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
    • 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

Recent Appellate Court Decision Discusses A Police Officer’s Right of Association With Others While Off Duty

November 9, 2009 by David Shirley

by Steven Betz and Michael Rains
The California Court of Appeal, in a recent decision entitled Bautista v. County of Los Angeles (2010) 10 CDOS 15104, discusses police officers’ First Amendment right of association while off duty.

Deputy Sheriff Emir Bautista was terminated by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for engaging in a personal relationship with a known prostitute and heroin addict named Shawn Crook in violation of Department policy, which prohibited deputies from “knowingly maintaining a personal association with persons who are under criminal investigation or indictment or who have an open and notorious reputation in the community for criminal activity.”

Bautista initially met Crook while on-duty. Crook admitted that she was a prostitute and a heroin addict. Bautista frequently saw Crook and eventually began a friendship with her: Bautista gave Crook his home phone number and gave her rides home after she finished working the street. He also drove her to a methadone clinic, where Crook received treatment for her addiction. At no point did Bautista seek permission from his department to engage in this relationship or notify a superior of the relationship.

On at least two occasions, members of the Gardena Police Department observed Bautista with Crook. In subsequent contacts, the Police Department learned that Bautista was a deputy sheriff. Around this time, Bautista and Crook moved in together and were eventually married. The Sheriff’s Department learned of Bautista’s relationship with Crook and terminated him for violating department policy.

On appeal, Bautista argued that the regulation was unconstitutional because it violated his freedom of association guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The legal arguments on appeal essentially boiled down to one question: Was the department’s policy a direct infringement on Bautista’s right to marry Crook (i.e. his freedom of association) or did the policy merely pose an incidental effect on Bautista’s right to marry? The court found the question to be important because if it found the policy was a direct infringement on the right to marry, it would likely be invalidated, and Bautista would prevail. If it merely was an incidental infringement on the right to marry then the Department would prevail.

The Court found that the policy was an incidental infringement on the right to marry because it did not “directly and substantially” interfere with the right to marry. Police departments, the Court reasoned, have a legitimate interest in regulating the behavior of their sworn officers to minimize conflicts of interest and protect the credibility and integrity of the departments themselves. In coming to its decision, the Court relied on many other cases which upheld anti-fraternization rules prohibiting police officers from socializing with those who they know are engaging in criminal activity.

Bautista argued that to apply the rule to him was absurd, because he in fact had helped someone get out of a life of crime: his relationship with Crook enabled her to cease working as a prostitute and helped her overcome her drug addiction. The Court, however, was unpersuaded by this argument. The Court noted that despite these positive aspects of the relationship, the Department was nonetheless injured in its standing with the community and with other law enforcement agencies. Therefore, the Court found it irrelevant that Bautista in fact saved Crook from a life of crime.

This case is important to peace officers and their careers because it reaffirms other court rulings which authorize police departments to regulate a police officer’s personal life. While restrictions that “directly and substantially” interfere with a police officer’s freedom of association will be found unlawful, indirect restrictions will be upheld if they are chiefly aimed at protecting the integrity of the law enforcement agency and its officers.

In previous decisions which deal with police officer’s Fifth Amendment rights to remain silent, the courts have uniformly held that an officer has a constitutional right to remain silent during an internal affairs interview, but he does not have a constitutional right to keep his job if he makes such a decision. In many respects, this case is similar—Bautista had a right to associate with and marry a drug addict and prostitute, but he did not have a right to keep his law enforcement job for doing so.

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: michael-l-rains, steven-betz

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
    • 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.