDF for 2 your file. 3 MR. PALMER: Don't worry about it. 4 MS. CASTILLO: So GG will be -- 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: Any objection to FF? 6 MR. PALMER: No. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Without objection, FF is 8 admitted. On to GG. 9 MS. CASTILLO: Sorry about that. GG would be 10 the December 13th transcription of Sergeant Chad Pfarr's 11 interview or follow-up interview with Lieutenant Bledsoe 12 on the same matter -- 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 14 MS. CASTILLO: -- to go with the corresponding 15 audio file in Appellant's B. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: Very good. Thank you. 17 MR. PALMER: Thank you. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: So any objection to GG? 19 MR. PALMER: No. 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. Without 21 objection, GG is admitted. 22 MS. CASTILLO: Okay. And then Lieutenant 23 Smith. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: So ready to break for 25 lunch then? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2640 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1544 1 MS. CASTILLO: That works. 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. So let's go 3 off the record. 4 (The proceedings adjourned at 11: 43 a.m.) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2641 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, A.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1545 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 2642 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, ) vs. )Case No. ARB-14-0209 POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF ) SAN LUIS OBISPO, ) Hiring Authority. )VOLUME 8 PAGES 1546- 1655 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS San Luis Obispo, California Wednesday, September 2, 2015 1:07 p.m. - 4:54 p.m. REPORTED BY JACQLYN M. GRIFFITH CSR NO. 13122 Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2643 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1547 1 THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS 2 was taken at SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL, 990 Palm 3 Street, San Luis Obispo, California, before 4 JACQLYN M. GRIFFITH, a Certified Shorthand Reporter in 5 and for the State of California, on Wednesday, September 6 2, 2015, commencing at the hour of 1:07 p.m. 7 8 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: 9 HEARING OFFICER: SOUTHWESTERN LAW SCHOOL 10 BY: CHRISTOPHER DAVID RUIZ CAMERON PROFESSOR OF LAW 11 3050 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90010 12 (213) 738-6749 ccameron@swlaw.edu 13 FOR APPELLANT: CASTILLO HARPER APC 14 BY: KASEY A. CASTILLO, ESQ. 3333 Concours Street 15 Building 4 Suite 4100 16 Ontario, California 91764 909) 466-5600 17 kasey@castilloharper.com 18 FOR HIRING AUTHORITY: 19 JONES & MAYER BY: GREGORY P. PALMER, ESQ. 20 3777 North Harbor Boulevard Fullerton, California 92835 21 (714) 446-1400 gpp@jones-mayer.com 22 23 Also Present: Kevin Waddell, Laura Waddell, Captain Chris Staley, Christine Dietrick 24 25 Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2644 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1548 1 I N D E X 2 3 WITNESS REDIRECT 4 JEFFREY SMITH 1549, 1604, 1607, 1612, 1623 5 RECROSS 6 1600, 1606, 1622 7 KEITH STORTON REDIRECT RECROSS 8 1625 9 10 I N D E X TO E X H I B I T S 11 APPELLANT'S MARKED ADMITTED 12 HH 1575 13 II 1650 1653 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2645 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1549 1 Wednesday, September 2, 2015 2 San Luis Obispo, California 3 --oo0oo-- 4 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: We're going back on the 6 record, and I understand the appellant is calling 7 Lieutenant Smith as your next witness. 8 MS. CASTILLO: Correct. 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: Lieutenant Smith, you're 10 still under oath from the last time. Do you recall 11 that, sir? 12 THE WITNESS: Yes. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. You may 14 proceed. 15 16 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 17 18 BY MS. CASTILLO: 19 Q Thank you. Good afternoon. 20 A Good afternoon. 21 Q Since the last time you testified, did you 22 review anything to refresh your recollection? 23 A Just the notes that I had last time. 24 Q The notes? 25 A The -- Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2646 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1550 1 Q What notes were those? 2 A Things that were typed out from the interviews, 3 from Lieutenant Bledsoe and Proll. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: You mean the transcripts? 5 THE WITNESS: Transcripts, yes. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: The ones produced by the 7 department? 8 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 9 BY MS. CASTILLO: 10 Q Did you assist in the witness preparation for 11 this hearing at all? 12 A Assist in the witness preparation? 13 Q Right. 14 A What do you mean by that? 15 Q Well, did you attend any witness preparation 16 sessions? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And whose were those? 19 A Just my own. 20 Q That's it? 21 A Yep. 22 Q I am going to start with the audio from your 23 first interview, and then I'm going to ask some 24 questions as we go. Okay? 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: Could we refer to the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2647 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1551 1 proper written exhibits as we go along, too? 2 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. I believe that these have 3 previously been admitted both by the department as well 4 as the appellant in the department's case. 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: Is that 13 and 15? 6 MS. CASTILLO: Yes, 13 and 15. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: The record will reflect 8 13 is an interview of Lieutenant Smith by 9 Lieutenant Bledsoe regarding the CAT shift event, and 10 15 is an interview by Lieutenant Bledsoe regarding -- 11 well, also, CAT shift. So there were two, I guess. 12 BY MS. CASTILLO: 13 Q All right. Let me start with those. Do you 14 have those in front of you? 15 A Yes, I do. 16 Q Do you have appellant's exhibit book in front 17 of you, as well? 18 A I do. 19 Q Can you look at, please -- and for the record, 20 this is also audio that is reflected in appellant's now 21 admitted 'E'. I think it might be easier to go through 22 appellant's 'M', because there's line numbers, since 23 there are no line numbers in the department exhibit of 24 the transcript. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: So that's Appellant's M Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2648 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1552 1 and N; is that right? 2 MS. CASTILLO: Correct. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: You're going to start off 4 with 'M' as in Mary? 5 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 7 (Audio Playing.) 8 BY MS. CASTILLO: 9 Q Why would Sergeant Pfarr had been calling to 10 inquire why Officer Waddell was working a CAT shift? 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: If you know. 12 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 13 (Audio Playing.) 14 BY MS. CASTILLO: 15 Q At this point, when you were having this 16 conversation with Sergeant Pfarr, you had returned this 17 phone call after you were mowing the lawn; right? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And starting off with the phone call, 20 Sergeant Pfarr told you that Officer Waddell had 21 indicated that he had spoken with you the previous day 22 and asked if he could come in late for the CAT shift; 23 right? 24 A Correct. 25 Q At that point was he no longer concerned why Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2649 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1553 1 Officer Waddell was working the CAT shift, or that had 2 already been cleared up? Did he make any kind of 3 mention of that? 4 A I don't understand your question. 5 Q So, when you said earlier when you called 6 Sergeant Pfarr back, and he said, no worries, he had 7 worked it out, was that pertaining to why 8 Officer Waddell was working or why he was late? What 9 was that about? 10 A Well, I was calling him back, and at that point 11 he hadn't even -- when he left a message, he hadn't 12 talked to Kevin. When he said he had worked it out, 13 Kevin had showed up, or text him, whatever it was, and 14 he assumed what Kevin had told him was the truth. So 15 that's why he was saying he had worked it out. He had 16 not realized what Kevin told him at the time was a lie, 17 and he found that out through our conversation. 18 Q What did Sergeant Pfarr leave on your voice 19 mail? 20 A I don't recall. Just something to the fact he 21 was calling about Officer Waddell and his CAT shift. 22 Q When you say Sergeant Pfarr was a little upset, 23 he indicated, obviously, that he felt Sergeant -- or I'm 24 sorry, Officer Waddell had lied to him, you -- at this 25 point are still uncertain if this is a misunderstanding? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2650 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1554 1 A Well, I didn't have the conversation with 2 Kevin. So Sergeant Pfarr, I wanted to make sure it's 3 important that he was clear, and the information was 4 given. So, again, I wasn't involved in the conversation 5 or the text messages. So, for me, it's always making 6 sure things were clear and what was exactly said at that 7 point. 8 Q And you tell the interviewer at this point that 9 you discussed how to proceed from there. What does that 10 mean? 11 A Just what I said. That I wanted Sergeant Pfarr 12 to ensure that he was clear in his understanding and his 13 communication with Officer Waddell, and, again, get back 14 to me in terms of addressing the issue. 15 Q So did you tell Sergeant Pfarr to go back and 16 speak further with Officer Waddell? 17 A I don't recall exactly what I told him. 18 Q Well, you discussed how to proceed from there. 19 So what was that discussion about? 20 A I don't recall exactly what our discussion was. 21 Q Did you ever write a memo about what happened 22 on the 19th? 23 A No. 24 Q Why not? 25 A Because that was Sergeant Pfarr's job. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2651 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1555 1 Q And Sergeant Pfarr then calls you back; right? 2 A Yes. 3 Q And indicates that he has decided he's going to 4 go ahead and write a memo; correct? 5 A Correct. 6 Q This is something that he's decided he's going 7 to do after how much time has passed? 8 A I don't recall. 9 Q Well, you say something like later that day; 10 right? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Is it immediate? 13 A I don't recall. 14 Q You have no concept of time? 15 A I don't recall how much time had passed from 16 when we had our first conversation and our second 17 conversation. 18 Q Does he indicate what has made him -- or what 19 has prompted this decision between the two phone calls? 20 A That he was confident Waddell lied to him. 21 That based on the lie, he felt it needed to be 22 documented. 23 Q And, then, did you ask him to submit it to you? 24 To submit it to the captain? What happened from then? 25 A I don't recall if I told him. I mean, really, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2652 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1556 1 it has to go through the chain of command, so it would 2 have gone through me. I don't recall if I would have 3 told him that or not. 4 MS. CASTILLO: Go ahead and play. We are 5 starting at page 3 of Appellant's M, line 8. 6 (Audio Playing.) 7 MS. CASTILLO: I'm going to stop you at line 8 23. 9 Q What did Sergeant Pfarr tell you was the 10 content of their previous discussion? 11 A What previous discussion? 12 Q You told the investigator that he calls in 13 Officer Waddell, and he tells him that their previous 14 discussion was not accurate. 15 What did he tell you was the conversation 16 between him and Officer Waddell? 17 A I believe he -- I was just referring to his 18 conversation, and the statements Officer Waddell made 19 regarding getting permission from me to be late for his 20 shift. 21 Q On that date? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Were you ever told at any point by 24 Sergeant Pfarr that Officer Waddell wanted to do a 25 conference call with the three of you at that point? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2653 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1557 1 A I don't believe I was. 2 Q Have you ever heard that? 3 A Again, I don't recall Sergeant Pfarr saying 4 that. 5 Q If you had learned that Officer Waddell had 6 wanted to clear up the misunderstanding, as he saw it at 7 that point, would you have participated in the 8 conversation? 9 A No. 10 Q Why not? 11 A Because there's potential disciplinary actions, 12 and, at that point, I think, it's best we go through the 13 memorandum and appropriately handled it. 14 Q Even if it was just a misunderstanding like you 15 originally thought? 16 A I didn't think it was a misunderstanding. I 17 wanted to make sure it wasn't a misunderstanding. 18 Q Whether it was a misunderstanding at the time, 19 you weren't sure. So, if you could have determined at 20 that particular point by just having a conversation with 21 the three of you, you didn't want to do that? 22 A Based on what Sergeant Pfarr told me, it was 23 clear that he lied. So, again, I think it's proper that 24 a memorandum be committed, and it be handled 25 appropriately from there. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2654 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1558 1 Q So, based on what Sergeant Pfarr told you, it 2 was clear Officer Waddell lied? 3 A Yes. 4 Q That was because you have testified that you 5 believe that there was the potential for punitive 6 action? 7 A Well, disciplinary action. 8 Q And so you believed a memo needed to be 9 authored by Pfarr; right? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And, then, it go up the chain of command and be 12 handled that way; right? 13 A I guess, I'm confused by your question, because 14 you started off by talking about the conference calls. 15 Is it still related to a conference call, or are we 16 going back to a different subject now? 17 Q Well, I can clarify. So your testimony today 18 is that had Officer Waddell said to Sergeant Pfarr -- 19 you're obviously at home -- "Let's call him right now 20 and clear this up," and you had learned of this, you 21 would have said, "No, I'm not participating in that"? 22 A I believe I would have said "no" at the time. 23 Q What would you have said today? 24 A Knowing that he blatantly lied, I would have 25 said, "no," because there was a potential for Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2655 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1559 1 discipline. 2 Q And, again, knowing he blatantly lied was based 3 on one side of the story; right? 4 A It's what he told Sergeant Pfarr, yes. And 5 again, based on his rights, at this time, I would advise 6 against it, and I would still say, "Sergeant Pfarr 7 should submit a memo." 8 Q Even if he decided that he wanted to waive them 9 and speak to you; right? 10 A Based on where I was, and I was at home, yes. 11 Q So you have Pfarr submit a memo, and you expect 12 this to go through the process; right? 13 A Yes. 14 Q That is a Saturday; correct? 15 A Yes. 16 Q On Monday, you have a conversation with 17 Officer Waddell in your office, though; right? 18 A Correct. 19 Q Where he talks to you; right? 20 A I advised him he shouldn't at the time, but it 21 was up to him. 22 Q So what is the difference between the phone 23 call and the conversation in your office? 24 A The phone call never happened, so I didn't have 25 to make a decision at that time. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2656 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1560 1 Q So, then, my question is now, you did allow him 2 to speak to you in the office; right? 3 A Yes, I did. 4 (Audio Playing.) 5 BY MS. CASTILLO: 6 Q So I'm stopping -- it's page 5, Appellant's 7 Exhibit M at line 6. 8 Now, prior to this locker room encounter where 9 you exchanged greetings, and you were present with 10 Officer Waddell for some period of time, did you ever 11 address with him the lateness that you had been made 12 aware of by Sergeant Pfarr? 13 A No. 14 Q Did you address with him the movie watching 15 that you had been made aware of by Sergeant Pfarr? 16 A No. 17 Q Did Sergeant Pfarr ever bring up any other 18 issues, other than the lateness and movie watching? 19 A Not that I can recall. 20 Q How long were you in the locker room with 21 Officer Waddell for? 22 A No more than ten minutes. 23 Q Why didn't you take the opportunity to talk to 24 him about these issues you were made aware of? 25 A Because it's Sergeant Pfarr's responsibility. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2657 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1561 1 Q Weren't these issues that he was aware of while 2 Officer Waddell was working CAT? 3 A Yes, and he discussed the movie watching. He 4 confronted him when he caught him in the office watching 5 a movie. 6 Q What about the late -- 7 A I don't know what conversation he has had 8 regarding that. 9 Q At that point you didn't know what 10 conversations he had had? 11 A With Officer Waddell, no, or I don't recall if 12 he shared that he had had some, I don't recall what we 13 had discussed. 14 Q Did you tell Officer Sergeant Pfarr to go and 15 have discussions with Officer Waddell? 16 A I don't remember if I did or I didn't. 17 Q You didn't instruct him to go and have specific 18 conversations with Officer Waddell about being late? 19 A I know we discussed it. I don't recall what my 20 specific instructions were with him. 21 Q Do you know about when Officer Waddell had been 22 late? 23 A Could you repeat the question? 24 Q The late issues that had been brought to your 25 attention by Sergeant Pfarr, do you know about when Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2658 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1562 1 those occurred? 2 A No. 3 Q Were they fairly recent to the October 19th 4 date? 5 A They were before it. I don't know how much 6 before it. I just know they were things that 7 Sergeant Pfarr was concerned about. 8 Q So, at the point that you saw Officer Waddell 9 in the locker room, you did not think that, "Hey, this 10 is an opportunity for me to have a conversation with 11 him, an individual I keep assigning CAT overtime to, 12 about being timely and not flexing," and anything like 13 that? 14 A Well, your statement isn't accurate. He keeps 15 volunteering for those assignments, and those 16 assignments are given to him based on seniority, so I 17 really wasn't assigning him. And, again, it's the 18 sergeant's responsibility to address those things, and 19 that's what I had discussed with Sergeant Pfarr. 20 Q But if he was abusing the assignment, you could 21 not assign him overtime; correct? 22 A If there was a reason at the time, I could 23 choose to discuss that or make that an option. At the 24 time, based on the incidents, and what Sergeant Pfarr 25 had seen, we weren't there, and Sergeant Pfarr was Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2659 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1563 1 addressing the issues. 2 Q Didn't Sergeant Pfarr go to you and ask that 3 Officer Waddell be reassigned away from the CAT shift? 4 A I don't recall if he asked that or not. 5 Q You don't -- we can start again on page 5 of 6 line 7, Exhibit M. This is page 6. 7 (Audio Playing.) 8 BY MS. CASTILLO: 9 Q At the point that he said he still wants to 10 talk to you, after that conversation took place, you 11 didn't write a memo regarding that either, did you? 12 A No. 13 Q That wasn't recorded; right? 14 A No. 15 Q Then you were interviewed for this particular 16 IA, approximately, a month later; correct? 17 A Correct. 18 Q Now, when he said he was willing to accept the 19 consequences that were to follow regarding the incident, 20 was he specific as to lying, or was he specific as to 21 lateness, or was that the end of his statement? 22 A I think he wasn't specific about anything. 23 MS. CASTILLO: Go ahead. Starting on page 6, 24 Exhibit M. 25 (Audio Playing.) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2660 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1564 1 MS. CASTILLO: So we stopped on line 12, page 6 2 of Appellant's M. 3 Q At the point that Officer Waddell gave you that 4 information, you already read the memo from 5 Sergeant Pfarr; right? 6 A I believe I had, yes. 7 Q Well, you have just referenced it in the 8 conversation that you've had when he walks into your 9 door; right? 10 A He had given it to me. I believe I had read 11 it. I don't recall when I read it exactly. 12 Q And you had the conversation with 13 Sergeant Pfarr where he's very upset, and he says he -- 14 "he" being Waddell -- had blatantly lied in all of this; 15 right? 16 A We had a conversation, yes. 17 Q It's your belief at this point that there was 18 this lie that had already taken place; correct? Based 19 on what Pfarr told you? "Yes"? 20 A Based on what Sergeant Pfarr told me regarding 21 Kevin's statement, that he had spoken to me, that was a 22 lie, in my mind, because we had had no conversation. 23 Q Had you ever had an incident with 24 Officer Waddell in the past where there had been a 25 situation similar to this? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2661 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1565 1 A Similar to what? 2 Q This incident that you were faced with 3 regarding the texting and the two version of events? 4 A No. 5 Q So Officer Waddell tells you that he was 6 multi-tasking, and that Sergeant Pfarr misinterpreted 7 his text. At that point did you allow him to give you 8 an explanation? 9 A Well, wasn't that the explanation? 10 Q Are you asking me? 11 A Well, you just said what he said. I didn't ask 12 questions. I let Officer Waddell talk. 13 Q Was that the extent of everything 14 Officer Waddell said to you? 15 A Again, I generalized on what he said. I didn't 16 take notes, and it wasn't a formal interview. Like I 17 said, he wanted to come in and get something off his 18 chest. I advised him he probably shouldn't, but I 19 didn't ask any questions. It was just based on what was 20 in my statement and recording generalized. 21 Q So what he got off his chest was that he had 22 been texting and driving, and then he had a 23 misunderstanding with his sergeant; right? 24 A Correct. 25 Q And that's it? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2662 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1566 1 A That's what I recall. I don't remember exact 2 wording on that. 3 Q Then did you make any statements to him in 4 response? I see that you're reading. I'm just asking 5 what you are -- 6 A I didn't ask any questions. I don't recall 7 what I said to him when he left. I'm sure I said 8 something to the fact that it would go through the 9 process. 10 MS. CASTILLO: We can start on page 6, line 13. 11 (Audio Playing.) 12 BY MS. CASTILLO: 13 Q Did Officer Waddell tell you that it appeared 14 that he had blatantly lied to Sergeant Pfarr? 15 A I didn't say -- that was my statement, I 16 believe, that I was making to Lieutenant Bledsoe. 17 Q So what you're saying is that Officer Waddell 18 indicated that he recognized that the two of you never 19 had a conversation? 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: You're nodding. You've 21 gotta speak up for the court reporter. 22 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, yes. I apologize. 23 MS. CASTILLO: Page 6, line 21. 24 (Audio Playing.) 25 \\ Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2663 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1567 1 BY MS. CASTILLO: 2 Q When you talked to Sergeant Pfarr, he told you 3 that there was a face to face conversation between him 4 and Officer Waddell; correct? 5 A Correct. 6 Q At the point that you're talking to 7 Officer Waddell, or letting him talk at you in your 8 office, he -- he being Officer Waddell -- does not 9 recount anything about the conversation with 10 Sergeant Pfarr? The conversation, not the text 11 messages. 12 A I don't know what he recounted or didn't 13 recount. 14 Q You don't remember, because you didn't write it 15 down? 16 A Are you asking what he recalled during that or 17 what he told me? 18 Q When Officer Waddell came to your office on 19 Monday; right? 20 A Uh-huh. 21 Q You're nodding. 22 A Yes. 23 Q And there was the conversation that he wanted 24 to talk to you about the misunderstanding; right? 25 A Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2664 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1568 1 Q You already have all this information, because 2 you have the memo and the text messages; right? 3 A I don't know that I had the text messages at 4 that time. I don't recall if I had them or not. 5 Q You don't know if they were added to the memo 6 that was submitted to you that same day? 7 A I don't even recall if I read the memo by then, 8 because it was earlier in the shift, so I may have, I 9 may have not. You're stating that I did all these 10 things. At the point that Officer Waddell came into my 11 office, I don't know if I was recalling based on the 12 conversation from Saturday, since it's my Monday at 13 work, or if I had already reviewed all of those 14 documents. 15 So I'm just trying to clarify. You're telling 16 me what I did, and I just want you to understand what 17 I -- I can't recall if I was recalling based on my 18 Saturday conversation, or because I reviewed the memo, 19 or if Officer Sergeant Pfarr had already provided me 20 with the printout of the text messages. 21 Q Officer Waddell came into your office, 22 according to your statement, and said it was a 23 misunderstanding of text messages; right? 24 A Yes. 25 Q And, then, you say, but, then, Sergeant Pfarr Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2665 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1569 1 then said, "No, this is a conversation they had face to 2 face regarding the reason for him being late in a 3 conversation between he and I"? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Did you have another conversation with 6 Sergeant Pfarr? 7 A No. That's why I'm trying to clarify the text 8 messages thing, because I don't believe, at the time 9 Officer Waddell came into my office, I had already seen 10 the text messages. I was basing it on the conversation 11 that I had with Chad on Saturday. 12 So, when Officer Waddell said it was based on 13 text messages, and at some point I later talked with 14 Sergeant Pfarr, indicating I was upset, because, to me, 15 Officer Waddell came to my office and wasn't fully 16 truthful of his conversation with Chad. 17 Q Did you let him explain everything that had 18 happened between him and Jeff? 19 A I didn't ask questions. I let him tell me 20 whatever he wanted to get off his chest, and then we 21 were done. I didn't cut him off. I didn't ask 22 clarifying questions. I told him, "You probably 23 shouldn't talk to me." So whatever he had to get off 24 his chest, I let him, and our conversation was over. 25 Q Is that what he said, "Get off his chest"? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2666 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1570 1 A I don't recall exactly what he said. 2 Q So did Officer Waddell ever tell you that he 3 had also spoken to Sergeant Pfarr? 4 A I don't recall. From my recollection, and my 5 statement here, what I'm recalling is, he relied on the 6 facts that it was only a misunderstanding with the text 7 messages. I don't believe he went into details 8 regarding his conversation with Sergeant Pfarr. 9 Q Is that as you sit here today? 10 A Could you repeat the question, please? 11 Q When you say, "I don't believe that," is that 12 based on what you remember from today? 13 A Yes. 14 Q At some point did you stop him from speaking to 15 you further? 16 A I don't recall stopping him or not. 17 Q Did you ever tell him that he had lied? 18 A I believe I said something to the effect, like, 19 "In the notes that you told Sergeant Pfarr, you had a 20 conversation with me, and you and I both know that's not 21 true." 22 Q What happened to his demeanor when you said 23 that? 24 A I don't recall. 25 Q You don't recall what -- was his demeanor the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2667 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1571 1 same after you said that to him? You don't know? 2 A I don't recall his demeanor at the time. 3 Q What was his demeanor like at the beginning 4 when he was explaining this to you? 5 A Remorseful. 6 Q And then did it stay consistent? 7 A I would say, it was consistent throughout him 8 talking to me. 9 Q And then how did that conversation end? 10 A He left my office. 11 Q Did he say that's the end of the story, and 12 that's how the conversation ended, or did you end the 13 conversation? 14 A I don't recall. 15 Q When you say he wasn't specific about what he 16 was willing to accept the consequences for, and he was 17 remorseful, I know you said you weren't asking 18 clarifying questions, but at any point did he give an 19 indication or a statement as to what he was remorseful 20 for or willing to accept the consequences for at all? 21 A No. 22 (Audio Playing.) 23 BY MS. CASTILLO: 24 Q So a week later Officer Waddell was still not 25 on administrative leave; correct? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2668 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1572 1 A I don't believe he was, no. 2 Q He -- would it refresh your recollection that 3 he did not get placed on administrative leave until 4 sometime in early December? 5 A Then, no, he wasn't. 6 Q So a week later, in October, Sergeant Pfarr was 7 still concerned about what was going on with 8 Officer Waddell and this incident? 9 A I believe he was just asking what was happening 10 with the memorandum he submitted. 11 Q We've heard a lot about this movie issue in 12 this hearing. How many times did Sergeant Pfarr tell 13 you that he had caught Officer Waddell watching a movie? 14 A I believe it was just one time. 15 Q Did you ever get the suggestion from Officer -- 16 I'm sorry -- Sergeant Pfarr that Officer Waddell was not 17 an appropriate officer to be working the CAT shifts? 18 A He may have expressed his concern. I don't 19 remember if he said he should or shouldn't, but I think 20 he possibly expressed concerns. 21 Q When would that have taken place? 22 A I don't recall. Before October 19th. 23 Q What was that based on? 24 A I'd be speculating. If you want me to 25 speculate. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2669 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1573 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: No speculation. Thank 2 you. 3 BY MS. CASTILLO: 4 Q Did you ask why your supervisor would have had 5 that opinion? 6 A Again, I'd be speculating. I don't recall our 7 exact conversation. 8 MS. CASTILLO: So now we will be looking at 9 next in line. Is this the one where we had admitted it 10 twice? I think it was 'I' and 'N'. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah, there's one of 12 those. 13 MR. PALMER: Probably. 14 MS. CASTILLO: This is that one. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: 'M' and 'N' or 'I' and 16 'N'? 17 MS. CASTILLO: I think it's 'I' and 'N'. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah, that sounds right. 19 The record will speak for itself on this question. 20 MS. CASTILLO: You can follow along with the 21 'I'. 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: We're going to 'I' now. 23 MS. CASTILLO: Please. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Let me catch up here. 25 MS. CASTILLO: This is Appellant's I. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2670 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1574 1 (Audio Playing.) 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: I just want the record to 3 reflect that it's not Exhibit I. It's some other one. 4 'I' is the same as 'N'. Those are both about the 5 Bentley event. 6 MS. CASTILLO: It would be -- I apologize. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: It would be Department 8 20. No? 9 MS. CASTILLO: It's Department 15. I think 10 that I may not have admitted it yet, so I have it right 11 here. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right, 15. 13 MS. CASTILLO: This particular witness has 14 three transcripts. So this is Appellant's -- what are 15 we on now? 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: 'HH', I think, if we're 17 adding something. 18 MS. CASTILLO: Sorry about that. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: It's all right. No 20 worries. Is there more we're going to listen to for 21 this one? 22 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. This one is only five 23 minutes long. Actually, I can skip this one. I'd like 24 that one admitted and moved, if I can. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah. Is there any Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2671 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1575 1 objection about admitting 'HH'? 2 MR. PALMER: No. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: 'HH' is admitted. 4 MS. CASTILLO: We'll move straight in to the 5 last one. So this is Appellant Exhibit I. 6 MR. PALMER: Oh, this is 'I'? This is 7 Appellant's I. 8 MS. CASTILLO: I'm saving you the five minutes. 9 (Audio Playing.) 10 MS. CASTILLO: So we're stopping at page 3, 11 line 15. 12 Q At the time that you first heard about this, 13 you heard about it from Sergeant Pfarr; correct? 14 A Correct. 15 Q He told you about it where? 16 A In my office. 17 Q Was anyone else there? 18 A No. 19 Q And he indicated to you that while he was at 20 the scene, that Officer Waddell picked up one of the 21 hubcaps, and that, at the scene, Sergeant Pfarr had 22 asked him, "What are you doing?" 23 A Something to that effect, yes. 24 Q And that Officer Waddell had said, "I'm just 25 messing with you"? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2672 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1576 1 A Something to that effect, yes. 2 Q And there Chad had said, "Put that back with 3 the car. That's not funny"? 4 A Something to that effect. I was paraphrasing. 5 It was a conversation that we had a while ago, and I did 6 not remember the exact wording of the conversation. 7 Q Did you know why he was coming to you with this 8 information now? 9 A I believe -- I'm pretty sure what he had told 10 me is, he had shared some of this with 11 Lieutenant Bledsoe, and Lieutenant Bledsoe had told 12 him that -- or had indicated, "Does your supervisor know 13 about this?" 14 And Chad said, "No." 15 And that's why he was coming to tell me at that 16 time. 17 Q Did it have anything to do with special 18 assignments? 19 A Yes. At the time we had special assignments 20 for detectives. I believe Officer Waddell had put in 21 for one of the assignments, and Sergeant Pfarr was 22 sharing some of his concerns with Lieutenant Bledsoe. 23 Q Do you know why he went to Lieutenant Bledsoe 24 first and not you? 25 A Because Lieutenant Bledsoe was the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2673 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1577 1 investigative lieutenant who would make the decision on 2 special assignments. 3 Q So this was just extra information for the 4 decision maker as to who was qualified? 5 A I think it was expressing concerns regarding 6 Officer Waddell. 7 MS. CASTILLO: Starting at line 16. 8 (Audio Playing.) 9 MS. CASTILLO: We're stopping on line 24, page 10 3. 11 Q Sergeant Pfarr told you that Officer Waddell 12 had told him that he was messing with him, because he 13 was a new sergeant? 14 A No. I believe he told me that he believed 15 Officer Waddell was messing with him, because he was a 16 new sergeant. 17 Q Did he tell you where he got that belief? 18 A No. 19 Q Did he say it was because of the conversation 20 that Officer Waddell had with him where he specifically 21 told him that? 22 A I don't recall if he said that or not. 23 MS. CASTILLO: Page 3, line 24. 24 (Audio Playing) 25 Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2674 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1578 1 MS. CASTILLO: We're at 16, page 4. 2 Q When you had the conversation with 3 Sergeant Pfarr, this time period of the detective 4 assignments, do you, approximately, know when that was? 5 A No. 6 Q Do you have a season? 7 A I don't recall. 8 Q Do you have -- was it in the beginning of the 9 year? 10 A I'd be guessing. Would you like me to guess? 11 Because I, honestly, don't recall when he came into my 12 office and had this conversation with me. 13 Q Do you know what year it was? 14 A I don't recall. 15 Q So Officer -- sorry, Sergeant Pfarr tells you 16 at the time he believes it's a practical joke. Did he 17 tell you what changed his mind from the night that he 18 handled it, and it was a practical joke, to now he has 19 ethical concerns, and you, Lieutenant Smith, should know 20 about it? The time period. 21 A It's not what he told me. It's what he told 22 Lieutenant Bledsoe. And I think it was a totality of 23 circumstances, Kevin being late, the movie incident, and 24 just some things that he was seeing. I think it was the 25 totality of things that now, in his mind, maybe, it Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2675 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1579 1 wasn't a practical joke, and he was intending to take 2 the rim or emblem, whatever he had taken. 3 Q Are you saying the movies and being late 4 happened before the detective assignments? 5 A Again, you're asking me what Sergeant Pfarr, so 6 there was a totality of incidents that came up that, I 7 believe, was after, but there were things that would 8 come up in Chad's mind that made him somewhat question 9 it. I don't exactly know what all those incidents are. 10 You'd have to ask Sergeant Pfarr. 11 Q Did you ask Sergeant Pfarr? 12 A At the time we had the conversation in our 13 office, he was still fairly convinced he was messing 14 with him. 15 Q So, when he is saying, "I'm now bringing this 16 up, because I have ethical concerns, and integrity 17 issues," he still told you at that time he was -- "but I 18 still think he was messing with me"? 19 A I don't know that he said "ethical concerns and 20 integrity issues." Those are words you're using. 21 Q I'm sorry, I'm referring to your line 14. 22 A Again, this is a conversation we had a long 23 time ago. In general, the conversation was, "This is 24 what happened. I am not sure if he was truly going to 25 take it or if he was still messing with me." Chad was Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2676 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1580 1 leaning towards, and this is what our conversation 2 entailed, that Kevin, at that time, was joking with him 3 still. 4 Q What did you tell -- well, you didn't write a 5 memo about this one either; right? 6 A No. 7 Q What did you tell him to do with this 8 information? 9 A My recollection of the conversation was, I 10 asked him, "Do you feel it was handled?" you know, at 11 that time. 12 And Chad told me, "Yes." 13 I said -- I think I had asked, "Do we need to 14 do anything else?" 15 He said, "No, I feel I handled it." 16 In general, that's what our conversation 17 entailed. I don't remember specifically what was said 18 between he and I. 19 Q You never said, "Someone should tell a 20 captain"? 21 A I don't recall saying that, no. 22 Q Did you ever tell a captain? 23 A At some point, I think I told Lieutenant Proll 24 in our interview that I thought I might have shared the 25 information with Captain Staley, but I was unsure if I Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2677 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1581 1 did or didn't. 2 Q Do you recall when you would have done that? 3 A No. 4 MS. CASTILLO: Okay. Four, 15, please. 5 (Audio Playing) 6 BY MS. CASTILLO: 7 Q At the time that Sergeant Pfarr brought up the 8 movie issue to you, he told you that he had the 9 conversation with Officer Waddell about the 15 minute 10 period; right? 11 A I believe he did, yes. 12 Q Because you were relaying it to the 13 investigator now; right? 14 A That's what I told Lieutenant Proll. 15 Q So that was also something that was handled at 16 the time by Sergeant Pfarr? 17 A Correct. 18 Q Then you bring up that there were a couple 19 times where he had come in late or left early; right? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And you are aware of this as his lieutenant; 22 right? 23 A I'm aware of what Sergeant Pfarr brought to my 24 attention, yes. 25 Q And these couple of times where he had come in Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2678 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1582 1 late or had left early, were they on the CAT shift? 2 A I believe they were. 3 Q And is this the first time you're hearing of 4 it? 5 A What do you mean, is this -- I don't understand 6 your question. 7 Q You indicate that you believe it's because he 8 was doing a lot of overtime on the CAT team, and that he 9 had once caught him with the movie, and then the next 10 thing that you indicate to the investigator is that 11 there were a couple of times where he, Officer Waddell, 12 had come in late or left early; right? 13 A Yes. 14 Q And you reinforced with Chad to stay on top of 15 this; right? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Did you reinforce that with any of the other 18 sergeants? 19 A I don't recall if I sent an e-mail out to 20 everyone, or if it was just a conversation with Jeff. 21 Q So, at this point where there were a couple of 22 times where he had come in late or left early, are those 23 times that Chad had told you he had came in late or left 24 early, or were those times that you were aware that 25 Officer Waddell had come in late or left early? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2679 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1583 1 A I believe it was the information that Chad 2 provided me with. 3 Q Did you verify it one way or another? 4 A No. 5 Q Do you know when or why? 6 A Officer Waddell was late or left early? No, I 7 didn't have a conversation with him. 8 Q Do you know if any of those times that Chad had 9 specifically referenced to you were ones that, perhaps, 10 you had approved? They were ones you had, perhaps, 11 approved? 12 A In recalling some of the conversations, I just 13 think they wouldn't have been times that I would have 14 approved. 15 Q And why? So you can recall those 16 conversations. Tell us about those. 17 A Recall what conversations? 18 Q Ones that -- you just said, in recalling those 19 conversations, they wouldn't have been ones that I would 20 have approved. What were those conversations, and why 21 not? 22 A If we were having the conversation, more than 23 likely I hadn't approved it, so they would have either 24 been on speed shift or something would have been 25 discussed. If Chad is now bringing it to my attention, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2680 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1584 1 and it's fresh and at that time, I would have known if I 2 had approved something, and I would have corrected Chad 3 saying, "He had my permission." So, if he's informing 4 me that he left early or came in late, and Kevin didn't 5 have my permission at that time, I would have told Chad 6 to stay on top of it. 7 I think, in recalling the conversation, my 8 recollection is, Chad and any sergeant that works during 9 a shift, just so you understand, we don't punch people 10 in. We don't punch people out. We don't watch them 11 come and go. The concern was Chad would come in from 12 the field, and Kevin would already be gone, and it was 13 at the end of a shift or a few minutes prior to his 14 shift. 15 So not seeing him leave, that was a concern 16 that he was coming in earlier, and leaving a little bit 17 earlier, from my recollection of the conversations. 18 Q But your next sentence says, "If it's becoming 19 an issue, Kevin needed to get written up." 20 Were you not aware of this going on prior to 21 the time that you became made aware of the movie 22 incident, as he's telling you about this Bentley that 23 was a joke, but maybe not anymore? 24 A I did not understand that question. Sorry. 25 Q It's not your job to track the officers on CAT; Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2681 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1585 1 right? That's the sergeant's job? 2 A What do you mean by "track"? 3 Q Like you just said, when they come and go, you 4 don't punch them in, do you? 5 A No. 6 MS. CASTILLO: We can start on page 5, line 13. 7 (Audio Playing) 8 MS. CASTILLO: We're stopping on page 7, line 9 3. 10 Q Who is Brian? 11 A Sergeant Amoroso. 12 Q You also talked to him about this? 13 A Like I said, I had asked him the question. 14 Q The one question? 15 A I don't recall asking him any others. 16 Q Do you -- so you were asking him about trophies 17 and collecting from accident scenes? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Where did you get that idea? 20 A Because he was -- Chad had brought up the 21 information about him taking the hubcap of the Bentley. 22 Q Did he say that he had said -- that he was 23 trying to get a trophy? 24 A It was just my terminology I used when I made 25 my statement to Lieutenant Proll. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2682 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1586 1 Q Then Brian said, "Nothing would surprise me 2 with Kevin." Did he elaborate on that at all? 3 A He may have elaborated on it. I don't really 4 recall what he said. 5 Q Were you investigating what Pfarr told you 6 about the Bentley, or what were you investigating when 7 you had this conversation with Brian? 8 A I wasn't investigating anything. 9 Q This was just a hallway conversation? 10 A Yeah, it was, actually. 11 Q Who else was there? 12 A I was sitting in my office, and, I believe, 13 Sergeant Amoroso was standing in the hallway. 14 Q Anyone else? 15 A Not to my recollection. 16 Q Was this right after you heard about this from 17 Sergeant Pfarr? 18 A No. I don't remember how close it was. It was 19 after I heard it from Sergeant Pfarr. I don't remember 20 when, though. 21 Q Why did this come up in casual conversation? 22 A Because Brian was a good friend of Kevin's, and 23 I was curious, based on what I heard from Chad, if he 24 had any knowledge if Kevin had any parts of cars from 25 traffic collisions he had investigated. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2683 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1587 1 MS. CASTILLO: Starting at four, on seven. 2 (Audio Playing) 3 MS. CASTILLO: We're at page 9, line 10. 4 Q So Sergeant Pfarr told you all of that; 5 correct? 6 A Again, I was recalling a conversation that took 7 place a long time, so it was based on my recollection. 8 I can't say that that's exactly what he told me. 9 Q But I guess, my -- to clarify, you didn't get 10 that information from anyone else; right? 11 A Correct. 12 Q You didn't hear about this story from any other 13 individual except for Sergeant Pfarr; right? 14 A Correct. 15 Q Then you were asked if Chad said that Kevin 16 texted him a photo of it or anything, and your answer 17 was, no, you don't remember that; correct? 18 A Correct. 19 MS. CASTILLO: Line 11, page 9. 20 (Audio Playing.) 21 BY MS. CASTILLO: 22 Q When you say "just through the grapevine," what 23 do you mean? 24 A I believe I was referring to 25 Lieutenant Bledsoe. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2684 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1588 1 Q Now, Lieutenant Proll never -- he's the only 2 other lieutenant; right? 3 A Correct. 4 Q So is he the only lieutenant who didn't hear 5 about any of this through the grapevine? 6 A Through me or Lieutenant Bledsoe? 7 Q Right. 8 A I don't know what he heard or didn't hear. 9 Q When you say, "It was kind of backed up on the 10 original lie," line 16, page 9 -- it says "why" in the 11 transcript, but we just heard you say "lie" -- what did 12 you mean by that? 13 A I think I was referring to him lying about his 14 reason for being late. 15 Q On the 10-19 date? 16 A Correct. 17 Q As you sit here today, you don't know if the 18 detective examinations -- or I'm sorry -- special 19 assignments were after October or before October? 20 A I guess, I'm confused about what your question 21 is. 22 Q Well, you said the original lie, and you're 23 referring to October 19th; right? 24 A Yes. 25 Q And you weren't sure there was going to be an Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2685 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1589 1 IA. Were you referring to the Bentley or the CAT? 2 A The CAT night. 3 Q So the next part of your sentence is, "This 4 incident had come up, and that we're going to 5 potentially look into it, and that we're going to be 6 looking into it." What do you mean by that? 7 A Well, this IA started after the CAT IA, so I 8 think I was referring back to the CAT IA, and this 9 incident coming up, or the CAT incident, and then this 10 incident coming up. 11 Q So which is it? 12 A What I just said. 13 Q Well, you just said them both ways. 14 A What's your question? And I'll try to clarify. 15 Q My question is, your statement is, "I think it 16 was kind of backed up on the original lie, and then this 17 incident came up," and you were going to look into it 18 and acknowledge that the Bentley IA came after the CAT 19 IA; right? We're on the same page? 20 A Yes. 21 Q So is the only reason the Bentley IA became an 22 Internal Affairs investigation, is it because of the 23 texting miscommunication, blatant lie, whatever you want 24 to call it, between yourself, Officer Waddell and 25 Sergeant Pfarr? Is that what you're saying here? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2686 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1590 1 A No, that's not what I'm saying. 2 Q Then what are you saying here? 3 A I guess, what's your question? I'm confused. 4 What do you want to know? 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: We'll break it down for 6 you. 7 BY MS. CASTILLO: 8 Q If you can just, in your own words, explain 9 your sentence that starts on line 15 and ends on line 10 18. 11 A I think I was just referring to this IA that 12 started after the CAT IA. 13 Q Do you know why it was started after the CAT 14 IA? 15 A No. 16 Q So, when you are talking about the grapevine in 17 line 14, is the grapevine the Internal Affairs 18 investigation that's going on relative to the CAT IA? 19 A No. 20 Q Because right above that, the next time you're 21 asked about when you heard about it is through the 22 grapevine after Chad told you about it. 23 A It was a poor -- it was -- the choice of 24 verbiage I used at the time, I was referring to 25 Lieutenant Bledsoe, because, I believe, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2687 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1591 1 Lieutenant Bledsoe asked me if Chad came and talked to 2 me regarding the incident. So it was just a poor choice 3 of wording. I guess, if you're reading into it, it was 4 a reference to Lieutenant Bledsoe. 5 Q He didn't conduct the Bentley IA, so he wasn't 6 asking you to determine if you were going to be a 7 witness. So do you know why? 8 A Yeah, because he felt Chad should have brought 9 it to a supervisor's attention since he was bringing it 10 to his attention. So he was just making sure that Chad 11 had spoken to me regarding the information that Chad had 12 shared with him earlier. 13 Q So now we're back to when it was detective 14 exams? 15 A Well, that's what I have been talking about the 16 whole time. 17 Q So you're talking about detective exams -- 18 okay. 19 MS. CASTILLO: Line 21. 20 (Audio Playing) 21 MS. CASTILLO: Page 10, line 11 is where we're 22 stopping. 23 Q So now you're talking about having a lot of 24 problems with Kevin over the weekends. What were those 25 problems? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2688 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1592 1 A Again, it was just -- nothing we haven't 2 already discussed. Him coming in late or leaving early 3 and being in the downtown office. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Let's take a couple 5 minute break. 6 (Recess.) 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: We're back on the record 8 continuing with the direct of Lieutenant Smith. Go 9 ahead, Ms. Castillo. Do you need the last question read 10 back? I can't remember. Was there a question pending? 11 (Record read.) 12 BY MS. CASTILLO: 13 Q So the only time that you were -- is it your 14 testimony that the only time you were aware that 15 Kevin Waddell ever left early or showed up late was by 16 virtue of Sergeant Pfarr reporting it to you? 17 A I don't recall if anyone else had brought 18 anything else to my attention. 19 Q You had said, "All the other stuff he had been 20 dealing with Kevin," and that's just what you were 21 referring to. Nothing outside of that; correct? 22 A Correct. 23 Q Okay. Did you ever review his timecards or 24 anything like that? 25 A Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2689 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1593 1 Q Any issues with those? 2 A I don't recall any issues, no. 3 Q Can you give an approximation, and I know this 4 might be difficult, but if you have the impression that 5 this was a pattern that Sergeant Pfarr had experienced 6 with Officer Waddell, and there were instances that were 7 creating a pattern of this lateness or leaving early, or 8 being in the downtown office, do you have an approximate 9 number of times? 10 A No. 11 Q But was it more than five? More than ten? 12 A I'd be guessing, so I do not have an 13 approximate. I'd prefer not to guess. 14 Q But I mean, if it's a pattern, it's definitely 15 going to be more than one or two; right? That it's 16 going to be such a concern at this point; correct? 17 A Yeah, more than one or two, correct. 18 Q What time period are we talking about, 19 generally? Like a span. 20 A Prior to October 19th. 21 Q So from February to October is what we're 22 saying. 23 A During the time the overtime CAT shift was 24 going, if you want a time period. 25 Q Was it from the time period that Sergeant Pfarr Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2690 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1594 1 was a sergeant to October? 2 A Yes. 3 Q And he got promoted sometime in February of 4 2013? 5 A I believe so. 6 Q So we're talking about that time period of 7 2-20-13 to 10-20-13. Would you agree? 8 A Yes. 9 MS. CASTILLO: So we are starting at line 11, 10 page 10. 11 (Audio Playing) 12 BY MS. CASTILLO: 13 Q Line 20 through 21, "problem officer," was that 14 officer -- I'm sorry, Sergeant Pfarr's term or yours? 15 A It was my term during the interview. 16 Q Was that your opinion, as well? 17 A Based on some of the things that Sergeant Pfarr 18 had shared with me, yes. 19 Q So it was only based on the opinion of 20 Sergeant Pfarr relayed to you? 21 A It was based on the information that 22 Sergeant Pfarr relayed to me. 23 Q Not your personal observations? 24 A Correct. 25 Q So, now, at the time of this interview, you Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2691 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1595 1 shared this opinion? 2 A I did. 3 Q In October, did you share this opinion? 4 A In October when? To who? 5 Q In October of 2013, did you also share this 6 "problem officer" opinion? 7 A To who? 8 Q Did you share it? Did you have the same -- 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: Just in general? 10 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 11 THE WITNESS: I don't know that I shared it. 12 BY MS. CASTILLO: 13 Q I'm not saying communicate it. Did you also 14 have it? 15 A There was concerns regarding some of the 16 patterns that I was hearing from Sergeant Pfarr, yes. 17 Q Did you tell anyone in your chain of command? 18 A Not that I recall. 19 Q Did you tell Officer Waddell? 20 A I didn't talk to him, no. 21 Q Did anyone give him a notice that there was an 22 issue, maybe, with his performance? 23 MR. PALMER: Objection; relevance, misstates 24 the evidence, no foundation. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: If it misstates the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2692 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1596 1 evidence, then you can correct it, but I'll allow it. 2 THE WITNESS: I know Sergeant Pfarr had talked 3 to him about some of his behaviors. I don't know what 4 the exact conversations were. 5 BY MS. CASTILLO: 6 Q Do you know, approximately, how many times 7 Sergeant Pfarr told you that happened? 8 A No. 9 Q Do you know when those conversations happened? 10 A No. 11 Q Do you know what they were about? 12 A No. 13 Q They weren't documented; right? 14 A No. 15 Q So Officer Waddell's e-files wouldn't contain 16 anything about, you know, these issues that you speak 17 of; right? 18 A It could. 19 Q But they wouldn't based on anything you would 20 have written; right? 21 A I don't do Officer Waddell's evaluations. 22 Q Do you sign off on them? 23 A At the time I wouldn't have signed off on 24 those, no. 25 Q Did you ever review them at all? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2693 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1597 1 A No. 2 Q Would you have given any input into them? 3 A I don't recall. 4 Q Do you recall if you did? 5 A I don't recall. 6 Q Did you endeavor to? 7 A I don't recall if I passed on information to 8 the sergeant or not. 9 Q Which sergeant would have been writing the 10 evaluations? That would have been Amoroso for a time 11 period; right? 12 A I believe so, yes. 13 Q Then it would have gone to Sergeant Pfarr; 14 right? 15 A No. For his quarterly evaluations, 16 Sergeant Amoroso would have completed them, and they 17 would have been reviewed by Lieutenant Proll. 18 Q But wouldn't Sergeant Pfarr have taken over the 19 downtown bike patrol position shortly? 20 A He did take over the downtown bike patrol 21 position. 22 Q If Officer Waddell had not been placed on 23 administrative leave, Sergeant Pfarr would have been his 24 direct supervisor; right? 25 A We're asking if it would have happened? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2694 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1598 1 Q Yes. Had you -- had the department not put him 2 on administrative leave and terminated him, 3 Sergeant Pfarr would have been his direct supervisor; 4 right? 5 A Correct. 6 MS. CASTILLO: Ten, 21. 7 (Audio Playing) 8 BY MS. CASTILLO: 9 Q We are stopping at page 11, line 12. 10 So you went to Officer -- I'm sorry -- Sergeant 11 Pfarr and asked him what was going on regarding the 12 Bentley case? 13 A I don't recall exactly how it went. I believe 14 I was in the sergeant's office, and he was working on 15 the memo, and I asked him what was going on, and he had 16 relayed to me that he was asked to complete a memo 17 regarding the incident. 18 Q You say you knew something was going on; right? 19 And you knew he was working on something? 20 A Again, I'm going on my recollection. I 21 remember being in the sergeant's office, and he, at the 22 time, was working on that memo, and I asked him what was 23 going on. 24 Q Did he ever -- we're at line 13, page 11. 25 (Audio Playing) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2695 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1599 1 BY MS. CASTILLO: 2 Q When you were referring to Keith, is that 3 Captain Storton? 4 A I'm sorry? Yes, yes. 5 Q You indicate that you feel like you might have 6 mentioned it to Captain Staley, but you can't confirm 7 that; right? 8 A Correct. 9 Q Now, were you aware that around this time is 10 when the texting CAT IA had been concluding? Did Chad 11 tell you that? 12 A Did who tell me that? 13 Q Chad Pfarr. 14 A No. 15 Q At the time that he was asked to write the 16 memo, did you tell Sergeant Pfarr to call 17 Officer Waddell back into his office from the field 18 after your third -- well, after your last phone call 19 with him on the 19th? 20 A I don't recall exactly what our conversation 21 was regarding how to follow up on it. I don't know -- I 22 don't even know if I knew Kevin was in the field. I 23 just know we discussed him following up on it. 24 Q You didn't tell Sergeant Pfarr to let 25 Officer Waddell know that you would be following up on Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2696 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1600 1 it? 2 A I don't recall saying that. 3 MS. CASTILLO: I'm just checking my notes to 4 see if I have any extra. Can we have, like, a five 5 minute break? 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: Sure. 7 (Recess.) 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: We're back on the record. 9 Ms. Castillo, any more questions of this witness on 10 direct? 11 MS. CASTILLO: No. 12 13 RECROSS EXAMINATION 14 15 BY MR. PALMER: 16 Q Good afternoon. 17 A Good afternoon, sir. 18 Q I've just got a couple of areas. Do you 19 remember Ms. Castillo and you having a conversation 20 about the concept that Mr. Waddell shared that his texts 21 were simply misunderstood by Sergeant Pfarr? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q If this entire thing was truly just a 24 misunderstanding, do you think the administrative 25 investigation could have discerned it? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2697 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1601 1 MS. CASTILLO: Objection; calls for 2 speculation. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: If you know, I'll allow 4 you to answer. 5 THE WITNESS: Would you mind asking the 6 question again? 7 BY MR. PALMER: 8 Q I'll try it again. It's often a different 9 question. 10 A I'm sorry. 11 Q If the entire episode here involving the CAT 12 shift event was truly just a misunderstanding, do you 13 think that could have been discovered and discerned by 14 the administrative investigation? 15 MS. CASTILLO: Same objections. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: Overruled. 17 THE WITNESS: Yes. 18 BY MR. PALMER: 19 Q Turn to Exhibit 9 in my book. And before I 20 point to you a particular part to read, let me just set 21 this up. 22 You and Ms. Castillo had some conversation, on 23 your examination by her, about the details of when 24 Mr. Waddell was late, as shared to you by 25 Sergeant Pfarr, prior to October 19th. Do you recall Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2698 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1602 1 that? 2 A Yes. 3 Q You had a little trouble with the details and 4 dates of how many times Sergeant Pfarr told you he was 5 late? 6 A Yes. 7 Q When you reviewed Sergeant Pfarr's memo about 8 the CAT shift event, do you recognize that memo as being 9 Exhibit 9 there? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q Did some of those details come back to your 12 mind? 13 A If I reviewed it, it might. I haven't had a 14 chance to review it. 15 Q Take a look at paragraph two on the first page 16 of Exhibit 9. It starts off on 10-12-2013. Actually, 17 the paragraph two and paragraph three, read those to 18 yourself, and tell me when you're done. 19 A Okay. 20 Q Now, those paragraphs speak for themselves, but 21 if we synthesize those two paragraphs down, does that 22 articulate that, according to Sergeant Pfarr anyway, 23 Mr. Waddell arrived late for the shift on October 12th, 24 2013? 25 A Correct. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2699 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1603 1 Q And left early? 2 A Correct. 3 Q Presumably, without any permission, or at least 4 Sergeant Pfarr did not know of any permission ahead of 5 time; correct? 6 A Correct. 7 Q Does that help refresh your recollection as to 8 at least one of the events Sergeant Pfarr told you about 9 him being late and leaving early? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Were there others? 12 A I believe there was. 13 Q Before October 12th, or do you know? 14 A I don't know. 15 Q This event articulated by Sergeant Pfarr in his 16 memo, on October 12th, now using that as a benchmark, do 17 you have a recollection of when Sergeant Pfarr told you 18 about this? 19 MS. CASTILLO: About? I'm sorry. 20 BY MR. PALMER: 21 Q About the events on October 12th. 22 A I assume it was, probably, the following -- you 23 know, the following week when I came into work. 24 Q October 12th would have also been a Saturday? 25 A I believe so. I'm not sure. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2700 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1604 1 Q I think, since we've established October 19th 2 was a Saturday, it stands for reason. 3 A Good point. 4 Q Was that the same period of time when you were 5 working -- were you working on the weekend? 6 A No. 7 MR. PALMER: Nothing further. 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: Anything else? 9 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 10 11 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION 12 13 BY MS. CASTILLO: 14 Q This 10-12 incident that would have been 15 relayed to you in the week period between the 10-19 16 period, what was your schedule like during that week? 17 A I work a 980, so I could have been working 18 Monday through Thursday or Monday through Friday. I 19 don't recall. 20 Q Your schedule would have overlapped 21 Sergeant Pfarr's when? 22 A I don't recall what days he was working. 23 Q Would you have learned of this dressing out and 24 leaving early in person or over the phone? 25 A Either way. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2701 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1605 1 Q Could he have called you at home? 2 A He could have. 3 Q Does he often call you at home to report these 4 kind of things? 5 A I do get calls at home for work related 6 incidents, yes. 7 Q From Sergeant Pfarr? 8 A From all my sergeants. 9 Q Well, from Sergeant Pfarr, too? 10 A I don't know how many times, but he has called 11 me at home. 12 Q After -- okay. Mr. Palmer asked you about 13 whether or not this was a misunderstanding, if it would 14 have fleshed out in this investigation. Do you recall 15 that question? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Did you read the file? 18 A No. 19 Q Did you read all this stuff in his egg crate? 20 A No. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: God, I hope not. 22 MR. PALMER: I have. 23 BY MS. CASTILLO: 24 Q When you read this memo from Sergeant Pfarr, 25 who got information from Officer Inglehart, et cetera, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2702 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1606 1 did you ever talk to the other officers who worked with 2 Officer Waddell about these patterns that Pfarr had 3 observed? 4 A No. Because now potential for investigation, 5 and I wouldn't have gotten involved at this point. 6 Q Are we talking about the investigation into 7 what happened on the 19th, or are we talking about the 8 investigation of leaving early or coming in late? 9 A We're talking about the investigation regarding 10 him lying to Sergeant Pfarr. 11 MS. CASTILLO: And then -- I have nothing 12 further. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Anything on re-cross? 14 MR. PALMER: Just one. 15 16 RECROSS EXAMINATION 17 18 BY MR. PALMER: 19 Q Did you understand the premise of my 20 investigation question was based not upon the specifics 21 of this investigation, but an administrative 22 investigation in general? 23 A Yes. 24 Q That an administrative investigation, in 25 general, one would expect that would be a search for the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2703 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1607 1 truth? 2 A Yes. 3 Q If it was a misunderstanding, an 4 investigation -- administrative investigation, in 5 general, done well enough would, hopefully, be able to 6 figure that out? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Just a general question, and that's how you 9 understood it? 10 A Yes. 11 MR. PALMER: Nothing further. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: Anything else? 13 14 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION 15 16 BY MS. CASTILLO: 17 Q Have you ever conducted an administrative 18 investigation? 19 A I have. 20 Q How many? 21 A A few. I don't know how many. 22 Q Were you conducting them according to the 2013 23 Lexipol policy or the 2014 Lexipol policy? 24 A I have no idea what policy was in place. 25 Q Are they different? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2704 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1608 1 A There's been many changes made. 2 Q Well, I mean, according to the format for the 3 Internal Affairs investigations. 4 A There's been changes made. I don't know what 5 the exact changes are. 6 Q Or when they happened; right? 7 A You just said '13 and '14, so I assumed you're 8 talking about the two changes throughout the year, but 9 we get updates all the time on Lexipol, so they're 10 ongoing changes with Lexipol. 11 Q Do you know if anything changed in regards to 12 the IA format? 13 A I don't know anything specific. 14 Q Had you heard that anything had? 15 A I -- referencing what? 16 Q I don't know. 17 MS. CASTILLO: I don't have anything else. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: Anything else from the 19 department? 20 MR. PALMER: No. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: I have a couple 22 questions, and I'm going to apologize in advance if this 23 is already in the record somewhere, but this is day 24 eight, and I've only got four transcripts, so I may have 25 missed it. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2705 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1609 1 Lieutenant Smith, correct me if I'm wrong, but 2 the gist of your earlier testimony is that you didn't 3 give permission to Officer Waddell to report late on 4 October 18th, to report late on October 19th; is that 5 right? 6 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: If I understand his 8 position, it's a little more nuanced than that. And to 9 that end, I'd like to have you take a look at 10 Department's Exhibit 21, page 7. Wait for everybody to 11 catch up. A little over halfway down the transcript 12 says for Officer Waddell, "I didn't say to him that he 13 gave me permission for that day." 14 MS. CASTILLO: I'm sorry. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Are you with us? Page 7. 16 MS. CASTILLO: I'm on page 7. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: A little over halfway 18 down where it says, "Waddell," and there's some "I's." 19 MS. CASTILLO: Okay. 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: And so it says, "I didn't 21 say to him," which, presumably, means Sergeant Pfarr, 22 "that he," which, presumably, means you, "gave me 23 permission for that day. I said that Smith is okay with 24 me coming in late. I believe that's how I said it. 25 Smith is okay with me coming in late." Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2706 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1610 1 Do you see where it says that? 2 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: Were you okay with him 4 coming in late? 5 THE WITNESS: Absolutely, not, unless he was 6 given permission. There's not a general rule that I 7 have with any of my officers that they come in or leave 8 whenever they want. 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: So go to the next page on 10 page 8 of the same document, Department 21, and it says 11 towards the top from Lieutenant Bledsoe, "So has 12 Lieutenant Smith given you permission in the past, on 13 past dates, to come in late?" 14 And Officer Waddell says, "Yes." 15 Do you see where it says that? 16 THE WITNESS: Yes. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Then he asks, "How many 18 other times?" 19 And Officer Waddell says, "There's been, I can 20 think of two times in particular where I've sought 21 permission to come in." 22 Do you see where it says that? 23 THE WITNESS: Yes. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Is that accurate, as far 25 as you know? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2707 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1611 1 THE WITNESS: Again, I know he's asked. I try 2 to be flexible, and I've had other officers in the past 3 ask to come on late -- come in late, and it's always 4 based on a specific date and time. And, usually, I try 5 to be flexible, you know, with my officers, if it allows 6 me to be. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: But my question is, is it 8 two times? Is it more? Is it less? Do you know? 9 THE WITNESS: Sorry, sir, I don't know. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: So, then, the next 11 statement there from Lieutenant Bledsoe, or the next 12 question says, "So when he told you you could come in 13 late on those other occasions, did you think that was a 14 blanket statement that it's okay that you come in late 15 all the time, then?" 16 And, then, Officer Waddell's answer is, "That's 17 kind of the way I construed the situation, and I think 18 that that's my mistake in overstepping my bounds," et 19 cetera. Do you see where it says that? 20 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: Did you give him blanket 22 permission to come in as he says here? 23 THE WITNESS: No. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Do you give anybody 25 blanket permission? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2708 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1612 1 THE WITNESS: No. 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: So, Ms. Castillo, do you 3 have any more questions? 4 MS. CASTILLO: I do. 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: Go ahead. 6 7 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION 8 9 BY MS. CASTILLO: 10 Q So do you recall testifying on July 9th? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Do you recall testifying on cross-examination 13 with me? 14 A I do. 15 Q Do you recall saying that you try to be 16 accommodating to officers, and "11: 15 is okay, 11: 30 is 17 okay, but after 11: 30 is probably a problem; right?" 18 And your answer is, "Could be, yes." 19 A I recall something to that effect, yes. 20 Q Is that an example of you being flexible? 21 A So you're asking -- again, the direct question 22 is, "Is coming in at 11: 00 okay?" 23 And my answer was, "Yes." 24 And then, "Coming in at 11: 30 is okay?" 25 Q No. It says, "11: 15 is okay. 11: 30 is okay. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2709 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1613 1 But after 11: 30 is probably a problem; right?" 2 And your answer is, "Could be, yes." 3 A Yeah, could be. 4 Q That's still your testimony? 5 A Again, like I said, it wasn't a definite. It 6 depended on the circumstances. So it could be a problem 7 if it was -- if that was the case. But, again, I take 8 things into consideration. 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, you have gotta -- 10 it was a "yes" or "no" question. 11 Could you read it back? 12 (Record read.) 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Is that still your 14 testimony? 15 THE WITNESS: Yes. 16 BY MS. CASTILLO: 17 Q So that's you being flexible? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And when -- then your testimony would also be 20 on that date that, it was only a problem if it's a 21 consistent thing; correct? Would you still agree with 22 that? 23 A What was the question? 24 Q Well, okay. The first question that I -- I can 25 read the whole thing. On direct you said you tried to Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2710 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1614 1 be accommodating. "11: 15 is okay. 11: 30 is okay. But 2 after 11: 30 is probably a problem; right?" 3 And your answer was, "Could be, yes." 4 My question is, "Is that only a problem for 5 you, or is it not a problem for other supervisors?" 6 And your answer was, "When I say it was 7 probably a problem, it would be a problem if it was a 8 consistent thing. On occasion, if it happened, I tried 9 to be accommodating." 10 Do you still agree with that? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Now, Officer Waddell has never used the word 13 "blanket" to you, in terms of saying, "It's my 14 understanding, Lieutenant Smith, that I have blanket 15 permission to flex my schedule a little here and there, 16 and tweak it at will"? Correct? 17 A Yeah, we've never had that conversation. 18 Q And these officers are on overtime shifts; 19 right? 20 A Correct. 21 Q If you found that they were abusing their 22 ability to be on time, or consistent in their 23 scheduling, you could just not schedule them for this 24 overtime; right? 25 A That might be one possibility. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2711 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1615 1 Q After October 19th, you scheduled 2 Officer Waddell for almost 150 more -- or I'm sorry. 3 Yeah, 150 more hours of overtime on this; right? 4 A Right. 5 Q We talked about that. Okay. 6 And that's when you believed him to be a 7 problem officer with this potential pattern that you 8 personally hadn't observed; right? 9 A I believed there was some issues that were 10 brought to my attention by Sergeant Pfarr that were 11 concerning, and Sergeant Pfarr was asked to take care of 12 them. 13 Q After the 19th, did you hear about any other 14 issues? 15 A No. 16 Q And so, after the 19th, whatever 17 misunderstanding that Officer Waddell had about the, you 18 know, somewhat flexibility of, "Maybe, I can come in a 19 little bit late, maybe I can come in a little bit 20 early," you never heard about that again, did you? Not 21 from Sergeant Pfarr; right? It being an issue? 22 A It never had been discussed. I think -- ask 23 the question again, because you're making a statement 24 that has not been made. 25 Q I can start over. It's fine. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2712 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1616 1 From the time period of October 19th, when this 2 misunderstanding, according to Officer Waddell, 3 occurred, to December 12th, when he got put on 4 administrative leave, he worked another 150 hours on 5 CAT; right? 6 A Correct. 7 Q You assigned him those hours; right? 8 A He volunteered for those hours. 9 Q You gave them to him; right? 10 A Correct. 11 Q During those periods, those two months, 12 roughly; right? Did you hear of another incident where 13 Officer Waddell was not on time or -- well, we'll just 14 start with on time. 15 A No. 16 Q Did you hear of another incident where he took 17 a liberty that he was not given by you? 18 A No. 19 Q If you had witnessed Officer Waddell come in 20 late for his shift on CAT, what would you have done if 21 he had not called you on the phone or sent you a text, 22 and you were the watch commander, and you had not had 23 this middleman sergeant to deal with, what would you 24 have done? 25 A Talked to him about it. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2713 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1617 1 MR. PALMER: Speculation. 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'm going to allow it. 3 You can answer. 4 THE WITNESS: Discussed it with him. 5 BY MS. CASTILLO: 6 Q Because he didn't call you and say, "I'm 7 running late. I need a little extra time." Right? 8 A Yes. 9 Q And if you found out that he left a little 10 early one day, because he had childcare issues, or 11 whatever, what would you have done? 12 A Again, confronted him regarding it. Honestly, 13 if I would have found out that, I would have talked to 14 his sergeant and told his sergeant to handle it. 15 Q What does "handle it" mean at that point? What 16 would you have expected? 17 A It depends. 18 Q If it's a pattern; right? 19 A Yeah. 20 Q But if it's not a pattern, are we talking about 21 some serious discipline? 22 A Him leaving early one time? 23 Q Yeah. 24 A No. 25 Q Or running late? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2714 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1618 1 A One time? 2 Q One or two times without -- 3 A Second time he could get a written memo for it. 4 Q I said serious discipline. 5 A What's that? 6 Q I said serious discipline. 7 A For being late twice? 8 Q Let's even say, five times. 9 A It depends. By that time, it could be more of 10 a serious investigation, and if it's been five times, 11 and it's become a pattern, and we have concerns, 12 something, he could get a day off. 13 Q A day off; right? 14 A I'm speculating. It's not my decision to make. 15 Q He could even stop being assigned to overtime; 16 right? 17 A Potentially. 18 Q But those are -- are those, probably, the worst 19 things that could happen to him for about that type of 20 pattern, based on you being in that supervisory position 21 with that specific set of facts? 22 A Based on that question, it's not my decision to 23 make. 24 Q Have you ever read the transcript of 25 Officer Waddell's interview to Internal Affairs? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2715 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1619 1 A No. 2 Q And Sergeant Pfarr had advised you, because 3 you've testified about it, and we've heard it in your 4 audio today, that you were aware, at least through 5 Sergeant Pfarr, that, occasionally, Officer Waddell 6 would come in a little early or leave a little late; 7 right? 8 A I had heard there was incidents. 9 Q And knowing that Sergeant Pfarr would have been 10 the watch commander, and you would have been the 11 supervisor, and, obviously, if Sergeant Pfarr was the 12 direct supervisor at that time, and he's bringing it to 13 your attention, neither of you would have asked in 14 advance for permission; right? 15 A Neither of us had been asked in advance. 16 Q That's the assumption; right? 17 A Sure, yes. 18 Q So, when Lieutenant Bledsoe, on page 8, asked 19 the question that the hearing officer just asked you 20 about, as he asked Officer Waddell about coming in late 21 on those other questions and blanket statements, do you 22 have any idea where this blanket concept came from? 23 A What's your question? 24 Q Do you have any idea where the blanket concept 25 came from? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2716 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1620 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: If you know. 2 THE WITNESS: I don't even know what she's 3 referring to right now. She said page 8, so I would 4 probably need to read it. 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: I think she was referring 6 to the testimony that I was quoting from when we were 7 having our discussion earlier. Is that right? 8 THE WITNESS: Can I clarify the blanket 9 statements that he can come and go? 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah. Do you know where 11 that came from? 12 What I quoted to you was a question that got 13 put to Officer Waddell by Lieutenant Bledsoe. That's 14 where it came from, what I was quoting from. 15 THE WITNESS: And Officer Waddell said there 16 was a blanket statement? 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: I think that's in 18 dispute. I think that the words were suggested, as far 19 as I know, by Lieutenant Bledsoe. Whether it came out 20 of Officer Waddell's mouth, I have no idea. 21 THE WITNESS: I don't know where the statement 22 came from. 23 BY MS. CASTILLO: 24 Q Is it your understanding that, in the past, if 25 officers had come in late, that they would add Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2717 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1621 1 additional time on the end of their shift to flex to 2 make up that period of time that they were assigned to 3 the CAT shift? 4 MR. PALMER: Objection; vague and ambiguous. 5 With or without specific permission? 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: If you understand the 7 question, you can answer. 8 BY MS. CASTILLO: 9 Q I'm talking about when they worked. 10 A It's a possibility. I don't recall if somebody 11 did or didn't. But I mean, if somebody said, "Hey, I'm 12 going to be 30 minutes late. Can I stay an extra 30 13 minutes?" I may have approved that. 14 Q Is the expectation that they work four hours? 15 A The expectation when it's posted is that they 16 work the hours that are posted. 17 Q Are they -- when they do their timecard, do 18 they write in their hours, or do they write in how many 19 hours? 20 A The way our timecard system works, you fill in 21 how many hours you worked, whether you're sick, on 22 vacation, show up late for work. You know, just how 23 many hours you've worked. That's how our timecard 24 program works. 25 Q So, if you are -- I don't have anything else. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2718 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1622 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: Cross-examination? 2 3 RECROSS EXAMINATION 4 5 BY MR. PALMER: 6 Q Sir, as you understand the issues in this case, 7 being one of the witnesses in this matter, is the issue 8 in this case that Mr. Waddell was a half hour late to 9 his shift on October 19th, 2013? 10 A No. 11 MS. CASTILLO: Objection; relevance and calls 12 for speculation. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, it's calling for 14 the legal theory, but I'll allow this one. 15 BY MR. PALMER: 16 Q Your answer was? 17 A No. 18 Q Is the issue in this case, so far as to the 19 extent you understand it, that he lied to Sergeant Pfarr 20 about you giving him permission to do so? 21 A Yes. 22 MR. PALMER: Nothing further. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: Anything else from 24 redirect? 25 \\ Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2719 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1623 1 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION 2 3 BY MS. CASTILLO: 4 Q When were you -- do you remember when you were 5 interviewed regarding the Bentley IA? 6 A That was December. I don't remember. I'd be 7 guessing. 8 Q Do you know why you were never asked about the 9 statements Officer Waddell made during his interview 10 about the conversations that were had between he and 11 Sergeant Pfarr and he and you on the 19th? Do you have 12 any insight into that? 13 A I have no idea what you want to know. Could 14 you repeat the question or clarify? 15 Q You were interviewed three times; right? 16 A Correct. 17 Q You were never asked about the statements that 18 we were just asking you about in this transcript; right? 19 A What statements? 20 Q Any of Officer Waddell's statements regarding 21 what was said in his official interview; right? 22 A Which interview? There's three interviews that 23 I'm aware of. 24 Q His interview regarding the CAT event. 25 A Again, I'm confused on what you're asking me. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2720 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1624 1 Q On the three occasions that the department 2 chose to interview you, they never asked you about what 3 he said in his interview; right? 4 A How would I have known what he said in his 5 interview? 6 Q Well, they gave everyone else the content of 7 everyone else's interviews. 8 A I don't know what you're talking about. 9 MS. CASTILLO: I don't have anything else. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Anything else? 11 MS. CASTILLO: No. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: Anything on re-cross? 13 MR. PALMER: No. 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: Can we excuse this 15 witness? 16 MR. PALMER: Yes. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Lieutenant. I 18 appreciate you joining us. You're excused. Off the 19 record. 20 (Recess.) 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: We're back on the record. 22 We're re-calling Captain Storton. 23 You're still under oath. 24 THE WITNESS: Thank you. Yes. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: Very good. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2721 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1625 1 You may proceed. 2 3 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 4 5 BY MS. CASTILLO: 6 Q Good afternoon. 7 A Good afternoon. 8 Q We've heard testimony during this hearing that 9 some of the policies and procedures in the department 10 had changed during the time that Officer Waddell was 11 under investigation. 12 Are you familiar with those policies that 13 changed? 14 A Not specifically. 15 Q You did cite that a policy specifically did 16 change, which removed the Internal Affairs investigation 17 that you were originally assigned to conduct from your 18 oversight to that of Captain Staley. Do you remember 19 that? 20 A That was passed on to me through Chief Gesell. 21 It was his interpretation of the policy. 22 Q I think at the last hearing you were actually 23 able to cite the section. Do you recall that? 24 A I don't remember at the moment. 25 Q Okay. But there was a section that was passed Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2722 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1626 1 on to you by the Chief; right? 2 A Correct. 3 Q And can you kind of detail what that section, 4 essentially, said? 5 A I think, based on what I had discussed last 6 time, it had to do with keeping the line of supervision 7 within each bureau, whether it was the Administrative 8 Bureau or the Operations Bureau, and because this 9 happened to an employee that was working under the 10 Operations Bureau, that's when Chief Gesell decided to 11 transfer the ownership of the investigation to that side 12 of it. 13 Q But that was after your investigation had 14 already been done, and you had already made your 15 recommendation; right? 16 A Yes. 17 Q And that policy had actually already been in 18 effect; correct? 19 A It was in effect at that time? 20 Q Yes. 21 A Yes. 22 Q So that policy only was implemented after he 23 didn't like your recommendation; right? 24 MR. PALMER: Objection; speculation, 25 argumentative. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2723 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1627 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: Overruled. If you know. 2 THE WITNESS: I'm a little confused by your 3 question. When you say policy, we have written policies 4 that are in place that provide us with the guidelines 5 for certain operational administrative aspects of the 6 department. So I was advised of the policy by 7 Chief Gesell at that time. So that policy is a written 8 document that is in place. 9 BY MS. CASTILLO: 10 Q That policy was at all times in place when you 11 were first assigned the Internal Affairs investigation; 12 right? 13 A Correct. 14 Q And as you conducted it; right? 15 A Correct. 16 Q And, then, as you made an executive 17 recommendation; right? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And, then, he expressed his displeasure with 20 your recommendation; correct? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And then he invoked the policy that said it 23 should go under the Operations Captain; right? 24 A Yes, that was his choice. 25 Q Okay. And what happened to your investigation? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2724 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1628 1 A As far as the physical documentation? 2 Q Right. 3 A It was in a file and no longer under my 4 control. I'm not certain unless it's retained at the 5 P.D. 6 Q And did -- do you know that if memorandums that 7 were originally written to you had their -- had who they 8 were directed to, the name changed, or did the whole 9 investigation just start over; do you know? 10 A I don't know. Well, I should clarify. The 11 investigation did not start over. There was still 12 information there. 13 Q What additional information, or do you know if 14 additional information came out of the new investigation 15 that was now under the command of Captain Staley? 16 A I'm not certain on that. 17 Q Do you have any thoughts on it? 18 A I don't have any specific thoughts, no. 19 Q Do you know -- do you have any ideas as to if 20 anything was done, after your executive recommendation, 21 additional? 22 A I can speculate that, maybe, some other 23 conversations took place, but I don't know specifically. 24 Q Okay. Would that include the conversation that 25 you had with Sergeant Pfarr asking him about penalty? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2725 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1629 1 A Can you elaborate? I'm not sure what you mean. 2 Q Didn't you have a conversation with 3 Sergeant Pfarr about what he thought potentially the 4 motivation was after the IA was done? 5 A I had a conversation with Sergeant Pfarr early 6 in February -- I'm sorry, early in December, when he 7 advised me of the circumstances of the traffic accident 8 investigation. Is that the one you're referring to? 9 Q I think so. How is it -- but isn't it that 10 that conversation took place, because you were asking 11 him about what he thought should happen in terms of your 12 investigation, as this IA that you had been in charge of 13 was now coming to a conclusion? 14 A The information provided to me with 15 Sergeant Pfarr, during that discussion in December, was 16 information he felt that he needed to share. It wasn't 17 prompted by me. I wasn't searching for information. 18 But he felt there were circumstances that existed with 19 the Bentley investigation that were concerning to him. 20 So I felt it was my duty to follow up on that and 21 provide that information to Chief Gesell, who is my 22 supervisor, to determine what was the next best course 23 of action. 24 Q So how did this conversation happen? Did you 25 call him into your office? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2726 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1630 1 A He came to my office on his own. 2 Q At this point was Officer Waddell on 3 administrative leave? 4 A I don't believe so. 5 Q But wasn't your investigation almost -- well, 6 you were at the penalty phase, though; right? 7 A For the first investigation? 8 Q Right. 9 A Yes. 10 Q So he was placed on administrative leave on 11 December 12th. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: You're asking him, or 13 you're telling him? 14 BY MS. CASTILLO: 15 Q Just to give you kind of a context, if you're 16 at the penalty phase, he's been placed on administrative 17 leave after his Internal Affairs investigation or 18 interview, that would have meant that you were now 19 making your executive recommendation; right? 20 A I'm trying to remember the specifics of the 21 dates, and I can't clearly remember at the moment. 22 Q So he comes to you during this and offers 23 additional information, and says what? 24 A He provides me with information that he feels 25 that, perhaps, on the night of the investigation of the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2727 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1631 1 collision, that Officer Waddell may have taken property 2 that wasn't associated with the investigation as 3 evidence, and that he may have taken it for personal use 4 or some type of collection. 5 Q And then, ultimately, you wrote a memorandum? 6 A Yes. 7 Q And that's in February; right? 8 A I think that's correct. 9 Q Why did you wait until February to write a 10 memorandum? 11 A I think with -- I'm still cloudy on my timing, 12 but I think it was a memorandum to Lieutenant Proll, who 13 was eventually in charge of the investigation for that 14 particular -- I do remember writing a memorandum. I 15 would have to see it again, but it was a memorandum kind 16 of highlighting my conversation with Sergeant Pfarr 17 talking about the information that I knew at this point 18 in order to initiate whatever needed to be done at that 19 point with the investigation. 20 Q Did you -- were you requested to do that by 21 Lieutenant Proll? 22 A You know, the February date is kind of throwing 23 me off, and what's unfortunate, when I sometimes -- and 24 I haven't corrected it on my computer, is that if I go 25 in on a certain date to a memorandum, it will change the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2728 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1632 1 date automatically on my computer, and I'm a little 2 concerned that the date may have been changed. But for 3 some reason, the February date doesn't stand out to me. 4 I think I would have written the memorandum fairly soon 5 after my conversation with Sergeant Pfarr in order to 6 document the information and have that written down. 7 Q So it's your belief that when he came to you, 8 thereabouts, you would have shortly thereafter written 9 the memorandum to ensure that it was fresh in your mind 10 and as accurate as possible? 11 A Correct. 12 Q And are the statements in that memorandum, to 13 the best of your recollection, what Sergeant Pfarr told 14 you? 15 A They are. I would have written it that way. I 16 wouldn't have made any different allegations. 17 Q So, if Sergeant Pfarr said that your memorandum 18 wasn't accurate, would you be surprised by that? 19 A I believe I would be, yes. 20 Q Sergeant Pfarr testified today that you wanted 21 to know from him what would have been the motivation 22 behind the issue on the 19th; is that correct? 23 A I don't think I asked him what his motivation 24 was. 25 Q Him being Officer Waddell, if he had something, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2729 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1633 1 any insight into that, as in prior discipline issues, or 2 if there was a history of animosity. Does that sound 3 right? 4 A No, that doesn't sound right to me. 5 Q He testified that you were looking for 6 something to determine if this was a mistake of the 7 heart or a mistake of the mind. Does that sound right? 8 A That doesn't sound right to me. 9 Q He also testified that you asked him if 10 Officer Waddell was nervous around him for any reason. 11 Do you remember doing something like that? 12 A I don't remember that. 13 Q Would that have been a question you would asked 14 him on the heels of this investigation that had been 15 assigned to you, not as an investigator, but as the one 16 who was going to write the executive recommendation to 17 the Chief? 18 A I'm not sure if I understand your question. 19 Q Were you -- when you met with Sergeant Pfarr, 20 which he said you called him in, was it your intention 21 to do almost a supplemental interview on that date? 22 A No. No. My intent was not that at all. 23 Q Did you ask the investigator to ask questions 24 about DRMO? 25 A I remember having conversations about that, but Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2730 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1634 1 I don't recall specifically. When you say 2 "investigator," which investigator are you referring to? 3 Q The one that you assigned the investigation to. 4 A I didn't assign this investigation. It was 5 done through the Chief. 6 Q Well, when you assigned, ultimately, the 7 oversight over an investigation, right, did you ever 8 meet with the investigator? 9 A Are we talking the first investigation? 10 Q Right. 11 A There would have been some discussions that 12 would have taken place through a series of different 13 dates. 14 Q And this investigation that you were initially 15 doing, right, was about honesty and integrity; correct? 16 A Correct. 17 Q Were you told to ask questions about DRMO? 18 A I'm sure there were questions that came up 19 regarding that, yes. 20 Q Was that also a theme that you were aware of as 21 it pertained to Officer Waddell? 22 A A theme as far as what? 23 Q Well, I'm -- you recall conversations about 24 DRMO as it pertains to integrity, and honesty, and this 25 overall investigation; right? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2731 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1635 1 A That's the DRMO program? Yes, accountability 2 for that program is important. 3 Q Okay. But as it pertained to the Internal 4 Affairs investigation that you were initially 5 overseeing, did you think it was relevant? 6 A It must have been, because it was part of my 7 conversations, so it did come up as an item of 8 discussion. 9 Q Who brought it to your attention? 10 A I don't recall. 11 Q Was it initiated by you? 12 A I don't recall. There have been many 13 conversations about this process along the way. 14 Q Even though you were, ultimately, reassigned, 15 or this was taken out of your purview, you still 16 participated; correct? You were CC'd on e-mails, et 17 cetera? 18 A Limited basis, yes. 19 Q What do you mean "limited basis"? 20 A I don't know what information I was privy to or 21 not. I wasn't part of the entire process. I was part 22 of some of the process. 23 Q So did you ever ask Sergeant Pfarr if there was 24 an issue between him and Officer Waddell in terms of 25 fear, or intimidation, or something along that line, and Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2732 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1636 1 that's how the Bentley issue was brought to your 2 attention? 3 A I don't recall that specifically. 4 Q His testimony today was that he wasn't sure 5 what motivated you to call him into your office, but 6 your testimony today is that he just appeared in your 7 office? 8 A I'm trying to recall specifically how the 9 information about the Bentley came to my attention, and 10 I don't know if it was through me hearing through 11 somebody else. I just recall that it was concerning. 12 So I'm trying to recall if, maybe, he was told he should 13 go talk to the captain, or if he came to me as a result 14 of a conversation like that. I just recall hearing 15 about the information, and that it was important that we 16 look into it further. 17 Q Okay. Now, at the point you have this 18 conversation with him in December, do you go to the 19 Chief with it? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Straight to the Chief? 22 A I don't know how quickly. It was -- I can't 23 remember that day specifically, but I know it would have 24 been within a short time span. 25 Q Sergeant Pfarr testified today that you and he Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2733 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1637 1 discussed the penalty phase, potentially, what should 2 happen with Officer Waddell and integrity issues. 3 Do you have any recollection of that line of 4 conversation between the two of you? 5 A I'm not sure what you mean by me discussing the 6 penalty phase with Sergeant Pfarr. 7 Q I didn't understand what he meant either. So 8 you don't know what that means? 9 A I don't know. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Mutual misunderstanding. 11 BY MS. CASTILLO: 12 Q In terms of a penalty, I guess, discipline was 13 coming, maybe. Did you talk about discipline with him? 14 A I would be surprised, because that wouldn't be 15 information that he would be privy to. 16 Q He testified that you were asking him what and 17 why it happened, in his words. Is that accurate? 18 A "It" meaning what? 19 Q The texting event, the 19th. 20 A Can you ask that again, please? 21 Q Back to the mistake of the heart and mind, 22 which was it; right? Was it a misunderstanding between 23 them or not; right? We're back to that. Okay? 24 A I'm confused what investigation we're on. 25 Q I'm only talking about the texting. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2734 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1638 1 His testimony today was that you wanted further 2 insight into whether or not it was a mistake, a 3 misunderstanding, and that that you sought that from 4 Sergeant Pfarr. Is that accurate? 5 A I don't recall that specifically. 6 Q You don't remember that? 7 A I don't remember that. 8 Q Does that sound like something that you would 9 remember and have not included having a second 10 conversation with the complaining witness about? 11 A I'm not sure what we're talking about now when 12 you say second complaining witness. 13 Q Well, Sergeant Pfarr is a complaining witness 14 in your texting IA; right? He is the one who is, in 15 your allegations of your executive memo, is the one who 16 Officer Waddell made the false and misleading statements 17 to; correct? 18 A He's a witness, yes. 19 Q He complained about it; right? 20 A Yes. We're just using different terminologies. 21 Q I don't want to say he's a victim, so I'm 22 saying complaining witness. Are we on the same page? 23 A Yes. 24 Q So, from there, after that conversation 25 happens, you ask him about the Bentley incident, or he Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2735 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1639 1 tells you about the Bentley incident; correct? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Enough to where you have a good understanding 4 of what happened that night, you believe; correct? 5 A With the Bentley incident? 6 Q Yes. 7 A No. 8 Q No? 9 A No. Enough to make me concerned that we may 10 have another investigation. 11 Q But he told you that he believed he handled it 12 that night; right? 13 A Yes. 14 Q He believed that it was a practical joke that 15 night; right? 16 A That night, yes. 17 Q And there's been no other allegations of any 18 similar type of misconduct on the part of 19 Officer Waddell that you were aware of; right? 20 A Not that I'm aware of. 21 Q And as he sat in your office, he didn't give 22 you any kind of indication that there was some 23 triggering event, other than this October 19th incident 24 that you were aware of, that would have changed him from 25 being a jokester to a thief; right? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2736 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1640 1 A Are you talking about Officer Pfarr's 2 perspective? 3 Q Right. 4 A Officer Pfarr's perspective was brought to me 5 later, so I have to go with the information that he 6 provided to me at that time. 7 Q So at that time the information he provides you 8 is that now, maybe, he is a thief; right? 9 A Yes. 10 Q And you're going to refer to the Chief; right? 11 A Correct. 12 Q You then make an executive recommendation; 13 right? 14 A Yes. 15 Q With this information in your mind about the 16 Bentley; right? 17 A Yes. 18 Q You don't write anything about that in your 19 executive recommendation, though. Why? 20 A Because it was an active investigation assigned 21 to somebody else, which I did not oversee. I was just 22 working on the one investigation. Then, at some point 23 in time, because of the allegations, they became merged. 24 Q Either he came to you, or you called him in, 25 and you asked him about this other issue; right? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2737 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1641 1 A Correct. 2 Q Same officer that you are about to make a 3 recommendation on; right? 4 A Correct. 5 Q On a potential integrity issue; right? 6 A Correct. 7 Q You have this in your mind as you were about to 8 make a recommendation on the one that you have been 9 assigned; right? 10 A Correct. 11 Q With that knowledge, at least from the one 12 person who has the strongest opinion of what happened in 13 February, from his mouth to your ear, Sergeant Pfarr, 14 you make a recommendation of a one time pay equivalent 15 suspension in value to 80 hours; right? 16 A Yes. 17 Q And then removal from SWAT and downtown bike; 18 right? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And downtown bike hadn't even started for him? 21 A Correct. I think -- 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: Has that document been 23 marked? Should we be paying attention to it? 24 MS. CASTILLO: I'm going to mark it. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: You're working up to it. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2738 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1642 1 Got it. 2 BY MS. CASTILLO: 3 Q When did you have your conversation with the 4 Chief that your recommended action was not acceptable? 5 A It would have been in December or January. I'm 6 not certain. 7 Q Well, enough time for it to be reassigned to 8 Captain Staley for him to redo a new one; right? Okay. 9 Have you ever looked through the Internal 10 Affairs investigation files of Officer Waddell, the 11 entire one that was submitted to the City Manager? 12 A No, I have not. 13 Q You have never seen the entire Bentley IA? 14 A I have seen several pieces. I don't know if 15 it's in its entirety. But I have not sat down and 16 looked at the complete file. 17 Q What have you seen? 18 A That would be very difficult to speak to. 19 There's been a lot of e-mail correspondence across the 20 way. I've written some of the information. Some of it 21 I've reviewed. Most of it is the result of the first 22 investigation and limited pieces on the Bentley. 23 Q So you would have read, basically, the entirety 24 of the CAT investigation; right? 25 A Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2739 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1643 1 Q Did you listen to the audios? 2 A I did not. 3 Q So you wrote your executive recommendation also 4 without listening to any audio? 5 A Correct. 6 Q So, then, you have never seen any of the 7 transcripts either, then; right? 8 A Correct. 9 Q So then have you ever seen any -- well, did you 10 listen to any portions of Officer Waddell's interviews 11 from either investigation? 12 A No, I did not. 13 Q So your recommendation was just based on the 14 summary of Lieutenant Bledsoe? 15 A Well, it was also a result of another 16 investigation I was familiar with, as far as the 17 punishment. 18 Q Oh, the one that you researched? 19 A Correct. 20 Q So Lieutenant Bledsoe's summary and the 21 research; right? 22 A Yes. I did have the file. I would have 23 reviewed items in the file. I'm not saying I went 24 through it cover to cover, but I did rely on the 25 investigative skills of the officer that was assigned to Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2740 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1644 1 complete that investigation. 2 Q But you also took the time to do your own 3 investigation to see what an appropriate penalty would 4 be, though; correct? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Did you know that Lieutenant Bledsoe sent his 7 investigation over to Lieutenant Proll on the other IA, 8 as that was going on right before he was interviewed 9 over there? 10 A No, I did not. 11 Q Is that normal protocol? 12 MR. PALMER: Objection; vague, speculation. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Do you know? 14 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 15 BY MS. CASTILLO: 16 Q Did the Chief indicate to you, although he said 17 that the 80 hours, and the removal from the assignments 18 was not sufficient, did he indicate to you what he 19 believed was? 20 A Yes. 21 Q What did he say? 22 A Termination. 23 Q What was the point in even doing the Bentley 24 IA? 25 A To accurately reflect the information that we Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2741 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1645 1 had in order to make a decision. 2 Q Since your -- and when he told you that, what 3 was your reaction? 4 A I explained to him that, based upon information 5 that I had of a previous investigation involving lying, 6 that in order to be fair, that Officer Waddell may 7 deserve the same type of decision. But I think I've 8 learned there's a difference between fair and right, and 9 although I was trying to be fair, my decision was wrong. 10 It wasn't right. 11 Q What is the difference between fair and right, 12 then? 13 A Well, in the first situation with the other 14 incident we're talking about, had I had knowledge of 15 that circumstance and investigate that matter, I would 16 have -- my recommendation would have been that that 17 person was fired. 18 Q Well, and that was the false police report; 19 right? 20 A Yes. 21 Q You weren't aware of any kind of pattern of 22 lying on the part of Officer Waddell? 23 A No. 24 Q You were not aware of any kind of official 25 business documentation or anything? What you're saying Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2742 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1646 1 is those cases were dissimilar? 2 A I think they were similar in the sense that two 3 people were in a situation where they lied. 4 Q Your findings were based on the summary of your 5 investigator; right? 6 A No. I testified that it's based on, I did have 7 the packet of information in front of me. I did not 8 read it page to page, but I did go through miscellaneous 9 parts of the file, along with reading the summary, and 10 along with researching a history of discipline that had 11 been provided to someone under similar circumstance. 12 Q Forget that part, because you have now said 13 that that was a wrong decision. So we're talking about 14 Officer Waddell. Miscellaneous parts of the file, what 15 does that mean? 16 A I know the file was in front of me, and I 17 looked through it. I can't say that I read it page for 18 page, but I did have access to the summary, and it 19 depended upon the recommendation of the investigator 20 that investigated the complaint. 21 Q When you went to speak to Chief Gesell about 22 your executive recommendation, had you given him your 23 packet? 24 A I believe it may have been in a packet form, 25 but I think my intent at the time wasn't, "Here, Chief, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2743 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1647 1 here is the final. This is exactly the way it should 2 be." I think it was also a sense of looking for some 3 guidance in a situation where I had no experience. 4 Q So what did you provide him? 5 A It would have the written recommendation that I 6 wrote along with supporting information that was part of 7 the file. 8 Q What do you mean "supporting information"? 9 A When we put these packets together, they're 10 usually contained in one file, and throughout the course 11 of the investigation, documents are added. So, at some 12 point in time, this entire packet, with the information 13 that was there to that point in time, was in that file 14 and available to him to review. 15 Q So this was December that you did this; right? 16 A I believe so. 17 Q Have you ever reviewed Captain Staley's 18 executive recommendation of the IA that you initially 19 made the recommendation on? 20 A I don't think so, no. 21 Q But you later learned from him that your 22 recommendation was wrong, also? That's what you 23 testified to; right? 24 A Well, I learned that Chief Gesell wasn't happy 25 with my recommendation. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2744 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1648 1 Q Right. 2 A When you said "him," I thought you were 3 pointing to Captain Staley. 4 Q I was. Originally, on the first date, you 5 testified you also said that Captain Staley told you 6 that you had made the wrong decision. Do you remember 7 that? 8 MR. PALMER: Objection; misstates the evidence. 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: Is that what 10 Captain Staley told you? 11 THE WITNESS: I don't know if he said, "You 12 made the wrong decision," but I think it was his 13 decision would have been different than mine. So I 14 guess, yes. I guess, by that declaration, it's 15 different. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, I am not sure that 17 was in evidence before, but, I guess, it is up to a 18 point now. 19 BY MS. CASTILLO: 20 Q What point did you have that conversation; do 21 you remember? 22 A I do not remember. 23 Q Was it after it had been taken from you and 24 given to him, and he did the recommendation, so it said 25 termination, or was it right before? Do you know? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2745 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1649 1 A I don't know. 2 MS. CASTILLO: I thought I had copies of this. 3 I only have one. So we either need to make copies, or I 4 can bring copies. 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: Can we get some copies of 6 this? It seems kind of important. Let's take a short 7 break. 8 (Recess.) 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: So we'll get those copies 10 made. But, in the meantime, other questions, go ahead. 11 BY MS. CASTILLO: 12 Q Other than the Chief and Captain Staley, who 13 else was aware of your two week suspension 14 recommendation? 15 A The Human Resources Director, Monica Harris. 16 Q Who else? 17 A I imagine the City Attorney was aware. 18 Q Right. Who else? The other lieutenants? 19 A I don't know. I can't remember specifically if 20 they were aware or not. 21 Q Do you recall having conversation with any of 22 them? 23 A I very well could have. 24 Q What about Lieutenant Bledsoe? 25 A It's possible. I don't remember a specific Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2746 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1650 1 conversation. 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: So can we go ahead -- is 3 this one document or several? 4 MS. DIETRICK: It's multiple copies of one 5 document. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: Is there a particular -- 7 I have three. Am I supposed to have just one? 8 MS. DIETRICK: They're two-sided. 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: Is it one sheet 10 two-sided? 11 MS. DIETRICK: I think she -- our policy is to 12 conserve paper. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: I have three. Is this 14 one document or three documents? 15 MS. DIETRICK: I asked her to make four copies. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: We're going to mark 17 Appellant's II. That's capital Is. It's a two-page 18 document that's a memorandum to Chief Gesell from 19 Captain Storton, dated December 28, 2013, regarding 20 Administrative Inquiry 13-004P Officer Kevin Waddell. 21 MS. CASTILLO: Is there an extra one of the 22 double-sided ones? 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: Oh, I guess so. I think 24 I gave you two; right? 25 MS. DIETRICK: Yes, you did. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2747 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1651 1 MS. CASTILLO: That's fine. 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'll take this one. 3 BY MS. CASTILLO: 4 Q Do you have one in front of you? 5 A I do. 6 Q So December 28th, 2013, does that refresh your 7 recollection as to when this document went over to 8 Chief Gesell? 9 A Yes. 10 Q So that would have been when you made your 11 findings, or was this when you were seeking guidance? 12 A Well, I think -- I know I had a hard copy, and 13 I also know there was an e-mail copy. I just don't know 14 if this is from the hard copy or the e-mail copy. 15 Q What is there -- what's the issue? 16 A I don't know if that would have changed any of 17 the material or the date, because I did send an e-mail 18 copy to the Human Resources manager in draft form. So I 19 don't know if this was generated from that e-mail, or if 20 it was generated from the hard copy that I, most likely, 21 provided Chief Gesell. 22 Q Can you look at Appellant's O? 23 A 'O'? 24 Q Yes. 25 A Yes, I see it here. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2748 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1652 1 Q So you sent this draft review over to 2 Monica Irons in January; right? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Then that means that December 28th would have 5 been when you made the findings. Now you were asking 6 Ms. Irons for the feedback in January; correct? 7 A The date confuses me, and I'm trying to figure 8 out when I had the conversation with the Chief, because 9 although this was dated the 28th, I think I said 10 earlier, we could have talked in December or January. I 11 can't imagine giving this to the Chief, and then he 12 telling me he's not happy with it and reassigning it, 13 and then me asking Monica to review my document. 14 So I would have to, based upon the dates, that 15 would indicate to me that my conversation with the Chief 16 would have been in January. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Could you remind me who 18 Monica Irons is? 19 THE WITNESS: She's the Human Resources 20 Director. Sorry. 21 BY MS. CASTILLO: 22 Q Did you get any feedback from her? 23 A I don't recall. I don't recall getting 24 anything in an e-mail. I know there were a couple of 25 meetings that we had during the course of these joint Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2749 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1653 1 investigations. There were a number of conversations. 2 Q If you could have had potential conversations 3 with others about your disciplinary recommendation, 4 maybe, the lieutenants, you're not sure, would that have 5 been because you were seeking advice as to what would 6 have been appropriate? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Can you just look at II and just confirm that 9 this is the memo that you authored and your findings? 10 A Yes, it is a memo that I authored. 11 MS. CASTILLO: Can I ask that that be admitted? 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: Any objection to 'II'? 13 MR. PALMER: Other than the previous objections 14 stated to this whole line of questioning, no. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. I'm going to 16 admit 'II'. 17 MS. CASTILLO: I don't have anything else. 18 MR. PALMER: If I could have a moment. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: Sure. 20 MR. PALMER: I have no questions. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. Can we excuse 22 Captain Storton? 23 MR. PALMER: Yes. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very much, sir. 25 You're excused. Let's go off the record for a second. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2750 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1654 1 (Recess.) 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: It looks like we're done 3 for today. The appellant still has a few more witnesses 4 that we've discussed, including himself. And so, when 5 we pick this up, we're going to go forward on 6 October 2nd and October 16, as previously agreed. And 7 just out of an abundance of caution, the parties have 8 agreed to add one more date, Wednesday, October 28th, 9 and we'll get notice of the rooms that are being set 10 aside for all of that. Right, Ms. Dietrick? 11 MS. DIETRICK: We will get that organized and 12 get information out to everyone. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Great. I also understand 14 there will be an October 2nd motion. We'll take that up 15 again. 16 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 17 THE HEARING OFFICER: Any other business we 18 need to put on the record at this time? 19 MR. PALMER: No, sir. 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: Very good. Then we'll be 21 in recess until then. 22 (Proceedings adjourned at 4:54 p.m.) 23 24 25 Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2751 ARBITRATION, VOL. 8, 9-2-15, P.M. SESSION 9/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1655 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss 2 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) 3 4 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 5 6 I, Jacqlyn M. Griffith, a Certified Shorthand 7 Reporter in and for the State of California, do hereby 8 certify: 9 That said proceedings was taken before me at 10 the time and place therein set forth and was taken down 11 by me in shorthand and thereafter reduced to 12 computerized transcription. 13 I hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings 14 is a full, true and correct transcript of my shorthand 15 notes so taken. 16 Dated at San Luis Obispo, California, this ____ 17 day of _______________________, 2015. 18 19 ____________________________ JACQLYN M. GRIFFITH 20 CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER 21 22 23 24 25 Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2752 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1656 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 IX PAGES 1656- 1903 Hiring Authority. ) TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA FRIDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2015 8:05 A.M. - 4:07 P.M. REPORTED BY MELISSA PLOOY, CSR #13068 MCDANIEL REPORTING Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2753 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1657 1 THE TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS WAS TAKEN AT THE 2 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, 879 MORRO 3 STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, BEFORE MELISSA 4 PLOOY, A CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER IN AND FOR THE 5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON FRIDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2015, 6 COMMENCING AT THE HOUR OF 8:05 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 2754 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1658 1 I N D E X 2 WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 3 KEVIN WADDELL 1663 1790 1877 1889 4 OFFICER BRENT INGLEHART 1891 5 6 I N D E X T O E X H I B I T S 7 APPELLANT'S MARKED ADMITTED 8 EXHIBIT JJ 1682 1685 9 EXHIBIT KK 1789 1790 10 EXHIBIT LL 1789 1790 11 EXHIBIT MM 1880 1890 12 EXHIBIT NN 1901 1901 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2755 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1659 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: Good morning, everybody. 2 It's October 2, 2015. We're here with -- I think this 3 is day nine of the hearing in the Waddell appeal. 4 I just wanted to supplement the scheduling 5 order that we had at our call-in telephone conference on 6 September 29. Mr. Palmer advised that his surgery date 7 has been moved up. So our backup plan to proceed on 8 Sunday, October 11, we have to take that off calendar, 9 but Ms. Castillo has, once again, graciously agreed to 10 be very flexible and we're adding another day on this, 11 Sunday, October 4th. So that, coupled with Tuesday, 12 October 6, hopefully, will give us enough time to 13 finish, and we wish Greg God speed with surgery. 14 MR. PALMER: Thank you. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: This morning, we're going 16 to proceed with the appellant, Officer Waddell. 17 Could I get you to raise your right hand? Do 18 you affirm that the testimony you're about to give will 19 be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? 20 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: Very good. Ms. Castillo, 22 you may proceed. 23 MR. PALMER: Do you want to do the in-camera 24 first? 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: Oh. Let's go off the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2756 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1660 1 record. 2 (In camera review.) 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: So we're back on the 4 record. I've just completed the in camera review of the 5 documents that were produced by the custodian of 6 records, in this case, was Captain Staley, responsive to 7 the two Pitchess motions that I granted with respect to 8 Sergeant Pfarr and, also, Lieutenant Smith. 9 What I did was I reviewed three sets of 10 documents with respect to each motion. The first one 11 was the background file, second one was the personnel 12 file and the third one was documents related to citizen 13 complaints that were made against each officer. 14 After inspecting the documents and asking a few 15 questions in the examination of Captain Staley, it was 16 determined that there is one document that needs to be 17 produced just with respect to the file of Sergeant 18 Pfarr, and that's his letter of discipline with respect 19 to the Bentley event that was issued by Chief Gesell. 20 So that's going to be produced by the custodian, and 21 copies have been made. 22 With respect to the entire proceeding, I've 23 directed that it be kept under seal. The transcript is 24 to be produced and not to be produced, except in the 25 case of a court order so requiring. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2757 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1661 1 Mr. Palmer, is there anything else that I need 2 to cover? 3 MR. PALMER: Yes. Actually, no, but I'll -- on 4 the record, I have copies of the document that you 5 ordered disclosed. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: Should we mark that in 7 some fashion, or we just turn it over? 8 MR. PALMER: Typically, what we do is just turn 9 it over, and if the other party decides to use it as an 10 exhibit, then we can mark it at that point. 11 Just for the record, it is a memorandum on the 12 City of San Luis Obispo Police Department letterhead 13 dated July 22, 2014, addressed to Sergeant Pfarr from 14 Chief Gesell, and the subject matter is reprimand for 15 failure to supervise. I've written on the copy that I'm 16 going to provide to Ms. Castillo that it's subject to a 17 protective order. 18 Typically, what we usually do is get a written 19 protective order in the criminal case. I'm going to 20 suspend that at this point because of the informality of 21 the proceeding and the fact that I have a level of trust 22 from Ms. Castillo. 23 Would it be agreeable, though, that as it 24 relates to this document, and this document only, that 25 it's subject to the following protective order: That Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2758 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1662 1 you can only use it in this case, can't use it for any 2 other case, that you can't put it out on the Internet, 3 can't publicize it, can't share it with anybody, except 4 as it relates to the need to share it for this case, and 5 that you'll comply with that protective order? 6 MS. CASTILLO: Right. 7 MR. PALMER: Let the record reflect I'm handing 8 the document order disclosed to Ms. Castillo. 9 (Pause in proceedings.) 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: With respect to 11 Lieutenant Smith, there was nothing in the file that was 12 relevant and responsive to the Pitchess motion that I 13 granted. 14 So, therefore, I believe, Mr. Palmer, correct 15 me if I'm wrong, you have everything that's responsive 16 to the Pitchess motions? 17 MR. PALMER: Yes. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 19 MS. CASTILLO: I'm sorry. 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: No. It's -- I was -- I 21 thought I was extending you a courtesy. So are we ready 22 to go now to Officer Waddell? 23 MS. CASTILLO: We are. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. So we're 25 proceeding now with direct examination of Officer Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2759 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1663 1 Waddell as part of the appellant's case-in-chief. 2 You've already been sworn, correct? 3 THE WITNESS: Yes. 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: Very good. Ms. Castillo, 5 you may proceed. 6 7 DIRECT EXAMINATION 8 BY MS. CASTILLO: 9 Q. Prior to the proceedings for which we are here, 10 how long had you been employed by San Luis Obispo Police 11 Department? 12 A. Seven years. 13 Q. And what was your date of hire? 14 A. I believe it was July of 2007. 15 Q. And before you were terminated, what was your 16 last rank? 17 A. Police officer. 18 Q. And before you came to San Luis Obispo Police 19 Department, had you ever worked for another police 20 agency? 21 A. Yes, I did. 22 Q. What police agency was that? 23 A. Santa Maria Police Department. 24 Q. And how long did you work there? 25 A. For five years. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2760 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1664 1 Q. And what capacity were you hired there? 2 A. As a police officer. 3 Q. Was that your highest rank there? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And did you attend an academy? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. What police academy did you attend? 8 A. Napa Valley Regional Academy. 9 Q. And when did you do that? 10 A. I started in January of 2002 and graduated in 11 May or June of 2002. 12 Q. Okay. And while you were at San Luis Obispo 13 Police Department, what types of assignments did you 14 have while you were a police officer? 15 A. When I was hired, I worked patrol. Shortly 16 after passing probation, I was selected to the traffic 17 enforcement unit as a motorcycle officer, and then from 18 the motorcycle unit, I went to the downtown bicycle 19 unit, and then shortly before administrative leave, I 20 had been selected to go to the daytime bicycle unit. 21 I had several other collateral assignments, as 22 well, was an accident reconstructionist, I was a 23 motorcycle trainer, I was on the S.W.A.T. team as an 24 operator, and then shortly after selection of the 25 S.W.A.T. team, I became a sniper on the S.W.A.T. team, I Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2761 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1665 1 was a part of the military surplus program, what we 2 refer to as the DRMO program. I was working partnership 3 with Officer Berrios for that. 4 Q. Okay. So when you say motorcycle trainer, can 5 you describe what kind of duties and tasks that involved 6 and what the selection process was for that? 7 A. That was a collateral assignment. It was 8 something I had volunteered before. In the motorcycle 9 unit, there was very few trainers, and so we knew 10 Colleen Kevany was going to be retiring soon. So I had 11 volunteered to go to the school and -- so that we could 12 have some attrition so we didn't have the vacancy in the 13 training program going forward because we were going to 14 eventually end up training more people. 15 So that assignment is predominantly officers 16 that have never been to the four-hour basic motorcycle 17 school. You train them in a pre-academy, if you will, 18 before they go to the academy so they're proficient when 19 they arrive there as opposed to showing up cold, not 20 being able to pass the school. 21 You're also responsible for the ongoing 22 maintenance of the motorcycle unit. So there are 23 quarterly trainings that are held. So you're 24 responsible for communicating with the other trainers 25 for the other departments and ensuring that there's a Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2762 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1666 1 proper protocol in place for when we arrive to do those 2 quarterly trainings with another department. 3 Q. And you said this was a volunteer position? 4 A. I volunteered myself and to the sergeant of the 5 unit at the time and they approved me to go to the 6 school. 7 Q. Okay. And then you said you were on the 8 S.W.A.T. team. And how did you become a member of that? 9 A. The S.W.A.T. team is a -- I wouldn't say not a 10 promotion, but it's something you have to test for. You 11 have to submit an application, they have an oral board 12 process and the department selects people based off 13 their responses to the oral board, how well they do. 14 Q. Are there physical tests that, also, are 15 required for this? 16 A. Yes, there are. 17 Q. Okay. And you said, at one point, you were an 18 operator and then, later, a sniper. 19 Can you describe those specific positions? 20 A. To be an operator on the S.W.A.T. team is a 21 general person that is on the team. They could be a 22 permanent person, they could be an entry person. It's, 23 kind of, just a general position within the S.W.A.T. 24 team; however, there are specific roles to people on the 25 team. There are breachers, there are people that are Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2763 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1667 1 responsible for ramming the door, there are people that 2 are responsible for -- 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: Is that what a breacher 4 is, the door-rammer? 5 THE WITNESS: I don't know if that's an 6 official term, but that's what we call it on the team. 7 They're the breacher, the person responsible for ramming 8 the door within the stack of people that made entry 9 rounds. 10 Similarly, there were people that were 11 responsible just for gas. They would handle applying 12 the gas into the house, come up with the gas protocol. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: The tear gas? 14 THE WITNESS: Tear gas, correct. There was a 15 less lethal person that was responsible -- there was an 16 equipment person that was responsible for all the 17 equipment for that portion of the team. 18 Similar to that, being on the sniper team is an 19 isolated, specific group of people that were picked 20 within the team based off their marksmanship and we 21 carry special rifles, but we weren't subject to just 22 being snipers. We were still able to be called back if 23 there was necessity for more entry people, more 24 perimeter people. 25 If the scene was not set up to where snipers Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2764 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1668 1 could be deployed, but we received extra training going 2 to extra schools, we were afforded the opportunity to 3 extra training hours outside of that of the normal 4 S.W.A.T. team. 5 BY MS. CASTILLO: 6 Q. Okay. And this was in addition to your regular 7 patrol schedule? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. Okay. And then you mentioned that you were 10 part of -- or you had the additional collateral 11 assignment of being an accident reconstructionist? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. So is this part of when you were in the 14 traffic unit, or how was it that you became involved in 15 that? 16 A. The accident reconstruction team, or group -- 17 it was accident recon -- accident investigation, in 18 general, became something I was quickly drawn to. Math, 19 physics, all those kinds of things really attracted me 20 to that and putting back together a puzzle that, 21 otherwise, people are, generally, disinterested in 22 doing. 23 So when I was in motors, or in the traffic 24 unit, I continued to push myself to go to these schools 25 and seek the opportunity to go to these schools from the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2765 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1669 1 department. So while I was in motors, I went to the 2 basic -- the intermediate, the advanced, the 3 reconstruction schools. 4 Again, Colleen Kevany was on the reconstruction 5 team. We knew she was going to be retiring in a short 6 period of time. I wanted to make sure that our 7 department didn't lose someone without having someone to 8 replace that. So I went to many, many hours of 9 schooling to learn some significant investigative 10 skills. 11 So the accident reconstruction team is that 12 group of people that have acquired all that training so 13 in the event that we have a major accident in the city 14 limits, that team would be called out or respond to do 15 that detail investigation and provide the report for it. 16 Q. It's not regular math, right? I've seen some 17 of the equations. It's like Italian. I mean, they're 18 long, drawn-out formulas. 19 How many hours, total, did you have to put in 20 to be on the team? 21 A. You have to have completed reconstruction 22 school. So you had to go to a 40-hour basic 23 investigation school, you had to go to a 40-hour 24 intermediate, which is a skid analysis school, you had 25 to go to an advanced school, which taught you momentum Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2766 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1670 1 and some basic vehicle inspection techniques, that was 2 an 80-hour school, then you had to go to an 80-hour 3 reconstruction school, which taught you more advanced 4 momentum, more advanced crush analysis so that you can 5 take vehicles that have already been damaged and 6 determine speed and, basically, who was at fault for the 7 collision in a scientific manner and a mathematical 8 manner as opposed to just basing it off Vehicle Code 9 violation. We can prove that the Vehicle Code violation 10 was committed based on these math equations. 11 Q. So as part of these schools, did you become 12 familiar in any kind of mechanics? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And can you kind of elaborate on that? 15 A. In advanced accident investigation, there is an 16 eight-hour segment that is just vehicle inspections. So 17 we go through -- we -- we went through all the engine 18 components, went through brakes, took wheels off of 19 cars, inspected brakes for brake pads, brake function, 20 so in the event someone claimed that their brakes 21 failed, for example, we could -- from our standpoint, 22 our evidentiary, we wouldn't have to hire that out to 23 someone else. We were now taught to inspect these 24 vehicles. 25 Q. Okay. So you're pretty familiar with cars? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2767 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1671 1 A. Very familiar with cars. 2 Q. Pretty familiar with the Vehicle Code? 3 A. Very familiar with the Vehicle Code. 4 Q. Okay. So how long were you part of the traffic 5 safety unit, as a whole, when you were at San Luis 6 Obispo Police Department? 7 A. Uh, the three years I was within the actual 8 traffic unit, and then I stayed on as part of the 9 accident reconstruction team all the way up until I was 10 terminated. 11 Q. Okay. So, in total, on the accident 12 reconstruction team how long? 13 A. 2010 to October 2014. So that was four years. 14 Q. Okay. So would that be the four years plus the 15 three years, or does that time overlap? 16 A. It would overlap. 17 Q. Okay. Did you do any kind of research on your 18 own to improve the, kind of -- the efficiency of the 19 total station and accident reconstruction? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And what was that? 22 A. When I went to reconstruction school, we dealt 23 very heavy in scene diagramming, and at the time of my 24 involvement in the traffic unit, we were still using 25 what, really, in the business is archaic measuring Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2768 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1672 1 techniques of putting a steel tape in the gutter and we 2 had a very significant involved scene that encompassed 3 several blocks and it took countless hours for the five 4 of us to try and investigate the scene. 5 So when I went to reconstruction school, I saw 6 a tool that they had there, which is a total station, 7 which is similar to what you'd see Caltrans use on the 8 side of the road to measure. 9 So I came back from that school and worked with 10 Captain Parkinson at the time to try and make and write 11 a proposal for our department to try to acquire this 12 piece of equipment to not only benefit the unit, to have 13 more detailed evidentiary diagrams, but also 14 significantly decrease the amount of time and money the 15 department was going to spend on resources to 16 investigate these traffic collisions. 17 Q. And were you able to obtain this piece of 18 equipment for the city? 19 A. Yes, we did. 20 Q. And so by obtaining this specific equipment, 21 did the city save any money or resources by way of your 22 proposal? 23 A. Yes. We -- what I figured out, through the way 24 my proposal was, I based it off that actual accident, 25 that we had five officers there for five hours and it Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2769 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1673 1 took a certain amount of time, but with this machine, we 2 could have two officers and be there for an hour, and, 3 obviously, in the middle of the night when you're called 4 out for an accident, it would significantly save the 5 department overtime to go out and investigate a scene. 6 Q. As a trainer, approximately how many officers 7 do you believe that, while you were at the San Luis 8 Obispo Police Department, you trained? 9 A. I trained -- I'm sorry. As far as the 10 motorcycle training? 11 Q. Correct. 12 A. I trained four officers on the motorcycle. 13 Q. Are any of those supervisors now? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Who? 16 A. Then Officer John Villanti is now a sergeant 17 and he was already a sergeant at the time. Sergeant 18 Mickel, he was going into the traffic unit and he needed 19 to be trained. 20 Q. Okay. Throughout the course of this hearing, 21 we've heard a lot about the military program that you 22 mentioned called a DRMO. 23 Can you describe that a little more, as well as 24 your involvement with that program? 25 A. The DRMO program, as we've heard, it's a Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2770 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1674 1 military surplus program that supported the law 2 enforcement agencies. It's application-based process. 3 So you have to request the items from the military and 4 it's an approval-based program from that point forward. 5 So you're not guaranteed to get the equipment. 6 When I first met Officer Berrios here, he was 7 already involved in that kind of a program from his 8 departments in the past, and I thought what a great way 9 to get involved to try and benefit the department even 10 more with acquiring, essentially, free equipment that we 11 wouldn't otherwise have to pay for. 12 So I helped, with Officer Berrios, in 13 conjunction with creating a better tracking program so 14 that in the event that the military called us back and 15 wanted the equipment back or if the department needed to 16 locate the equipment, we had some resemblance of a 17 tracking system within the department to identify and 18 locate where that equipment was going to be. 19 So the equipment was then passed out for 20 department use. Inherently, military equipment is 21 military-based. It's going to be more indicative of a 22 S.W.A.T. equipment. So, naturally, the more tactical 23 units within the department received more of the 24 equipment. 25 Q. And prior to you signing on to help Officer Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2771 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1675 1 Berrios, was anyone else helping Officer Berrios? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Was this something that you were assigned to 4 do? 5 A. No. 6 Q. How is it that you became involved then? 7 A. Uh, Officer Berrios had already been running 8 the program at our department for a very short time 9 before I found out about it and I just volunteered 10 myself. I just started helping him. We would stay up 11 till 3:00 in the morning on many nights, looking for 12 equipment. I decided to help him, without any 13 recommendation, asking permission. It was something 14 that was benefiting the department that he was already 15 running. There was not a selection process. This was 16 complete voluntary for us and we didn't get anything in 17 return, other than when we went to go travel to go get 18 the equipment. 19 Q. You didn't get paid to do this? 20 A. We got paid the times that we went to go pick 21 up the equipment. We got paid for the times we went to 22 go pick it up, but there were many times where I would 23 set my alarm at 3:00 in the morning to wake up on my 24 days off to look and research equipment, to be the first 25 person to request it, that I wouldn't necessarily put in Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2772 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1676 1 for the overtime for. 2 Q. Okay. And how long were you involved with this 3 program? 4 A. We did traffic in 2009. It was very shortly 5 after I was in traffic. So I would say late 2009 on 6 through my termination. 7 Q. So about four years, or so? 8 A. Four and a half, five years, probably. 9 Q. Okay. And besides you and Officer Berrios, 10 anyone else involved in this program? 11 A. Not in that capacity that we were involved in 12 it. We would -- if we were unable to go pick something 13 up, we could -- we would be able to facilitate someone 14 else going to get the equipment, but no one else managed 15 the equipment, no one else tracked it. We were solely 16 responsible. 17 Q. No one else inventoried it or passed it out or 18 anything else like that? 19 A. No. 20 Q. No one else was responsible for it? 21 A. No. 22 Q. And so why would you choose to be involved in 23 all of these collateral programs? 24 A. I love being a cop, I love this whole business 25 and I wanted to make our department better. I came from Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2773 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1677 1 a department that didn't value people and what they 2 provided to the department and that was something that I 3 saw from the moment that I got here and I wanted to make 4 this department as good as we could make it, whether it 5 was with providing training equipment, my ability to be 6 involved. 7 Q. These collateral assignments that you had, 8 aside from S.W.A.T. when you were called in or the 9 accidents when, obviously, you were dispatched to those, 10 when you volunteered your time to train people for 11 motorcycles or when you were inventorying and going to 12 pick up the DRMO assignments, how did you manage your 13 time for those with your regular patrol duty? 14 A. Generally, I was responsible and expected to 15 manage my own time. With DRMO, with the training, 16 they're separate, but specific to the DRMO program, us 17 being able to go get the equipment and worked around our 18 regular schedule, we were told not to impact our regular 19 schedule with that. So we had to work our schedule 20 around going to get the equipment picked up. 21 As far as the motorcycle training, again, it 22 was the same thing. It was having to find the time to 23 work and train these people, but like any other teaching 24 program, you can't -- if someone's doing well, you have 25 to try and have a loose enough ability to keep working Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2774 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1678 1 harder so they get a point where they are getting 2 better. You're not going to stop just because there's a 3 specific time period. 4 Q. Okay. So while you were benefiting the 5 department, you still had to manage around a schedule, 6 but moved forward with the people that you were 7 training? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. What about specific to the people you 10 were training and their schedules? How was that worked 11 around in terms of scheduling? Was there a specific 12 block of time that you were allotted to train people? 13 A. No. 14 Q. So this was just, solely, on your own time? 15 A. Uh, generally, the people that I trained, it 16 was in off-time of our regular schedules so we didn't 17 impact our regular schedule, and to that effect, there 18 was not any management at that time, but we were told to 19 make sure this person is trained proficiently enough so 20 that they could pass the school, but we were not given a 21 cap. 22 Q. But you had supervision over that, right? 23 A. It would have been whoever the immediate 24 supervisor was for either the traffic unit or it would 25 have been -- there was not a specific person, per se. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2775 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1679 1 Q. Okay. So -- but, I mean, someone must have 2 known what you were doing and when you were doing it, 3 right? 4 A. Uh, somebody -- their time cards were approved. 5 An instance that comes to mind is when I 6 trained Sergeant Mickel, Sergeant Mickel facilitated and 7 coordinated the dates, times and what our schedule was 8 going to allow and I didn't verify any of that, I didn't 9 double-check with that and he said it was going to work. 10 So whoever he worked with checked -- I just went with 11 what was there. 12 Q. Okay. So what about for the accident 13 reconstruction assignment that you had when you were 14 working with your downtown bike schedule? 15 How were you able to do both of those 16 assignments at the same time? 17 Did you have to flex your schedule or shift 18 things around? How did that work? 19 A. With accident reconstruction, there's a 20 significant amount of analysis that goes on once you 21 have a crash. The computer-aided diagramming, like I 22 said, the math, you're doing three pages worth of 23 trigonometry to figure out how fast someone is going. 24 That takes time and it's a little bit of an art. You 25 don't have the opportunity to say I need an hour to do Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2776 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1680 1 this because I don't know if it's going to take me an 2 hour. 3 So there were days and times when you would 4 have a crash, and if you'd have some downtime -- like, 5 there were hours where I would spend my regular bicycle 6 shift doing accident reconstruction just because there 7 was not any active thing going on and I was doing 8 productive work that was reconstruction-related, but I 9 was, technically, on my bicycle shift. 10 Q. Okay. And was anyone -- I mean, was the 11 supervision of this micromanaged any way? Describe the 12 supervision of yourself at this point. 13 A. I would describe the supervision of accident 14 reconstruction as passive. We were expected to complete 15 our assignments. There was no one checking in to see 16 what we needed or how much more time we needed or when 17 we were going to do it or have it done by. 18 Q. Okay. And so in terms of your DRMO collateral 19 assignment that you -- you said you did that for almost 20 five years, or so? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. And the entire department benefited from 23 you going and getting this equipment? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Okay. When you would go north or south in the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2777 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1681 1 state to go get the equipment, did you ever have to flex 2 your time? 3 A. Um, I don't recall an instance where we ever 4 had to flex time from our regular schedule, away from 5 our regular schedule, but, certainly, we were not 6 impacting our regular schedule by trying to do that. 7 Q. Okay. And who was supervising you as you were 8 doing that assignment, inventorying and being in charge 9 of all that equipment? 10 A. Officer Berrios and I reported directly to 11 Captain Staley. 12 Q. Okay. And what was the supervision like? 13 A. I recall, initially, him requesting e-mails and 14 some dialogue as to what we were requesting 15 equipment-wise, when and where we would be going, but I 16 found quickly in that that we would sometimes not get 17 replies to when we would send him e-mails. 18 So we, again, felt that we were expected to 19 appropriately manage ourselves, our time and the 20 equipment that we were acquiring. 21 Q. Okay. And were you ever notified that you were 22 deficient in any way in that management of your own 23 time? 24 A. No. 25 MS. CASTILLO: And will you hand me the first Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2778 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1682 1 exhibit? 2 MRS. WADDELL: This? 3 MS. CASTILLO: No, no. What number are we on? 4 THE HEARING OFFICER: I think I had II. 5 MS. CASTILLO: I feel like we're past that. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: Let me take a look. 7 MS. CASTILLO: I think QQ, or something. 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: It could be. Let me find 9 the last page here. 10 MS. CASTILLO: I think we're at Y. 11 MR. PALMER: I have II as the last in the book. 12 MS. CASTILLO: Really? 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah. That's what I got, 14 too. 15 MS. CASTILLO: All right. So -- 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: So the next one would be 17 JJ. 18 MS. CASTILLO: Let's have this marked as JJ. 19 This is a packet of documents. Okay. 25-page packet, 20 JJ. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: These look like 22 certificates of appreciation awards. 23 MS. CASTILLO: Right. It's just the standard 24 awesome officer packet. That would be the title. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: Standard officer? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2779 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1683 1 MS. CASTILLO: No. The officer -- awesome 2 officer packet. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: Awesome officer packet. 4 MS. CASTILLO: Right. 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: Also known as attaboy. 6 Okay. 7 MS. CASTILLO: It's his post-certificates, all 8 of his... 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. You can go 10 ahead. 11 BY MS. CASTILLO: 12 Q. Officer Waddell, I'm not going to go through 13 every single award in here, but I just want to touch on 14 a couple of these. 15 The first -- the first page of what has now 16 been marked as JJ is what? 17 A. It's a Certificate of Appreciation from the 18 International Footprinters Association. 19 Q. Can you explain what that is? 20 A. I'm not overly-familiar with the group, but my 21 understanding is they're a local organized group that 22 recognizes law enforcement officers with the community 23 for superior service. 24 I received this award for my involvement in the 25 Automated Field Reporting Program. When I was in the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2780 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1684 1 traffic unit, I was approached by the records supervisor 2 as wanting me to be involved in developing a field base 3 reporting program. 4 So I worked with the records department, I 5 worked with IT. We had routine regular meetings to try 6 and develop a field program for taking accident reports, 7 which, ultimately, would develop into regular crime 8 reports. We had a ticket that we wrote traffic tickets 9 from a computer and printed out in the field and we 10 worked tirelessly to try to get this program off the 11 ground. That's what this was a written recognition 12 of. 13 Q. And do you know how many officers get a 14 Footprinter award every year? 15 A. Uh, my understanding is that San Luis Obispo 16 P.D. gets to recognize one person to this association 17 per year. 18 MS. CASTILLO: Okay. Thank you. You know 19 what? I just realized there is a post-dispatcher 20 certificate in here that we might want to remove. We 21 can go off the record really quick? 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'm sorry. Is there 23 something that needs to be -- 24 MS. CASTILLO: We have his wife's dispatcher 25 certificate that was included on accident in here. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2781 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1685 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: We'll just note which one 2 it is. I don't think it changes anything. 3 MS. CASTILLO: I don't know if anyone doesn't 4 want to include that in record, but it was on accident. 5 THE COURT REPORTER: Are we on the record? 6 MR. PALMER: No. 7 MS. CASTILLO: No. 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: Let's go off. 9 (Discussion off the record.) 10 MS. CASTILLO: I guess I would ask that JJ be 11 admitted. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: Any objection to JJ? 13 MR. PALMER: No. 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: Without objection, JJ is 15 admitted. 16 BY MS. CASTILLO: 17 Q. Officer Waddell, did you also work as part of 18 the CAT shift? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Can you describe your experience with the CAT 21 shift? 22 A. My understanding of the CAT shift, it was meant 23 to be a foot patrol deployment of the downtown area 24 addressing any concerns related to businesses, alcohol 25 violations. My understanding of the program, it was Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2782 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1686 1 initially deployed that it was an overtime shift, 2 sign-up shift as a beta test, if you will, for what 3 could end up being a full-time program. The program, as 4 I recall, initially, was a two-officer foot patrol, 5 which then, during the early summer months, was a 6 single-officer-only foot patrol shift, but then, in the 7 fall, transitioned back to a two-officer foot patrol 8 shift. 9 Q. When you say early summer months, what year are 10 you talking about? 11 A. 2013. 12 Q. Okay. So early summer months of 2013 was one 13 officer, and then early fall of what year was two 14 officer? 15 A. My recollection, it was based off our patrol 16 rotation shift. The lieutenant for the day shift was 17 responsible for managing the program during that time, 18 and so the first four months of the year was one 19 lieutenant managed it, and then the next four months of 20 the year, another lieutenant managed, depending on who 21 the day shift lieutenant was and so on. 22 So I believe it was around September that it 23 was back to a two-officer shift. So it would have been 24 something to the effect of May to September was a 25 single-officer shift. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2783 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1687 1 Q. And that was in 2013? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. Okay. And in 2013, May to September, who was 4 the lieutenant that you're speaking about? 5 A. Lieutenant Smith. 6 Q. Okay. And the other lieutenant -- was there 7 ever a shift in lieutenants? 8 A. As I recall, the first rotation of the year, it 9 was Lieutenant Proll that managed the program first, 10 then Lieutenant Smith, and then it began Lieutenant 11 Smith in the fall in that last... 12 Q. Okay. So Lieutenant Proll, Lieutenant Smith 13 and then Lieutenant Smith again? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. Okay. So when it was the original beta 16 testing, that would have been under Lieutenant Proll? 17 A. I say beta testing, but I wasn't, obviously, 18 involved in any of the decision-making of the program -- 19 Q. Right. 20 A. -- but the way it was reflected to us, as the 21 officers, is that this entire program we're doing for 22 2013 is a test sample for our likelihood of deploying an 23 official full-time two-officer team as CAT. 24 So it wouldn't say the first quarter of the 25 year or first third of the year was the beta testing. I Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2784 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1688 1 don't know what would have been the test, but that was 2 my understanding, the way it was reflected to us. 3 Q. Okay. So when the program was in its initial 4 development stages, would Lieutenant Proll have had some 5 kind of part in the development, based on what you 6 witnessed? 7 A. The only thing I was a witness to was how the 8 overtime was disseminated, sign-up sheets, you get 9 assigned, that sort of thing. I wasn't aware of who was 10 responsible for its development or anything. 11 Q. Okay. Can you testify to what you did witness 12 in terms of how the sign-ups occurred and how overtime 13 was scheduled? 14 A. In my experience, there was a sign-up sheet 15 posted on the board in the hallway. An e-mail went out 16 to prospective people that wanted to work the overtime. 17 The sign-up sheet was in the hallway, you would go to 18 the hallway sign-up sheet, it would have CAT shift, it 19 would have some dates, it would have lines next to the 20 dates and people would write their names on specific 21 dates that they wanted. There was only two lines there 22 or one line, depending on the deployment of the number 23 of officers, and sometimes you'd go there and there 24 would be no names and sometimes you'd go there and there 25 would be five names. So sometimes you wouldn't put your Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2785 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1689 1 name there if you saw people that had more seniority 2 than you because you knew you were probably not likely 3 to get it. 4 The period of time in which the sign-up sheet 5 would stay on the board would lapse. Someone would go 6 get the sign-up sheet. The sign-up sheet would 7 disappear. An e-mail would be sent out that these are 8 the officers that are working these specific shifts. We 9 would be told that the shifts would be put into 10 SpeedShift, the scheduling program, and we were 11 responsible for showing up on the shifts we were 12 assigned. 13 Q. Okay. After the sign-up sheet came down and 14 the shifts were assigned in SpeedShift, did the sign-up 15 shift ever get reposted in the hallway? 16 A. I never recall a time that the schedule sign-up 17 sheet going back to the hallway. 18 Q. Did you work a lot of those CAT shifts? 19 A. I worked a lot of CAT shifts. 20 Q. Why? 21 A. I was already working downtown on the bicycle 22 at night. 23 When I say, "night," our shift started anywhere 24 from 3:00 to 5:00. So we did have some daytime activity 25 with folks downtown. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2786 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1690 1 So, for me, it was a natural place to go to 2 work more. I enjoyed working. Like I said, I loved 3 being a cop. So I had no problem working as much and as 4 often as possible. 5 There were some other things that were told to 6 me earlier in the year that incentivized me to want to 7 work more to try and show my commitment, as well. 8 Q. Like what? 9 A. Uh, I have had a conversation with Chief Gesell 10 in the beginning of 2013 where I was accused of having a 11 lack of commitment to the organization and that was one 12 of the things that stemmed me wanting to show that I did 13 have commitment to the organization, by working as much 14 and as hard as possible. 15 Q. Tell us about the conversation, or how that 16 happened. 17 A. That conversation stemmed from -- for 18 descriptive purpose, an exit interview from my lack of 19 promotion to sergeant. 20 Q. This is -- well, let me back up. 21 Did you -- how many times have you tried to 22 become sergeant at San Luis Obispo Police Department? 23 A. I tested for sergeant twice. 24 Q. Okay. And at what point did you have an exit 25 interview with Chief Gesell? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2787 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1691 1 A. I had two exit interviews with Chief Gesell. 2 Q. And the time in 2013 when you were not 3 promoted, who was promoted? 4 A. Sergeant Pfarr. 5 Q. And you had an exit interview, right? 6 A. It was something that I wanted. When I was 7 told that I was not promoted, I wanted to get some 8 feedback from him and hear what his decision-making and 9 his thought process was related to my non-promotion to 10 see how I can improve, what I did wrong, what I could do 11 better, those kinds of things. 12 Q. So how did that conversation take place? Did 13 you make an appointment with him? 14 A. I made an appointment with the chief secretary. 15 Q. And what happened next? 16 A. With that interview or the other interview? 17 Q. Well, with this interview. 18 A. With this particular interview, I went in to 19 find out what -- what his thought process was, his 20 decision-making, those kinds of things, as I said. 21 So when I got there, it was -- it was a very 22 cold interaction from him. He started off the interview 23 questioning something that he thought he heard on the 24 telephone when he called me to tell me that he had 25 promoted Sergeant Pfarr. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2788 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1692 1 Q. And what was that conversation like? 2 A. He accused me of laughing at him on the phone 3 when he made the notification to me that Sergeant Pfarr 4 was his selection. 5 Q. Had you laughed at him? 6 A. Absolutely not. 7 Q. So how did that conversation go? 8 A. I emphatically told him that I had not laughed 9 at him and I don't know what he heard and I went on to 10 explain to him what was going on in my house at the time 11 when he called me because I had two small children at 12 that time and they were both in a nap. 13 I actually had -- when the phone rang, had to 14 quickly go to another area of the house to try and 15 actually be quiet as to not disturb them while they're 16 sleeping. 17 So I don't know how he could have perceived -- 18 and that's what I expressed to him, I don't know how you 19 could have perceived that, but I did not, in any way, 20 laugh at you. 21 Q. Okay. And so then what happened next? 22 A. He went on to tell me things that he did not 23 necessarily take into consideration for his decision of 24 my promotion -- non-promotion to sergeant, but he wanted 25 to give me the opportunity to respond. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2789 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1693 1 He told me that he was approached by people, 2 that he was not going to name, that witnessed me during 3 S.W.A.T. PT tests looking at my watch, and so Chief 4 accused me that by looking at my watch during a S.W.A.T. 5 PT test, that that, to him, meant that I had a lack of 6 commitment to the organization. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: What's a PT test? 8 THE WITNESS: Physical fitness, physical 9 training, physical -- it's a timed run, activities, 10 hurtles, walls. It's a part of the maintenance 11 qualification for being on the S.W.A.T. team. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 13 BY MS. CASTILLO: 14 Q. Wait a minute. He accused you of looking at 15 your watch during the timed test? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Okay. All right. And then what? 18 A. He told me -- again, he said that he didn't 19 want me to think that that was something he took into 20 consideration for making his decision of sergeant, but 21 wanted to give me the opportunity to respond to 22 something like that. 23 And so I proceeded to tell him how 24 flabbergasted I was that not only would I have to 25 respond to something like that, but flabbergasted that Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2790 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1694 1 that was something that would come up in a four-month 2 period between promotions. 3 I went on to tell him it's also very curious 4 that this comes up in a four-month period between two 5 sergeant promotions because I hadn't run a S.W.A.T. PT 6 test since 2011 and this was now January of 2013. So 7 why is someone -- whoever has come to you, why has 8 someone come to you in this four-month period, other 9 than to make me look bad to you for a new pending 10 promotion. 11 I had separated my shoulder on duty and I was 12 out of work for almost ten months. So I was not even at 13 work for the majority of that time, but then when I came 14 back, I didn't run the next S.W.A.T. PT test. So it had 15 been a year and a half since I had run a S.W.A.T. PT 16 test. 17 So it was completely perplexing to me, hence my 18 response of being flabbergasted, that, A, someone would 19 call into question my commitment to this organization, 20 given the past, but, also, that it would come up in this 21 time period while I'm trying to promote to sergeant. 22 Q. Okay. So then what? 23 A. He went on to tell me some other things related 24 to why he thought my oral interview was not as positive 25 as the oral interview I had before, and that was the end Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2791 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1695 1 of the meeting. 2 Q. Okay. So based on his impression of the lack 3 of commitment to the department, you decided to work not 4 only the volunteer positions and the other collateral 5 assignments that you've discussed, but additional 6 overtime? 7 A. Promoting at this department is something that 8 I wanted to do. I wanted to be part of the management 9 team at this point. So I felt like I needed to now, at 10 this point, given what I'd been just told, now I needed 11 to go above and beyond to try and work as hard, work as 12 much as possible to try and show him and anyone else -- 13 because I didn't know who this was at this point. I had 14 my suspicions as to who it probably was, but I had no 15 idea who it was. So at this point, I had to show to 16 everybody how committed I was. 17 Q. So how much time did you spend at the police 18 department during the period of 2013? 19 A. I feel like I was there nonstop. I feel like 20 there was very few days off that I had. 21 Q. Okay. At any point, were you not available to 22 Lieutenant Smith if he needed to talk to you? 23 A. I don't think so. I was there many a days 24 during the day shift for these CAT shifts. So I was 25 available. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2792 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1696 1 Q. At any point, were you not available to 2 Sergeant Pfarr if he needed to speak to you? 3 A. I was available to him, as well, similar. 4 Q. You mentioned the second time you were -- what 5 would have been the first time that you tested for 6 sergeant? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. What was that about? 9 A. That promotional list started in the summer of 10 2012. That was when the department had planned on 11 having promotions. There was anticipation amongst the 12 applicants, as well as what we had heard from some of 13 the managers, was that there was likely to be two 14 selections from this list. So I wanted to make sure 15 that I did the best possible to be at the top of that 16 list so that I had a strong chance to get one of these 17 two spots. 18 So we went through the testing process through 19 that summer and a list was established in and around 20 August of 2013 so that -- I'm sorry -- 2012 so that the 21 promotion in September of 2012 could be made from that 22 list. 23 Q. And did you get promoted then? 24 A. I did not get promoted in September 2012. 25 Q. Who did? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2793 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1697 1 A. Sergeant Fred Mickel. 2 Q. And what did you do to improve your chances? 3 A. At that time -- 4 Q. The next time. 5 A. -- I also sought a meeting with the chief at 6 that time to hear his decision, as well as find out if 7 there was things that I could do to improve and things 8 like that. 9 Q. What were you told? 10 A. I was told by the chief at that time that I had 11 a very successful interview. He told me that I was 12 everything that he wanted in someone in his management 13 team, he told me to keep doing what I was doing, that 14 good things would come to me. He told me, at that time, 15 that one of the things I should probably do is market 16 myself over the next couple months to try and be in a 17 good position for the next possible promotion. 18 Q. And what did you take that to mean? 19 A. I took that as that I needed to show what my 20 value was. So in those four months, I put on briefing 21 trainings, I tried to extend my knowledge of 22 reconstruction to the patrol deployment and what they 23 could do, I continued to manage all of my same programs 24 to the best of my ability, continued to be as involved 25 as possible. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2794 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1698 1 Q. Did you do some kind of project with housing 2 area in the neighborhood? 3 A. Um, there was a special project that was given 4 to me by Captain Staley where I was to research a 5 program to identify consistent party houses, if you 6 will. So it was a program to track these and then the 7 house could get posted so that any patrons that attended 8 a future party there would be on notice that this was an 9 unruly house. It was part of the over -- an 10 overwhelming interest from the community to try and 11 reduce the parties and the noise and things like that. 12 So that was the program. 13 Q. Did you ever learn where you were ranked during 14 these testing periods? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And what did you learn? 17 A. I learned that I tested number one on that 18 sergeant promotion for 2012, I learned that Fred Mickel 19 was number two, Chad Pfarr was number three, and that is 20 the important part of the list, if you will, because you 21 have -- the chief has the ability to select from the top 22 three. 23 So that's the goal. Any time that you go 24 through a promotional process here was to try to get 25 into that bracket so you can be one of the selecting Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2795 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1699 1 people. 2 Q. And what about the second time you tested? 3 A. The other time I tested was, I believe, in 4 2011, and part of the testing process is you have to 5 take a written test, and it's a multiple choice 6 state-approved test, and I didn't pass that written 7 test, I think, by two questions, or something. So I 8 didn't get to continue as part of the process because I 9 didn't pass that written test. 10 Q. So after not passing that written test the 11 first time, you worked really hard to get up to number 12 one for the second time? 13 A. I was very committed the second time around to 14 try and do the best as possible. 15 Q. How is it that you learned where you were 16 ranked? 17 A. There's a little bit of an unofficial process 18 amongst the applicants where everyone talks about their 19 scores and Sergeant Pfarr was actually one of the people 20 in that group of the seven of us that was very active in 21 trying to find out who else got what score and we all 22 kind of collaborated as to which and who ranked where 23 based on the averages from the score. 24 Q. Did you talk to anyone else during this time 25 period about having been passed over for the sergeant Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2796 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1700 1 position? 2 A. Uh, I talked to a couple different people after 3 my non-promotion in September of '12. I had a 4 conversation with Chad Pfarr about it, as well as I had 5 a conversation with Lieutenant Proll. 6 Q. And what was the purpose in having these 7 conversations? 8 A. Um, different intents with those two people. 9 Lieutenant Proll, obviously, was to try and glean some 10 information that I could do. He was my immediate 11 supervisor, do you have any programs you're working on, 12 is there anything I can do, do you have any 13 recommendations for me, what can I do so that, in the 14 next four months, I can be in an excellent position to 15 be promoted. 16 The conversation that I had with Sergeant Pfarr 17 was more of a commiserating conversation, if you will. 18 It would have been, how was your interview, what did he 19 say to you, how did it go, those kinds of things. 20 Q. We've heard some testimony during this hearing 21 that when the detective assignments came up later, that 22 you also went around trying to find out from individuals 23 how to, potentially, get the detective position. 24 Was that similar to what you did with -- when 25 you went to speak to Lieutenant Proll? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2797 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1701 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. So can you describe what you did in that -- 3 during that time period? 4 A. The detective or for -- 5 Q. Right. 6 A. -- lieutenant? 7 Q. Right. For the detective spot. 8 A. That was in 2013. There was going to be 9 another sergeant promotion. Judging from the last 10 meeting I had with the chief, I felt like trying to 11 promote again this soon was probably not the best 12 timing. So I foregoed my application to promote to 13 sergeant again. 14 I decided, at that point, to try and build my 15 resume a little more, if you will. So one of the areas 16 in which I didn't really have any significant experience 17 was in the support area. I worked operations my entire 18 12 -- up to that point, 10 years, 11 years. So I wanted 19 to go in the building working in an investigative 20 capacity more and detectives was the natural spot for 21 that. 22 Q. Okay. So what did you do in order to try and 23 learn how to, potentially, get a detective spot? Who 24 did you talk to? 25 A. I met with the detective lieutenant, at the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2798 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1702 1 time, was Lieutenant Bledsoe. I met with all of the 2 current detectives, I met with past detectives, trying 3 to find out what information would be worth -- 4 study-worthy for an oral board. I went -- called a 5 ride-along. I went on a ride-along with our city -- our 6 fire department's narcotics team, if you will, the SET 7 team, the Special Enforcement Team. 8 So I went with them to have a warrant signed by 9 a judge, I went out and helped them serve the warrant, 10 saw what their functions were as a unit so that I could 11 be as prepared as possible to not have to get up to 12 speed if I was selected to that assignment. 13 Q. Okay. And so when you went and met with 14 Lieutenant Proll, going back to around the time when you 15 had put in for sergeant and got passed over, what was 16 his advice to you, if you remember? 17 A. I recall him not having much advice. His 18 advice was that -- and to quote him, was "Don't fuck it 19 up and it's yours. Keep doing what you're doing," was 20 the advice that he gave me. He didn't have any special 21 assignments I could work with or on. He just wanted me 22 to keep doing what I was doing, and I expressed to him 23 some of the things I had thought of. He thought that 24 was going to be appropriate to have some briefing 25 trainings and do some stuff to pass on my knowledge to Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2799 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1703 1 some other officers. He agreed with that and we 2 departed our meeting. 3 Q. Okay. After Sergeant Pfarr got promoted, 4 did -- let me back up. 5 What was your relationship with Chad Pfarr like 6 before his promotion? 7 A. I would say it was cordial. We didn't, 8 necessarily, know each other. We knew each other here 9 from work and I did not know him before being employed 10 here. So we had our -- we had normal interaction before 11 him being promoted. 12 He, coincidentally, bought a trash compactor 13 from me off of Craigslist one time and came over to the 14 house unknowingly. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: How did that happen? 16 THE WITNESS: So that was kind of comical. So 17 we laughed about that when he came to the house about a 18 trash compactor. 19 There was another time where, again, kind of by 20 happenstance, my daughter goes to speech therapy a lot 21 and his family was taking his son to the same speech 22 therapist. So the speech therapist communicated to them 23 that she knew of this other family that was getting 24 speech services paid through their insurance company, 25 which was us. So she wanted to know if she could Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2800 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1704 1 connect the two families. Well, unknowingly, again, 2 just like the trash compactor, we got connected in that 3 way, that his son was looking to get some speech 4 services paid and paid through insurance. 5 So the wives connected a lot through e-mail and 6 phone calls. My wife spent a lot of time, for our 7 daughter, writing to the insurance company. So she 8 facilitated with his wife, drafting some e-mails to the 9 insurance company, on how to best articulate getting 10 some services. 11 Chad and I also had some indepth conversations 12 about that, again, kind of commiserating on the 13 situation and, granted, it sounded like the situations 14 were different in that my daughter has some significant 15 special needs; whereas, his son, it sounded like, was 16 more speech specific. So we just talked about how we 17 approach that, how we deal with it, what we do, what 18 some techniques were. 19 So our interaction prior to him being promoted 20 was very friendly in that respect. 21 BY MS. CASTILLO: 22 Q. Okay. What about after he was promoted? 23 A. Initially, it was fine. There was not 24 anything, but it, very quickly, became borderline 25 confrontational because it felt like he was always Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2801 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1705 1 watching where I was going everywhere I was going. 2 Q. Okay. Did you have any idea prior to -- you 3 know, we've called it the Bentley incident, but prior to 4 the Bentley incident, that there was this, kind of, 5 monitoring or issue between you and Pfarr? 6 A. Certainly, not before the Bentley incident. 7 Q. Okay. Had you ever, personally, been the butt 8 of the joke or prank at the police department? 9 A. Regularly. 10 Q. And we've heard about the culture at this 11 particular department as this is something that's fairly 12 normal? 13 A. Yeah. This department, in all the time I've 14 been here up to this point, was family environment, 15 joking, first name basis, that kind of stuff. 16 Q. So -- and we've heard, obviously, the testimony 17 of Sergeant Amoroso and even Sergeant Goodwin. 18 Have -- at the point that the Bentley prank was 19 initiated, did you have any reason to believe that that 20 would have gone over the way that it did -- 21 A. No. 22 Q. -- between you and Sergeant Pfarr? 23 A. No. 24 Q. When an officer gets promoted to a rank, is 25 that -- or, you know, gets a promotion, is it Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2802 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1706 1 commonplace for the type of -- I don't know what 2 Sergeant Pfarr called it, mocking or, you know, false 3 saluting and I think he used the word, hazing, and all 4 of that, that took place at San Luis Obispo Police 5 Department? 6 A. I found that typical not only just of 7 promotions, but of any real selection of any kind of 8 assignment, whether it would have been the S.W.A.T. or 9 motors. 10 Any time someone transitioned to another place 11 that was different from where they were, there's kind of 12 a little bit of a razzing and hazing and joking till 13 people get settled in. 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: I need to take a short 15 break here. 16 MS. CASTILLO: It's a good time. 17 (Recess.) 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: Back on the record with 19 the direct of the appellant. 20 BY MS. CASTILLO: 21 Q. Okay. So when we left off, we were talking 22 about the -- you said razzing that happens when someone 23 gets assigned to a new, either, assignment or promotion. 24 Did that, personally, happen to you? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2803 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1707 1 Q. Describe what happened to you, or an example of 2 what happened to you. 3 A. One example would have been when I first got 4 selected at that time to bicycle assignment. Different 5 times of the school year for Cal Poly, the bicycle unit 6 will get deployed to the neighborhood area where the 7 students predominantly live and we -- the bicycle unit 8 were dispatched to a call that was up a very 9 significantly large hill and the type of call was a 10 fight at a party with a knife and it was odd that we 11 were sent to this call and not a patrol officer in a car 12 that would get there much quicker than us. We even 13 requested on the radio if anybody else was available to 14 go to this call because we were on bicycles. 15 So we were told on the radio that no one else 16 was available. So we started pedaling up this 17 incredibly high hill as fast as possible to the point 18 that, at one point, I got off my bicycle because it was 19 easier just to walk and go faster than to actually ride 20 the bike. 21 But when we arrived at the call, we arrived to 22 the entire night shift patrol in their cars and the 23 supervisor laughing at us, as we're pouring down sweat, 24 breathing deeply. So we had found out that the call 25 was, indeed, fake, that the radio broadcast was fake and Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2804 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1708 1 there was, clearly, communication amongst the entire 2 patrol shift that this was going to take place and don't 3 freak out and don't go to this call. 4 Q. Okay. So up a high hill, a fight call? 5 A. Uh-huh. 6 Q. You took it seriously, obviously? 7 A. We didn't have any other way to take it. We 8 asked if there was someone else to go. We had nothing 9 to go off of that would lead us to believe that this was 10 not legitimate, the way it was broadcast. 11 Q. I think you just said that you were told that 12 there were knives involved? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And it was on the radio? 15 A. On the regular police radio. 16 Q. So, like, an FCC broadcast? 17 A. Anybody with a scanner could have heard that 18 call. 19 Q. Okay. So anyone from another police agency 20 could have heard that call? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And the entire shift was in on it? 23 A. Could there have not been someone there, sure, 24 but, for the most part, everybody that was working in a 25 car that was there was there. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2805 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1709 1 Q. Supervisors, too? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And how many of you were the butt of this joke? 4 A. There were three of us. 5 Q. All brand new guys? 6 A. I was new and the two other -- the sergeant for 7 the bicycle unit and the other officer had been in the 8 unit for a while at that point, but it was clear that 9 the joke was on me as opposed -- but it was, 10 collectively, for our whole unit, obviously, because we 11 all went. 12 Q. All right. Were you working on February 21st, 13 2013? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. On duty? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Let's talk about what you were wearing. I know 18 it's kind of a weird question, but... 19 A. As we've said, I was in a bicycle unit at the 20 time. So our bicycle uniform was a thin mesh-type 21 shirt. We wear swishy pants. Is that an official term? 22 So they're kind of like a bicycle pant, but they're 23 tapered toward your ankle so you don't get your pant 24 legs caught in your gears when you're riding. You wear 25 regular tennis shoes. We don't wear boots. We still Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2806 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1710 1 wear vests and regular belts that a patrol officer would 2 wear, but they're not as big and heavy as a regular 3 patrol uniform would be for equipment. 4 Q. Okay. Do you wear a Sam Browne? 5 A. It's the same as a Sam Browne, but its a nylon 6 version. So it's lighter weight. 7 Q. Okay. Same equipment? 8 A. Same equipment. 9 Q. Knife? 10 A. I didn't carry a knife because there was 11 nowhere to carry it. 12 Q. The reason I ask about a knife is because, you 13 know, you heard the testimony of Officer Benson about 14 you with a knife. So did you have a knife that night? 15 A. No, I didn't. 16 Q. And is that the night that you went to the 17 Bentley rollover crash? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Now, obviously, though you were assigned to the 20 downtown bike unit, your response was as part of the 21 accident reconstruction team, or the total station? 22 A. My initial response was from the patrol level, 23 if you will. We were working our regular bicycle 24 assignment; albeit, not on a bicycle at the time, our 25 response was preliminary to that. I wanted to go Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2807 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1711 1 because it was a rollover. Cars that rollover typically 2 come with injuries. 3 So if there was going to be some sort of an 4 accident reconstruction team response similar to that of 5 a S.W.A.T. response, if there's a S.W.A.T. operator 6 working on a patrol shift and there's a critical 7 incident, they are the first there to kind of assess 8 because they have that higher level of experience to 9 determine whether or not that team needs to come or not. 10 Q. So you're working as patrol, you respond to the 11 Bentley crash. 12 When you were there, do you start assuming your 13 traffic duties or your reconstruction duties at some 14 point? 15 A. When I first got there, we did not -- that was, 16 merely, for an assessment standpoint, as far as I was 17 concerned. I left. I was given a ride back to the 18 station to acquire any equipment because there was 19 determined there was going to be a call-out and I wanted 20 to make sure that we started getting things rolling so 21 we weren't there till all hours of the night. 22 Q. Okay. At your initial response, how did you 23 arrive? You just said not on your bike? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. How did you get there? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2808 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1712 1 A. Sergeant Amoroso is a fair-weather bicycle 2 rider. It was a little chilly that night. So we were 3 in the pickup truck, the FST truck, as it's been 4 referred to here. So he was driving, I was in the 5 passenger's seat and we drove from downtown to the 6 accident scene. 7 Q. Was there conversation in that car? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And what was that conversation? 10 A. The conversation between he and I was that 11 Sergeant Pfarr is a new supervisor, Sergeant Amoroso 12 brought up the fact of wouldn't it be funny to prank 13 him, prank him in a way so much that he would freak out, 14 it would cause someone that is a new supervisor to freak 15 out, and we equally laughed about it. 16 Q. Something consistent with what you just 17 described at like your truck up the big hill? 18 A. That would be consistent with something like 19 that. 20 Q. Okay. Was any specific prank discussed between 21 the two of you? 22 A. No. 23 Q. And then you got to the scene? 24 A. After going back to getting the equipment, I 25 responded back on my own with the equipment and began Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2809 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1713 1 setting up. Knowing that the other members of the 2 reconstruction team were coming from their houses at 3 2:00 in the morning, they were probably all sleeping. 4 So I was trying to get ahead of the game to have it set 5 up so, as soon as they arrived, we could get rolling 6 with the diagram. 7 Q. While you were at the scene of the Bentley 8 accident, did you have any conversation with Sergeant 9 Amoroso about pulling a prank on Sergeant Pfarr -- 10 A. No. 11 Q. -- at the accident scene? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Who was called out from that traffic team? 14 A. I was already there, obviously, Colleen Kevany 15 was called out, Officer Cudworth, or Robert Cudworth, 16 called out, Sergeant Janice Goodwin responded. I 17 believe that was it. 18 Q. Okay. And what -- what tasks did you perform 19 while you were there? 20 A. My responsibility for the reconstruction 21 portion was going to be the scene diagram. That's, 22 typically, my position. Not a lot of people have 23 knowledge or experience with total station. It is kind 24 of the specialty tool. 25 So, generally, I'm defaulted to the person Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2810 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1714 1 operating the total station and directing the other 2 members of the team to the points and positions that I 3 want to record with the machine. 4 Q. Were you able to diagram the scene that 5 evening? 6 A. We acquired the measurements to later diagram 7 the scene. 8 Q. And did that occur? 9 A. I don't believe we actually ended up doing a 10 reconstruction, based on that no one was going to die, 11 no one was even seriously injured. I think we kind of 12 scrapped the whole reconstruction portion of it and just 13 left it as a serious traffic collision that didn't 14 necessarily need the amount of detail of a factual 15 diagram and everything that goes into a reconstruction. 16 Q. Okay. And who was the primary individual 17 responsible for the collision report that evening? 18 A. Colleen Kevany. 19 Q. So the scrapping of the reconstruction, was 20 that your call? 21 A. No. 22 Q. At some point, did you finish the tasks that 23 you were either assigned or self-assigned at the scene 24 of the crash? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2811 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1715 1 Q. And what happened next? 2 A. At that point, we were completed with the 3 evidence-gathering for the total station things and we 4 had called the tow truck driver to come to the scene and 5 there was a process of having to get the car flipped 6 over on its wheels, and so that took time to have that 7 happen. 8 So there was a lot of standing around at that 9 point. We were still responsible for the scene because 10 it was not -- the tow truck driver hadn't taken the 11 vehicle away yet. So there was a lot of standing 12 around, joking, talking, that kind of thing. 13 Q. Other than the members of your department, were 14 there any members of the public around? 15 A. The only person that was not a member of the 16 department that was there was the tow truck driver. 17 Q. Okay. And at the point that you are preparing 18 to get the car to flip back onto its wheels, what 19 happens next? 20 A. I've reflected back to my conversation with 21 Sergeant Amoroso, and given the mood of the people that 22 were there, everybody had kind of already been razzen 23 and Sergeant Pfarr -- 24 Q. Wait. Can you describe what they had been 25 already doing to Sergeant Pfarr at that point? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2812 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1716 1 A. There was a lot of joking with him about his 2 new rank, people would accentuate the word, sergeant, 3 when they referred to him, people were saluting at 4 strange, weird times that were not necessarily -- he'd 5 ask somebody something and they'd say, yes, sir, 6 sergeant, sir, and they'd stand at attention and salute 7 him. 8 So there was, clearly, a joking mood about 9 everyone that was there and that was reflective back to 10 my conversation with Sergeant Amoroso in the car. 11 Q. Let me stop you there. 12 There was no fatality, there's no dead body on 13 the scene there or anything like that, right? 14 A. My understanding is it was minor injuries, at 15 best. 16 Q. Okay. So they're joking around with Sergeant 17 Pfarr, you're standing around, waiting for the tow truck 18 driver to flip the car. What happened next? 19 A. So I, at this time, think that I could prank 20 Pfarr a little bit more and I begin to refer to some of 21 the Bentley emblems, the Bentley car, as a whole, the 22 uniqueness of this car, the Bentley emblem, itself. 23 I own a MINI Cooper that has an emblem on it 24 that's similar to a Bentley. So I was talking about 25 how, oh, that Bentley emblem looks like my MINI emblem, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2813 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1717 1 we could put that up or put it on our motorcycles, all 2 these kind of things that would be indicative of 3 something that no one's going to do, but it was a 4 conversation that I was trying to spur amongst the 5 people so that Sergeant Pfarr could hear me. 6 Q. Did you think that your coworkers would take 7 you seriously? 8 A. No. 9 Q. How long had you worked with these people that 10 were present at the scene? 11 A. At this time, I had worked closely with many of 12 the people for the three years while we were in traffic 13 and I'd been there -- we're a small department. You 14 work closely with everybody. So there's not someone you 15 don't know. You may not know them well, but you know of 16 them and what they're about. 17 Q. Okay. Are there car parts on the ground around 18 the Bentley? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Describe what you see on the ground. 21 A. Parts of the front bumper, wheel caps, side 22 mirrors, glass, it was a convertible car. So a lot of 23 the interior had come out of the car, a lot of personal 24 belongings, things like that. 25 Q. Based on your training and experience, not only Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2814 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1718 1 as a police officer, but as this accident 2 reconstructionist, do you have an opinion as to whether 3 or not this car was going to be put back together? 4 A. This car was not going to get put back 5 together. 6 Q. Okay. What happens next? 7 A. At that time, I asked the tow truck driver for 8 a screwdriver and, at which time, he gave it to me. I 9 went back over to the car and I made reference to an 10 emblem on the car, I believe it was the hood emblem, 11 that I bet that thing can come off, we'll use that, 12 we'll have that, something to that effect, but I had the 13 screwdriver in my hand and I went as if I was going to 14 the emblem, but as soon as you got to this emblem, like 15 many other emblems on a car, you can see that it's not 16 going to come off without some force and -- 17 Q. Let me stop you. 18 Officer Benson testified to the effect that you 19 were going to peel at it with your finger. Do you 20 recall doing something like that? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Is it possible that you could have -- based on 23 your training, experience and knowledge of this car, 24 could you have peeled a Bentley emblem off with your 25 finger? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2815 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1719 1 A. I don't think you could have peeled it off with 2 your finger. 3 Q. Okay. So what did you do then at the hood of 4 this car? 5 A. I didn't do anything else with the hood emblem 6 on the car. 7 At that time, I looked at the car to see if 8 there something else on this car that is something that 9 could be -- had some notoriety to it, has the same 10 emblem on it, that if it were to come off, it's not 11 going to cause any damage to this car. 12 And I saw on the wheels, like many wheels in 13 common cars, there would be a cap in the middle of the 14 car that covers the lug nuts that hold the wheel on the 15 car. Like many cars nowadays, they try to hide that as 16 a decorative feature. So it's not something that's 17 going to damage the car. It's something that a regular 18 mechanic is going to take that cap off to rotate the 19 tires, to change the tire. 20 So with that same screwdriver, you can insert 21 it in the slot on the side of that cap and there's just 22 retention clips that hold it in there and it pops right 23 off, similar to the one that I saw on the ground that 24 was thrown off the car as a result of the crash. 25 Q. Okay. So what did you do? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2816 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1720 1 A. I popped off the hubcap, trying to get Sergeant 2 Pfarr to see that I was taking this hubcap off the car 3 and I was trying to get him to come over and tell me to 4 knock it off, hey, what are you doing, get him to kind 5 of get a little concerned about what was going on, freak 6 out a little bit. 7 Q. And did he? 8 A. Well, he -- I think he got upset in the 9 opposite direction of what my intent was. He, 10 obviously, became upset at what was going on and he made 11 a comment loud enough that I could hear that the 12 sergeant can't be here for this anymore, I'm leaving, 13 and he turned around and walked away. 14 Q. He did not come up to you and say, hey, stop, 15 put it back, or anything like that? 16 A. No, he did not. 17 Q. What did you do? 18 A. He started walking away to his car and I said 19 loud enough that I thought he could hear me, hey, man, 20 I'm just messing around with you, and he just kept 21 walking to his car and got in the car and drove away. 22 Q. What did you do at that point? 23 A. At that point, I took the hubcap and the other 24 hubcap that was there with it and I put it inside the 25 car, which is typical of these accident scenes, as the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2817 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1721 1 tow truck driver will clean up all the parts and just 2 throw them inside the passenger compartment of the car 3 because it's easier to transport them. So that's where 4 I put them because that's been my experience where all 5 those parts go anyway. 6 Q. So it's been your experience that the tow truck 7 driver will pick up all the debris parts that have 8 surrounded the accident scene and just, collectively, 9 throw them into the car for transport? 10 A. I have regularly seen the tow truck driver 11 sweep up things into a bucket, car parts, kitty litter 12 that they use to clean up fluids, and dump that into an 13 open window of a car into the passenger compartment of 14 the car. 15 Q. So you put all the car parts -- well, you 16 picked -- stop. 17 Did you pick up the car part that you saw on 18 the ground? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And did you put that into the car? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. The hubcap that you -- or the lug nut cover 23 that you popped off, did you damage it in any way? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Did you put that into the car? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2818 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1722 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Did you take anything else off the car? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Did you cut the steering wheel or steering 5 column or anything else, at all? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Did you touch the hood emblem, at all? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Did you touch the rear emblem, at all? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Did you ever put anything in a brown paper bag? 12 A. I don't have any recollection of doing that. 13 Certainly, in the course of these types of 14 investigations, there's evidence that is collected that 15 go into brown paper bags, but I don't have any 16 independent recollection of being part of collecting 17 evidence. 18 Q. Okay. But in terms of these emblems that we're 19 talking about as part of this prank, was there any brown 20 paper bag involved in this prank? 21 A. No, there wasn't. 22 Q. Okay. So once you put all these parts back, 23 was the prank over? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. How long did this entire prank last? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2819 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1723 1 A. Minutes. 2 Q. How well did this prank go over? 3 A. I didn't feel like it went over very well. 4 Q. Did any of your coworkers comment to you at the 5 scene, that you can recall, about your prank? 6 A. Not a single person. 7 Q. Any of your coworkers comment to you about your 8 actions, meaning did they comment that they thought that 9 what you were doing was not, in fact, a joke or a prank? 10 A. No one. 11 Q. What happened after the sergeant said, the 12 sergeant can't be here for this, and walked off? 13 A. Went back to resuming cleaning up our equipment 14 from the total station, getting it in the car because 15 the tow truck driver was going to be leaving soon and we 16 were going to be done with the scene and go home. 17 Q. Any of your coworkers say, man, you sure upset 18 Sergeant Pfarr, or make any comments to that effect to 19 you? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Was Sergeant -- or did you have an awareness 22 that Sergeant Pfarr was watching what you were doing at 23 the time that you had the screwdriver and you were near 24 the vehicle? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2820 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1724 1 Q. Okay. Other than at the point that he said, I 2 can't be here for this anymore, did he make any other 3 statements to you, that you remember? 4 A. No. 5 Q. When you talked to the tow truck driver, other 6 than saying could you borrow the screwdriver, what was 7 your conversation like? 8 A. Well, when I returned the screwdriver to him, I 9 made some casual comment to the effect of, hey, I don't 10 know if you were watching, or whatever, but we were just 11 joking around. 12 Q. Did he say anything to you? 13 A. He kind of awkwardly chuckled as if he didn't 14 really know what I was talking about or he was confused 15 about what I was saying. 16 Q. Did you have any knowledge as to whether or not 17 he had witnessed what you had done? 18 A. I didn't have any specific knowledge. 19 Q. Okay. What happened after you finished up your 20 duties? 21 A. I was putting equipment in my car and my cell 22 phone rang and I picked it up and it was Sergeant Pfarr 23 calling me from his personal phone. So I answered the 24 phone call, hey, what's up, and he immediately was 25 clearly upset. He starts with, you put me in a bad spot Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2821 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1725 1 back there, I don't know what you think you were doing, 2 but there's junior officers there, what are you -- what 3 are you trying to do. I said, hey, man, I was just 4 messing around with you. I don't know -- relax. He 5 goes, well, he goes, that was inappropriate and you need 6 to put all that stuff back. I said, Chad, nothing left 7 the car, I was messing around, and he said, okay, well, 8 hurry up and finish out there and come back and see me 9 at the station when you're done. 10 Q. Did you ever send him a text picture of parts 11 in the car? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And what was the point of doing that? 14 A. I felt like, based off the phone conversation 15 and him telling me to put the parts back, that he 16 wouldn't necessarily believe that and I wanted to show 17 him, look, here's a photo of the hubcap on the 18 floorboard in the car, there no harm, no foul. I was 19 just messing around. 20 Q. Did you send him the picture of the parts 21 before the phone rang or after? 22 A. After. 23 Q. Did you go to meet him at the station? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Approximately, how long was that after you left Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2822 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1726 1 the Bentley scene? 2 A. Time to clean up, time to drive back, put the 3 equipment away, walk back to the station from the next 4 door office, it could have been a half-hour. 5 Q. Did you expect, at that point, that he would 6 have calmed down a little bit? 7 A. Yes. 8 MR. PALMER: Objection. Speculation. 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: If you know. 10 BY MS. CASTILLO: 11 Q. What was your expectation? 12 A. My expectation was there was time that would 13 pass that he was probably not as upset as he was when he 14 was at the scene or on the phone. 15 Q. Did he appear upset at the scene? 16 A. I didn't really notice him at the scene because 17 by the time he said that, he was already turned around 18 and walking away. So I didn't necessarily get a look at 19 his facial expressions or anything like that, but from 20 the tone, he was a little irritated. 21 Q. Okay. So you go to the office where Sergeant 22 Pfarr is. Is that his own office or is it the watch 23 commander office or sergeant's office? What office is 24 that? 25 A. That is a common office shared by all the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2823 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1727 1 sergeants. 2 Q. And when you go in there, are you by yourself? 3 A. I was. 4 Q. Closed-door conversation? Do you remember? 5 A. I believe the door was open. 6 Q. Okay. And what happened when you walked in the 7 door? 8 A. When I walk in the door, the office is -- 9 there's an L-shaped desk right as you walk in and he was 10 facing away from the doorway. So when I walked in, I 11 said, hey, what's up, because I'm there, and he quickly 12 spun around in the chair and went right back into the 13 same stuff he was saying on the phone about you put me 14 in a bad spot, and we went through all the possible 15 scenarios of what was not good about that and how it 16 could look bad for him, us, the department, all those 17 kinds of things. He, pretty much, chewed my ass. 18 Q. Okay. What was your response, if you had one? 19 A. I was apologetic to him. I was apologetic to 20 the fact that how it could have been perceived, that was 21 not my intention, I was just messing with you, there was 22 no hard feelings, those kinds of things. 23 Q. Did you tell him that it was a joke? 24 A. I believe that was the message that I conveyed 25 by, I was messing with you, and he didn't seek Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2824 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1728 1 clarification. So I got that he knew what that meant. 2 Q. Okay. And at that time, did you tell him that 3 you had had that conversation with Sergeant Amoroso that 4 evening about, hey, wouldn't it be funny to play a joke 5 on Chad because he's a new sergeant? 6 A. I did not tell him that. 7 Q. Why not? 8 A. I felt like, based on Sergeant Pfarr's 9 response, how upset he was about it, at that point, I 10 was in a position to just lay on the grenade, so to 11 speak. I didn't want to, necessarily, compromise 12 Sergeant Amoroso for something he said that was my 13 responsibility in making the decision to play the prank. 14 I didn't want to make things worse in the situation, I 15 didn't want to make things worse between he and Sergeant 16 Amoroso, he being Sergeant Pfarr. 17 So I figured, at that point, just drop it, 18 leave it, let the whole thing go away and we'll all move 19 on with it just being a poor decision of a bad prank. 20 Q. Did you ever have any intention of taking and 21 keeping any of those vehicle parts as trophies for a 22 collection or any kind of thing for your traffic office? 23 A. No. 24 Q. When you were in the office with Sergeant 25 Pfarr, did he indicate to you that he had talked to Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2825 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1729 1 anyone else on the -- at the scene of the Bentley, 2 meaning your coworkers? 3 A. He did. 4 Q. And what did he say, specifically? 5 A. He told me that he talked to everybody that was 6 there, he told me that he made sure that they knew that 7 he handled it with me and that it was done. 8 Q. And what did you take that to mean? 9 A. I took that as I got verbally disciplined for 10 doing something wrong and he made sure that everybody 11 else knew that he disciplined me or counseled me and it 12 was done. 13 Q. Meaning your coworkers? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. Did you apologize to Sergeant Pfarr that night? 16 A. I said I was sorry for putting him in that 17 position and playing a prank. 18 Q. When you left the office that evening, did you 19 feel like the issue between yourself and Sergeant Pfarr 20 had been resolved? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Did you feel like it had been clearly 23 communicated to Sergeant Pfarr that your intention that 24 night with the Bentley had been to play a practical joke 25 on him and sorry it was a crappy one? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2826 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1730 1 A. Certainly, in retrospect, I think I could have 2 explained it better, but I think for what it was and my 3 understanding walking out of the office was we were on 4 common ground with what happened and what took place and 5 we were both going to move forward. 6 Q. After that evening, did you have another 7 conversation with Sergeant Pfarr about what happened at 8 that Bentley scene? 9 A. No. 10 Q. When was the next time you heard about the 11 Bentley event, or the Bentley incident, being brought 12 up? 13 A. It was December 30th, 2013. So it was ten 14 months later when I was having a conversation with 15 Sergeant Amoroso at his house. 16 Q. And how did that take place? 17 A. I went over there to borrow some Loctite glue 18 or something, some project or something, and we were 19 just talking about the project I was working on and then 20 that kind of blended into me expressing my frustrations 21 with how long things were taking because I had already 22 been on admin leave at that point for 18 days. 23 Q. And why were you on administrative leave? 24 A. I was placed on administrative leave for what 25 we've been referring to as the CAT incident or texting Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2827 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1731 1 incident. 2 Q. Did you have any idea that you were being 3 investigated, at that point, for the Bentley matter? 4 A. No. 5 Q. And what happened next? 6 A. Um, Sergeant Amoroso, in response to my 7 expressions of frustration in the length of time, was, 8 oh, well, they're probably still working on the Bentley 9 incident, and he referred to it as the Bentley crash, 10 but he said, well, you remember that Bentley that 11 crashed earlier, I said, yeah, he goes, well, I guess 12 they're -- they're doing an IA on that, and I was very 13 taken aback by what he was saying and I think he saw my 14 facial expression because I didn't have a response and 15 he immediately said, yeah, well, I talked to Chad, 16 Sergeant Pfarr, and he told me that he got ordered to 17 write a memo and that Chad told Amoroso that Amoroso 18 might be interviewed at some point. 19 So that was a conversation that they had that 20 Amoroso related to me. 21 Q. And that was the first time you even knew there 22 was a Bentley investigation into your actions? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. Up until this point, had you ever been on 25 administrative leave before? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2828 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1732 1 A. No. 2 Q. So when you're talking about the 18 days 3 seeming very long, you had nothing to compare that to? 4 A. Nothing. 5 Q. Have you ever been disciplined, significant 6 suspension, or anything like that? 7 A. No significance. 8 Q. All right. I want to go, kind of, backwards. 9 We've heard testimony that Sergeant Pfarr, once 10 promoted, became your supervisor over the CAT shift 11 detail? 12 A. There were occasions where he was the day shift 13 sergeant. So in that respect, he would have been 14 responsible supervisor over those working CAT, which I 15 was working. 16 Q. At the point that he became your sergeant and 17 at the point that you learned that he, perhaps, did not 18 consider you to be one of his favorite people, were you 19 concerned that he was one of your direct supervisors? 20 A. I was. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: Who are we talking about 22 now? Sergeant Pfarr? 23 MS. CASTILLO: Pfarr. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 25 /// Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2829 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1733 1 BY MS. CASTILLO: 2 Q. How is it that you learned that, perhaps, you 3 were not one of his favorite people? 4 A. The first time I became aware of it was when I 5 returned from our Europe vacation. 6 Q. And when was that? 7 A. July 3rd, 2013. 8 Q. And when did you leave for Europe? 9 A. We left June 9th. 10 Q. And how was it that you learned that Sergeant 11 Pfarr -- well, how would you characterize Sergeant 12 Pfarr's opinion of you as it was related to you and by 13 whom? 14 A. Well, when I got back from Europe, that was my 15 first shift back, was July 3rd, and the beginning of 16 shift, Sergeant Amoroso asked me into the office, we 17 closed the door and he told me that he had to talk to me 18 about something that happened before I left for Europe. 19 I said okay. He goes -- and he continued with, I don't 20 know why he didn't just handle it with you, but Pfarr 21 wants me to talk to you about him catching you in the 22 office, or something, watching a movie. I said okay. 23 He goes -- he continued with, consider it we've talked 24 about it. I said, is that it? He goes, I don't know, I 25 wasn't there, I don't know why he didn't handle it with Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2830 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1734 1 you, I don't know why he waited for you to go to Europe 2 to tell me about it, if he was there and he was your 3 sergeant, I don't know why he didn't handle it with you. 4 I said, okay. He goes, I don't know, we're done. I 5 said, okay. 6 He said, on a side note to that, you have to 7 understand that he is, likely, going to be your 8 supervisor come January, and this would have been 9 January of 2014 now, and you have to understand, I don't 10 know why, but, clearly, he's got it out for you and you 11 need to watch what you're doing. I thanked him for the 12 recommendation and that ended our meeting. 13 Q. Why was he going to become your supervisor in 14 January 2014? 15 A. Sergeant Amoroso was currently my supervisor on 16 the bicycle shift and, typically, the newest-promoted 17 sergeant, once they spend a particular rotation time, 18 usually it's one full rotation or whenever that rotation 19 time comes back around to the current downtown bicycle 20 sergeant being rotated out, that most newest sergeant 21 usually gets sent downtown because it's the least 22 desirable of the sergeant positions that they can work. 23 So Sergeant Amoroso was coming out in January 24 2014 and it was very likely in that Sergeant Pfarr had 25 now worked almost two rotations on patrol, there was a Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2831 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1735 1 very high likelihood that he was going to go to bikes in 2 January and that was what Sergeant Amoroso was telling 3 me. 4 Q. So do you recall the watching a movie and when 5 it happened? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. First, when did it happen? 8 A. I don't recall the specific day, but I know it 9 was in the month of May. 10 Q. So wait. It was not in October? 11 A. No, it was not. 12 Q. What year was it in? 13 A. 2013. 14 Q. May 2013. Were there two movie incidents or 15 one? 16 A. There was one movie incident. 17 Q. Okay. And tell us about the movie incident in 18 May of 2013. 19 A. I was working a CAT shift by myself at this 20 time. Like I said before, these were specific to 21 single-officer shifts. You wear a regular patrol 22 uniform, poly-wool blend, you wear all your regular 23 uniform, you're out, walking downtown, it's sometimes 24 warm here and you're walking around, there's not really 25 anywhere to stop and break. So the downtown office is Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2832 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1736 1 typically used by the bicycle team to store equipment, 2 write reports, things like that. 3 At this time, it was about 1:00. I had already 4 been in the shift for about two hours and I took it to 5 take a break at that point. There was going to be 6 another three hours of the shift at this point. So I 7 thought this would be a good time to take a break. 8 So I got myself a little snack, which was just 9 one little barbecue slider from an amazing little 10 barbecue place downtown, and went back to the downtown 11 office because there's also an air-conditioner in the 12 downtown office. So I sat down, ate my little slider, I 13 had on the TV an AR-15 building video. And the reason I 14 know -- 15 Q. What's an AR-15? 16 A. An AR-15 is a style of rifle. It's often 17 referred to as an assault rifle, common terminology. 18 It's something that we use on the S.W.A.T. team, it's 19 something I used as a sniper on the S.W.A.T team. 20 Q. Okay. Continue. 21 A. So, at this time, I was working on building a 22 rifle for my use as a sniper on the S.W.A.T. team. We 23 didn't have any semi-automatic rifles on the team. We 24 only had bolt-action rifles. So I was in the process of 25 teaching myself how to build a rifle with the components Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2833 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1737 1 involved. 2 So I took a couple minutes while I was eating 3 my slider while taking my quick break to catch a couple 4 minutes of this video so that I could build this rifle 5 that we could use it on the team. 6 Q. So does Sergeant Pfarr come into the downtown 7 office at this time? 8 A. Yes, he does. 9 Q. And you're on an overtime shift at this point? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. Had you worked before -- or the night before or 12 were you working afterwards? Do you know? 13 A. I don't recall what day of the week it was. So 14 it would just have depended on what day of the week that 15 was. 16 Typically, these shifts were on days where I 17 was already working. So it would carry over into my 18 next shift or close thereto. So I would work 16 hours 19 that day, but this could have been a day where it was 20 just that shift. So it would have been a five-hour 21 shift from 11 to 4. I don't recall that specific day. 22 Q. We heard some testimony that this video was, 23 from Sergeant Pfarr, a Marvel video. Is that correct? 24 A. That is inaccurate. 25 Q. So Sergeant Pfarr comes into the downtown bike Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2834 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1738 1 office. What happens next? 2 A. The office has, kind of, a hallway. So you 3 have to walk about three feet into the hallway before 4 there's a doorway into the room. So he comes to the 5 doorway edge of the room, kind of, with his hands on his 6 hips. He's all, what are you doing? I said, just 7 taking a quick break, and he goes, oh, okay, you about 8 done? I said, about done. He said -- he asked me, you 9 want to go get a cup of coffee then? I said, sure. 10 So I threw the last bite of slider in my mouth 11 and we got up and walked to the Starbucks, which is 12 practically connected to that same building, which is 13 maybe a one-minute walk from the office. 14 Q. And so you went and got coffee? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Did -- at that time when you were having -- 17 well, did you have coffee together or did you just get a 18 cup of coffee and go back to your shift? 19 A. We both got a cup of coffee. We were both 20 together. It's in the downtown center. It's a group of 21 businesses, restaurants, things like that. So we 22 actually had run into some citizens who had some 23 questions. We talked to them for a few minutes, um, 24 answered what they had and we parted ways from them, the 25 citizens. He and I walked back toward where his car was Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2835 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1739 1 parked by the downtown bicycle office and he got in the 2 car and I continued with my downtown foot patrol shift. 3 Q. So how long were you in Starbucks for? 4 A. Five minutes, however long it takes to make 5 coffee. 6 Q. Okay. During that time that you spent with 7 him, did he ever say anything to you about being in the 8 downtown office and eating? 9 A. No, he did not. 10 Q. Did he say anything to you about being in the 11 downtown office and watching any kind of program? 12 A. No, he did not. 13 Q. In May of 2013, did he mention that event to 14 you at any point again? 15 A. No, he did not. 16 Q. Ever, did he mention that to you again about 17 that day? 18 A. I never heard of the movie incident again until 19 Sergeant Amoroso told me about it. 20 I take that back. While we were in Europe, I 21 received an e-mail from my bicycle partner, Brent 22 Inglehart, and the reason I remember that is because we 23 didn't really have cell phone service. We only had Wifi 24 service when we were at our house we rented. 25 So an e-mail came through from Brent Inglehart Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2836 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1740 1 and he wanted to give me some heads-up what was going on 2 back here. In the course of his e-mail, he told me that 3 he was on the other end of a vent from Sergeant Amoroso 4 and how upset Sergeant Amoroso was with Sergeant Pfarr 5 that Sergeant Pfarr was putting the movie incident on 6 him to handle and Brent wanted me to have a heads-up so 7 I wasn't blindsided when I returned home from Europe. 8 Q. The movie incident? 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. So when you had the conversation with Sergeant 11 Amoroso when you returned, did you ever go and have a 12 conversation later with Sergeant Pfarr? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Because you were informed that it had been 15 handled by Sergeant Amoroso? 16 A. That was what Sergeant Amoroso conveyed to me 17 in our meeting. 18 Q. When you spoke with Sergeant Pfarr that day in 19 May, did he appear to be angry? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Did he appear to be concerned? 22 A. No. 23 Q. After that time when you had heard from 24 Sergeant Amoroso about Sergeant Pfarr's displeasure, did 25 you make it a practice to watch movies in the downtown Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2837 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1741 1 bike office while eating sliders or any other kind of 2 snack? 3 A. No. 4 Q. And now Brent Inglehart knows not to watch 5 movies and eat sliders, also? 6 A. I'd have to speculate on what Officer Inglehart 7 would -- 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: You don't need to 9 speculate about that. 10 BY MS. CASTILLO: 11 Q. Okay. Had you ever heard anything from any of 12 the sergeants while you were working the CAT shift about 13 your statistics? 14 A. The only time I heard about statistics was from 15 Sergeant Amoroso during our meeting. 16 Q. And when was this meeting? 17 A. That was the same meeting. 18 Q. When you returned in July of 2013? 19 A. Correct. That was part of that same meeting 20 wherein that was part of Sergeant Pfarr's assessment of 21 me in the office to Sergeant Amoroso, was that Sergeant 22 Pfarr had pulled my statistics for these CAT shifts that 23 I was working and he -- he conveyed to Sergeant Amoroso 24 that my statistics were unsatisfactory. 25 Q. Did he ever say, exactly, how he pulled these Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2838 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1742 1 statistics? 2 A. Sergeant Amoroso did not say that there was any 3 comparison or who it was in relation to. 4 Q. Or what these statistics were? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Is this -- did he -- so you don't know if this 7 was the I listened to the radio traffic and that's what 8 the statistics were? 9 A. There was no qualification as to what 10 statistics were based on. 11 Q. Okay. What was your thoughts or -- at the 12 point that you learned that this was the opinion of 13 Sergeant Pfarr in July of 2013, what did you do, if 14 anything? 15 A. At this point, I became very guarded with him 16 and how I would interact with him and how open and 17 communicative I was going to be with him at that point 18 because it was becoming clear to me that what I was 19 doing with and around him was being misrepresented to 20 other people, especially my immediate supervisor. 21 Q. Had you ever seen your statistics for the CAT 22 shift? 23 A. No. 24 Q. After this conversation, did you attempt to get 25 out of the bicycle patrol unit? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2839 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1743 1 A. Uh, I, at that point, like I said earlier, was 2 working on building my resume as far as the assignments 3 that I had worked, and in August, September of 2013, 4 there were a host of other special assignments that were 5 going to be available. The testing process was going to 6 be at that time; however, the assignments were not going 7 to be taken until January of '14. 8 So, at that time, there were several detective 9 assignments, a daytime bicycle assignment, there may 10 have been another, but I had applied for the daytime 11 bicycle assignment, I applied for the county narcotics 12 task force, I applied for our city special enforcement 13 team and I applied for the regular detective spot, which 14 would have been a property people's crimes kind of a 15 detective position. 16 Q. Under those special assignments, would you have 17 been supervised by Sergeant Pfarr? 18 A. If I went to the daytime bicycle assignment, he 19 would have still been my immediate supervisor. 20 Q. For the other assignments? 21 A. He would not have been. 22 Q. In fall 2013, did you approach the chief about 23 any of the openings for the detective spots? 24 A. Yes, I did. 25 Q. And was he encouraging, in any way, to you in Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2840 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1744 1 terms of putting in for those positions? 2 A. He was not. 3 Q. What do you mean? 4 A. I had requested a meeting with the chief, as I 5 had not spoken to him since our January exit interview 6 from the sergeant position when Sergeant Pfarr was 7 promoted. It was kind of a touch base kind of a 8 meeting. As I said before, the last time we talked, he 9 thought I had a lack of commitment to this organization. 10 So I wanted to kind of get a sense from him not only 11 what he was looking for in detectives -- being narcotics 12 officers in this department, we kind of had a sense from 13 past chiefs what the expectation was, but I wanted to 14 hear from him, just as a preparation to going into the 15 interview. I'm sure he would have given the oral board 16 people an idea of what he was looking for. It's his 17 department. 18 So when I went to meet with him, it was an 19 identical meeting from January. I would characterize it 20 as nothing had changed in his mind about me since 21 January. He brought up the same incidents, he brought 22 up the same things. In fact, he even went so far as to 23 say that I should have taken the opportunity to clear my 24 name with the accusation related to the PT test. 25 Q. The looking at your watch when you weren't even Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2841 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1745 1 on -- when you didn't even take the test? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. What do you mean? Didn't you already clear 4 your name in January? 5 A. That was what he said, he wanted to give me the 6 opportunity to clear my name, that was my opportunity to 7 do that because it was his perception that, from what he 8 was told, that that led to me having a lack of 9 commitment. So he wanted me to clear my name, somehow 10 or another, from that. 11 Q. Did he explain to you how you were supposed to 12 do that? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Other than say that it was impossible? 15 A. What I got from it was that he wanted some 16 level of a verbal response at that time, that I needed 17 to qualify myself to him, or something, in that moment. 18 That's what I got from what he was saying. That was my 19 perception of that conversation, and, at that point, in 20 August, September, I felt like there was nothing I was 21 going to be able to say or do to change his perception 22 of me he now has. I was working all this overtime, 23 doing all this preparation for these assignments and I 24 didn't think that -- clearly, nothing was going to 25 change in his mind about me. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2842 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1746 1 So I decided to pull my applications from those 2 detective assignments because it was clear I was not 3 what he was looking for. 4 Q. Did you pull your application from all those 5 detective assignments? 6 A. Yes, I did. 7 Q. When did you do that? 8 A. It was shortly after our meeting and shortly 9 after my submitting the applications. 10 Q. And so that would have been in fall 2013? 11 A. It was somewhere in the month of August or 12 early September. Before the oral boards took place, I 13 pulled my applications for those. 14 Q. And this is right around when it became your 15 understanding that Sergeant Pfarr became aware that you 16 were -- but that you had put in applications for these 17 detective spots? 18 A. At the time, I was not aware that he was aware. 19 Now I am, but, at the time, I had no knowledge. I was 20 not worried about what other people, at that point, 21 Sergeant Pfarr, in particular, thought or cared about me 22 going into these assignments. I was looking to improve 23 myself and, hopefully, get one of these spots. 24 Q. Okay. Were you encouraged by the people in the 25 Detective Bureau? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2843 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1747 1 A. I received nothing but positive feedback from 2 everybody else that I spoke to about applying and 3 getting these positions and seeking and getting 4 assistance from these people as far as recommendations. 5 Q. Who was the lieutenant at the time who was in 6 charge of the Detective Bureau? 7 A. Lieutenant Bledsoe. 8 Q. That is the individual who investigated you for 9 the CAT shift? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. Did you ever talk to him about your interest in 12 the detective positions? 13 A. I did. 14 Q. What was that conversation like? 15 A. Uh, I felt like it was more functional, it was 16 more of what are the roles and responsibilities, what 17 are your expectations of the -- of your subordinates in 18 this unit, but nothing in the way of don't apply, don't 19 put in, nothing like that. 20 Q. Okay. Did you talk to him after you pulled 21 your application? Did he ever speak to you about that? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Did you know that he had the impression that 24 you were dishonest? 25 A. Not at that time. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2844 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1748 1 Q. We've heard some testimony of the duration 2 period of the CAT shift, that it's typically from 11 to 3 4. 4 Was that fairly set in stone, based on your 5 experience? 6 A. No, it wasn't. 7 Q. Can you describe what your experience was? 8 A. My experience with it was that there was 9 extreme flexibility, not only with emergencies, small 10 adjustments of 15 minutes to half an hour, but I also 11 had personal experiences where other officers that I was 12 scheduled to work with had significant childcare issues 13 related to a shift that they were assigned and I was 14 informed by those officers that the entire time frame 15 had been adjusted, not that we were going to work a 16 half-hour less or half-hour over, it was going to be, 17 instead of working 11 to 4, we were going to work 10 to 18 3 or noon to 5. 19 And I never verified this, I never 20 double-checked who or if they ran that by anybody. I 21 just showed up when that officer -- my partner officer 22 told me to show up and we worked those hours. 23 Q. When that occurred, were you ever notified that 24 that was inappropriate by the watch commander of the 25 day? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2845 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1749 1 A. No. 2 Q. Were you ever told by the lieutenant who was in 3 charge of the CAT shift that that was inappropriate or 4 unacceptable? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Now, generally, for the time period that you 7 participated in the CAT overtime, was your supervisor 8 Lieutenant Smith, other than your direct supervisor on 9 the days that Lieutenant Smith was not available? 10 A. To my knowledge, the way the program -- he was 11 the supervisor of the program, if you will, he managed 12 the program, if you will, and -- but it was, generally, 13 my experience that he would kind of delegate that 14 day-to-day management responsibility to whomever the day 15 shift sergeant was. 16 Q. Okay. We've heard some testimony that it was 17 the senior officers -- or seniority was the way in which 18 overtime was assigned for CAT shift; is that correct? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. Why -- do you have any knowledge as to why 21 seniority was a factor in shift assignment? 22 A. My understanding of it is that the way the 23 Memorandum of Understanding with the Officers 24 Association and the city is that overtime is 25 seniority-based and on a sign-up basis. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2846 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1750 1 So you sign up and then the person that's 2 assigning the overtime would identify who is the most 3 senior person and work down the list. 4 Q. Okay. Throughout the time that you had 5 volunteered your time to work overtime, I guess it 6 wouldn't be voluntary, but signed up for overtime and 7 approved to do so, had you ever been late? 8 A. On occasion. 9 Q. Had you ever left early? 10 A. On occasion. 11 Q. And had you ever been -- had you been aware of 12 other officers who had been late? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Had you ever seen other officers that left 15 early? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And what happens when officers are late for the 18 shift, typically? 19 A. Typically, if someone was late, they could 20 receive a verbal reprimand from the supervisor or, 21 depending on circumstance or repetitiveness, the 22 supervisor could designate to have a formal write-up or 23 supervisor's note in their file. 24 Q. Okay. And that's in terms of if they were 25 disciplined? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2847 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1751 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Did it ever occur, based on your personal 3 experience, that officers who were on the CAT shift who 4 came in late or left early were not disciplined? 5 A. I was not aware of any incidences where people 6 were written up. 7 Q. Okay. So when you were speaking about what 8 could happen if someone is late, were you speaking 9 generally? 10 A. Generally, and that's my understanding of what 11 could happen. 12 Q. Okay. Based on policy? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. Okay. If officers were late for a CAT shift, 15 were there occasions where they would add that time that 16 they were late to the end of the shift to make it that 17 five-hour block or four-hour block that they were 18 expected to be there for the time period? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. What was the point in that? 21 A. The point was that you were assigned to work 22 the five hours and you fulfilled your obligation of that 23 assignment to work the full five hours. 24 Q. Was that a common occurrence on the CAT shift? 25 A. It was a regular occurrence. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2848 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1752 1 Q. Did you sometimes trade CAT shifts with other 2 officers? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And how did those shift trades occur? 5 A. It varied. Sometimes if it was a planned 6 event, there was communication between the lieutenant 7 that you were unavailable to work a shift and they had 8 someone in line to do it, and if it was a planned event 9 and you communicated with the lieutenant, sometimes the 10 lieutenant said just handle it yourself. If you can 11 find someone, find someone. Officers would then send 12 out an e-mail to the whole department, hey, I can't work 13 my shift in a month, can you work my shift, and people 14 can respond to that. 15 In several instances, I received direct e-mails 16 because everyone knew I was working the shift. I had 17 people all the time, hey, you work the shift a lot, will 18 you take my shift on this day? Absolutely, I'll take 19 it. Okay, cool, I'll tell lieutenant or can you tell 20 him or there was no communication about who was going to 21 notify anybody, I was just going to work it. 22 There were other instances where there was 23 attempted communication with the lieutenant and there 24 was no reply and people were like, I haven't heard back 25 from him, are you still going to work it? I'm like, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2849 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1753 1 I'll work it and we'll deal with it later. Someone 2 needs to work it. We're not going to just leave it 3 empty. So it just depended on all the different 4 factors. 5 Q. Did you find that the communication with the 6 scheduling lieutenant, Lieutenant Smith, was very good 7 regarding the CAT shift scheduling? 8 A. I thought his communication was poor. 9 Q. Were you on time for your shift on October 10 19th, 2013? 11 A. No, I wasn't. 12 Q. Why not? 13 A. There was some childcare scheduling conflicts 14 leading up to that and I was running behind, getting -- 15 getting to work. 16 Q. Did you know the day before that you were going 17 to be late for your CAT shift? 18 A. No, I didn't. 19 Q. Did you know hours before that you were going 20 to be late for your CAT shift? 21 A. Not hours. 22 Q. Tell us exactly when you knew you were going to 23 be late for your CAT shift, if you know. 24 A. It was somewhere around 10: 15. 25 Q. So what happened next? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2850 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1754 1 A. At 10: 15? 2 Q. (Nods head.) 3 A. I had a suspicion that it was probably not 4 going to happen, but there was a possibility of me 5 making it on time. I sent Adam Stahnke a text message 6 letting him know that I might be late. 7 Q. Why Adam Stahnke? 8 A. I knew he was going to be my partner for that 9 day because I had already checked days before that or 10 the week before that and I had it in my schedule who I 11 was working with. I knew it was going to be him and -- 12 Q. What did you check? 13 A. The only place to check, which was SpeedShift. 14 Q. Then what? 15 A. I sent him the message and went back to caring 16 for my daughters at their dance class. 17 Q. Okay. What happened next? 18 A. Um, as we started approaching toward 11: 00, my 19 wife was running behind to this other engagement she was 20 at and she was going to pick up our daughters from the 21 dance class that was going to be the exchange. They 22 were five and seven at this time and the older daughter 23 has special needs. So she's more on a developmental 24 level of, like, a three-year-old. So you have to really 25 be there and you have to monitor her all the time. So Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2851 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1755 1 there was no ability to leave them there and go. So it 2 was unforeseen, and once my wife was there, I 3 immediately jumped in the car and headed to work and 4 tried to be as timely as possible. 5 Q. Okay. Approximately, how late were you? 6 A. I believe I pulled in the gate at 11: 15 and I 7 was in the locker room by 11: 20. 8 Q. Okay. Did you know who your supervisor was 9 that day? 10 A. Prior to that day, I did not, but I became 11 aware of who it was, Sergeant Pfarr, when he texted me. 12 Q. Okay. When you received the text from Sergeant 13 Pfarr, where were you? 14 A. I believe I was on the freeway, somewhere just 15 south here of San Luis Obispo. 16 Q. So you were driving? 17 A. Correct. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: Can I just clarify 19 something? When you testified that his communication 20 was poor, were you talking about Lieutenant Smith or 21 Sergeant Pfarr? 22 THE WITNESS: My statement there was about 23 Lieutenant Smith related to his communication of the CAT 24 shift. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: In general? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2852 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1756 1 THE WITNESS: In general. 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 3 BY MS. CASTILLO: 4 Q. And just to clarify on that, was that in 5 response to back and forth shift trades and scheduling 6 matters? 7 A. It was more specific to modifications, changes. 8 Q. Can I come in late, is this flexing okay, is 9 this shift change okay, trade okay? 10 A. All of those things. 11 Q. Okay. I'm going to turn you to City's Exhibit 12 10. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Appellant's 10? 14 MS. CASTILLO: No. City's 10. 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Department 10. Okay. 16 MS. CASTILLO: Department's 10. 17 BY MS. CASTILLO: 18 Q. Text messages. You've seen these before, 19 correct? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. Just for the record, the bubbles are supposed 22 to be in color, correct? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. If these were in color, what color would they 25 be? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2853 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1757 1 A. I think the darker color bubbles would be green 2 or gray. I think they're green, and I think the -- you 3 can't see the bubbles on the left side of the page 4 because they're probably in a white or light-colored 5 gray. 6 Q. Would your communications be to the left or to 7 the right? 8 A. My communications are on the left. 9 Q. Okay. Department's Exhibit 10 are the 10 communications that you had with Sergeant Pfarr as you 11 were driving to your CAT shift? 12 A. Yes, they were. 13 Q. Okay. This shows that, at 11: 11, he sent you 14 three text messages, wondering if you were coming in, 15 correct? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. So at this point, you were 11 minutes late for 18 your shift? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. Your first response was, "I had worked 21 out ahead of one with LT Smith. I'm on the way in now." 22 Do you recall typing this? 23 A. I recall typing. 24 Q. Okay. Sergeant Pfarr testified that he didn't 25 ask you what any of these text messages meant. Do you Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2854 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1758 1 recall hearing that testimony? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Well, I'm going to ask you what these text 4 messages meant. Okay? 5 A. Okay. 6 Q. What did this text message mean? 7 A. This message is saying, yes, I'm coming in. 8 The sorry is for not communicating it to him because 9 he's, obviously, looking for me. I'm relating to him 10 that I'd worked out ahead -- others, is what that's 11 supposed to say, with Lieutenant Smith, and, clearly, 12 there's an auto correct by my phone to change those 13 words. 14 Q. So "ahead of one" should have been "others"? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. Okay. And when you said, "I had worked out 17 ahead of one," you're saying it should have meant I had 18 worked out ahead of others with Lieutenant Smith? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. What were you trying to communicate to 21 Sergeant Pfarr when you wrote that? 22 A. I was trying to communicate to him my 23 understanding from the past practices that I had 24 operating with in this program, that shift-adjusting was 25 acceptable and I'm on the way now and I'll explain when Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2855 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1759 1 I get there. 2 Q. His response, "That makes no sense. Stop by 3 when you get here." Okay? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And you respond to that, correct? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. "Basically, I talked to Smith yesterday about 8 coming in at 11: 30. He said fine, no problem, but I 9 will stop by." 10 Page 2 is where the entirety of that text is. 11 Do you see that? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. Can you -- the only punctuation in this 14 text is after the word, problem; is that correct? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. Can you explain this text message? 17 A. This is a quick response message, it's 18 fragmented, it's got brevity to it and it, certainly, 19 needs more punctuation for what I was trying to explain. 20 Q. So what were you trying to convey? 21 A. What I'm trying to convey in this message is -- 22 basically, it's a summarization. "I had talked to Smith 23 yesterday," and there should be what would be a period, 24 a formal conversation there, about me coming in at 25 11: 30, which is an estimation of this point in time of Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2856 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1760 1 driving, I'm probably going to be ready to go, suited up 2 at 11: 30. He's okay with that, and that should be he's, 3 not he said. He's, again, another auto correct. He's 4 fine with adjusting. Again, these are fragment -- these 5 are things in my mind and there's no problem with that, 6 is my understanding of what's gone on in the past and 7 what I had intended to do today. 8 Q. Okay. So, basically, I talked to Smith 9 about -- basically, I talked to Smith yesterday. Are 10 you saying there should be a period after that? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. What was your conversation with Smith 13 yesterday? 14 A. It wasn't much of a conversation. It was 15 exchanging pleasantries. We saw each other in the 16 locker room and, to me, in saying that, at that time, 17 was me trying to convey that he didn't say anything to 18 me. I had been operating in this program with an 19 understanding of how things were going and no one had 20 said anything to me about I was doing anything wrong, 21 anything should change, and yesterday I saw him and that 22 was an opportunity for him to correct something that was 23 going on that was unapproved. 24 Q. Okay. Did you think that there was any problem 25 if you were going to be slightly late? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2857 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1761 1 A. I did not think there was going to be a 2 problem. 3 Q. Did you think that there was going to be any 4 issue with you being slightly late? 5 A. I did not think there was going to be an issue. 6 Q. Did you think that if you had seen Lieutenant 7 Smith, that he would have said something to you when you 8 saw him? 9 A. I thought that if there was a problem or there 10 was an issue going on, that I would have been told about 11 it. 12 Q. And where was this that you saw him? 13 A. I saw Smith the prior day in the locker room. 14 Q. And what was the time period or the time span 15 in which you saw him? 16 A. I was -- it was in the afternoon and I want to 17 say it was around 3:00, 4:00, probably, and I was 18 already in the locker room and he came in the locker 19 room and started changing out of his uniform. I never 20 left the locker room. I was there the whole time and he 21 finished changing and left. 22 Q. Okay. There's a period at the word, yesterday. 23 Should the word, about, be capitalized? 24 A. It would be capitalized if it was after a 25 period. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2858 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1762 1 Q. So about coming in at 11: 30, is it your 2 understanding that that would be fine, no problem? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Is that about the span that you would believe 5 would be within this flexible time period? 6 A. Yes, based on several other incidents where I 7 had adjusted that and worked over for another half an 8 hour on previous occasions. So I didn't think there was 9 going to be any problem. 10 Q. Had you ever been informed by Lieutenant Smith 11 that that had been an issue? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Had you ever been informed by Sergeant Pfarr 14 that that had been an issue? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Had you ever been informed by any of the other 17 sergeants who assumed the watch commander duties over 18 the CAT shift on the dates when Lieutenant Smith was not 19 present that it was an issue if you were late up to and 20 including 30 minutes? 21 A. No one, at any time, told me anything related 22 to what I was doing was not okay. 23 Q. Was this a regular problem with you coming in 24 30 minutes late? 25 A. I had some ongoing childcare issues. My wife Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2859 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1763 1 works full time, as well, and we overlap schedules, and 2 I, on several occasions, gave that information to 3 Lieutenant Smith and he was aware of it, and each time 4 we've had those passing conversations, he was okay with 5 it, and he -- his response to me in those times was, 6 yeah, no problem, just let whoever know is here. 7 Q. And would you let them know when you came in or 8 before? 9 A. It would just depend on the circumstance. 10 Q. So if you had noticed, would you tell him 11 before? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. If it happened that you were late because you 14 got held up, would you tell him when you got there? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Were you ever disciplined when you came in late 17 and you said, hey, I'm here, sorry I'm late? 18 A. I have never been disciplined, in any form, for 19 being late or leaving early. 20 Q. So about coming in at 11: 30, he said fine, no 21 problem. Your testimony is this should say he said 22 fine, no problem? 23 A. Yeah. He's, as in he has in the past. 24 Q. Okay. So that would be a comma after fine, as 25 well? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2860 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1764 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. Okay. And then now you say, "but I will stop 3 by." Should there also be a period after "stop by"? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Did you stop by to speak to Sergeant Pfarr? 6 A. Yes, I did. 7 Q. Did you explain this text message? 8 A. I was not really given that opportunity. 9 Q. Explain that. 10 A. When I got to work and got my uniform on, I 11 went to the office, as Sergeant Pfarr requested. When I 12 got to the office, again, it's the same setup as before. 13 There's the L-desk, he's facing away from the doorway. 14 When I walked in, I said, hey, what's up. He spun 15 around in his chair, he was visibly upset with me, and I 16 got from that, from the tone in his voice because he 17 immediately started asking me questions and was 18 interrogating me about where I was, and he asked me 19 where I was, I said I was at my daughter's dance class. 20 Q. Were you at a dance recital? 21 A. There was no dance recital. 22 Q. What happens next? 23 A. He next asked me, you saw Smith yesterday? I 24 replied, I saw Smith yesterday. He next asked me, he's 25 okay with you coming in late? My reply was, he's okay Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2861 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1765 1 with it. He said, okay, Stahnke's been waiting a while, 2 get out there, and that was the end of our conversation 3 in the office. 4 Q. Did you ever tell Sergeant Pfarr that you had 5 spoken to Smith yesterday and that he had given you 6 specific permission to come in on the 19th late? 7 A. At no time did I ever tell him that I got 8 permission from Lieutenant Smith the day before to be 9 late on the 19th. 10 Q. And was -- what was your point in conveying to 11 you -- or what was your purpose in conveying to Sergeant 12 Pfarr that Lieutenant Smith was okay with you coming in 13 late? 14 A. Again, it was that that was the last time that 15 I saw him and if something had changed, if something was 16 different, if an issue had arose, that that was an 17 opportunity. I just saw him yesterday. Nothing's 18 changed, nothing's different from the way things had 19 been going on for months and months on the shift. I saw 20 him yesterday, yeah, I saw him yesterday, and he's okay 21 with it because I thought he was okay with it from the 22 months and months before this. 23 Q. Okay. And up until this point, you're saying 24 months and months, how long had you been working this 25 CAT shift overtime? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2862 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1766 1 A. The program started early in the year of 2013 2 and I had been working under Lieutenant Smith, if you 3 will, once he managed the program come April, May, 4 sometime. 5 So at this time, October, it had been close to 6 six months, probably five months that he had been 7 managing that program where I was underneath him. 8 Q. Okay. And then you were placed on 9 administrative leave in December? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. And in that time period between October and 12 December, you continued to work CAT shift overtime? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. And, approximately, how many more overtime 15 hours were you scheduled by Lieutenant Smith during that 16 time period? 17 A. I think between October 19th and December 12th, 18 I think I worked somewhere in the neighborhood of 160 19 hours of overtime for CAT. 20 MS. CASTILLO: Can we take, like, a five-minute 21 break? 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah. It's 11: 30. 23 (Recess.) 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Back on the record and 25 we're continuing with the direct of the appellant. Go Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2863 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1767 1 ahead. 2 BY MS. CASTILLO: 3 Q. Okay. Looking at Department's Exhibit 10, your 4 second -- well, your first and your second text message, 5 what's the reason that you put information other than 6 yes and sorry and that you were on your way in? 7 What's the reason that you put additional 8 information in those text messages to Sergeant Pfarr? 9 A. At that point, I knew it was Sergeant Pfarr 10 that was the supervisor there and I was just trying to 11 give any piece of information based on what my past 12 experience had been and knowledge about Sergeant Pfarr 13 and, at that point, I wanted to try and give him what 14 information that I had, and, again, while driving, 15 distracted, I wasn't looking over every piece of this 16 message before I sent it, it wasn't proofread, but I 17 wanted to give him a sediment of what was going on. 18 Q. Okay. You said with your past experience and 19 knowledge of Sergeant Pfarr. What did you mean by that? 20 A. Well, with the information that I had from 21 Sergeant Amoroso, I was guarded with what I wanted to 22 say to him, around him, with him, interact with him for 23 fear of what he was going to do with that. 24 Q. Did you feel like you had to justify being 25 late? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2864 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1768 1 A. Well, that was the sorry. I was sorry that I 2 was running behind, that I didn't notify him and, 3 however, here's the reasons why. 4 Q. In terms of the information about the 5 information you had about working it out with Lieutenant 6 Smith, what was the purpose of putting that information 7 in the text to Pfarr? 8 A. That that was my understanding with how the 9 program had been going and that it was my understanding 10 that -- from Lieutenant Smith, that things that arose in 11 unforeseen circumstances, that 15 minutes, 20 minutes, 12 even a half-hour would be -- not be an issue, not be a 13 problem adjusting those hours. 14 Q. We've heard testimony in this hearing about 15 blanket permission. Do you know what I'm talking about? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Did you ever think you had blanket permission 18 to adjust your CAT schedule as you saw fit? 19 A. No, I did not. 20 Q. Were you adjusting your CAT schedule on the 21 19th? 22 A. That was my intention with that shift, was to 23 adjust it. 24 Q. And how so? 25 A. Was that the time that I arrived there, that Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2865 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1769 1 would be adjusted on the backside of the shift and 2 stay -- if it was 20 minutes, then I would stay the 20 3 minutes. If it was a half-hour, stay a half-hour, and 4 that was what had happened in the past and it wasn't a 5 problem. 6 Q. Was that something that you had planned to do 7 in advance? 8 A. No. 9 Q. When you walked into the office when you 10 arrived to work, approximately, what time was it? 11 A. I think, by the time I got to the office, it 12 was probably close to 11: 30. 13 Q. Did you immediately go to the sergeant's office 14 or did you go and change for your shift? 15 A. When I first arrived, I went immediately to the 16 locker room, got changed to my uniform and went straight 17 to the sergeant's office. 18 Q. Did you see Detective Stahnke? 19 A. Not at this time. 20 Q. When you got to the office and met with 21 Sergeant Pfarr, what was his demeanor like? 22 A. He was already upset. 23 Q. Did that surprise you? 24 A. I wasn't really surprised that he was upset 25 because I felt like -- I felt like he was upset because Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2866 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1770 1 I didn't call him and I didn't notify him that I was 2 running behind. 3 Q. Did that get clarified as to if that was why he 4 was upset? 5 A. No. 6 Q. So what happened next? 7 A. After the conversation, the meeting that he and 8 I had there in the office the first time, he told me to 9 go back out to the shift and so I went and found 10 Detective Stahnke and we got in our car and went out and 11 began our shift. 12 Q. Okay. At some point later, did you have 13 another conversation with Sergeant Pfarr? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And, approximately, when was that? 16 A. After 12: 00 sometime, probably 12: 15, 12: 20. 17 Q. And how did that -- how did it occur that you 18 had that conversation? 19 A. On the radio dispatch, contacted me and told me 20 to come to the station and meet with Sergeant Pfarr. 21 Q. Did you know why you were being summoned to the 22 office? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Did you suspect that it had to be -- had to do 25 with being late? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2867 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1771 1 A. That's what I suspected. 2 Q. And what happened when you got to Sergeant 3 Pfarr's office? 4 A. I walked into the office, again, said what's 5 up, he told me to close the door, I closed the door, he 6 told me that I don't want you to say a single thing, he 7 said that he was pissed, Pfarr, he said that he was 8 pissed, being Lieutenant Smith, and told me that I lied. 9 And then, at that point, I said okay, and then 10 I said, at that point, well, if you get Smith on the 11 phone right now, we can clear this up, let's all talk 12 and we can straighten this out, and he very emphatically 13 responded that we're not going to do that, we're not 14 getting anybody on the phone. I said okay, and then I 15 said I don't have anything else. So he said, don't 16 talk. So I said, are we done? He said, yes, we're 17 done. So I left. 18 Q. When you said okay, were you admitting to 19 lying? 20 A. No. 21 Q. What were you saying okay to? 22 A. I was saying okay to what he was saying. I 23 said okay, not in approval, not disapproval, just an 24 acknowledgment of what he had just said. 25 Q. Meaning when he said I don't want you to Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2868 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1772 1 respond to this? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Did he ever mention to you during that 4 conversation or the first conversation any of the text 5 message that we had discussed in Department's or City's 6 Exhibit 10? 7 A. No. 8 Q. So were you ever, that day, ever able to 9 explain what you had meant in this text conversation? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Okay. When was the first time you were asked 12 about this text message conversation? 13 A. During my IA interview. 14 Q. And that was when? 15 A. December 12. 16 Q. Some two months later? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Did you save this text message conversation? 19 A. No. 20 Q. And you weren't put on administrative leave 21 that day, correct? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. And you continued to work CAT, right? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. And your regular assignment, right? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2869 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1773 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Despite being accused of dishonesty, right? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. When you asked Sergeant Pfarr to get Lieutenant 5 Smith on the phone so that you could all have a joint 6 conversation to clarify and he refused to do so, why 7 didn't you just leave and call Lieutenant Smith, 8 yourself? 9 A. I didn't have his phone number. I don't have 10 his personal phone number, I don't have his cell phone 11 number. There would have been no way to call him. 12 Q. Was he working at the station that day? 13 A. No. 14 Q. When Sergeant Pfarr had indicated to you that 15 he had already spoken to Lieutenant Smith, what were 16 your thoughts about that -- well, did you have any 17 thoughts about that conversation if he had already 18 believed that you were lying? 19 A. I had questions about all of it. I had 20 questions whether or not he actually called, I had 21 questions as to what -- if he did call him, what did he 22 tell him. That's why I wanted him to get on the phone 23 so we could all talk about it so there would be no 24 ambiguity, there would be no confusion, we could all 25 talk, everybody would be in front of everyone else, so Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2870 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1774 1 to speak, and we could clear it up right then and there 2 and be done with it. 3 Q. Okay. At any point, did you ever tell Sergeant 4 Pfarr that you had obtained permission from Lieutenant 5 Smith to be late for your shift on the 19th while you 6 were in the locker room with Lieutenant Smith? 7 A. No, I did not. 8 Q. When you saw Lieutenant Smith in the locker 9 room on the 18th, the day before, did you know that you 10 were going to be late for the CAT shift the very next 11 day? 12 A. No, I did not. 13 Q. Did you have any reason on the 8th -- on the 14 18th to obtain permission to be late for the 19th, other 15 than for the reason that you actually were late? 16 Like, were you -- was there any other reason 17 that you were going to be late, but that didn't work out 18 or... 19 A. I knew nothing on the 18th about it, needing to 20 be or having to be or was going to be late on the 19th. 21 Q. Did you have any further conversations with 22 Sergeant Pfarr on the 19th about this issue? 23 A. No. 24 Q. You worked the rest of your overtime shift? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2871 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1775 1 Q. Did you then see Lieutenant Smith shortly in 2 person thereafter? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And when was that? 5 A. That was the Monday following the 19th. 6 Q. So the 21st? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And how is it that you saw Lieutenant Smith? 9 A. I was not working that day. I came into the 10 department, knowing that that was probably going to be 11 his first day back to work, with the intent to talk to 12 him about what happened on the 19th because I was denied 13 the opportunity to talk to him on the phone that day. 14 Q. Did you specifically come to the department on 15 your day off to speak to Lieutenant Smith? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. What happened when you came to speak to 18 Lieutenant Smith? 19 A. When I first arrived, he was on a telephone 20 call. So I waited in the hallway for probably close to 21 15 minutes. I waited for him to finish his call. When 22 he completed that phone call, I stuck my head in the 23 doorway, asked him if he had a few minutes to talk, he 24 said sure. So I stepped in the doorway. I believe I 25 even sat down in the chair that's in his office. I Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2872 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1776 1 asked him if he minded if we closed the door to talk. 2 He said, yes, that's fine. So I closed the door and I 3 told him that I wanted to talk to him about what 4 happened on Saturday, the 19th, and he said, well, I 5 don't have a problem talking to you, however, you need 6 to understand that whatever you say is not privileged by 7 our communication, and I said that's fine, I want you to 8 understand what happened and what was going on because I 9 wasn't given the opportunity to talk. 10 Q. Did you explain what you meant -- did you 11 explain what that meant when you said I was not given 12 the opportunity to talk to you? 13 A. No, I didn't go any further. 14 Q. Did he ask you what that meant? 15 A. No. 16 Q. What happened next? 17 A. I began to tell him about the events of the 18 morning, where I was, where I was coming, I started 19 telling him about the text message communication and how 20 it was a misunderstanding between Sergeant Pfarr and 21 that's when he cut me off and told me that, Kevin, you 22 know that I didn't give you permission to come in late, 23 and it was very clear at that moment that whatever I was 24 going to say at that point was not going to be received 25 in a way -- it was very apparent that whatever Sergeant Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2873 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1777 1 Pfarr had told him on Saturday, that Lieutenant Smith 2 was already off to the races and Sergeant Pfarr was 3 already off to the races with whatever that conversation 4 was about characterized with. 5 So I shut down at that point with what I was 6 going to say and, pretty much, at that point, just was 7 agreeable to the remainder of the conversation and we 8 ended it and left. 9 Q. Okay. Did you ever tell him that you told 10 Sergeant Pfarr that he had given you permission to come 11 in late? 12 A. I never told Lieutenant Smith that. 13 Q. Did you ever tell him, Sergeant -- sorry -- 14 Lieutenant Smith that you had spoken to him, meaning 15 Smith, in the locker room and had a conversation about 16 coming in late the day before? 17 A. No, I did not. 18 Q. Once Lieutenant Smith said to you, you know, 19 you did not have permission from me to come in late, was 20 it clear to you that there was going to be an IA or 21 internal affairs investigation starting? 22 A. Well, at that point, he had already told me and 23 he even patted a pad of paper on the corner of his desk, 24 referencing that Sergeant Pfarr had written a memo, and 25 that was my whole point of being there, to get in front Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2874 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1778 1 of what appeared to be, at this point, a speeding train 2 of something that was a complete misunderstanding. 3 Q. Had you ever been in an internal affairs 4 investigation before? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Did you have any reason to believe that 7 Lieutenant Smith, at this point, wouldn't have had a 8 conversation with you to clear up this misunderstanding? 9 A. I don't understand. 10 Q. Well, did you believe that he would not have 11 been amenable to having a conversation in listening to 12 your side of the story at this point? 13 A. At that point, I was trying to be a couple of 14 adults handling a situation and I thought that I would 15 have been received a little more neutrally. 16 Q. Did you ever go over the content of your text 17 message with Lieutenant Smith in your office? 18 A. No, I didn't. 19 Q. Have you ever gone over the content of your 20 text message with Lieutenant Smith? 21 A. No, I haven't. 22 Q. So you continued after this -- well, how long 23 did this conversation last in Lieutenant Smith's office? 24 A. It was brief. Maybe 10 or 15 minutes. 25 Q. And then you left? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2875 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1779 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. When you left, what did you -- how did you 3 feel? 4 A. Uh, I felt a little defeated that I wasn't, at 5 any point in this time, given the opportunity to explain 6 or talk about without there being a little bit of a bias 7 toward what I was trying to say. 8 Q. Do you feel like anyone heard what you were 9 saying? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Did you, after that, continue working as usual 12 through November 2013? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And during this time period, were you 15 approached by coworkers about Sergeant Pfarr looking for 16 you? 17 A. Uh, there was one instance of another CAT shift 18 where it was before 11: 00 and the partner I had on that 19 shift was Officer Inglehart, and when I arrived within 20 the normal donning period that we're given for, he told 21 me that Pfarr was already in the locker room looking for 22 me, and Inglehart said to me, why is he in here looking 23 for you before the shift even starts? And I just told 24 him at that point, I said, I don't know, man, and we 25 just finished getting dressed and went out and worked. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2876 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1780 1 Q. How did that make you feel? 2 A. I felt like now I'm being watched everywhere I 3 go. Even before I was supposed to be at a shift, this 4 guy's looking for me, trying to figure out where I'm at. 5 Q. Did you continue in your collateral special 6 assignment? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Did you continue doing the DRMO inventorying 9 assignment? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Did you continue on the S.W.A.T. team? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And did you continue with your motorcycle 14 training? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Same thing with the accident reconstruction 17 team? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Knowing that you have been accused of making 20 false statements specific to this investigation in terms 21 of what is relayed in this text message and then what 22 was said, according to the conversations between 23 yourself and Sergeant Pfarr relayed between you and 24 Lieutenant Smith, how does it make you feel that you've 25 been, basically, accused of being dishonest? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2877 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1781 1 A. It pisses me off. I've done a lot for this 2 department, I've done a lot for the people of this 3 department, tried to make it a better place, and what 4 did I get for it? I tried to promote. Promoting is the 5 worst thing I could have done at this department because 6 all it did was put a target on my back, and it was very 7 clear, going forward, all these things were going on 8 behind my back that I had no idea that were happening, 9 that I didn't find out until after I get given Skelly 10 packets, that Sergeant Pfarr is trying to block me from 11 getting detective spots. 12 For what? What did I do? What did I do to 13 him? All I've done is work hard for them. Equipment, 14 training, worked hard. 600 something hours of overtime 15 in a year. For what? So I can't be heard over one 16 thing? It's disappointing. It shouldn't be like this. 17 Q. Can you give an example of a situation when you 18 had an instance where integrity and honesty was very 19 important to you during this specific time period? 20 A. It gets back to that DRMO program and we prided 21 ourselves on making sure that there was not any 22 impropriety. We kept track and we kept detailed records 23 of where stuff was, who had it, where it went, when it 24 came in, when it went out so that any time something was 25 called upon, we would know where it's at. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2878 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1782 1 And the thing that made me the most sad about 2 this whole situation is when we got those boots because 3 after those boots showed up and everybody decided to 4 take all of our stuff without asking, without permission 5 and all that stuff, and I'm getting accused over some 6 text messages, and these guys are all taking boots 7 without permission, without asking, how I'm responsible 8 for that stuff. 9 And then after that, to find out that 10 Lieutenant Bledsoe was down there taking boots the same 11 day he served me with the IA for the texting incident, 12 he's down there taking boots to the point that other 13 officers are taking photos of the security camera in the 14 department to make a wanted poster of him because he 15 took boots, and he never once told me that he had 16 anything. 17 I have all kinds of other people that 18 communicated back with me that, hey, I have this, this, 19 this, and this. Another lieutenant piggy-backed on my 20 e-mail that said that stuff all needs to be put back. 21 Not one time did Lieutenant Bledsoe come and say I have 22 your boots. The same day he served me, hey, by the way, 23 I got some boots, oh, and here's your IA service. 24 Q. For an honesty issue? 25 A. For an honesty issue. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2879 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1783 1 Q. After you were placed on administrative leave, 2 were you approached by officers in the department? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Who? 5 A. Two people, Officer Inglehart and Officer 6 Berrios. 7 Q. And what did they say to you? 8 A. Both of them had been contacted by Sergeant 9 Pfarr and Sergeant Pfarr was trying to open dialogue and 10 communicate to them and with them about me and my 11 administrative leave. 12 Q. What did Brent Inglehart tell you? 13 A. Inglehart told me the night I was put on admin 14 leave after I went home, Sergeant Pfarr went to him 15 downtown during farmers and -- 16 Q. Farmers market? 17 A. Farmers market, and asked if he heard what was 18 going on, and Brent said, yeah, I was there when it 19 happened, and he said, okay, well, the department's 20 going to be looking at attitudes to make sure you don't 21 get involved in his thing because you know you still 22 have a pending IA, as well. 23 Q. Was his related to yours, in any way? 24 A. No. 25 Q. What did Officer Berrios tell you? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2880 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1784 1 A. Officer Berrios told me that two days after I 2 was put on admin leave, that he was asked to coffee by 3 Sergeant Pfarr wherein Sergeant Pfarr asked him if he 4 knew what was going on with me and my admin leave, and 5 George, at that point, didn't know. 6 So he asked back what was going on and Chad 7 told him that I was on admin leave. George asked, 8 what's it going to take? When's he coming back to work? 9 And Sergeant Pfarr said that he didn't know and thought 10 more people had to be interviewed, or something, and 11 maybe -- it's not as bad as what's happened to some 12 other people around here. 13 And then Officer Berrios told me of another 14 incident when there was a conversation in the hallway 15 about a missing rifle wherein he was charged with 16 looking for this rifle. He told me that Sergeant 17 Villanti was present, Officer Jeff Koznek was present 18 and Sergeant Pfarr was present, and in the course of 19 collaborating as to where this rifle might be, Sergeant 20 Pfarr made a comment that maybe we should go home and 21 check my safe to look for this missing rifle. Officer 22 Berrios came to my defense in that respect and Sergeant 23 Pfarr said, hey, well, you never know with him. 24 So that situation continued to where Lieutenant 25 Smith, days later at a defensive tactics training, went Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2881 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1785 1 to Jeff Koznek to find out where this missing rifle was. 2 So Lieutenant Smith, he -- Jeff Koznek told Lieutenant 3 Smith that the rifle had been located and Lieutenant 4 Smith said, oh, okay, well, I'm just checking in on it. 5 It's interesting that that traversed there. 6 Q. Who were you served -- at some point, you were 7 given a notice of intent, discipline in this matter? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Were they -- but the department combined the 10 two internal affairs investigations? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And you were notified of termination? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. I don't have my front page. 15 MR. PALMER: It's 5. 16 BY MS. CASTILLO: 17 Q. Department's Exhibit 5, you received this in 18 September of 2014? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. Did you attend a Skelly hearing? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Who was your attorney at the time? 23 A. Uh, at the time of my Skelly, it was Nicole 24 Quintana-Winter. 25 Q. And who was present for your Skelly hearing? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2882 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1786 1 A. Chief Gesell was present and City Attorney 2 Dietrick. 3 Q. Anyone else? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Okay. And can you tell us what happened at the 6 Skelly hearing? 7 A. To my recollection, we had an opportunity to 8 respond and Nicole gave some of the reasoning behind my 9 exceptional work record and some various other things as 10 reasonings for a different discipline, and that 11 information was taken by the chief, and, at one point, 12 he made a comment that he had a moral obligation to make 13 sure that I'll never be a cop ever again. 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: He said this during the 15 Skelly? 16 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 17 Ms. Dietrick made reference that there had to 18 be some remedial discipline as a result of my 19 termination. 20 BY MS. CASTILLO: 21 Q. I'm sorry. Remedial discipline to who? 22 A. She didn't make reference to any individuals. 23 She -- 24 Q. Not you, other people? 25 A. She inferred it was to other people, but there Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2883 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1787 1 was no reference to specifics who. 2 Q. Prior to going to the Skelly hearing, were you 3 aware that your attorney sent a letter to the department 4 that was previously marked and entered in this hearing? 5 A. Yes, I was. 6 Q. I don't remember what number it was, but it was 7 authored by Ms. Quintana-Winter? 8 A. I believe so. 9 Q. And that was directed to the chief, correct? 10 A. I believe it was. 11 Q. Okay. What else occurred at the Skelly 12 hearing? What else was said, if you recall? 13 A. Uh, that was the recollection, that there was a 14 point in time when I had left the room and so that my 15 attorney and the chief and the city attorney could 16 speak. I waited outside, and a short time later, my 17 attorney came out and we left. 18 Q. And what was her demeanor like when she came 19 out? 20 A. She was upset at the lack of interest to 21 collaborate with respect to the chief and she felt that 22 it was already a predetermined, preconceived notion what 23 was going to take place at that Skelly and that nothing 24 we would have said there would have made a difference. 25 Q. Did you speak at your Skelly hearing? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2884 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1788 1 A. No, I didn't. 2 Q. When the chief said that he had a moral 3 obligation to make sure that you were never a cop again, 4 how did that make you feel? 5 A. I was upset because the other person he made 6 that same comment about was Cory Pierce. 7 Q. And who was Cory Pierce, again? 8 A. Cory Pierce was the officer that was arrested 9 for federal charges for doing armed robberies under the 10 code of authority while he was a detective in county 11 narcotics. 12 Q. Where did he make that statement about Cory 13 Pierce? 14 A. During his press conference. 15 Q. Did the chief make any statements about you in 16 the press? 17 A. Yes, he did. 18 Q. What did he say about you? 19 A. He authored an e-mail to a leadership school 20 for law enforcement officers wherein I was listed as one 21 of his accomplishments having terminated me for 22 untrustworthiness, despite external influence for a 23 lesser discipline. 24 Q. So your termination was an accomplishment? 25 A. According to Chief Gesell. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2885 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1789 1 MS. CASTILLO: And I may be done. Can I have a 2 five-minute break just so I can double-check? 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: Sure. 4 MS. CASTILLO: Okay. 5 (Recess.) 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: So we're marking, as 7 Appellant's Exhibit KK, a transcript. It looks like 8 it's an interview of Officer Waddell dated December 9 12th, 2013. It's about 35 pages. 10 MS. CASTILLO: So KK will be the certified 11 version of the CAT transcript, and then Appellant's LL 12 is the 1/27/2014 certifying transcript of the Bentley. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: So this is also as to 14 Officer Waddell, but this is the one January 27th, 2014, 15 and it relates to the Bentley event. 16 MS. CASTILLO: Correct. 17 MR. PALMER: Thank you. 18 MS. CASTILLO: Do we have another copy? I just 19 need one more for the witness book. 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. So off the record. 21 (Pause in proceedings.) 22 MS. CASTILLO: And then I would ask that those 23 be admitted, moved and admitted. 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Any objection to KK or 25 LL? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2886 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1790 1 MR. PALMER: No. 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: Without objection, 3 they're both admitted. 4 MS. CASTILLO: And I will defer to you. 5 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. PALMER: 8 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Waddell. 9 A. Good afternoon. 10 Q. This leadership thing that you say the chief -- 11 the former chief mentioned your case. What, exactly, 12 did he say? 13 A. He said it was a list of his accomplishments, 14 as outlined at the top, and it was a lengthy list and 15 one of those smashed in between was terminated an 16 officer for untrustworthiness, despite external 17 influence for a lesser discipline. 18 Q. Slightly correct. Does this sound familiar, 19 terminated an officer for untruthfulness, despite 20 external encouragement to levy a lesser level of 21 discipline? 22 A. Sounds accurate. 23 Q. Okay. Your name's not mentioned in there, is 24 it? 25 A. No. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2887 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1791 1 Q. How do you know that's related to you? 2 A. Not one single other person was terminated from 3 this department in the time period in which he's 4 referencing. 5 Q. But that's the only reason you're making the 6 connection between the two items? 7 A. There's an extremely high possibility that is 8 me. 9 Q. Do you know what this external encouragement to 10 levy a lesser level of discipline was about? 11 A. At this point, the only thing I can draw to it 12 is that Captain Storton tried to give a fair discipline, 13 is his own testimony. The only other place I could 14 surmise would be from human resources. 15 Q. Well, that, actually, is not his testimony, but 16 I'll let that speak for itself. 17 You talked about the Skelly conference. Do you 18 remember that? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Give me a sense, from start to finish, how long 21 that entire meeting lasted. 22 A. I was in the room for, maybe, 10, 15 minutes 23 and there was probably an equal 10 or 15 minutes where I 24 was outside the room. 25 Q. Do you remember what time of day it started? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2888 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1792 1 A. Mid-morning, early afternoon. It was daytime, 2 business hours. 3 Q. How much time was actually spent in the 4 specific Skelly response made by you and/or your lawyer? 5 A. Uh -- 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: We're talking about the 7 written response? 8 MR. PALMER: No. 9 THE HEARING OFFICER: Just what was said -- 10 MR. PALMER: Let me see if I can clarify it. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. 12 BY MR. PALMER: 13 Q. Okay. Let's go back and come back. 14 You're given a notice of intent to discipline, 15 I assume, at some point in time? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And you're given some supporting material? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And you secure the services of a law firm to 20 help you out? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. All right. And in those notices, is there a 23 date on which to all come down for your Skelly 24 conference? 25 A. I believe there was a time period to seek Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2889 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1793 1 that -- 2 Q. Okay. 3 A. -- and that was what was made through the 4 attorney's office. 5 Q. And it was said on some particular date of 6 which you were told? 7 A. I believe there was some scheduling conflicts 8 initially, but, ultimately, a day was picked. 9 Q. There always is. So a particular date was set? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. You were present? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Ms. Winter was present? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Chief was present? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Christine Dietrick was present? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Anybody else? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Did you all just go right into the Skelly 22 conference response on your behalf or was there some 23 other sort of discussions going on? 24 A. There was a brief initial discussion related to 25 the letter that was sent by my attorney's office related Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2890 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1794 1 to -- 2 Q. Gotcha. 3 A. -- statute of limitations and various other 4 things, there was a brief response from Ms. Dietrick 5 about it and, at that point in time, we proceeded 6 forward with any responses from us on the Skelly. 7 Q. Okay. So at that point in time, you proceeded 8 forward with some sort of formalized verbal response 9 made by you and/or your lawyer in the form of a Skelly 10 meeting? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. And was it the same four folks present 13 for that? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. All right. Was there a recording? 16 A. To my knowledge, there was. 17 Q. Were you recording? 18 A. I was not. 19 Q. Was Ms. Winter recording? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Was the chief recording? 22 A. I don't recall. 23 Q. Do you know if Ms. Dietrick was recording? 24 A. I believe she was. 25 Q. Okay. And how long -- well, let me ask you Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2891 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1795 1 this. 2 I assume Ms. Winter said some things on your 3 behalf? 4 A. Yes, she did. 5 Q. Did you? 6 A. No, I did not. 7 Q. Okay. How long did that portion of the 8 meeting, just the formalized verbal Skelly response, how 9 long did that last? 10 A. I would have to talk about things I'm not 11 knowledgeable of as to how far a Skelly would truly 12 extend to me being present and things like that. So 13 you're asking me -- 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: I think he's just asking 15 how much time did you spend. 16 THE WITNESS: In that portion there, it was 17 probably the 10 or 15 minutes. 18 BY MR. PALMER: 19 Q. And, I assume, at some point, there was an 20 ending, that's all we have to say? 21 A. At that point, there was a request to speak 22 with the attorney directly with me outside the room and 23 that's the point I left the room. 24 Q. Okay. And how long were you outside the room? 25 A. Maybe 15 minutes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2892 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1796 1 Q. Okay. And Ms. Winter was still in the room, I 2 assume? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And so was the chief and Ms. Dietrick? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And then you testified that Ms. Winter came out 7 of the room? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. And she was upset? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. How did you -- what was she doing for you to 12 formulate the conclusion she was upset? 13 A. I was in the lobby of the police department 14 waiting during this time, and when she emerged from the 15 locked door into the police department, she didn't slow 16 down when she passed me in the lobby. She walked out 17 the door and to the sidewalk and I had to get up and 18 follow her. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. So -- and she proceeded to relay to me what 21 happened while she was in there by herself. 22 Q. What did she say? 23 A. She told me that there was zero interest in any 24 kind of communication or discussion or openness or -- no 25 meeting in the middle, was my understanding, the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2893 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1797 1 communication. 2 Q. Lack of interest in collaborate -- lack of 3 interest to collaborate, is what I wrote down. Is that 4 what you said? 5 A. That's probably what I said. 6 Q. Meaning what? 7 MS. CASTILLO: I don't want to get into too 8 much of attorney-client privilege discussions here. I 9 mean, if he's talking about an impression that he's 10 getting, that's one thing. 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: We're talking about what 12 the appellant said, those words? 13 MR. PALMER: Yes. 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: Lack of interest to 15 collaborate, is that something that came out of his 16 mouth? I don't remember. 17 MR. PALMER: That's what I got from his 18 testimony. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. So if it's what 20 he's saying, then you can answer that. If it's what 21 you're discussing what the attorney, then I don't want 22 to hear about it. 23 THE WITNESS: That was what I took from what 24 she was telling me. So that's our conversation, my 25 attorney and I, and the sense that I got from that level Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2894 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1798 1 of conversation was what she told me, that was what I 2 took away from it, was that there was a lack of interest 3 in collaboration or meeting in the middle of anything. 4 BY MR. PALMER: 5 Q. Okay. From your point of view, not your 6 attorney's point of view, from your point of view, what 7 does meeting in the middle mean? 8 A. It was not a fair Skelly hearing. 9 Q. Why not? 10 A. He did not -- he was not even hardly paying 11 attention when we were discussing the things that we 12 were mentioning as far as considering factors for not 13 leveling this discipline. 14 MR. PALMER: Off the record? 15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Let's go off the record 16 for a second. 17 (Discussion off the record.) 18 BY MR. PALMER: 19 Q. Was it clear to you that by approximately 11: 30 20 a.m. on October 19th, that the text exchange you had 21 with Sergeant Pfarr was going to be pretty important? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Was it clear to you by approximately 12: 30 p.m. 24 on October 19th that the text exchange you had with 25 Sergeant Pfarr was going to be pretty important? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2895 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1799 1 A. No. 2 Q. Was it clear to you by the time you spoke to 3 Lieutenant Smith on October 21st, 2013, that the text 4 exchange you had with Sergeant Pfarr was going to be 5 pretty important? 6 A. No. 7 Q. When did it become -- when did you become 8 knowledgeable that it was going to be pretty important? 9 A. When I had text messages slid across the desk 10 during the IA interview. 11 Q. Okay. And that was on December 12th? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Was it in the afternoon or morning? Do you 14 remember? 15 A. It was 3:30 in the afternoon, or whenever it 16 was. 17 Q. Had you, by then, deleted the text exchange? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Now, I could have heard this wrong, but I 20 thought you testified about that interview. 21 The December 12th, 2013, interview was the 22 first time you had the text messages put in front of 23 you, right? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And that you testified that you weren't put on Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2896 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1800 1 administrative leave that day? 2 A. The day the messages were sent, I was not -- I 3 was put on admin leave the same day of my interview. 4 Q. Maybe that's where I got it confused. I want 5 to make sure. 6 You remember being placed on administrative 7 leave with pay later on in the evening on December 12th? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. Okay. Would you have expected to be placed on 10 administrative leave with pay on October 19th? 11 A. If someone thought I lied. 12 Q. Well, who would that be on October 19th? 13 A. It was made very clear to me that Sergeant 14 Pfarr thought I lied and Lieutenant Smith thought I 15 lied. 16 Q. Okay. Do they have the authority to place you 17 on administrative leave? 18 MS. CASTILLO: Objection. Calls for 19 speculation, lack of foundation. 20 MR. PALMER: He can say he doesn't know if he 21 doesn't know. 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: Answer if you know. 23 THE WITNESS: My understanding of that is that 24 they have the mechanism to make that happen. 25 /// Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2897 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1801 1 BY MR. PALMER: 2 Q. Okay. And don't you think that it might be 3 wise for, at least, the management of the police 4 department to give you a chance to explain yourself 5 before they place you on administrative leave? 6 A. Certainly. 7 Q. You wouldn't expect them to take Sergeant 8 Pfarr's word for it and Lieutenant Smith's word for it 9 on October 19th or October 21st and just place you on 10 leave then, would you? 11 A. I would expect not. 12 Q. As quickly as I can, I just want to go through 13 the Bentley incident. I'm going to gloss over some of 14 the details because I think we kind of have an idea of 15 the event, in general. 16 You and Sergeant Amoroso have known each other 17 for how long? 18 A. Since I became employed here at the San Luis 19 Obispo P.D. 20 Q. And you're neighbors? 21 A. We live in a common housing development. We 22 would -- I would estimate it as being more than ten 23 blocks away from each other. We don't live on the same 24 street. It's in close proximity. 25 Q. We have to start and stop these hearings all Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2898 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1802 1 the time, but I recall Sergeant Amoroso saying about 2 three blocks away. Is that about right? 3 A. A block is a point of reference that can be 4 different to any person. We live close enough to each 5 other that if I needed something, I could go to his 6 house. 7 Q. And you consider him a close friend? 8 A. I would consider him a friend. 9 Q. You and Sergeant Amoroso were on duty the day 10 the Bentley accident occurred? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And you now have a recollection that you drove 13 to the scene together? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. You put Sergeant Amoroso in the driver's seat 16 of the truck and you in the passenger's seat? 17 A. He always drives. 18 Q. Okay. Fair enough. 19 You both were unsure about that in your 20 interviews, right? 21 A. It had been a year at that point and I was kind 22 of cold in that interview to try and use my best 23 recollection at that time. Since then, I've had an 24 incredible amount of time to think about this and 25 recollect that we were together. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2899 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1803 1 Q. And your recollection now is that you had this 2 conversation with Sergeant Amoroso about perhaps messing 3 around with Sergeant Pfarr while in the FST truck 4 driving out there? 5 A. We were -- I remember now, having thought about 6 it a great deal, is that we were at the northwest corner 7 of the intersection parked on the side of the road and I 8 was in the passenger's seat, he was in the driver's 9 seat, and we were looking across the street at the 10 collision, having that conversation. 11 Q. Oh, okay. So you two were at the scene? 12 A. We were at the scene when it happened. 13 Q. You just hadn't gotten out of the truck? 14 A. We didn't get out of the truck, at all, the 15 first time. 16 Q. You were able to make assessments about it from 17 the truck? 18 A. I was. 19 Q. How long did you spend at the scene, then, with 20 Sergeant Amoroso? 21 A. We were there maybe 15 minutes. 22 Q. Did you talk to Sergeant Pfarr, at all? 23 A. I believe, at one point, he came over to the 24 truck and talked to Sergeant Amoroso at the window. 25 Q. Okay. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2900 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1804 1 A. It was about logistics of call-outs and things 2 like that. 3 Q. Okay. I seem to remember some evidence about 4 whether or not it's going to be a fatal, whether or not 5 we need to call out the team. Was that the kind of 6 conversation? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And it settled itself, somehow? 9 A. With some input from myself. They asked me 10 what do you think, and I said might as well call it. 11 Better to do it than not do it. 12 Q. Had the two persons in the Bentley been taken 13 to the hospital by then? 14 A. Yes. They were already well gone. All the 15 fire department, ambulance and everybody was already 16 gone. 17 Q. Tow truck driver not there yet? 18 A. No. 19 Q. So you and Sergeant Amoroso spend about 10, 15 20 minutes in the truck, have this conversation with 21 Sergeant Pfarr, then you know the call-out team is going 22 to be called out, so you go back to get some equipment? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Sergeant Amoroso go with you, he drives? 25 A. He drives. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2901 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1805 1 Q. Did he leave you then and go home? 2 A. I believe he may have come back out, but at 3 that point in time, he and I were separated. So if he 4 showed up, it was very brief. 5 Q. I assume you got back out to the scene through 6 some other vehicle? 7 A. Yes. I got another vehicle, loaded up all the 8 equipment and went back out. 9 Q. And you did not have any discussion of any 10 possible pranking or joking that you, alone, or with 11 Sergeant Amoroso could do to Sergeant Pfarr that night? 12 MS. CASTILLO: Objection. Misstates testimony. 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, he's asking the 14 question. If you understand the question, you can 15 answer. 16 THE WITNESS: I can answer it. We didn't have 17 any conversation specific about pranks. The 18 conversation was general to the, as Amoroso put it, fuck 19 with Pfarr, and it was to the point of having him freak 20 out, was the context of the conversation. 21 BY MR. PALMER: 22 Q. And you didn't have any ill intentions towards 23 Sergeant Pfarr in doing that, right? 24 A. Certainly not. 25 Q. You just thought it would be funny, right? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2902 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1806 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. At some point, Sergeant Amoroso leaves the 3 scene. I understand you're fuzzy about when and under 4 what circumstances, but he wasn't there when the prank 5 went down? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Do you know now, looking back on it with your 8 clear memory, when he left, what was going on at the 9 scene when he left, or whether he even came back after 10 dropping you off? 11 A. I believe he did come back and it was brief, 12 but it was more of a capacity to make sure that Sergeant 13 Pfarr didn't need anything else. 14 At that point, I was very immersed in setting 15 up the total station. There's a significant process to 16 that. So I wasn't terribly focused on who was there at 17 that point in time. 18 Q. So you go through the measuring with some other 19 officers? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Cudworth, Kevany? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And you finish the retrieval of the raw 24 material you need, right? 25 A. Correct. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2903 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1807 1 Q. Okay. And you put the total station device 2 away? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Officers start clearing the scene? 5 A. Other patrol officers. There was a few there, 6 one, maybe two, that were facilitating the traffic 7 control at that point. I think they probably just 8 stayed. The car wasn't flipped over yet. So I think 9 people were very interested in seeing the car. 10 Q. So the car is still on its roof? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. I assume there were some other officers there 13 doing other duties rather than just you doing the 14 measurements with the device? 15 A. Um, not sure what you mean as far as what 16 other -- 17 Q. Let me break it down. 18 Were there other San Luis Obispo police 19 officers, perhaps, taking photographs? 20 A. Not at that time. 21 Q. When did that happen? 22 A. My understanding, from the training I provided 23 patrol, was that they are to take as many and as often 24 photos they can the second they get there. 25 Q. Okay. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2904 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1808 1 A. And we use that as a mechanism to try and 2 capture how things are because there's certain functions 3 of emergency services that the fire department 4 eradicates a lot of our evidence. So it's helpful to 5 have those photos in the raw form, as you will say, that 6 we can put things back together, put things back where 7 they once were when the crash happened because there is 8 significant portions of evidence-gathering. So the 9 photos that we talk of that I know of were taken before 10 we went there. 11 Q. Before you and Sergeant Amoroso even arrived, 12 or maybe concurrent therewith? 13 A. Certainly. 14 Q. Pretty early on in the event? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Okay. As many photos as you can take? 17 A. That's what I tell people. 18 Q. So then while you were there with Sergeant 19 Amoroso, sitting in the FST truck just assessing and 20 later on talking to Sergeant Pfarr, did you see anybody 21 walking around, taking photographs, like evidence 22 photographs? 23 A. I didn't make any note of it. At that point, I 24 didn't see anyone taking photos. 25 Q. You leave, you get the total station device, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2905 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1809 1 come back from the station and you returned, somehow. 2 Would you have expected that all the 3 photographs, based upon your briefing, training, would 4 have been done by the time you returned? 5 A. Those initial capture, the initial response, 6 they would have been completed at that point. 7 Q. Okay. And then you did your total station 8 thing. About how long did that take? 9 A. That took a couple hours, but it varies. In 10 this instance, it took a couple hours. 11 Q. Okay. And was it after you were done getting 12 the raw material measurements, using the total station 13 device that this plan to prank Sergeant Pfarr kind of 14 formalized in your head? 15 A. At that time, yes. 16 Q. Okay. And who was around then? 17 A. Uh, Kevany and Cudworth were still there, Pfarr 18 had just arrived back, I believe, I believe Benson was 19 there somewhere nearby, I think Jennifer Hyman was there 20 somewhere, I think Officer Rodriguez was somewhere close 21 by, and that would be the extent of it. 22 Q. Tow truck driver? 23 A. I don't believe he was there, initially. The 24 mechanism that we activate to get the tow truck there -- 25 because he would sit there for a long time. So once the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2906 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1810 1 moment we know we're ready for a tow truck driver, we 2 request them. 3 So, at that point in time, there was some 4 downtime before the tow truck driver arrives. So he was 5 not quite there yet. 6 Q. Okay. And this decision to prank Sergeant 7 Pfarr to do what you ultimately do with regard to the 8 Bentley, that we're going to get to in a minute, that 9 was, solely, your idea? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. And the timing of your execution of it 12 was toward the end of the event, is how I understand. 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. It was after the tow truck driver had arrived? 15 A. Those two had no connection, but that's the 16 timing of how it happened. 17 Q. I understand they had no connection, but the 18 tow truck driver arrived before you started to execute 19 your plan? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And where was he in relation to the Bentley? 22 A. When the prank occurred? 23 Q. Yes. 24 A. Uh, the vehicle was off the roadway and the tow 25 truck had just flipped it over. So the tow truck was Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2907 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1811 1 directly in front of the car as he was going to be 2 hooking it up. So the tow truck driver was about at 3 the -- what would be the passenger door of the tow 4 truck. So that would be that distance, 15 feet, 5 thereabouts. 6 Q. And Sergeant Pfarr was present? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. In fact, he was your audience? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. And you had pretty good knowledge that 11 Officer Benson was not only present, but he was watching 12 you? 13 A. That's what I recall. 14 Q. He was there, present, and seeing what you were 15 doing? 16 A. I recall him being there. I wasn't taking a 17 log of who was watching or not watching, other than 18 Sergeant Pfarr. 19 Q. But I could point out two places in your 20 interview process where you said you had an awareness 21 that Officer Benson was watching. 22 A. That was my speculation at that time. 23 Q. You're not going to quibble with that, right? 24 A. That's fine. 25 Q. You came up with the thought that you would Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2908 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1812 1 take a Bentley item off of the car, correct? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. One of the emblems? 4 A. That was a significant thing of a Bentley, is 5 they have a unique design. So that was inherently 6 something that I thought would be obvious. 7 Q. And one of your factors in deciding to do that 8 was because the car was totaled? 9 A. The function of the prank was easier because 10 the car was a disaster, was totaled. 11 Q. The point of the fact that -- the factor that 12 the car was totaled is who is going to care at this 13 point, right? 14 A. Um, certainly, people would care, but that was 15 also the considering factor for -- 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: You know, I'm going to 17 interrupt you. You're really not answering his yes and 18 no questions with yes and no answers. He's entitled to 19 get those answers. When we get the transcript, it's not 20 going to help me. You've got, you know, excellent 21 counsel. She will take you on explanation if that's 22 necessary. 23 THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question? 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Otherwise, you're also 25 going to multiply the proceedings here. So let's just Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2909 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1813 1 stick with that. 2 BY MR. PALMER: 3 Q. The question was the point of the factor, being 4 that the car was totaled, was who would care if you took 5 a car part off of it? 6 A. That was not my considering factor. 7 Q. You focused on the Bentley emblems because -- 8 one of the reasons you focused on those was because they 9 were cool-looking? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And they were unique? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Initially, you focused on the Bentley emblem on 14 the rear trunk lid. Do you recall that? 15 A. I don't recall the rear trunk lid. 16 Q. Okay. Exhibit 22, City's Exhibit 22. 17 A. Uh-huh. 18 Q. Page 16. 19 A. Okay. 20 Q. Top paragraph -- and if you need to go back to 21 Page 15 to get a context, you start out by saying, "I 22 think there was an initial look at it," and then on the 23 top of Page 16, you are talking about getting the 24 screwdriver and impossible to come off, didn't want to 25 damage the car. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2910 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1814 1 I'd ask you, what are you referring to? 2 A. I'm referring, at that time, to the hood 3 emblem. 4 Q. Okay. So there's a B on the hood? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Can you describe the physical characteristic of 7 the B emblem on the hood? 8 A. It's a circular center where the B would be and 9 extending out from there that are wings and they're 10 chrome, black background, chrome B. 11 Q. Okay. Was your initial focus that emblem? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. Before or after you got the screwdriver? 14 A. Before. 15 Q. Okay. Did you try to make it look like you 16 were trying to manipulate that emblem on the hood with 17 your fingers before you got the screwdriver? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Then you went over to the tow truck driver and 20 asked for a screwdriver? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And he gave you one? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Did you tell him why you needed it? 25 A. No. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2911 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1815 1 Q. Did you have any discussion with him, at all? 2 A. I did not. 3 Q. And you went back over to the hood ornament, is 4 what I understand? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And did you actually try to pry the hood 7 ornament off? 8 A. I did not. 9 Q. Did you make it look like you were trying to 10 pry the hood ornament off? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Did you place the blade of the screwdriver 13 anywhere near the hood ornament? 14 A. I did not. 15 Q. Middle of Page 16 -- 16 A. Uh-huh. 17 Q. -- a comment attributed to you. It's right 18 next to the middle hole for the three ring binder. "I 19 recall having a screwdriver." Do you see that there? 20 A. Yes, I do. 21 Q. "I recall having the screwdriver against the 22 emblem." 23 So, to me, that means you had the blade of the 24 screwdriver near the emblem. It's not what you recall? 25 A. I recall having the screwdriver in my hand and Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2912 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1816 1 I recall being close to the emblem, trying to look 2 behind the emblem to see how it was affixed to the hood. 3 So having it close to, having it against, I was doing 4 the best to recall at that time. There's a lot of 5 response in that statement, too. 6 Q. And that's the -- is that the first Bentley 7 emblem that you focused on, the one on the hood? You 8 went to that one before you went to the wheel hub cover? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. I'm just trying to get the chronology 11 here. 12 You never did go to the rear trunk lid emblem 13 and do anything with it? 14 A. I don't recall going to the trunk lid emblem. 15 Q. The problem with the witness saying that they 16 don't recall, it means it might have occurred and they 17 just don't recall. You understand that, right? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. You can't give us any more information about 20 that? 21 A. Are you asking me to expand why I don't recall? 22 Q. If you don't recall, you don't recall. I'm 23 just saying. 24 A. I don't believe that happened, and the reason 25 why I don't believe that happened is because the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2913 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1817 1 location we were standing was on the passenger's side of 2 the Bentley closer to the front wheel where the tow 3 truck was. That was where the people -- the officer -- 4 that's where we were assembled. So we were never back 5 by the back of the car. That's why I said I don't 6 recall I went back there because I don't believe that 7 ever happened. 8 Q. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all of this -- all 9 of these efforts that we're getting into now, the hood 10 ornament, the screwdriver and, eventually, the wheel hub 11 covers, all of that occurred after the Bentley was rided 12 onto its wheels? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. Then my question is, what was your 15 initial reason for asking for the screwdriver? 16 Was it to go to the hood ornament or to get a 17 wheel hub cover off? 18 A. The initial request for the screwdriver was 19 that if the hood emblem was going to be able to come off 20 without any damage, that was an option. 21 Q. Okay. So the original reason for the 22 screwdriver was to, potentially, get the hood ornament 23 off? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. Okay. No other reason? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2914 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1818 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. Page 5 of your interview, still on Exhibit 22. 3 A. Yes, sir. 4 Q. Bottom two-thirds of the page, there's a 5 reference to Proll and why did you ask him for a 6 screwdriver. Do you see that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And your response says, "to take the hubcap 9 off." 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. There's nothing about the hood ornament. 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. Okay. So which is it? Why did you get the 14 screwdriver? Hood ornament or hub cap? 15 A. The original reason was for the emblem and it 16 ultimately ended up being for the hubcap. 17 Q. Is this still the period of time where Officer 18 Benson, you're aware, is watching you? 19 A. He is present. 20 Q. All right. So at some point, without 21 causing -- as I understand the story, without causing 22 any damage to the hood ornament, the Bentley emblem on 23 the hood, you then move to the wheel hubcap? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Okay. And the reason for that, like you've Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2915 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1819 1 described in your direct, is it's easier to move and 2 it's, in fact, intended to be removed? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. There's a little slot there. You knew that 5 before? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. And you used the screwdriver to remove one of 8 the wheel hub covers? 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. So I envision you kneeling down? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And Benson and Pfarr are somewhere in close 13 proximity, watching you? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. So is the tow truck driver? 16 MS. CASTILLO: Objection. Calls for 17 speculation. 18 MR. PALMER: If you know. 19 THE HEARING OFFICER: If you know. 20 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 21 BY MR. PALMER: 22 Q. And which wheel did you pop off the wheel hub 23 cover from? 24 A. That was the front passenger wheel cover. 25 Q. Front passenger's side wheel cover? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2916 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1820 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. Do you remember saying something different in 3 your interview? 4 A. I remember trying to remember which one it was 5 in my interview and not recalling which direction the 6 car was facing, and those are the things I remember from 7 my interview. 8 Q. Page 7, Exhibit 22. 9 A. Uh-huh. 10 Q. If -- third entry attributed to Proll, if you 11 read from there, the next four entries, tell me when 12 you're done. 13 A. Okay. 14 Q. So in the interview, you said it was from the 15 rear passenger's side. 16 A. I did say that then. 17 Q. Okay. Do you know which one it is now? 18 A. I recall being at the front passenger, based on 19 my recollection of the direction the car was facing. I 20 think, at this time, even in the interview, I'm not 21 completely clear which direction the car was facing. 22 Q. All right. If we go to what you said in your 23 interview, it sounds like you, at least, told Lieutenant 24 Proll you took the wheel hub cover off the rear 25 passenger's side wheel. Are you with me? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2917 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1821 1 A. That's what I represented there. 2 Q. Would that be equivalent to the right rear 3 wheel? 4 A. Right rear wheel. Correct. 5 Q. Okay. Go to Exhibit 11, please, 11-B. Do you 6 recognize what 11-B is? We had some discussion of it in 7 this hearing already. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Is that the Bentley in the accident we've been 10 discussing? 11 A. Yes, it is. 12 Q. Is it on its roof? 13 A. Appears to be. 14 Q. So this would be a photograph taken earlier on 15 in the event? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Before the car was rided? 18 A. It was before it was rided, yes. 19 Q. And before you took the wheel hub cover off? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. According to your interview, on the right rear 22 wheel, right? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. That would be the wheel depicted on the -- 25 well, it's hard to read, but it says right -- if you Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2918 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1822 1 hold the exhibit landscape form horizontally, the wheel 2 would be in the upper right corner, right? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. The Bentley emblem, the wheel hub cover, looks 5 like a black circular object with a B in it? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. Is that what you removed? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. It's still intact here, isn't it? 10 A. It is. 11 Q. Because the car hasn't been rided yet? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. All right. And you said -- strike that. 14 You said you retrieved another wheel hub cover 15 from the scene. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Where did you get that? 18 A. It was laying on the ground somewhere close by 19 the car. 20 Q. At what point? 21 A. After the car had been rided. 22 Q. Okay. And where did that wheel hub cover come 23 from? 24 A. It was somewhere close by the car when the car 25 came down on its wheels. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2919 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1823 1 Q. Which wheel? 2 A. I don't know which one it was from. 3 Q. Did you remember when you were interviewed by 4 Lieutenant Proll? 5 A. I'd have to be refreshed. I don't know. 6 Q. Page 7. 7 A. Back to 22? 8 Q. Yes, sir. 9 A. And you said 7, correct? 10 Q. I did. 11 A. Okay. I've got it. 12 Q. Let me find the records for you. One, two, 13 three, four, five, sixth entry attributed to you, "I -- 14 I thought it was the rear passenger's side." Just 15 continue to read that. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Okay. So where did the one that you found on 18 the ground, according to your statement to Lieutenant 19 Proll, come from? 20 MS. CASTILLO: Objection. Asked and answered. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: If you know, you may 22 answer. 23 THE WITNESS: It came from one of the wheels. 24 I don't know which one. 25 /// Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2920 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1824 1 BY MR. PALMER: 2 Q. You told Lieutenant Proll it was the front 3 passenger wheel. At least, that was what your 4 recollection was then, right? 5 A. I was trying to remember at that time as to 6 what it could have been, and in reading it now, it looks 7 like I'm speculating as to what it could have been. 8 Q. Go back to 11-B. 9 A. Uh-huh. You should have me toggle. 10 Q. Would you agree with me that the front 11 passenger wheel would be, otherwise, known as the right 12 front? 13 A. I'm sorry. One more time. 14 Q. Would you agree with me that the front 15 passenger wheel be would, otherwise, known as the right 16 front? 17 A. In B, yes, right front. 18 Q. So it would be the other wheel depicted in 19 11-B? 20 A. It would be the one in landscape -- this way, 21 landscape would be the one on the left. 22 Q. And, at least, to the extent we can discern in 23 this picture, the B emblem still appears to be intact on 24 the wheel? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2921 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1825 1 Q. So it did not come off in the accident? 2 A. It did not come off in the accident. 3 Q. So, presumably, it came off when flipping the 4 car onto its wheels? 5 A. It could have. 6 Q. Okay. So now you have in your possession two 7 Bentley wheel hub covers, correct? 8 A. When? I'm sorry. 9 Q. After -- I'll fix it. 10 After you pried the one off the right rear 11 wheel hub cover and you picked up the one from the front 12 wheel, which was on the ground near the scene somewhere, 13 at some point, you had possession of two Bentley wheel 14 hub covers? 15 A. They were stacked on top of each other, yes. 16 Q. What do you mean? 17 A. They were here next to me on the ground, the 18 one that was already off, and when this wheel cover came 19 off, I set it on top of the other wheel cover. 20 Q. Okay. Still on the ground? 21 A. Still on the ground. 22 Q. Okay. Did you ever have physical possession of 23 both of them together? 24 A. When I picked them up to put them back in the 25 car, in the Bentley. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2922 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1826 1 Q. And at this time when you were taking the wheel 2 hub cover off the rear and putting it near the front 3 wheel hub cover, the tow truck driver was somewhere in 4 the vicinity? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. As was Officer Benson and Sergeant Pfarr? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And you put both these wheel hub covers into an 9 evidence bag? 10 A. I did not put any wheel covers in a bag. 11 Q. And you're certain that Sergeant Pfarr saw what 12 you were doing? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Because you wanted him to? 15 A. I wanted him to see me take the wheel cover 16 off. 17 Q. You wanted to get a reaction from him? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And, indeed, he did react? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. He looked at you and gave you an odd look? 22 A. I don't recall his facial expression. 23 Q. Said I can't be here, or something like that? 24 A. To that effect. 25 Q. And then he walked away? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2923 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1827 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And you took his comment to mean that Sergeant 3 Pfarr wasn't very happy with you? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. You gave the screwdriver back to the tow truck 6 driver? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Did you speak to him? 9 A. Briefly. 10 Q. Why did you -- let's go through exactly what 11 you said to the tow truck driver again upon giving him 12 the screwdriver back. 13 A. I gave him the screwdriver back, I said to him 14 something to the effect of I don't know what you saw, 15 but we were just joking around, and that was it. 16 Q. Did you tell him that you did not need those 17 hub covers? 18 A. Something to that effect. 19 Q. Did you tell him you didn't want him to 20 think -- did not want him to think that you were 21 stealing car parts? 22 A. I don't believe I said that. 23 Q. Okay. Page 18, back to Exhibit 22. 24 A. Uh-huh. 25 Q. Bottom of Page 18 begins with a comment from Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2924 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1828 1 you. It goes on to Page 19. Stop right there. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. I'm just quoting from you, "I didn't want him 4 to think that there was something to do with me taking 5 things." 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. So you had some kind of discussion with 8 him or some kind of comment to him that you didn't want 9 him to think you were stealing car parts? 10 A. Uh, that may misrepresent what I'm saying here, 11 but I said to him, as I'm reading here, I was just 12 messing around, and I said this because I didn't want 13 him to think that there was anything going on like that. 14 Q. You would agree with me, though, that an 15 outside person watching what you were doing, without 16 knowing the interaction between you and Sergeant Pfarr, 17 without knowing the prank and the joke, might get the 18 idea you're stealing car parts? 19 MS. CASTILLO: Objection. Calls for 20 speculation. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: Overruled. You can 22 answer. 23 THE WITNESS: One more time, the question. 24 MR. PALMER: It's going to be a different 25 question. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2925 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1829 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: No. Let's just read it 2 back. 3 (Record read by the court reporter.) 4 THE WITNESS: I don't know how he could have 5 got the opinion I was stealing a car part. 6 BY MR. PALMER: 7 Q. Well, then why make that comment to him? 8 A. The comment about messing around? 9 Q. No. The comment that you didn't want him to 10 think that you were doing something with me taking 11 things. I'm only using your words. 12 A. Certainly. That was my reasoning at the time, 13 not that I thought that he did. It was my reasoning in 14 saying it. 15 Q. You, at some point, put away -- the way I 16 envision this, correct me if I'm wrong, you pick up both 17 wheel hub covers from the ground? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And put them in the car? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And, by this time, the car was on the flatbed, 22 or not? 23 A. I don't even remember if it was a flatbed, 24 honestly. It could have been the wrecker kind that 25 picks up the wheels. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2926 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1830 1 Q. You don't know at what stage the tow truck 2 driver had placed the car at this point? 3 A. No. 4 Q. But you put the wheel hub covers back inside 5 the Bentley? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. And did you make a point of making sure that 8 the tow truck driver saw you do that? 9 A. I don't recall making a point of doing that. 10 Q. Okay. Page 20 of Exhibit 22, very top comment 11 attributed to you. Actually, if you read the top three 12 comments, you get the whole statement. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. "I can only get my stuff from you." 15 From that, I interpret that you made a big 16 point of making sure that the tow truck driver saw you 17 put the car parts back. 18 A. That's what I'm indicating there, yes. 19 Q. And it was about that time that Sergeant Pfarr 20 called you on the phone? 21 A. No. 22 Q. No? 23 A. It was close in proximity, but not at that 24 exact moment. 25 Q. I'm not going to pull a video out. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2927 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1831 1 A. Sure. I didn't know what you were asking. 2 Sorry. 3 Q. The next salient event was Sergeant Pfarr calls 4 you on the phone? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. And you answer it? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And among the things he told you was put car 9 parts back? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Which you already did? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. Told him that you put him in a bad spot? 14 A. He told me that. 15 Q. That's what I -- 16 A. I'm sorry. Yes. 17 Q. If I misspoke, that's what I meant. 18 A. Yes. He told me that. 19 Q. You told him you were just joking? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. He told you to come see him? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. And you did go see him? 24 A. I did. 25 Q. And among the things Sergeant Pfarr said to you Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2928 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1832 1 when you were with him is that what you had there was a 2 bad idea? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. You reiterated that you put him in a bad spot? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. He talked about all the different things that 7 other people could have perceived by your actions, 8 right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And, in fact, junior officers, as well? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. He was very upset with you? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. You did not bring up, during your discussion 15 with Sergeant Pfarr, that you did this because he was a 16 new sergeant? 17 A. I don't believe it was discussed in that 18 terminology. 19 Q. You did not bring up with Sergeant Pfarr that 20 you engaged in this event based, in part, on 21 conversation you had with Sergeant Amoroso? 22 A. I did not. 23 Q. And you did not call it a practical joke? 24 A. Practical joke is not, necessarily, one of my 25 terminologies. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2929 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1833 1 Q. Okay. So the answer to the question -- 2 A. No. 3 Q. -- would be no? Okay. 4 And you realized at the time you had this 5 discussion with Sergeant Pfarr that you did come up with 6 a bad idea? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. You acknowledged it was a bad idea? 9 A. I did. 10 Q. And you did that in your interview, right? 11 A. I did. 12 Q. Almost a year later? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And you acknowledge that you made a poor 15 decision that night? 16 A. I did. 17 Q. You still do? 18 A. It was a bad decision. 19 Q. And in your interview, you told Lieutenant 20 Proll that you took full responsibility for your 21 actions? 22 A. I'd like to think I take responsibility for my 23 actions. 24 Q. Do you still take responsibility for your 25 actions now? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2930 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1834 1 A. Yeah. 2 Q. Okay. So you finished the conversation with 3 Sergeant Pfarr that night. 4 When's the next time, in your memory, that this 5 event comes up in conversation with anybody? 6 A. There was a brief attempt at a conversation 7 with Sergeant Amoroso the next night. To my 8 recollection of it, it was me trying to open up the 9 dialogue of, hey, you remember when we talked about 10 that, and we did not get to finish the conversation 11 because, as I recall, it was during work and we got sent 12 to a call. There was something that came up to 13 interrupt that conversation that we never got to 14 complete. 15 Q. I want to peel that onion a little bit. 16 So this was the night after the Bentley event 17 occurred? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Okay. You were working? You were on duty? 20 A. I believe so. 21 Q. Sergeant Amoroso was on duty, to the best of 22 your belief? 23 A. To the best of my recollection. 24 Q. Okay. What shift were you working? 25 A. Still the night shift. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2931 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1835 1 Q. Same shift as the night before? 2 A. That I recall. 3 Q. Okay. Do you recall what time of day you 4 brought up the topic? 5 A. It would have been during our regular shift. 6 Q. What did you say to Sergeant Amoroso? How did 7 you open the topic? 8 A. It was, hey, do you remember we had that 9 conversation about messing with Pfarr, and he said, 10 yeah, I go, well, it didn't really go over well, and 11 that is the totality of our conversation. 12 Q. We've been together a few days here, right? 13 A. A couple. 14 Q. You've -- you were here when Sergeant Amoroso 15 testified, right? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Do you remember me asking him exactly that 18 question? 19 A. I believe I do remember. 20 Q. And he doesn't remember your conversation, at 21 all. Do you remember that? 22 A. I remember his response to that. 23 Q. Did he explain that? 24 A. Sergeant Amoroso doesn't remember a lot of 25 things that happened that year. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2932 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1836 1 Q. So maybe we shouldn't put too much talk into 2 what he says? I'll let that be rhetorical. 3 THE HEARING OFFICER: Let's move on. 4 BY MR. PALMER: 5 Q. I'll run through the CAT shift again with you. 6 Okay? 7 A. Okay. 8 Q. I envisioned you, at some point prior to 9 October 19th, 2013, placing your name on a line next to 10 that date on the sign-up sheet. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. And, eventually, it was assigned to you? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. And Adam Stahnke? 15 A. I don't know if he signed up for it. I don't 16 know how in which he came into his assignment. 17 Q. But, at some point, I would assume he put his 18 name on the line, too, and you two ended up with the 19 shift? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. And, at some point, you knew that? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Before October 19th? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And before October 18th? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2933 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1837 1 A. When I actually was aware of it was before 2 October 19th. 3 Q. And CAT shifts run from 11: 00 a.m. to 4:00 4 p.m.; do they not? 5 A. That is the identified time for them to be. 6 Q. And I can go through here and show you all of 7 Lieutenant Smith's e-mails and all of Sergeant Pfarr's 8 e-mails about all those shifts and every single one of 9 them has a prefatory paragraph. Do you remember that? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. I'm not going to go through them all, but in 12 the prefatory paragraph, it says the CAT shifts run from 13 11: 00 to 4:00 p.m., correct? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. Do you have a recollection of how far in 16 advance you did know that you were assigned to the 17 October 19th shift? 18 A. I don't know. It was whenever that e-mail was 19 sent, assigning the shifts. 20 Q. Okay. Appellant's Exhibit H, is that the one 21 you're talking about? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Does that have October 19th on it? 24 A. Yes, it does. 25 Q. And this came from you? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2934 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1838 1 A. I provided that e-mail. 2 Q. Do we know when it was sent? 3 A. Not from that e-mail. 4 Q. Why not? 5 A. That e-mail was printed from my home after I 6 was placed on admin leaving. 7 Q. How did that occur? 8 A. That time, I still had access to my work e-mail 9 and I wanted to be able to have anything that could 10 support who and what worked that day. 11 Q. Would you agree with me that, likely, this 12 e-mail was sent prior to September 14th? 13 A. That is fair to say. 14 Q. And we know that, from the context of it, given 15 the fact that the first assigned shift was September 16 14th? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And if you opened it and reviewed it in a 19 timely manner, you probably knew on or about -- on or 20 before September 14th that you were assigned the October 21 19th shift. Are you with me? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. Who did this come from? 24 A. I would have to guess that it came from 25 Lieutenant Smith, being that it's CCd from Sergeant Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2935 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1839 1 Pfarr, and my recollection, Sergeant Pfarr sent one of 2 those like e-mails. So I would guess Lieutenant Smith. 3 Q. Is this an illustration of Lieutenant Smith's 4 poor communication skills with regard to shifting? 5 A. No. 6 Q. All right. And you have received permission on 7 a number of occasions from Lieutenant Smith to vary your 8 start time and end time, correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And one of them -- one of those occasions was 11 back in June of 2013? Showing you Exhibit J. 12 A. That would be an example of an instance where I 13 needed to have some flexibility. 14 Q. What's the change you're requesting? 15 A. I am hoping to be excused from the first hour 16 of CAT tomorrow from 11: 00 to 12: 00. I have an 17 obligation at 11: 00. 18 Q. And that's an e-mail that you sent to 19 Lieutenant Smith? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. Did he respond? 22 A. To that one, I don't believe he did. 23 Q. Where did you get this? 24 A. Another e-mail that I printed from my work 25 e-mail at my house. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2936 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1840 1 Q. When did you print it? 2 A. Uh, it would have been after December 12 and 3 before January 15. 4 Q. How do you know that? 5 A. Because January 15th was the date that the 6 department locked up my department e-mail. 7 Q. Prior to that, did you ever download all your 8 e-mails? 9 MS. CASTILLO: Objection. Relevance. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Overruled. You can 11 answer. 12 THE WITNESS: Elaborate on download. I'm 13 sorry. 14 BY MR. PALMER: 15 Q. Take all your e-mails and put them on an 16 external hard drive for your safekeeping. 17 A. I've never done that. 18 Q. You've never done that? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Okay. Do you know if Lieutenant Smith approved 21 this change? 22 A. I don't recall. 23 Q. Well, did you come in at -- when did you arrive 24 for the shift? 25 A. I would think I would have arrived at 12: 00 or Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2937 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1841 1 I sought some other way to find out if there was 2 approval. 3 Q. If you arrived at 12: 00, do you think you had 4 specific approval to do that? 5 A. I'm sorry. One more time. 6 Q. If you arrived at noon, did you have approval 7 to do that? 8 A. Uh, I felt like the practice of the program, it 9 would have been approved. 10 Q. Do you remember Lieutenant Smith being asked 11 about this, Exhibit J? 12 A. I remember us discussing it. 13 Q. What did Lieutenant Smith say? Do you 14 remember? 15 A. I'd have to be refreshed on what he said, 16 specifically. 17 Q. He tried to be very accommodating with such 18 requests? 19 A. Definitely. 20 Q. As long as they were done with specific 21 approval in advance of the day? 22 A. I think that may have been specific to 23 something. I'm not clear of your question. 24 Q. Do you remember him saying that? 25 A. I'd have to be refreshed. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2938 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1842 1 Q. And was there an occasion when you were offered 2 to take over the CAT shift from another officer? 3 A. Several occasions. 4 Q. Was one of those occasions illustrated here by 5 Appellant's K? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And from whom -- who had the shift first? 8 A. Officer Dickel. 9 Q. And what did he request of you? 10 A. He requested if I wanted to work a CAT shift on 11 a particular day, if so, e-mail the lieutenant or 12 whoever needs to know. 13 Q. Okay. If so, e-mail lieutenant or whomever 14 needs to know. 15 You didn't write that, that was Jason Dickel 16 who wrote that, right? 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. And what did you do with that information? 19 A. I forwarded his e-mail to Lieutenant Smith. 20 Q. And said what? 21 A. It said I am not sure if I would be the next in 22 line or if there was some more senior person ahead of me 23 to take the shift, but I will take it if eligible. 24 Q. Why did you forward the e-mail to Lieutenant 25 Smith? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2939 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1843 1 A. There was several weeks before this event 2 occurred. It wasn't appeared to be anything immediate. 3 So, at that point, there was opportunity to see 4 if that was going to be an approved activity. 5 Q. But you testified here today that you could do 6 that on your own. 7 MS. CASTILLO: Objection. Misstates testimony. 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: I don't know what he 9 testified to. I'm going to read the transcript 10 carefully, but that was the implication. So you can 11 testify about whether that's a fair inference or not. 12 THE WITNESS: I don't think that's a fair 13 inference. 14 BY MR. PALMER: 15 Q. You forwarded this to Lieutenant Smith because 16 you knew you needed his approval before this shift 17 change officer swap could occur, right? 18 A. In this instance, there may have been more 19 senior people, and with the length of time between the 20 request and the date of working, if there was a more 21 senior person there, then it could be theirs. 22 Q. And Lieutenant Smith responded? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. What did he say? 25 A. He said sorry for the delay, I put you down for Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2940 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1844 1 the shift. 2 Q. So he approved the swap? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Is this an illustration of Lieutenant Smith's 5 poor scheduling? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Oh, okay. 8 MS. CASTILLO: What exhibit was that? I'm 9 sorry. What letter? I'm sorry. What letter? 10 MR. PALMER: K. 11 MS. CASTILLO: K. Thank you. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: Appellant's K. All 13 right. 14 BY MR. PALMER: 15 Q. Was there another occasion when you asked 16 permission to leave the shift early? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And is that illustrated by Appellant's L? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And the shift ends at what time, normally? 21 A. Uh, it normally ends at 4:00. 22 Q. And you wanted to leave when? 23 A. At 3:00. 24 Q. And you knew you need Lieutenant Smith's 25 specific approval in order to do that? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2941 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1845 1 A. Again, this was an instance -- yes. 2 Q. That's why you sent the e-mail to Lieutenant 3 Smith? 4 A. In that instance. 5 Q. Because you couldn't do this on your own with 6 without approval? 7 A. In this instance. 8 Q. And he approved it? 9 A. In this instance. 10 Q. And he sent you an e-mail back about that? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Is this an illustration of Lieutenant Smith's 13 poor communication skills? 14 A. No. 15 Q. These three exhibits, J, K and L, these weren't 16 the only times that you reached out to Lieutenant Smith 17 for some sort of approval to change an aspect of your 18 CAT shift, correct? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. There were others? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. These are the only three e-mails you could 23 find, or what? 24 A. Those are the only three that I had at that 25 time in my e-mail. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2942 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1846 1 Q. Now, by October 18th of 2013, you had no such 2 specific verbal or written permission from Lieutenant 3 Smith to come in late on October 19th? 4 A. No. 5 Q. And the reason you didn't send one of these 6 kind of e-mails that we see in J, K and L because you 7 didn't know on October 18th you were going to be late? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. Okay. And -- but you saw Lieutenant Smith in 10 the locker room on October 18th, 2013? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. What was he doing? 13 A. Doffing his uniform to go home. 14 Q. And what were you doing? 15 A. Donning my uniform to go to work. 16 Q. Were you on your phone? 17 A. I was on my phone. 18 Q. I'm sorry? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. And you exchanged pleasantries with him? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. You didn't have any conversation with 23 Lieutenant Smith beyond hi? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. You didn't have any conversation with him about Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2943 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1847 1 coming in late the next day? 2 A. I did not. 3 Q. And the reason for that is because you didn't 4 know you would have to come in late until the next day? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. Okay. I'm curious about one thing. In your 7 direct examination, you focused in on your brief 8 exchange of hi's with Lieutenant Smith in the locker 9 room on October 18th, and maybe I missed it and maybe I 10 misinterpreted it, correct me if I'm wrong, you took the 11 opportunity to say that Lieutenant Smith did not take 12 any opportunity to correct you if he thought your 13 behavior in amending the start time or an end time of a 14 shift was wrong on that occasion. Did I get that right? 15 A. That was an opportunity for him to do that. 16 Q. Why would it possibly be an opportunity for him 17 to do that? All you said was hi. 18 A. That was the first time I had seen him in 19 several weeks. 20 Q. How could you possibly know what he knows? 21 Do you know if Lieutenant Smith knew that you 22 were just changing your shifts on your own on October 23 18th? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. You knew that? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2944 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1848 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. How did you know that? 3 A. In the meeting I had with him on the 21st. 4 Q. Okay. Run that down for me. 5 A. That's what he told me. 6 Q. What? 7 A. That he and Sergeant Pfarr pulled my time cards 8 and that they had reviewed my time cards and it appeared 9 I had been coming and going as I was pleasing. 10 Q. Okay. And when did they do that? 11 A. I don't know. 12 Q. Do you think they did that on the 19th? 13 A. The inference that was made to me was prior to 14 that. 15 Q. Okay. This is new stuff. So you're going to 16 have to explain it to me. I've never heard this before. 17 A. That was my conversation with Lieutenant Smith 18 on the 21st. 19 Q. What did he say? 20 A. Just that. 21 Q. Run it down for me again, please. 22 A. Part of our conversation, he told me that he 23 and Sergeant Pfarr had pulled my time cards to verify 24 what was going on and all these accusations by Sergeant 25 Pfarr of me being late and that it appeared from the Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2945 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1849 1 time cards that I was coming and going as I was 2 pleasing. 3 Q. Did Lieutenant Smith specifically tell you when 4 he pulled those time cards? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Did Lieutenant Smith specifically tell you when 7 he came by this information that you were changing 8 things on your own? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Do you know if Lieutenant Smith, on October 11 18th in the late afternoon hours when you said hi to 12 each other in the locker room, knew you were doing that 13 on that day? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Okay. I'm still confused. 16 Lieutenant Smith says to you on the 21st, 17 right? This is a Monday, right? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. That they pulled your time cards and you were, 20 apparently, coming and going as you pleased? 21 A. That's what he told me. 22 Q. That's his phrase? 23 A. That's his phrase. 24 Q. How did he say that? 25 A. It appears, to me, that you're coming and going Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2946 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1850 1 as you're pleasing. 2 Q. Okay. So the inference I'm getting from the 3 way you're describing his tone was he did not approve of 4 you doing that, right? 5 A. That was what I got from him. 6 Q. Okay. But you're trying to convince us that, 7 at some previous point, he did approve you doing that? 8 A. Of coming in late and getting off early? 9 Q. Yes, sir. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. When was that? 12 A. It's evident here in numerous e-mails and 13 numerous other conversations I had with him in passing. 14 Q. Where? 15 A. That he's okay with me coming in late? 16 Q. Where? Where does it say that in appellant's 17 exhibits? 18 A. I -- 19 Q. We're going back to J, K and L? 20 A. If you would like to look at L, there's, "I 21 need to leave the shift at 15: 00," and his response is, 22 "That is fine." 23 Q. Okay. Specific approval, correct, in writing? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. You took that to mean you could do it any time Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2947 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1851 1 on your own without specific approval? Is that what I'm 2 trying to get? 3 A. I'm saying I have had numerous other verbal 4 interactions with him where he understood my situation 5 working these shifts and the childcare issues that were 6 in place, and it's not just e-mails, it's also verbal 7 communication between he and I and other supervisors. 8 Q. You were here when Lieutenant Smith testified, 9 right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Several times, correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. He was asked several pointed questions about 14 that particular topic, correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And he denied doing that to you -- 17 MS. CASTILLO: Objection -- 18 BY MR. PALMER: 19 Q. -- with you, correct? 20 MS. CASTILLO: -- vague as to -- 21 BY MR. PALMER: 22 Q. He denied giving you blanket permission of 23 letting you do it on your own? 24 A. I never said blanket permission. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: Nevertheless, he denied Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2948 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1852 1 giving blanket permission. I'm not sure whose term it 2 was, but that was his testimony. 3 THE WITNESS: That was his testimony. 4 BY MR. PALMER: 5 Q. Is he lying? 6 A. That he -- I don't understand your question. 7 Q. Is Lieutenant Smith lying about that? 8 MS. CASTILLO: Blank -- I'm -- I'm -- vague as 9 to "that." Are we talking about -- 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, it assumes facts 11 not in evidence. I don't think you can -- 12 MS. CASTILLO: Shifted just meant -- 13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Let me just clarify this. 14 I don't think it's a fair question to ask the 15 witness if somebody's lying about something that he 16 denied that the witness hasn't agreed is what he asked 17 for, if that's the way to put it, but you could try 18 another way of asking this question. 19 BY MR. PALMER: 20 Q. I'll move on. 21 You didn't have any conversation with 22 Lieutenant Smith on or before October 18th or October 23 19th about coming in late on October 19th? 24 A. I did not. 25 Q. Okay. So the issue with your daughter's dance Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2949 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1853 1 class comes up the next morning, correct? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. And is it my understanding that your first 4 inclination that there was a problem with you possibly 5 getting to work by 11: 00 a.m. came to your realization 6 at about 10: 15 a.m.? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Okay. And was it then that you texted 9 Detective Stahnke? 10 A. Thereabouts. 11 Q. Okay. So you weren't driving then? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. I assume you were sitting down in the chair in 14 the dance class? 15 A. I don't know what I was doing at that exact 16 moment. I would have to elaborate for you on what 17 happened with my daughter's dance class. 18 Q. That's okay. 19 Okay. So I'm just going to go with my 20 assumption that you're sitting in a chair inside the 21 dance school. Okay? 10: 15 rolls around, you realize 22 there's a danger you're not going to make it by 11: 00 23 and you text Detective Stahnke. Am I right so far? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And you only texted Detective Stahnke? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2950 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1854 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. If you thought that you could come in 3 without -- at any time without any specific approval and 4 without any sort of notice, there wouldn't be any reason 5 to text Detective Stahnke, would there? 6 A. Compound question, but I didn't think that I'd 7 have to be able to come in at any time I wanted whenever 8 I wanted. That's not what I thought, and when I texted 9 Stahnke, it was to -- I might be late, I was not sure. 10 That's several questions there. 11 Q. Was part of the reason you texted Detective 12 Stahnke was as a courtesy to him? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Could you have worked with him? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. A courtesy which you did not extend to the 17 watch commander? 18 A. At that time, I was not sure that I was going 19 to be late. 20 Q. How hard would it be to find out who the watch 21 commander is? 22 A. Not difficult. 23 Q. There's a number, I assume, you can call? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Everyone knows the watch commander's number? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2951 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1855 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Did you dial the number? 3 A. I didn't. 4 Q. You had time to dial the number, right? 5 A. There could have been moments to call it. 6 Q. You had time to text Sergeant Pfarr, hey, are 7 you the watch commander today? 8 A. I don't believe I would have done that. 9 Q. But you could have called and found out who the 10 watch commander was? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Could have called dispatch, said who's the 13 watch commander? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. You could have texted Sergeant Pfarr? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Shortly after texting Detective Stahnke, 18 correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. But you didn't do that? 21 A. Did not. 22 Q. Okay. And was it my understanding correct that 23 the dance class lasted until about 11: 00 a.m.? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And, approximately, what time did your wife Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2952 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1856 1 arrive to take control of your kids? 2 A. Shortly before 11: 00. 3 Q. Do you know how many minutes? 4 A. Ten. 5 Q. Okay. 6 A. More. 7 Q. I'm envisioning you just sitting there in the 8 chair from 10: 15 to 10: 50, 10: 55, watching your 9 children, right? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Okay. You're engaged in some other business? 12 A. My daughter. 13 Q. Okay. I understand, but you didn't have 14 anything else to do but be at the dance hall between 15 10: 15 and 10: 50, 10: 55, correct? 16 A. I was there, supervising my daughter. 17 Q. I understand that, but you had enough time to 18 text Detective Stahnke, correct? 19 A. In that moment, yes. 20 Q. Okay. So your wife gets there around when? 21 10: 50? 10: 55? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And you started heading to work? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. It was about 11: 11 that the first text comes in Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2953 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1857 1 from Sergeant Pfarr? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. That's the first time you realize Sergeant 4 Pfarr was the watch commander for this CAT shift? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And you said you were driving at the time? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. I mean, I don't want to be overly technical, 9 but could have stopped? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Could have stopped and composed yourself? 12 Could have stopped and composed a properly-worded text? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. You knew you were late by that time? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And go to 10, please. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. By the time -- I'm just going from your 19 testimony. 20 By the time that you received this text, the 21 opening text from Sergeant Pfarr, which led to this 22 exchange at 11: 11 on October 19th, would I be correct in 23 saying that you already thought, on some level, Sergeant 24 Pfarr didn't like you? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2954 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1858 1 Q. Okay. That he was watching you? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. That he, perhaps, was coming after you in some 4 way? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Okay. Would that have been a real good reason 7 to stop along the side of the road and compose a 8 properly-worded text? 9 A. That would have been a good thing to do. 10 Q. But you didn't do that? 11 A. No. 12 Q. You said, yes, sorry, I had worked out ahead of 13 one with -- and I just wanted to make sure that we're 14 all correctly interpreting that that's LT? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Okay. Not it? 17 A. That's probably not. 18 Q. That's a little L and lower case L and lower 19 case T? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Meaning Lieutenant Smith? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And your only change to this, had you stopped 24 and composed yourself and thought about what you wanted 25 to write, correct me if I'm wrong, is that the word, Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2955 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1859 1 one, is meant to be others? 2 A. That is the sentiment of the text message, that 3 that word is supposed to be others. 4 Q. I had worked out ahead of time with others with 5 Lieutenant Smith. How does that make any more sense? 6 A. It doesn't. 7 Q. Okay. At this point, October 19th, 2013, at 8 11: 11, were you laboring under the premise that 9 Lieutenant Smith was fine with you coming in within 10 certain parameters at 11: 30 instead of 11: 00? Is that 11 what you were laboring under? 12 A. That's fair to say. 13 Q. Why did you say that? 14 A. In that message? 15 Q. Yes, sir. 16 A. I was trying to dash off a quick message to get 17 a response to him. 18 Q. You said, "I'm on the way in now." 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Now, at this point, you're already 11 minutes 21 late, correct? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. And you're going to be more than 11 minutes 24 late because you're still on the road? 25 A. Yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2956 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1860 1 Q. And you know that's a violation of the rules? 2 A. I'm aware that's a violation of the rules. 3 Q. And you know that, technically, depending upon 4 how people feel about that, that could lead to some 5 disciplinary action? 6 A. Yeah. 7 Q. And that's what you were trying to get out of 8 by putting this thing over on Lieutenant Smith, correct? 9 A. No. 10 Q. He says, "That made no sense. Stop by when you 11 get here," right? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. And then you went into the second text 14 message. 15 Again, you were still driving? 16 A. Yes, sir. 17 Q. You didn't take the time to stop and compose 18 yourself and think about what you wanted to write in 19 this second -- 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: You already covered that. 21 We've got that. 22 BY MR. PALMER: 23 Q. Okay. And you said, basically, I had talked to 24 Smith yesterday. 25 Okay. Now, I understand your modification and Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2957 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1861 1 punctuation at this point, but do you understand that we 2 can only go by what you write in here? 3 MS. CASTILLO: Objection. Calls for 4 speculation. 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: Overruled. You can 6 answer that question. 7 THE WITNESS: You can read the words or I can 8 tell you what I meant when I typed it. 9 BY MR. PALMER: 10 Q. Would you agree with me the only thing Sergeant 11 Pfarr can rely upon is what you wrote? 12 MS. CASTILLO: Objection -- 13 THE WITNESS: Yes. 14 MS. CASTILLO: Objection. Calls for 15 speculation. 16 THE HEARING OFFICER: Overruled. You can 17 answer. 18 MR. PALMER: Did the answer get in? 19 THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. 20 BY MR. PALMER: 21 Q. When you wrote, basically, I had talked to 22 Smith yesterday, just isolating that part of the text, 23 okay? You with me? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. You did speak to Smith yesterday, meaning Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2958 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1862 1 October 18th, correct? 2 A. I spoke to him. 3 Q. All you did was say "hi"? 4 A. We spoke. 5 Q. All you did was say "hi"? 6 A. There could have been other words in that 7 sentence, but we exchanged pleasantries. 8 Q. Mr. Waddell, I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm 9 really not, but I've read all this stuff three or four 10 times. The only thing I've ever gotten out of your 11 October 18th conversation with Lieutenant Smith is that 12 you each exchanged pleasantries and said hi. Are you 13 changing that now? 14 A. Can somebody say how's it going? There's not 15 much more elaboration to an exchange in pleasantries. 16 Q. Nothing more than that? 17 A. That was it. 18 Q. Basically, I had talked to Smith yesterday 19 about coming in late -- coming in at 11: 30. 20 Again, I want to isolate -- I have to take your 21 words the way they are in the text. If you isolate that 22 out, that is an untrue statement. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: Is that a question? 24 MR. PALMER: Yes. 25 /// Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2959 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1863 1 BY MR. PALMER: 2 Q. That is an untrue statement, correct? 3 MS. CASTILLO: Well, are we just going to stop 4 at every other word and say, is it now an untrue 5 statement, is it now an untrue statement, is it now an 6 untrue statement? 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: I don't know. We'll find 8 out, but he can ask that question. So you can answer 9 it. 10 THE WITNESS: I never believed I was making an 11 untruthful statement in this text message. 12 BY MR. PALMER: 13 Q. You did not talk to Lieutenant Smith yesterday, 14 meaning October 18th, about coming in at 11: 30, did you? 15 A. I did not talk to Lieutenant Smith the day 16 before about coming in late. 17 Q. Because you didn't know you were going to be 18 late until the next day? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. He said fine, no problem. Do you see that? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. He didn't say fine, no problem on October 18th, 23 did he? 24 A. He did not. 25 Q. All he said was hi and maybe how's it going, as Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2960 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1864 1 you've added now? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Nothing in your two texts to Sergeant Pfarr 4 talk about your girls being at dance class, does it? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Nothing in your two texts to Sergeant Pfarr 7 talk about you having to wait to supervise your children 8 before your wife could get there to do it, does it? 9 A. No. 10 Q. "Are you still coming in today," was Sergeant 11 Pfarr's question, correct? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. Okay. And then you responded with how you 14 responded? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Would you agree with me that Lieutenant Smith 17 had absolutely nothing to do with the reason you were 18 coming in late that day? 19 A. Lieutenant Smith had no involvement in why I 20 was late. 21 Q. Okay. You arrived at the police station and 22 met with Sergeant Pfarr? 23 A. Yes, sir. 24 Q. And that was about 11: 30, I think you said? 25 A. Thereabouts, yes. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2961 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1865 1 Q. And just -- I don't want to misquote you. So, 2 kind of, go over what you said and what he said again 3 because you were going a little fast and I had trouble 4 writing it down. 5 A. When I arrived to the office, I stepped in, I 6 said, hey, what's up, he turned around and asked me 7 where I was, I told him I was at my daughter's dance 8 class, he said okay, he said, you saw Smith yesterday, I 9 said, I saw Smith yesterday, and he replied, he's okay 10 with you coming in, I said, he's okay with it. 11 Q. Okay. Did you elaborate on your daughter's 12 dance class and what happened? 13 A. I did not. 14 Q. Did you tell Sergeant Pfarr that you thought 15 you were going to be able to make it on time, but there 16 was this issue with your wife coming to relieve you? 17 A. I did not. 18 Q. Did you tell Sergeant Pfarr that, in your 19 judgment, Lieutenant Smith was okay with you changing 20 your time of arrival? 21 A. I did not say that to him in the office. 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: While you're looking at 23 that, can I ask a question? 24 MR. PALMER: Sure. 25 THE HEARING OFFICER: One daughter at a dance Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2962 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1866 1 event or two daughters at a dance event? 2 THE WITNESS: Two daughters at a dance class, 3 similar to a gymnastics class or something of that 4 nature. 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: Both of them in the class 6 or just one of them in the class and the other one 7 you're supervising? 8 THE WITNESS: Both in classes, in separate 9 classes. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. 11 BY MR. PALMER: 12 Q. Did you tell Sergeant Pfarr that you had 13 permission from Lieutenant Smith to be late that 14 morning? 15 A. I did not. 16 Q. Did you use any words and phrases that could be 17 reasonably interpreted to be as such? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Do you have a real good memory of the words and 20 phrases that you used during your discussion with 21 Sergeant Pfarr? 22 A. I believe I do. 23 Q. Exhibit 21. 24 A. Uh-huh. 25 Q. Your interview with Lieutenant Bledsoe December Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2963 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1867 1 12th -- 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. -- Page 6. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. In the middle of the page, there's a reference 6 to Bledsoe. He is introducing the topic after you 7 arrived at work. You spoke with Sergeant Pfarr at his 8 office. Do you see that? 9 A. A little more assistance. 10 Q. I'm sorry. In the middle. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. So we're talking about the same time 13 period I'm talking about in terms of your discussion 14 with Sergeant Pfarr. Are you with me? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. Down two, three entries, there's a fairly long 17 paragraph attributed to you? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. "I don't remember exactly what words I used"? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. Was that true in your interview? 22 A. That I did not remember? 23 Q. Yes, sir. 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Do you have a better memory now? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2964 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1868 1 A. I do. 2 Q. And why would that be? 3 A. This is all I've had to think about since the 4 day these things happened. 5 Q. You didn't fill out any blanks, did you? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Do you remember Sergeant Pfarr testifying here? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Do you remember him saying he had a pretty good 10 memory of the discourse you two had? 11 A. I don't remember him saying that. 12 Q. Okay. And during your interview with 13 Lieutenant Bledsoe, did you tell Lieutenant Bledsoe that 14 Sergeant Pfarr did not make up -- in other words, he's 15 not lying about the version of the conversation that he 16 recalls? 17 A. I recall saying that. 18 Q. Is that true today? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Okay. Why has it changed? 21 A. At the time of my interview, this is the first 22 time I'd been in an IA and I was not trying to point 23 fingers and I was trying to take responsibility for my 24 actions and what I did and what I said. I was not going 25 to speak for other people, I was not going to try to Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2965 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1869 1 displace my blame on other people. 2 So here I am today, never thinking it would get 3 to this point, he is lying in this hearing. 4 Q. Okay. Sergeant Pfarr is not making up the fact 5 that you didn't give him notice that you were going to 6 be late, correct? 7 A. He has not made one. 8 Q. He's not making that up, right? 9 A. I did not give him notice. 10 Q. And he's not making up the fact that you 11 arrived late for the shift, right? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. He's not making up the fact that you and he had 14 a conversation in his office? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. And he's not making up the fact that you, on 17 your own, thought you had some blanket approval from 18 Lieutenant Smith to flex your shift? 19 MS. CASTILLO: Objection. 20 MR. PALMER: I'll withdraw it. 21 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 22 BY MR. PALMER: 23 Q. In your interview with Lieutenant Bledsoe, did 24 you tell him that you understood that you had 25 overstepped your bounds? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2966 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1870 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. What did you mean by that when you said that? 3 A. That I misinterpreted the past practices of the 4 program in thinking that any last-minute instance to be 5 a few minutes late and adjust those hours or those 6 minutes would be not a problem, not an issue. 7 Q. So your conclusion in that regard was 8 unreasonable, correct? 9 A. I could have been -- 10 MS. CASTILLO: Objection. That calls for 11 speculation. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: I'm going to allow that. 13 THE WITNESS: Read back the question. 14 (Record read by the court reporter.) 15 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't use the word, 16 unreasonable. 17 BY MR. PALMER: 18 Q. Well, I'm just trying to get an idea what you 19 mean by "overstepped my bounds." 20 Because I can point out what you said on Page 21 8, but I don't need to do that, right? 22 A. No. At the time, that's how I felt when I said 23 it. 24 Q. You also told Lieutenant Bledsoe that you made 25 a poor decision in this case, as well? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2967 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1871 1 A. I could be better. I made a poor decision. I 2 could have made different decisions, as you've pointed 3 out here, as well. 4 Q. If you're trying to convince us that your 5 conclusion that you had the tacit approval from 6 Lieutenant Smith to vary your times on a CAT shift, then 7 how is it that you told Lieutenant Bledsoe you made a 8 poor decision? 9 A. Because the decisions I made were poor because 10 they got me in the situation I was in and I could have 11 made different decision that would have put me in a 12 different place. I could have called Sergeant Pfarr or 13 the watch commander, as you said. 14 Q. You also said to Lieutenant Bledsoe that it was 15 your fault for overstepping. 16 A. No one else was involved. I overstepped. I 17 made that decision. 18 Q. And you thought it would be okay, but looking 19 back now, you saw it looked bad. All of these things 20 come from Page 8. 21 A. Me being honest and taking responsibility. 22 Q. Are you still taking responsibility? 23 A. I take responsibility for my actions. 24 Q. And on Page 14, you said you overstepped your 25 interpretation of Smith's permission in the past. Do Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2968 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1872 1 you still stand by that? 2 A. I do. 3 Q. Oh. Occasionally, I'm sure Ms. Castillo told 4 you, sometimes us lawyers flip around on topics. It's 5 not because we're trying to be unfair. It's just we 6 write different notes at different times. 7 You recall now sending Sergeant Pfarr a text 8 pic -- picture of the car parts inside the Bentley? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. You didn't recall that when you were talking 11 with Lieutenant Proll? 12 A. I did not at that time. 13 Q. When did you come by that memory? 14 A. Um, it was after I got my Skelly packets and 15 was able to review them and really think back about all 16 the stuff. 17 Q. Okay. I would think that the only interview 18 transcript from which you would get that information 19 would be Sergeant Pfarr. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Okay. So Sergeant Pfarr is not lying about 22 that? 23 A. I was also asked in my interview about it, too. 24 I believe it had. I -- I... 25 Q. In your interview, you didn't recall sending Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2969 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1873 1 any pictures, right? 2 A. I did not recall. 3 Q. Okay. Then I assume you get -- the dot I'm 4 connecting here is you get the notice of intent, you get 5 all the supporting material, including Sergeant Pfarr's 6 statement. I assume you read that a few times by now? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And you probably came across the fact that, oh, 9 look it there, he remembers me sending him a picture, 10 and it probably connected your memory. Am I getting 11 that right? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. So that's a situation where your memory was 14 faulty where Sergeant Pfarr's was not? 15 A. It refreshed my memory. 16 Q. Okay. In your direct examination, I have an 17 answer to a question Ms. Castillo posed to you that 18 there was car parts on the ground when you got to the 19 scene of the accident? 20 A. There was a lot of stuff on the ground, but, 21 yes, there were car parts, as well. 22 Q. In an accident like that, I'm sure it was 23 strewn all over the place, right? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. One of the things you said was the bumpers, or Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2970 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1874 1 the bumper? 2 A. Parts, bumper, pieces. It wasn't the whole 3 bumper. 4 Q. Glass? 5 A. There was glass. 6 Q. Personal items from the car? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And I wrote down wheel caps. 9 A. You could have it read back. There was a lot 10 of car parts. Whether there was, specifically, a wheel 11 cap off prior to, there could have been. 12 Q. We'll let the transcript speak for itself, but 13 your recollection, now that we've been talking here the 14 last couple hours, is that the wheel cap fell off the 15 wheel when the car was rided onto its wheels? 16 A. I recall them falling off. 17 Q. Okay. Not in the accident, right? 18 A. I could have missed it. It could have fallen 19 off in the accident. 20 Q. The bike team fight call up the large hill, in 21 addition to you, who are the two others? 22 A. Sergeant Kemp, he was a sergeant at the time, 23 he's now an officer, and Officer Chris Chitty. 24 Q. Kemp, K- E-M-P? 25 A. Correct. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2971 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1875 1 Q. And Chris Chitty. 2 Were you aware that on a promotional ranking, 3 that the top three names are treated equally? 4 MS. CASTILLO: Objection. Calls for 5 speculation. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: If he knows, I'll allow 7 that. 8 THE WITNESS: It's been a while. I don't know 9 off the top of my head how the Memorandum of 10 Understanding is written. 11 BY MR. PALMER: 12 Q. Have you ever heard of the rule of three? 13 A. I've heard of the rule of three. 14 Q. How does the rule of three go, from your 15 perspective? 16 MS. CASTILLO: Objection. Lacks foundation 17 that it's applied to this particular department. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: Overruled. He can 19 answer, if he knows. 20 THE WITNESS: I, honestly, don't know. I know 21 that it varies from policy to policy, department to 22 department. 23 THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. 24 BY MR. PALMER: 25 Q. Were you paid for all your DRMO time? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2972 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1876 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Were you paid for all the time you spent in 3 training? 4 MS. CASTILLO: Vague as to "training." 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: Motorcycle training? 6 MR. PALMER: Yeah, motorcycle training, the 7 accident reconstruction training, all the contents of 8 Exhibit -- I think it's JJ. 9 THE WITNESS: Uh, yes, compensated for 10 training. 11 BY MR. PALMER: 12 Q. In fact, you were sent to those classes by the 13 department? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Any of those classes you went to on your own, 16 paid for on your own? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Which ones? 19 A. I went to Crush after I was terminated on my 20 own, I went to advanced accident investigation school 21 where the department paid my time and I paid for housing 22 and meals and things like that, travel. 23 MR. PALMER: Take five? 24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah. Do you think -- 25 let's go off the record. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2973 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1877 1 (Recess.) 2 THE HEARING OFFICER: Back on the record. Any 3 more questions on cross-examination? 4 MR. PALMER: No, sir, no further questions. 5 THE HEARING OFFICER: Redirect? 6 MS. CASTILLO: Yes. 7 8 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 9 BY MS. CASTILLO: 10 Q. Exhibit 22, please -- 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. -- Page 5. I'm sorry. Page 18, 19. Sorry 13 about that. 14 On cross-examination, Mr. Palmer asked you 15 about the conversation during your interview with the 16 investigator wherein you went back to return the 17 screwdriver to the tow truck driver. Do you remember 18 that? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And that you had said something to the effect 21 of I was just messing with him; is that right? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. Then on Page 19, you continue and you 24 explained because they didn't want him to think that 25 there was something to do with me taking things. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2974 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1878 1 Did you actually say that to the tow truck 2 driver or were you saying that to the IA investigator? 3 A. I was saying that to the IA investigator. 4 Q. Okay. Were you ever shown photographs that 5 were in Exhibit 11 during your internal affairs 6 investigation for the Bentley scene? 7 A. I don't recall. 8 Q. Okay. So do you have any recollection of when 9 you were interviewed by Lieutenant Proll of having him 10 or of yourself looking at the photos the way you did 11 with Mr. Palmer and pointing to which wheel it was or 12 which side of the car? Do you remember? 13 A. I don't remember that happening. 14 Q. And you didn't see that anywhere in the 15 transcript, right? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Okay. Do you think that might have helped you 18 to answer those questions that day? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. There was some testimony on cross-examination 21 about the terminology used in terms of practical joke 22 and new sergeant and those questions. Do you remember 23 that? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Okay. What were the words that you used as Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2975 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1879 1 opposed to the words that the department now wants to 2 put into your mouth? 3 A. Words that I used were messing around, joking. 4 Q. Okay. Did you ever convey to Sergeant Amoroso, 5 that next night when you saw him, the events of the 6 prank that you pulled? 7 A. I did not. 8 Q. You just said, hey, started to pull a prank and 9 it didn't go over well? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. That was it? 12 A. That was it. 13 Q. We had some testimony on cross about Exhibit K. 14 Can you see it? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Okay. This is Appellant's Exhibit K. 17 Mr. Palmer asked you, you know, why was this an 18 example, in your opinion, of good or bad communication 19 from Lieutenant Smith. Do you remember that? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Okay. Can you explain what your opinion was 22 and why? 23 A. My opinion in K as to why it was not good 24 communication was because the time frame in which 25 Officer Dickel and I were trying to interact with Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2976 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1880 1 Lieutenant Smith, it took him eight days to reply and, 2 at this point, Officer Dickel was still waiting to find 3 out if this was something that was going to work or not. 4 I was still waiting. So this is the delay and not 5 having good communication. 6 Q. Okay. What exhibit are we on? Am I on L -- M. 7 Right? 8 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes. MM. 9 BY MS. CASTILLO: 10 Q. So Appellant's MM -- 11 THE HEARING OFFICER: Mm when you say it 12 together. KK is a text I get from my children. 13 MS. CASTILLO: Oh, KK? 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: Uh-huh. 15 MR. PALMER: Thank you. 16 MS. CASTILLO: Uh-huh. I'm handing you what 17 I'm marking as Appellant's MM. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 19 BY MS. CASTILLO: 20 Q. Have you seen this e-mail before? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. This appears to be communications between -- 23 starting at the bottom, Lieutenant Smith, on August 28th 24 of 2013, going up through, it looks like, September 29th 25 of 2013, regarding fall downtown foot patrol OT? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2977 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1881 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And this is for the CAT shift? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. And is this about coverage for someone 5 else's shifts that had been previously assigned? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Can you explain what this e-mail is, how it 8 relates to you? 9 A. As it relates to me is I was going to be the 10 recipient of several shifts from Officer Dickel and he 11 was facilitating that approval process and then I never 12 heard anything back about it after I agreed to take them 13 and we were approaching these dates and my scheduling. 14 So I wanted to know if I was going to be 15 working them or not because SpeedShift had never been 16 updated. So there was no way for me to verify. So I 17 was checking to see. That's how it impacted me. 18 Q. So how long did you wait for a response from 19 the lieutenant? 20 A. Um, between the time that Officer Dickel and I 21 had arranged it for me to work his shift, it was 22 September 18th, and it was not until September 29th that 23 I actually had confirmation for working those shifts. 24 Q. Okay. So -- but these e-mails that we're 25 talking about are examples of notice in advance and this Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2978 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1882 1 is still an example of some kind of not the best 2 communication -- 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. -- by Lieutenant Smith? 5 Okay. But, really, what we're talking about is 6 last minute can't get to work kind of situations on the 7 October date for this hearing, right? 8 A. For October 19th? 9 Q. Yes. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. Let's talk more about that. 12 On that date, we heard some about this dance 13 class. 14 And is it just you sitting in a chair like 15 Mr. Palmer assumed? 16 A. No. 17 Q. What is it? 18 A. Um, as I answered Mr. Cameron, I have two 19 daughters that are in two separate dance classes and, as 20 I've said, my one daughter has special needs. She was 21 more of a developmental level of a three-year-old at 22 that time. So she was in a special needs dance class, 23 and my one daughter, who was five at the time, could be 24 left in her own class to stay in that class. This other 25 daughter, the older daughter, the special needs, she Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2979 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1883 1 would not stay in the class. It was an upstairs 2 classroom. So you had to be there and monitor her to 3 constantly redirect her. That's just one of her needs, 4 is that she has the cognitive understanding of what 5 right and wrong is and when to do things and why we have 6 to do things. 7 So it's not a situation where you're allowed to 8 sit in a chair and relax while someone baby-sits your 9 kids at the dance class. That's not the way it is with 10 her. 11 Q. Okay. So should you have picked up the phone 12 and called the department to let them know you were 13 going to, potentially, be late that day? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Are you disputing that? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Did you let the person that you knew for sure 18 you were going to be working with, Detective Stahnke, 19 know that there was a potential that you might be a 20 little bit late? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Did you have any actual knowledge that you were 23 100 percent going to be late? 24 A. At the time I texted him? 25 Q. Right. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2980 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1884 1 A. No. 2 Q. We heard some information about that Lieutenant 3 Smith and Sergeant Pfarr had pulled your time cards and 4 we've heard some testimony in this hearing about 5 Sergeant Pfarr wanting to talk to you on or around 6 October 12th about being late. Do you recall that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Okay. Did you know any of this walking into 9 the situation the 18th? 10 A. No. 11 Q. What did you know? 12 A. At that point, I was operating with the 13 understanding that there was flexibility within the 14 program to adjust your time at last-minute instances and 15 it wouldn't be a problem and it's not an issue. 16 Q. Okay. Are we talking about you just adjusting 17 your schedule whenever you want? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Are we talking about you just flexing here and 20 there when it's convenient for you, and you, alone? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Were you talking about you making your own 23 schedule for CAT? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Have you ever seen these time cards that they Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2981 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1885 1 were talking about that would have shown when you were 2 late? 3 A. They never showed me any time cards. 4 Q. And there's no time cards that were part of the 5 Skelly packet that were provided to you, right? 6 A. No. 7 Q. When Sergeant Pfarr texted you when you were 8 those, you know, at this point, 11 minutes late, you 9 didn't blow him off, right? 10 A. No. 11 Q. You responded to him? 12 A. I did. 13 Q. And you let him know that you were coming in 14 and you were sorry that you were late? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. When you mentioned Lieutenant Smith as part of 17 your text conversation, Lieutenant Smith still worked 18 for the department, right? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. There's no confusion that any kind of 21 conversation would have been easily verifiable, right? 22 A. Right. 23 Q. When you said that, you would absolutely -- or 24 you said okay to the text conversation that you would 25 come by the office. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2982 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1886 1 Did you expect to explain to Sergeant Pfarr 2 what you meant in those text messages? 3 A. No. 4 Q. If there was any kind of confusion about 5 anything, at some point, did you expect that you would 6 be given the opportunity to let people know what you 7 meant? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Did you believe that Lieutenant Smith had an 10 awareness of these issues that caused you to 11 occasionally be late to your CAT shift? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And is that why you believe that there was some 14 kind of accommodations made here and there, only as 15 necessary? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. What is the percentage of time, roughly, that 18 that was when you required accommodations? 19 A. Less than a half an hour. 20 Q. And only when issues came up? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Not just when you felt like it? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. I believe your testimony was under certain 25 parameters. What did you mean by that? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2983 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1887 1 A. For the flexing or for -- 2 Q. Yeah. When you would have to come in a little 3 bit late or leave a little bit earlier. 4 A. My understanding is where those instances were 5 unavoidable, last minute, not planned, would be 6 examples. 7 Q. On Page 20 -- or Page 6 of Exhibit 21 -- 8 MR. PALMER: I'm sorry. What page? 9 MS. CASTILLO: 6. 10 THE WITNESS: Yes. 11 BY MS. CASTILLO: 12 Q. Okay. When you spoke to Sergeant Pfarr when 13 you came into the office the first time, he asked you 14 where were you, right? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And what did you say? 17 A. I told him that I was at my daughter's dance 18 class. 19 Q. Other than that, did you have any other 20 full-blown conversation with him? 21 A. No. 22 Q. When you said -- these aren't line-numbered. 23 When he asked you if you'd gotten approval from 24 Smith and you said I had approval before, what were you 25 trying to convey? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2984 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1888 1 A. I was trying to convey my understanding of the 2 practice that was going on in this program, that 3 unforeseen instances were accommodated with flexibility. 4 Q. Are you disputing that you were late -- 5 A. No. 6 Q. -- on that day? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Are you disputing that you had permission from 9 Lieutenant Smith to come in late that day -- 10 A. No. 11 Q. -- specific permission? 12 A. No. 13 Q. So while you're not disputing that you were 14 late, are you disputing that you were dishonest or made 15 false statements? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Both in your text messages and in your 18 statements to your supervisors? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And in your internal affairs investigations? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And are you disputing that you committed any 23 kind of vehicle code violation? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Do you believe that the penalty in this case is Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2985 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1889 1 appropriate? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Why not? 4 A. What's -- what -- rhetorical question, what's 5 the penalty for being late to work? That was all I've 6 done wrong, was late to work. In either instance, in 7 either case, that's the only thing I've done wrong. 8 Q. You've testified that you agreed that, on the 9 night of the Bentley incident, you probably shouldn't 10 have done -- played the practical joke that you did; 11 would you agree with that? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Obviously, you probably wouldn't do that again, 14 would you? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Do you think that the termination is an 17 appropriate penalty? 18 A. No. 19 MS. CASTILLO: I don't have anything else. 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: Recross? 21 MR. PALMER: Just briefly. 22 23 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. PALMER: 25 Q. Would you agree with me that had you told Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2986 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1890 1 Sergeant Pfarr that you had a problem transferring the 2 care of your children to your wife's care and that's 3 what made you late, that we probably only would be 4 talking about a penalty for being late? 5 MS. CASTILLO: Objection. Calls for 6 speculation. 7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Overruled. You can 8 answer. 9 THE WITNESS: That would have helped my 10 situation. 11 MR. PALMER: Nothing further. 12 THE HEARING OFFICER: Anything else? 13 MS. CASTILLO: No. 14 THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. Then we'll 15 step down. I mean, you're still there. So let's go off 16 the record for a second. 17 (Discussion off the record.) 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: So we're admitting, 19 without objection, Appellant's MM. Let's go off the 20 record. 21 (Recess.) 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: We're back on the record. 23 Good afternoon, Officer Inglehart. My name's Chris 24 Cameron. I'm the hearing officer. It's my job to make 25 sure we get your testimony. So let's begin the usual Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2987 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1891 1 way. 2 Could you raise your right hand? Do you affirm 3 that the testimony you are about to give will be the 4 truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: Great. Put your hand 7 down. I think we already have the spelling of your 8 name. 9 10 DIRECT EXAMINATION 11 BY MS. CASTILLO: 12 Q. Hi. 13 A. Hi. 14 Q. You look like you work for San Luis Obispo 15 Police Department. 16 A. I do. 17 Q. For how long? 18 A. Over 11 years now. 19 Q. What's your assignment? 20 A. I'm a downtown bike officer. 21 Q. And sometimes do you work in the downtown bike 22 office? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Did you ever work with Officer Kevin Waddell? 25 A. I did. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2988 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1892 1 Q. In what capacity? 2 A. He was my partner for almost two years. 3 Q. And was that when he was a downtown bike 4 officer? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And during that time period, were you 7 supervised, ever, by Sergeant Amoroso? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Were you ever supervised by Sergeant Pfarr? 10 A. Not directly, but, yes, occasionally. 11 Q. Okay. Do you remember a time period sometime 12 when Officer Waddell was in Europe around June 2013 13 learning about a movie incident in the downtown bike 14 office? 15 A. A movie incident? 16 Q. Right. Officer Waddell watching a movie or 17 something to that effect? 18 A. I was never asked about it, but I was told that 19 there was an incident of him taking a break, watching a 20 show, yes. 21 Q. What did you hear? 22 A. That he was watching a show on his break while 23 he was eating some food and Sergeant Pfarr came in and 24 asked him what he was doing. 25 Q. Who told you about that? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2989 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1893 1 A. Officer Waddell. 2 Q. And how did he tell you about that? 3 A. He just said that he was taking a break and 4 that Sergeant Pfarr came in and he was eating some food 5 and watching a show on his break and that he asked him 6 about it. 7 Q. And when did you learn about this? 8 A. I don't know a specific date. It's been so 9 long. I couldn't tell you, exactly. 10 Q. Do you remember sending Officer Waddell an 11 e-mail when he was in Europe about this conversation? 12 A. Sending him an e-mail? 13 Q. Yes. 14 A. I don't recall sending him an e-mail. 15 Q. Do you recall a conversation with Sergeant 16 Amoroso learning that Pfarr was venting about the movie 17 incident to Sergeant Amoroso? 18 A. I recall that Sergeant Pfarr asked Sergeant 19 Amoroso about it, but I don't know what ever came of 20 that because I'm not a supervisor. So I don't know. 21 Q. Do you remember warning Officer Waddell that 22 they were upset about it? 23 A. I remember saying -- because he said he was 24 upset about it and I said, okay, what were you doing, he 25 said I was taking a break, and I said, okay, well, what Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2990 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1894 1 was the conversation about, and he said that Sergeant 2 Pfarr was upset with him for watching a movie, and I 3 said, okay, well, what did you guys talk about, and he 4 said that -- he said I was taking my break, watching a 5 show, and that's all I remember saying, was that maybe I 6 shouldn't do that, but I don't remember what, exactly, 7 was said. 8 Q. So what did you learn from Amoroso then? 9 A. Nothing. He never addressed it and said, hey, 10 this is a problem, hey, this is -- because I don't -- it 11 wasn't a problem. So I don't know what -- I never got 12 addressed because I wasn't there. So I don't know. 13 Q. So there was no issues with watching movies in 14 the downtown bike office, that you were aware of? 15 A. No. I mean, we shouldn't do it on duty, we 16 should tend to our duties. Maybe I don't understand the 17 question. It never was brought up in any eval with me 18 or any issue with Sergeant Amoroso to me that said, hey, 19 you guys are doing this and that was what we weren't 20 doing. So I don't know what the concern is. 21 Q. Do you remember, around the time period of 22 November 9th of 2013, Sergeant Pfarr looking for Officer 23 Waddell around that time period? 24 A. Sorry. What day, again? 25 Q. November 9th, 2013. Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2991 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1895 1 A. I'm really bad with dates. Is that a day that 2 I was working? 3 Q. Yes. 4 A. Okay. 5 Q. And he was looking for Officer Waddell before 6 his shift even started. Do you recall that? 7 A. I don't. 8 Q. Do you have any recollection of being 9 supervised during the time period around November when 10 Sergeant Pfarr was the CAT shift watch commander at a 11 time period when you and Officer Waddell worked 12 together? 13 A. He was working Sundays at that time. So he was 14 a sergeant on duty. We would come in -- I think it was 15 a four-hour block and so we would send him a message 16 when we were there, and that's usually what our standard 17 operation procedure was at that time, was to send him an 18 e-mail or an IM saying, hey, we're on duty, we're 19 working this overtime shift. 20 Q. Okay. What do you mean an IM? 21 A. Instant message. 22 Q. From where? 23 A. Either the city MDC or the car MDCs or at the 24 station if we were logged in at the station. 25 Q. Why would you do that? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2992 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1896 1 A. Let him know we're on duty and we're here 2 because we have to check in with dispatch, too. 3 Q. Is that standard? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Did everyone do that? 6 A. I don't know if everyone did it. That's what I 7 did and that's what Officer Waddell did. I remember, 8 many times, we used the MDC to alert a sergeant if he 9 was out on a call, or whatever, that we were on duty. 10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Is that referring to an 11 on-board computer in the squad car? 12 THE WITNESS: Yes. Each car is outfitted with 13 a mobile field computer that has a messaging system and, 14 a lot of times, if a sergeant is busy on a call, 15 obviously, we can't call because he's on a call, dealing 16 with something, then we will send him a message saying 17 we're on duty, we checked in with dispatch. 18 THE HEARING OFFICER: So it's an MB -- what -- 19 THE WITNESS: MDC. 20 THE HEARING OFFICER: MDC. Got it. 21 BY MS. CASTILLO: 22 Q. Do you remember the day that Officer Waddell 23 was placed on administrative leave? 24 A. Yes, I do. 25 Q. Do you know what day that was? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2993 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1897 1 A. I don't recall the specific date, but I was on 2 duty with him when he got called into the office. 3 Q. And did you have any conversation with any 4 supervisors that day? 5 A. I did. 6 Q. Who? 7 A. At the time, Chief Gesell was downtown right 8 after the incident and he asked how I was doing and I 9 said I wasn't doing well and he said just let the 10 process play out, what his words were to me. 11 Q. Did you have a conversation with any other 12 supervisors? 13 A. I think I talked to Sergeant Amoroso over the 14 phone and was, again, just very confused on what was 15 going on and wanted to get some guidance and he said he 16 didn't know anything about it and just to wait for 17 further instruction. 18 Q. Did you ever talk to Sergeant Pfarr? 19 A. I never talked to Sergeant Pfarr directly. I 20 did the next day and he just told me this needs to play 21 out and just to, you know, keep doing what I've been 22 doing. 23 Q. Did he ever tell you to stay out of Officer 24 Waddell's IA? 25 A. He referred to just trying to keep a positive Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2994 ARBITRATION, VOL. 9, 10-2-15 10/2/2015 McDANIEL REPORTING Page: 1898 1 outlook and he said that I should keep my head up and 2 not get dragged into it, is what he told me. 3 Q. Did he tell you that they were looking at 4 attitudes in the department and that you had your own 5 open IA and you should, kind of, watch yourself? 6 A. He said that I should watch my attitude and I 7 said I understand, but Kevin is my friend and I was 8 upset and I said I wasn't going to be -- you know, I 9 wasn't going to be a problem, but I was also upset, he 10 was a friend of mine, he's a personal friend, and I felt 11 bad about the situation. So, yeah, he alluded that I 12 should watch what I'm doing. 13 Q. Did you have -- did you ever see any 14 interactions between Sergeant Pfarr and Officer Waddell 15 that -- strike that. 16 How often did you work downtown bike patrol 17 with Officer Waddell? 18 A. Well, we worked four days a week together. 19 Q. Okay. What was your impression of his work 20 ethic? 21 A. I thought it was fine, I thought it was good. 22 We were a pretty active unit, him and I, with Sergeant 23 Amoroso, we were always downtown doing our checks, 24 visiting the bars, felt we ran a really good unit. 25 Q. Did you -- were you proactive? Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491 Administrative Record Page 2995