Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver

California's premier full-service law firm with an emphasis on the representation of peace officers in disciplinary, criminal, labor, workers' compensation, personal injury and other civil matters.

  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer

Officer’s Suspension for Alleged Off-Duty Misconduct Rescinded

June 2, 2017 by Hien Nguyen

By: William J. Hadden

The readership of this magazine needs no sales pitch on the general benefits of LDF coverage.

However, for those unfamiliar with the benefits of the non-scope rider option available to members in Plan I, the facts of the following case may be instructive.

South Gate Officer Marcelo Bedetti was off duty one evening with a friend, attempting to park his vehicle in a lot in a nearby beach city. As he entered the parking lot in his Jeep, he noticed that, even without the illumination of his high beams, officers in a unit parked in a position facing the entry sought to shield their eyes from his headlights. Bedetti immediately turned off his lights, and sought to park. A full seven seconds later, both of the officers in the unit activated their respective spotlights toward Bedetti’s eyes as he was still driving in an attempt to park. The officers then did their best to block his access to an available space, resulting in some predictable banter between the parties. The situation degenerated from there, with the officers seemingly frustrated in an attempt to find a legal excuse to arrest the completely sober Bedetti. The officers ultimately concluded that Bedetti, who was sporting a conspicuous pink cast on his leg, was sufficiently threatening to require him to be arrested and taken to the ground, after which he was eventually charged with a violation of PC 148.

As the criminal case ran its pre-trial course, the SGPD concluded its internal affairs investigation. Relying, as most any agency would have, on the multiplicity of statements of the arresting officers, it found Bedetti culpable for misconduct, and assessed him a 30-day suspension.

Without the extra non-scope coverage, this is where so many cases would end, with the officer reluctantly realizing that the cost of pursuing an appeal could be far greater than the loss of pay and benefits.

But things changed once the case went to a criminal trial, when a video was produced to contradict some of the arresting officers’ statements, while others were notably consistent in their inconsistency. Bedetti, who testified on his own behalf, was quickly acquitted.

At this point, the benefits of the non-scope program became paramount. Although the criminal matter itself was not within the scope of coverage, anything that flowed from that triumph that could have assisted in a positive administrative outcome was authorized by LDF. Accordingly, we were afforded access to evidence and experts, just as in an on-duty case of great consequence.

In many agencies, there is a marked, stubborn resistance to revisit matters already decided. In this case, however, once the Department learned that the criminal case had fallen apart, and that one of its own may have been egregiously treated by a fellow agency, it became willing to revisit its prior position in advance of a Civil Service hearing. With the advantage of being able to reproduce the entirety of the record of the trial and additional facts, we were in a position to explain the evidence to the Department in a meaningful way to show that, however reasonable it may have seemed to rely on the arresting officers’ versions at the time of its initial review, the facts as gleaned through exhaustive cross-examination revealed that those versions could not be trusted.

After a careful review of all the relevant evidence, much of which had been previously unavailable during the internal process, the Department determined that there was insufficient cause to support the prior action, and appropriately revoked the suspension.

If there is one salient moral to the story, it is that your LDF coverage may be your best buy anywhere; on duty or off duty, don’t leave home without it!

Disclaimer: Case law and analysis can change over time. The information in this article is accurate as of the date the article was written and should not constitute legal advice. Always consult with an attorney.

Filed Under: Bulletins Tagged With: William J. Hadden

Consultation Form

Offices across California to serve you.
Contact us now to schedule a consultation.
Contact form not loading? Click here!
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC publishes this website as a service to our clients and other friends for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice or opinions, and the transmission of information through this website is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between sender and receiver. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

© 2023 Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC. All Rights Reserved. | Disclaimer

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
Do not sell my personal information.
Cookie settingsACCEPTREJECT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT
  • Contact Us

  • News Alerts

Official logo for Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver Logo
  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    ▼
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      ▼
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    ▼
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    ▼
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
Hotline phone numbers. Northern California: 925-609-1699. Southern California: 310-393-1486.