Date post: | 07-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | lakeconews |
View: | 226 times |
Download: | 0 times |
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 1/30
ANITA L. GRANT (State Bar No. 144603)County CounselLLOYD C. GUINTIVANO (State Bar No. 242944)
A
Deputy County Counsel255 North Forbes StreetLakeport, California 95453
Telephone: (707) 263-2321Facsimile: (707) 263-0702
Attorneys for County of Lake and the County of Lake Sheriff’s Office
S UP ERIOR COURT OF THE S TATE OF CALIF OM11A
Petitioner,
V
Case No. CV 410353
COUNTY OF LAKE; LAKE COUNTYSHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; and DOES 1through 10, inclusive,earing Date: August 22, 2011
Time::00 a.m.Respondents.epartment: I
I N T R O D U C T I O N
Petitioner COREY PAULICH has filed a petition for writ of administrative
mandamus requesting to compel FRANCISCO RIVERO and COUNTY OF LAKE
(hereinafter, collectively, "County") County to set aside the disciplinary investigation
against Petitioner.
County objects to any writ on the grounds Government Code Section 3303 does
not apply based on the discussions between Sheriff Francisco Rivero and the
Petitioner. In the alternative, even if Government Code Section 3303 applies, County
did not violate its provisions. Also, the County did not violate Petitioner’s representation
Memorandum in Opposition to Petition and Application for Writ 12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
2 1
2 2
23
2 4
25
2 6
2 7
2 8
COREY PAULICHas
II4w
ft
irnui
isi: A 1l
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 2/30
I rights.
2TATEMENT OF CASE
3
n or about July 11, 2011, Petitioner filed a Petition for Peremptory Writ of
4 Mandate. Petitioner also filed an ex parte application for alternative writ of mandate on
5 July 21, 2011 requesting that County set aside the disciplinary investigation against
6 Petitioner; or in the alternative, show cause why a peremptory writ of mandate should
7 not issue commanding the same. On July 21, 2011, a hearing on Petitioner’s
8 alternative writ of mandate was held and the court ordered the County to set aside the
9 disciplinary investigation against the Petitioner or in the alternative to show cause on
10 August 22, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. in Department One why the County has not done so.
1 1
1 2TATEMENT OF FACTS
1 3On or about March 13, 2011, Lake County Sheriff Francisco Rivera received
1 4information from the Clearlake Police Department that about a vehicle pursuit on March
1 513, 2011 (hereinafter, the "incident") involving two (2) Lake County sheriff deputies
1 6supervised by the Petitioner. To get an accurate account of the circumstances
17 surrounding the event, Sheriff Rivera contacted Petitioner by phone hours after the
18 incident and continued the discussion when Petitioner reported to the Lake County
19 Sheriff’s Office in the early evening. To memorialize their discussion, Sheriff Rivera
20sent an email to Petitioner later that evening reminding him of the Lake County Sheriff’s
21Office rules and procedures. Petitioner responded to Sheriff Rivera’s email and Sheriff
22Rivero responded to clarify Petitioner’s responsibilities as a deputy sheriff sergeant and
23 as the supervisor of the two (2) Lake County sheriff deputies involved in the incident.
24I/I
25
26III
27I/I
28emorandum in Opposition to Petition and Application for Writ
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 3/30
1RGUMENT
2 I .OUNTY’S DISCUSSION OF THE INCIDENT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE
3 i ieiuj ii’i i:isi e] [sl:1 1I ei: i
4
overnment Code Section 3303 shall not apply to any interrogation of a public
5 safety officer in the normal course of duty, counseling, instruction, or informal verbal
6 admonishment by, or other routine or unplanned contact with a supervisor or any other
7 public safety officer. Government Code Section 3303(i).
8n Steinert v. City of Covina (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 458, 464 [53 Cal.Rptr.3d 1,
9 4], the court considered whether a sergeant’s conversation with a police officer, where
10 the sergeant treated the issue as an opportunity to train the officer and to give the
officer another perspective. The court held that since there was no suspicion by the
12 sergeant that misconduct by the officer occurred and the only intention is to instruct and
13 train the officer of the following the proper procedures to prevent the same mistake from
14 happening, Government Code Section 3303 would not apply. Steinert, 146 Cal.App.4th
15 at 466 [53 Cal.Rptr.3d at 7]. The second paragraph of Government Code Section
16 3303(i) "is intended to cover innocent preliminary or casual questions or remarks
17 between a supervisor and officer. It was included to avoid claims that almost any
18 communication is elevated to an investigation." City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court
19 (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1514 [67 Cal.Rptr.2d 775, 778].
20heriff Rivero’s discussions with the Petitioner consisted of routine
21 communications where Sheriff Rivera reminded Petitioner of the Lake County Sheriff’s
22 Office’s rules and procedures. Declaration of Francisco Rivero, at 2:10 - 4:18. After
23 reviewing the Watch Commander Logs and receiving information from the Clearlake
24 Police Department regarding the incident by Lake County Sheriff’s Office deputies who
25 were supervised by the Petitioner, Sheriff Rivera contacted Petitioner to get a full
26 account of the incident. Declaration of Francisco Rivero, at 2:6 - 4:18. In light of the
27
28emorandum in Opposition to Petition and Application for Writ
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 4/30
seriousness of the incident, Sheriff Rivero found it appropriate to promptly meet with
Petitioner in order to instruct and train him as to proper conduct under the Lake County
Sheriff’s rules and procedures. Declaration of Francisco Rivero, at 2:24 - 3:5. The
email communications between the parties clearly show Sheriff Rivero’s reminder to the
Petitioner of these rules and procedures for purposes of training and instruction due to
Petitioner’s mistake. Declaration of Francisco Rivero, at 3:26 - 4:5. In the normal
course of administering his department, Sheriff Rivero conducted a routine discussion
as to the nature and circumstances of an accident involving a Lake County Sheriff’s
9 vehicle. Declaration of Francisco Rivero, at 4:6-16. Therefore, the provisions under
10 Government Code Section 3303, including, but not limited to, disclosing information
11 about the interrogation, the tape-recording of the interrogation, and the right of
12 representation. Since the purpose of Sheriff Rivero’s discussions with Petitioner was to
13 inquire about the incident and instruct and train him, these discussions are excluded
14 from the requirements of Government Code Section 3303, and Petitioner has no basis
15 for his claimed requirements under Government Code Section 3303.
16 II .OUNTY DID NOT PROHIBIT PETITIONER FROM OBTAINING
17 COMPENSATION FOR HIS OFF-DUTY DISCUSSION.
18ursuant to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding between the
19 County of Lake and the Lake County deputy Sheriffs’ Association, overtime
20 compensation for the off-duty discussions between Sheriff Rivero and Petitioner has
21 always been made available to the Petitioner. Declaration of Francisco Rivero, at 4:22 -
22 5:4. Pursuant to Lake County Sheriff’s Office department policy, Lake County Sheriff’s
23 Office employees are required to report their overtime hours through their payroll
24 timesheet. Declaration of Francisco Rivero, at 4:22 - 5:1 . Nowhere in Petitioner’s writ
25 documents did Sheriff Rivero prohibit Petitioner from including overtime hours in his
26 timesheet. Since Petitioner failed to comply with the County of Lake Personnel Rules in
27
28emorandum in Opposition to Petition and Application for Writ
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 5/30
reporting his overtime, he did not receive overtime hours for off-duty discussion with
Sheriff Rivero. Sheriff Rivero has always made overtime compensation available to
Petitioner for their off-duty discussions, and the absence of overtime payment is due to
Petitioner’s failure to report it as required by the County of Lake Personnel Rules.
III. THE DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN SHERIFF RIVERO AND PETITIONER WERE
NECESSARY DUE TO THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE INCIDENT.
7ven if Government Code Section 3303 applies, the seriousness of the incident
8 necessitates the discussions between Sheriff Rivero and the Petitioner. "The
9 interrogation shall be conducted at a reasonable hour, preferably at a time when the
10 public safety officer is on duty, or during the normal waking hours for the public safety
11 officer, unless the seriousness of the investigation requires otherwise." Government
12 Code Section 3303(a).
1 3he incident consisted of a vehicle pursuit that resulted in the use of deadly force
14 and a Lake County Sheriff’s Office vehicle ramming the suspect’s vehicle. In light of
15 these serious circumstances, Sheriff Rivero contacted Petitioner by telephone just
16 hours after the incident in order to get an accurate account of the incident. Declaration
17 of Francisco Rivero, at 2:24 - 3:7. This conversation continued in the early evening in
18 the Lake County Sheriff’s Office. Declaration of Francisco Rivero, at 3:8-18. A
19 follow-up discussion was held by email, to which Petitioner had the opportunity to
20 respond to Sheriff Rivero’s email at Petitioner’s convenience. Declaration of Francisco
21 Rivera, at 3:19 - 4:13. The circumstances surrounding the incident are serious to
22 warrant a prompt communication between the Sheriff and the sergeant involved in
23 supervising the two (2) deputies involved in the collision. Furthermore, the
24 communications took place at reasonable hours, one of which is by email that gave the
25 Petitioner an opportunity to respond any time.
26 III27
28emorandum in Opposition to Petition and Application for Writ
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 6/30
1 k’.1uJ I1.1 I.I i:iill IIk’AII]P
2ven if Government Code Section 3303 applies, Sheriff Rivero’s
3 communications with Petitioner regarding the incident did reference punitive action.
4 "[P]unitive action means any action that may lead to dismissal, demotion, suspension,
5 reduction in salary, written reprimand, or transfer for purposes of punishment."
6 Government Code Section 3303.
7owhere in Petitioner’s writ documents did it state that Sheriff Rivero
8 communicated a dismissal, demotion, suspension, reduction in salary, written
9 reprimand, or transfer for purposes of punishment" as defined by Government Code
10 Section 3303. Petitioner claims to that Sheriff Rivero’s use of the phrase "held
11 accountable" refers to punitive action. The word "accountable" is defined as "subject to
12 giving an account: answerable <held her accountable for the damage>." Online
13 Merriam -Webster Dictionary (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accountable).
14 Sheriff Rivero’s email clearly stated that Petitioner would be held "accountable knowing
15 the rules and for the actions of you [sic] subordinates. Declaration of Francisco Rivero,
16 at 3:26 - 4:5. As part of Petitioner’s duties as a sergeant and supervisor of the two (2)
17 deputy sheriffs involved in the incident, he is responsible for the supervision of these
18 deputy sheriffs. Also, all deputy sheriffs and deputy sheriff sergeants are responsible
19 for following and enforcing the Lake County Sheriff’s Office rules and procedures. To
20 not allow accountability in this context would disregard the enforceability of these rules
21 and procedures. Declaration of Francisco Rivero, at 4:14-16.
2 2 V.HERIFF RIVERO DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO ADVISE PETITIONER THAT
2 3 i:i:Cl I (.1 1 J *1 If.Il [S] £ (SIp V J 1 ifS] 1IJ
2 4
The complete interrogation of a public safety officer may be recorded."
25 Government Code Section 3303(g). "Upon the filing of formal written statement of
26 charges, or whenever an interrogation focuses on matters that are likely to result in
2 7
2 8emorandum in Opposition to Petition and Application for Writ
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 7/30
punitive action against any public safety officer, that officer, at his or her request, shall
2 have the right to be represented by a representative of his or her choice who may be
3 present at all times during the interrogation." Government Code Section 3303(i).
4
s discussed above, Sheriff Rivero simply reminded Petitioner of the Lake
5 County Sheriff’s Office Rules and Procedures as part of routine training and instruction.
6 Declaration of Francisco Rivero, at 2:10 - 4:18. Government Code Section 3303(g) is
7 permissive, and Sheriff Rivero did nothing to prevent Petitioner’s access to a
8 tape-recorder. Government Code Section 3303(i) requires a formal written statement of
9 charges and a statement of punitive action before triggering the right to representation.
10 As shown above, there is nothing punitive about Sheriff Rivero’s instructional
11 statements to Petitioner. Furthermore, there is no formal written statement of charges
12 at the time of the discussions because the discussions between Sheriff Rivero and
13 Petitioner consisted of routine instruction and training, not an investigation. Declaration
14 of Francisco Rivero, at 4:11-18.
1 5 VI. COUNTY DID NOT VIOLATE PETITIONER’S REPRESENTATION RIGHTS.
16he scope of representation shall not include consideration of the merits,
17 necessity, or organization of any service or activity provided by law or executive order.
18 Government Code Section 3504. Notwithstanding the scope of representation
19 provisions, the action or policy must have a significant and adverse effect on the wages,
20 hours, or working condition of bargaining-unit employees. Claremont Police Officers
21 Ass’n. v. City of Claremont (2006) 39 Cal.4th 623, 631 [47 Cal.Rptr.3d 69, 74].
22 Sheriff Rivero’s communications towards Petitioner had no relation on Petitioner’s
23 wages, hours or working conditions. Sheriff Rivero’s communications neither proposes
24 to implement a new policy towards the bargaining-unit employees, nor did he propose a
25 new policy towards Petitioner. Rather, he reiterated the rules and procedures that have
26 been in place as part of the merits, necessity or organization of the Lake County
27
28emorandum in Opposition to Petition and Application for Writ
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 8/30
1 Sheriffs Office. Declaration of Francisco Rivero, at 3:12 - 4:18. As discussed above,
2 Sheriff Rivero’s communications with Petitioner were not investigative in nature
3 because its purpose is to train and instruct Petitioner in proper compliance with the
4 Lake County Sheriff’s Office rules and procedures. Declaration of Francisco Rivero, at
5 4:1 1-16. The contents of their discussions did not apply to "wages, hours, and other
6 terms or conditions of employment." Government Code Section 3504. Rather, these
7 discussions consisted of Sheriff Rivero’s instruction towards Petitioner to comply with
8 the Lake County Sheriff’s rules and procedures. Declaration of Francisco Rivera, at
9
:11-16.
10
1 1ONCLUSION12or the reasons discussed above, the County of Lake respectfully requests that
13 this Court deny Petitioner’s petition and application for writ.
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
2 2
2 3
Date: August 9, 2011 Respectfully submitted,ANITA L. GRANT
By:LLOYD C. GUINTIVANODeputy County CounselAttorney for the County of Lake
24
25
2 6
2 7
2 8emorandum in Opposition to Petition and Application for Writ
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 9/30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
J
I, the undersigned, declare:
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of Lake, State of
California. I am over 18 years of age and not a party to the within matter. My business
address is 255 North Forbes Street, Lakeport, California.
On August 9, 20111 served a copy of the following document(s) addressed asfollows:
United States Postal Service by placing such envelope(s) with postagethereon fully prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail in accordancewith office’s practice, whereby the mail is deposited in the United StatesPostal Service mailbox in the City of Lakeport, California.
X_nited Parcel Service express overnight delivery by placing such envelope(s)with postage thereon fully prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail inaccordance with office’s practice, whereby the mail is delivered to anauthorized courier or driver authorized by United Parcel Service to receivedocuments, in an envelope or package designated by United Parcel Servicewith delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person on whom it isto be served at that party’s place of residence.
Christopher MillerMastagni, Holstedt, Amick, Miller & Johnsen1912 "I" StreetSacramento, CA 95814
Deposited in the Lake County Courthouse box, Fourth Floor, Superior CourtClerk’s Office, 255 North Forbes Street, Lakeport, California 95453.
Federal Express.
F ax * to (916) 447-4614 and (916)491-4254
Mr. Jeffrey R.A. Edwards, Esq.Mastagni, Holstedt, Amick, Miller & JohnsenA Professional Corporation
Personally delivered to person(s) at address(es) listed below.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
declaration was executed on August 9, 2011, at Lakeport, California.
Lloyd C. Guintivano
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 10/30
I ANITA L. GRANT (State Bar No. 144603)County Counsel
2 LLOYD C. GUINTIVANO (State Bar No. 242944)Deputy County Counsel
3 255 North Forbes StreetLakeport, California 95453
4 Telephone: (707) 263-2321Facsimile: (707) 263-0702
Attorneys for the Francisco Rivero, County of Lake Sheriff and the County of Lake6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA8
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LAKE9
10 COREY PAULICH,ECLARATION OF COUNTY OFLAKE SHERIFF FRANCISCO RIVERO
1 1N SUPPORT OF MEMORANDUM INPetitioner,PPOSITION TO PETITION AND
12PPLICATION FOR WRIT
1 3
V.
14ase No. CV 410353COUNTY OF LAKE; LAKE COUNTY
15 SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; and DOES 116 through 10, inclusive,earing Date: August 22, 2011
Time::00 am.17
espondents.epartment: 1
I18
19
I, Francisco Rivero, declare:2 0
1 .am the Sheriff for the County of Lake (hereinafter, "County"), and hereby21
make this declaration in support of the Memorandum in Opposition to Application for2 2
Alternative Writ.23
2 .s part of my duties as Sheriff, I am responsible for the operation of the
2 4Lake County Office of the Sheriff.
25
3.have been Sheriff for the County of Lake since January 3, 2011.2 6
4 .s part of my duties as Sheriff, I am responsible for the management and2 7
2 8
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 11/30
1 supervision of deputy sheriffs and deputy sheriff sergeants.
2.s part of my duties as Sheriff, I am responsible for supervising County of
3 Lake deputy sheriffs and County of Lake deputy sheriff sergeants to ensure that they
4 follow and comply with the Lake County Office of the Sheriff regulations, rules and
5 procedures.
6.s part of my duties as Sheriff, I am responsible for ensuring that County
7 of Lake deputy sheriff sergeants maintain proper supervision over their deputy sheriff
8 subordinates in compliance with the Lake County Office of the Sheriff regulations, rules,
9 and procedures.
10
.n March 13, 2011, I received, via e-mail, the overnight Watch
11 Commander Log for 03/13/2011, 0000-0600 hours. The Watch Commander Log is a
12 briefing prepared by Central Dispatch chronicling the events of the shift. Attached
13 hereto as Exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy of the overnight Watch Commander Log
14 for 03/13/2011, 0000-0600 hours.
1 5.s part of my routine duties as Sheriff, I review the Watch Commander
16 Log every morning to inform myself of events that took place during the time stated in
17 the Watch Commander Log.
18.he Watch Commander Log alerted me to a chase initiated by a
19 Clearlake Police Unit (CPD) that culminated with a Lake County Sheriff’s (LCSO) unit
20 terminating the pursuit by forcibly ramming the suspect’s. I contacted the day-watch
21 LCSO sergeant, as well as CPD Sergeant Hobbs. Sgt. Hobbs told me that the CPD
22 officer who had initiated the chase had expressed concerns regarding the LCSO
23 deputy’s decision to forcibly stop the vehicle by ramming it.
2 4
0 .pon receiving the information from CPD and due to the seriousness of
25 the use of deadly force surrounding the incident, I called Petitioner between 3:20 PM
26 and 5:50 PM on March 13, 2011 to get an accurate account of the facts and
2 7
2 81
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 12/30
circumstances surrounding the incident.
11y phone conversation with the Petitioner consisted of inquiring as to why
the LCSO was involved in the chase, what had occurred during the chase, had he
monitored the chase, to inquire as to why he did not notify me as to the chase and the
use of force, and to ask him to obtain the deputy’s Mobile Audio Visual unit.
12.s part of Petitioner’s duties as deputy sheriff sergeant, he is required to
7 report serious incidents to me after they occurred.
H E3 .n or about 6:30 p.m. on March 13, 2011, I met with Petitioner in the
sergeant’s office when he reported to the Lake County Sheriff’s Office after retrieving
10 the deputy’s vehicle and returning it the Sheriff’s Main Office. We continued our
11 discussion as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident.
1 24 .y continued discussion with Petitioner on or about 6:30 p.m. on
13 March 13, 2011 consisted of asking him if he was aware of the fact that the CPD chase
14 had been initiated over an expired vehicle registration. I also asked him if he
15 understood the LCSO vehicle pursuit policy and his obligation to terminate pursuits
16 based on a multifaceted risk assessment. In the course of my discussions with
17 Petitioner, Petitioner stated to me that the Lake County Sheriff’s Office policy should
18 state under what circumstance he should intervene in the incident.
1 95.n response to his statement regarding policies within the Lake
20 County Sheriff’s Office, I decided to memorialize the discussion in an email dated
21 March 13, 2011, to which I reminded the Petitioner of his duties as a deputy sheriff
22 sergeant.
23
6.n March 13, 2011, Petitioner responded to my email clarifying his
24 statement regarding Lake County Sheriff’s Policy, and I reiterated his duties as shift
25 supervisor in a response email dated March 14, 2011.
2 67.ttached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a true and correct copy of the
27
28
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 13/30
1 email communications between me and the Petitioner from March 13, 2011 to March
2 14, 2011, in which I mentioned to Petitioner that as a shift supervisor he will be held
3 accountable knowing the rules and he will be held accountable for the actions of his
4 subordinates. My email also proceeded to cite the Lake County Sheriffs Office rules
5 and regulations as a reminder to Petitioner of his duties as shift supervisor.
68.ll of my discussions with Petitioner are part of my routine duties as
7 Sheriff in gathering and collecting information from shift supervisors regarding a serious
8 incident involving the use of deadly force.
19.s the shift supervisor during the incident, Petitioner has a responsibility
10 of reporting the facts and circumstances concerning the incident to me.
1 10.s part of my routine duties as Sheriff, I need to inquire into the nature
12 and circumstances of the incident because a County of Lake accident report form
13 needed to be completed in accidents involving Lake County Sheriff’s Office vehicles.
1 41 .he purpose of my discussions with Petitioner were to inquire about the
15 incident, instruct, train, and remind him of the Lake County Sheriff’s Office rules and
16 procedures regarding the pursuit of vehicles.
1 7
2.s the shift supervisor during the incident, Petitioner has a responsibility
18 enforce and comply with the Lake County Sheriff’s Office’s rules and procedures.
193.have never discussed overtime hours with Petitioner during our
20 discussions and I have never prohibited Petitioner from reporting overtime hours in his
21 time sheet for our discussions that took place during his off-duty hours.
224.ttached as Exhibit "C" are true and correct copies of February 14, 2011
23 and March 14, 2011 emails and from the Lake County Sheriff’s Office sent to Petitioner
24 and other employees of the Lake County Sheriff’s Office informing him of the Lake
25 County Sheriff’s Office policy to report overtime hours on the slip form. These emails
26 were sent to Petitioner on a monthly basis as a reminder to properly report overtime
27
28eclaration of County of Lake Sheriff Francisco Riveroi
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 14/30
1 Iii.iuii
25.ttached hereto as Exhibit ’D" is a true and correct copy of the "Lake
3 County S.O. Time Authorization / Use" slip form in which Petitioner reported twelve (12)
4 hours of overtime from March 13, 2011 at 1800 hours to March 14, 2011 at 0600 hours.
5declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
6
7 Dated: August 9, 2011
8
, ’ ~ ~ F RAICISCORIVERO9
10
1 1
12
1 3
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2 6
2 7
2 8eclaration of County of Lake Sheriff Francisco Rivero
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 15/30
i m:
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 16/30
WATCH COMMANDER LOG
03/13/2011
0000-0600 HOURS
BEAT 3E, 1154
At 0017, 461 went out on an 1154 at Lakeshore BI & Nice Lucerne Cutoff. Closed OK at
0018.
BEAT 6C, 415F
At 0038 459 & 424 were dispatched code 3 to a call of a family 415 with the male half
threatening the RP with a gun. Rp then stated the male had grabbed a gun and cocked it
still making threats to the RP. 458 came up on his way home was ok’d to respond by 414
as he was the closest unit. Also at the residence was the RP’s 16 yo daughter and they
were locked in a room. Male half, Curtis Galloway, called in on 911 advising that the RP
was the problem and he didn’t have a weapon. 458 arrived on scene at 0042 hrs and 414arrived at 0043. The male was asked by dispatch to go to the door with his hands in plain
view to contact the deputies on scene. 424 ran a 40 caliber pistol through AFS with no
results. 459 went 10-15 with the male half at 0124 and transported him to Hill Rd at
0153. Detail closed AR, RT at 0215 hrs. (lhr & 37 mins)
BEAT 5A, 1154
At 0055 448 went out with an 1154 at Highland Springs & Highway 29 Lakeport. Ran
Antonio Orozco-Jimenez 27N and cleared the call OK at 0108 hrs. (13 mins)
BEAT 5A, SECK
At 0112, 448 did a security check at The Brick in Kelseyville. Call closed OK at 0116
hrs. (4 mins)
BEAT 6C, PEDC
At 0116 hrs 414 did a pedestrian check at 9195 Takelma Wy Kelseyville. Closed OK at
0119 hrs. (3 mins)
BEAT 3C, SUSC
At 0139, 461 & 448 were dispatched to Water’s Edge Trailer Park 3317 Hwy 20 #7, Nice
for a report of a drunk female behind the residence trying to talk to the home owner
through her window. 461 got on scene at 0155 hrs and closed GA at 0200 (03 00) and
448 was canceled.
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 17/30
BEAT 6A, CPDA
At 0145 hrs 424 was dispatched to assist CPD with a pursuit that was approaching the Y.3P9 & 3S4 were west bound Hwy 20 and 424 was advised they were headed back
towards the city of Clearlake via Sulphur Bank Dr. 424 was headed to cut off the subjectat
16thand Country Club in Clearlake. CPD units were unreadable on their channel so
Central took over the pursuit traffic on primary.424 entered the pursuit as the 2
d
car at0155 hrs. Pursuit continued down Arrowhead to Bush, then turned onto 3 r d and ended up
on East Lake Ext. where it went into a field next to 13480 Eastlake Ext. At 0157 h rs 446(who was doubled with 424 using 424’s number) advised that the responsible vehicle
t/c’d into their patrol vehicle. 446 advised that he, 424 and their K 9 partner were code 4
and central started station 70 as a precaution. CPD 3P9 advised they had one detained
and were code 4 at 0159 hrs. CPD ran Matthew Bronsert DOE 05/25/1969 10-27 an d
advised 10 -15 at 0301 hrs (time change). 424 went with CPD to the area of the Y to look
for evidence, 424 Cleared RT Case 11030210 at 0348 hrs. (1 hr 3 mins)
BEAT 3B, PEDC
At 0151 hrs, 448 went out with one at the Rodman Slough. Transported the subject to
4035 Lakeshore BI, Lakeport and closed CA at 0304 hrs. (1 4 mins)
BEAT 3C, 415F
At 0306 hrs 4 61 & 4 4 8 were sent to 2375 Hwy 20 Nice for a report of a man, Ryan Hod,
who punched Shayla Cranford’s car and vacuum and parties were separated. 46 1 went
out with a possible DUI and 459 went en route to back 44 8 from th e jail. 448 on scene at
0323 hrs and 459 at 0331 hrs. 459 went 10-8 at 0331 and 448 did an area check for the
male stating it was verbal only and closed unable to locate at 0340 hrs. (3 4 mins)
BEAT 3E, TSTOP
At 0317 hrs 46 1 pulled over a possible DUI vehicle at Hwy 29 & Nice Lucerne Cutoff.
He requested CHP for a turn over at 0318 and ran Clifford Maner DOB 04/14/1978 at
0319 hrs. CHP arrived on scene at 0335 hrs and was 10-15 at 0347 hrs. 46 1 cleared the
call RT/OS at 0401 hrs.
BEAT 6A, PEDC
AT 0335 hrs 424 went out with a pedestrian at Highway 53 & Ogulin Canyon, Cleared
OS at 0342 hrs. (7 mins)
BEAT 7A, SUSC
At 0348 hrs, 459 & 424 were dispatched to 19929 Mountain Meadow North HV for a
male heard yelling at a female. 459 cancelled 424 at 0354 hrs and went on scene in the
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 18/30
are at 0413 hrs. 459 went out with the RP at 0420 then out at the address listed clearingthe call OK verbal only at 0432 hrs.pr: LST
At 0355 hrs, Dep Clark responded to a report of a barking dog on 1 s t Street. CLOSEDGA (4 minutes)
At 0435 hrs, Dep Cook and Zepeda were dispatched to a report of a loud party on Clay
St. CLOSED GA Unable to locate any noise or party. (9 minutes)
BEAT 3B SECURITY CHECK
At 0616 hrs, Dep Daskarn conducted a check at Pivniska Trucking on Hwy 20. CLOSED
OK (4 minutes)
3B SECURITY CHECK
At 0620 hrs, Dep Daskam conducted a check on Main St. CLOSED OK (2 minutes)
6B FOOT PATROL
At 0626 hrs, Dep Newton conducted patrol on Main St. CLOSED OK (17 minutes)
3D SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE CHECK
At 0642 hrs, Dep Daskam conducted a check on a vehicle at Lucerne Harbor. CLOSEDOK (1 minute)
7A SECURITY CHECK
At 0729 hrs, Dep Newton conducted a check at Tri Counties Bank and then West
America Bank. CLOSED OK (6 minutes)
4B THEFT
At 0738 hrs, Dep Djernes responded to a report of a stolen cell phone by known subjects.
CLOSED GS (1 5 minutes)
7A SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE CHECK
At 0744 his, Dep Newton conducted a check on a vehicle. CLOSED OK (3 minutes)
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 19/30
7A SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE CH ECK
At 0803 firs, Dep Newton conducted a check on a vehicle. He ran a 27Nora on one male
subject. CLOSED OK (8 minutes)
3B SECURITY CHECK
At 0809 hrs, Dep Daskam conducted a security check at Tule Lake Rd/Hwy 29.
CLOSED OK (3 minutes)
3D WELFARE CHECK
At 0829 his, Dep Daskam responded to a request for a welfare check at Lorraine Village.
CLOSED OK (3 minutes)
3B PEDESTRIAN CHECK
At 0829 hrs, Dep Daskam conducted a check on one. Ran subject 27Nora. CLOSED OK
(3 minutes)
SA CONTEMPT OF COURT
At 0856 his, Dep Hockett responded to a report of a possible 166.4 violation. CLOSED
GS (17 minutes)
3F SECURITY CHECK
At 0908 hrs, Dep Daskam conducted a check at the Fair Grounds. CLOSED OK (7
minutes)
7A SECURITY CHECK
At 0916 Dep Newton conducted a check at Middletown Garden Apts and then
Middletown Manor Apts. He ran two 10-28’s. CLOSED OK (9 minutes)
7A SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE CHECK
At 0930 hrs, Dep Newton conducted a vehicle check. CLOSED WA (2 minutes)
4C TRESPASSING
At 0946 hrs, Dep Thomas responded to possible trespassers with a tent at a neighboring
property. CLOSED UN (8 minutes)
4B FOLLOW UP
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 20/30
7A FOOT PATROL
At 1113 hrs, Dep Thomas conducted patrol at Middletown Park. CLOSED OK (3
minutes)
w_.1.I. iiusjp
1124 hrs, Dep Daskam conducted patrol at Lucerne Harbor. Ran a check on one subject.
CLOSED OK (25 minutes)
4B BRANDISHING WEAPON
At 1151 hrs, Dep Daskam, Det Hockett and Sgt Basor responded to a report of a male
who shot at another subject on Elk Mt Rd. STILL PENDING
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 21/30
AUIJU-
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 22/30
From: Francisco Rivero
Sent: Monday, March 14, 20116:19 AM
To: Corey Paulich
Cc: Rob Howe; Chris Macedo; Brian Martin; Dave Perry; James Bauman
Subject: RE: LCSO policy concerning pursuits
Sgt Paulish,
Our conversation was concerning your duty to inquire about the reason for the
pursuit. If an SO unit gets involved in a pursuit, either at the request of another
agency or on their own, you are obligated to inquire about the reason for the -chase, make a risk assessment and determine whether or not to terminate our
involvement. This is what you should of done and did not do
From: Corey Paulich
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 11:26 PM
To: Francisco Rivero
Cc: Rob Howe; Chris Macedo; Brian Martin; Dave Perry; James Bauman
Subject: RE: LCSO policy concerning pursuits
I’m sorry if I left you with that impression. I am ful ly aware of my obligation as a supervisor to monitor and
terminate a pursuit involving members of the Sheriffs Office when necessary. I think my comment was in
relation to the canceling of another agency’s pursuit that is in county jurisdiction at the point our unit was
not directly involved.
Sergeant Corey Paulich
Lake County Sheriffs Office
Enforcement Division1220 Martin Street
Lakeport, CA 95453
707-262-4200
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or
legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized
interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender
and destroy all copies of the communication.
8/5/2011
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 23/30
From: Francisco Rivero
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 20118:08 PM
To: Corey Paulich
Cc: Rob How e; Chr is Macedo; Br ian Mart in; Dave Perry; James Baum an
Subject: LCSO policy concerning pursuits
Sgt. Paulich,
In speaking to you this evening you left me with the impression that you believe you have
little if any obligation to monitor or make decisions on termination of pursuits. You said
the SO policy should state under what circumstance you should intervene. Well it does.
Please read the following excerpts from our rules and procedures concerning that topic. Be
advised that irrespective of what agency initiates a pursuit, you have an absolute
responsibility to monitor SO units and refuse to participate or terminate their
participation when appropriate. As shift supervisor you will be held accountable knowing
the rules and for the actions of you subordinates.
Frank Rivero
Sheriff
C. PURSUIT OF VEHICLES
A pursuit is that driving concerned with the pursuit and apprehension of a violator in a
motor vehicle, consistent with the provisions of California Vehicle Code sections 21055
and 21056 CVC. During such pursuits it is the policy of the Department that deputies
proceed in a manner consistent with the safety and well being of all persons. When
circumstances indicate that the life and safety of any person is endangered because of a
pursuit, such pursuit shall be terminated in all but the gravest of circumstances.
1. SAFETY RULES REGARDING PURSUIT: California Vehicle Code Section
21055 provides that an emergency vehicle may disregard Division 11, "Rules of the
Road’, when in pursuit of an actual or suspected violator. To be termed an emergency
vehicle, the red light(s) must be in operation. The siren shall be operated when reasonable
or when necessary as determined by the existing conditions. This exemption however,
does not relieve the driver from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all
persons using the roadway nor protect him from the consequences of an arbitrary exercise
of the privileges granted. The following techniques should serve as aids in assisting
deputies during pursuit. However, a member’s good judgment is the most important
safety factor.I When using the siren and red light, do not attempt to pass on the right of another
vehicle unless absolutely necessary. This should be attempted only as a last resort,
such as when a vehicle stops directly in the path of the emergency unit, and there are
no other alternatives.
II When driving at high speeds with red lights and siren, drive near the center of the
street so that approaching vehicles can see the red lights.
III Give motorists and pedestrians an opportunity to yield the right of way.
d. Drive with due regard for all persons and vehicles using the roadway.
E-1.5
2. FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN INITIATING/TERMINATING PURSUITS
Whenever a pursued person clearly exhibits the intention of avoiding the arrest by using a
8/5/2011
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 24/30
vehicle to flee or when a known or suspected law violator refuses to stop, the deputy
must decide whether or not to initiate a pursuit. Once a pursuit has been initiated, the
deputy, and the deputy’s supervisor, shall constantly reassess the conditions of the pursuit
to determine whether or not the pursuit will be allowed to continue. In making these
decisions, the deputy and supervisor must remember that apprehension of the violator is
rarely more important than the safety of the deputy, and never more important than the
safety of innocent persons.
a . Initiating Pursuits--A deputy may initiate a vehicle pursuit when a known wanted
felon is in the vehicle; when the occupant(s) of the vehicle has committed a crime in
the member’s presence; or, when the member has an articulable reason for wanting to
stop the vehicle. A vehicle pursuit should only be initiated when, under the
circumstances, the pursuit would not pose an unreasonable risk to innocent persons or
the deputy. In making this determination, the following factors should be considered:
1. The nature of the offense, whether or not the offense was committed in the
deputy’s presence and whether or not the offender is a juvenile.
2. The volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
3. Visibility, surface and other road conditions and weather conditions.
4. The capability of the deputy’s vehicle, the deputy’s experience and the
likelihood of apprehension.5. The capability of the offender’s vehicle to outperform the deputy’s vehicle.
6. The ability to identify and/or apprehend the offender at a later time.
b. Terminating Pursuits--Once a pursuit has been initiated by a member, the factors
which justified the pursuit may change rapidly and so must be constantly reassessed
by the deputy and the supervisor assuming control of the pursuit. The deputy shall
terminate a vehicular pursuit when:
1. so directed by the supervisor assuming control of the pursuit, or;
2. when the reason for apprehending the pursued vehicle is clearly outweighed by the
risk of harm imposed on innocent persons and/or the deputy.
E-l.6
In addition to the factors listed in subsection (a) above, the following additional factors
should also be considered by the member in determining whether or not to terminate avehicle pursuit:
a . Whether the suspect has been identified to the point where later apprehension
can be accomplished.
b . The driving pattern and/or other behavior of the offender during the pursuit.
c. The availability of aerial surveillance to monitor the offender’s vehicle.
d. Whether or not the pursued vehicle is so far ahead of the pursuing vehicle, that
continued pursuit would be futile.
Upon termination of a pursuit, the pursuing member shall, if reasonably possible, perform
an overt act that would demonstrate that the member is no longer pursuing the
violator. Such overt acts can include, but are not limited to the following in
conjunction with deactivation of emergency lighting equipment:
a . Performing a lawful U-turn
b. Turning off the highway on which the pursuit is occurring
c. Stopping on the side of the highway
8/5/2011
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 25/30
*i4iII:Ils
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 26/30
om: Mary Beth Strong
Sent: Monday, February 14, 20119:14 AM
To: Aaron Clark; Andy Davidson; Benjamin Moore; Bill Djernes; Brian Kenner; Brian Martin; Carla
Hockett; Chris Chwialkowskl; Chris Fisher; Chris Macedo; Chris Rivera; Corey Paulich; Cynthia Radoumis;
Dane Hayward; Darren Daskam; Dave Perry; David Jones; Dennis Keithly; Dennis Ostini; Donald
McPherson; Duayne Emis; Elvis Cook; Emil Devincenzi; Eric Keener; Francisco Rivero; Frank Walsh; Gary
Basor; Gary Frace; Gary Hall; Gavin Wells; Glenn Capurro; Hart Gall; Jacob Steely; James Bauman; James
Campbell; James Samples; Jay Vanoven; Jerry Pfann; Joe Dutra; John Drewrey; John Gregore; Jose
Zepeda; Justin Newton; Keith Wells; Kellie Moe; Lucas Bingham; Lyle Thomas; Mary Beth Strong;
Mauricio Barreto; Michael Sobieraj; Mike Curran; Mike Pascoe; Mike Powers; Mike Woods; Nicole
Costanza; Richard Austring; Richard Ward; Rob Howe; Robert Piveronas; Roth Shifts; Sarah Hardisty;
Stephen Wright; Steve Brooks; Steven Herdt; Steven Jones; Todd Dunia; Tom Andrews; Walter White;
Wes Frey; William Burnett
Subject: February timecard deadline
I was just advised that this message did not get sent to patrol.
mbs
Timecards are due to the main office by Tuesday February 15th at lOam. Please assure your weeks are marked correctly
(between Saturday and Sunday) and all slips are signed and stapled to your timecard.
Any overtime worked or time off taken between the day your timecard is turned in and the end of the pay period (20th),
needs to be turned in to the main office by Monday, 2/21 at 9am (this is a holiday).
Do NOT use employee numbers. Any timecards received without the proper Information will be returned.
Managers will need to be available on the 18th to review any questions that arise during auditing. If you are not going to
be available, please let me know who will be addressing the questions in your absence. (A follow up email will be sent
regarding this responsibility)
If you have any questions, please contact your supervisor.
thanks
mbs
8/9/2011
0
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 27/30
From: Mary Beth Strong
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 5:28 PM
To: Aaron Clark; Andy Davidson; Benjamin Moore; Bill Djernes; Brian Kenner; Brian Martin; CarlaHockett; Chris Chwialkowski; Chris Fisher; Chris Macedo; Chris Rivera; Corey Paulich; Cynthia Radoumis;
Dane Hayward; Darren Daskam; Dave Perry; David Jones; Dennis Keithly; Dennis Ostini; Donald
McPherson; Duayne Emis; Elona Porter; Elvis Cook; Emil Devincenzi; Eric Keener; Francisco Rivero; Frank
Walsh; Gary Basor; Gary Frace; Gary Hall; Gavin Wells; Glenn Capurro; Hart Gall; Jacob Steely; James
Bauman; James Campbell; James Samples; Jay Vanoven; Jerry Pfann; Joe Dutra; John Drewrey; John
Gregore; Jose Zepeda; Justin Newton; Keith Wells; Kellle Moe; Lucas Bingham; Lyle Thomas; Mary Beth
Strong; Mauricio Barreto; Michael Sobieraj; Mike Curran; Mike Pascoe; Mike Powers; Mike Woods; Nicole
Costanza; Rebekah Dolby; Richard Austring; Richard Ward; Rob Howe; Robert Piveronas; Roth Shuts;
Sarah Hardisty; Stephen Wright; Steve Brooks; Steven Herdt; Steven Jones; Todd Dunia; Tom Andrews;
Walter White; Wes Frey; William Burnett
Subject: March timecard deadline
Timecards will be due to the main office on Thursday, March 17th at lOam .
After timecard submission, please continue to turn in time off/overtime slips in a timely manner. All slips must be turned in no
later than Monday March 21st at Barn. Managers will need to be available on Monday and Tuesday to resolve any questions. If the
manager is not available, a designee must be assigned. Due to a change In the Auditor’s office, payroll will now be processedwithin a two day timeframe, There will be little room for error, so it will be of the utmost importance that timecards are submittedcorrectly and m anagers responsive to questions. We w ill be closing payroll on Wednesday, M arch 23rd.
Remember to mark your weeks between Saturday and Sunday and assure you have the correct number of hours reported in each
week.If you had a shift change, your week needs to be marked ’shift change.
Call out pay and court overtime must show the actual time listed on the right side of the slip. The left side of the slip will still reflect
the 4 hour call out pay (If you are entitled to 4 hours) Court overtime must have the subpoena attached and noted whether or not
you testified.
D O N O T U S E E M P L O Y E E N U M B E R S .
If you are working overtime, your slip needs to specify the reason (for whom and why). Please be as specific as possible. If youare working drug enforcement, specify the type of drug so It can be determined which grant to bill.
There should be NO manual adjustments from previous pay periods.
If you have any questions, please contact your supervisor for clarification,
thanksmb s
8/9/2011
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 28/30
FAAM I M O N
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 29/30
TIME CODES
SHIFT OT/PAY Name: Corey Paullic h2 SHIFT OT/COMP
CALLOUT/PAY Start Date: 03/12/11CALLOUT/COMP
COURT/PAY End Date: 03/13/11
COURT/COMPCOMP TIME USED Total Hours: 1VACATION USED
SICK LEAVE Explanation: Time_change 0 4850 LEAVE
MILITARY LEAVE
09M M O N
IIIaI,
iuiiz,i,1 : 1wi i iii:r.i(.] flui1
EMPLOYEE SIGNATURE: ATE:
SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE: vVATE:PRIOR TO REQUESTING ANY TIME OFF, I HAVE VERIFIED THAT I HAVE SUFFICIENT LEAVEATISFY S THIS REQUEST.
11 1Ei(i1UhI i’MitII I:[.]D4..’i P (]WAUIii
TIME CODES
SHIFT OT/PAY
SHIFT OT/COMP
CA LLO UT/PAY
CALLOUT/COMP
COURT/PAY
COURT/COMP
COMP TIME USED
VACATION USED
SICK LEAVE
4850 LEAVENAII ITAPV I Pti\I
Name: Corey Paulich
Start Date: 03/13/11
End Date: 03/14/11
Total Hours:2Explanation: Brooks at trainin
Il14I:isit
TIME: 0600
TIME CODE:1EMPLOYEE SIGNATURE:
ATE:
SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE:ATE:PRIOR TO REQUESTING ANY TIME OFF I HAVE VERIFIED THAT I HAVE SUFFICIENT LEAVEO SATISFY THIS
RE Q UE S T.
[i[i1U1 II’SII I UII] (S] V1U!i
TIME CODES
SHIFT OT/PAY
SHIFT OT/COMP
CALLOUT/PAY
CALLOUT/COMP
COURT/PAY
COURT/COMP
COMP TIME USED
VACATION USED
SICK LEAVE
4850 LEAVEMIt ITPV
Name: Corey Paulich.D, NO:414
Start Date: 03/15/11330 /
End Date: 03/15/11IME: 1500
Total Hours:. 51_ TIME CODE: 05
Explanation: Motion Hearing Stone did not testify
SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE:PRIOR TO REQUESTING ANY TIME OFF H AVE VER FIFIED T H AT I H AVE S U FFIC IEN T T IME
D A T E :
DATE: 0 4 1 7 h z wTO SATISFY THIS
RE Q UE S T.
8/4/2019 County of Lake's Opposition to Sgt. Paulich Petition
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/county-of-lakes-opposition-to-sgt-paulich-petition 30/30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I, the undersigned, declare:
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of Lake, State of
California. I am over 18 years of age and not a party to the within matter. My business
address is 255 North Forbes Street, Lakeport, California.
On August 9, 20111 served a copy of the following document(s) addressed asfollows:
United States Postal Service by placing such envelope(s) with postagethereon fully prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail in accordancewith office’s practice, whereby the mail is deposited in the United StatesPostal Service mailbox in the City of Lakeport, California.
Xnited Parcel Service express overnight delivery by placing such envelope(s)with postage thereon fully prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail inaccordance with office’s practice, whereby the mail is delivered to anauthorized courier or driver authorized by United Parcel Service to receivedocuments, in an envelope or package designated by United Parcel Servicewith delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person on whom it isto be served at that party’s place of residence.
Christopher MillerMastagni, Holstedt, Amick, Miller & Johnsen1912 ’I" StreetSacramento, CA 95814
Deposited in the Lake County Courthouse box, Fourth Floor, Superior CourtClerk’s Office, 255 North Forbes Street, Lakeport, California 95453.
Federal Express.
--ax * to (916) 447-4614 and (916) 491-4254
Mr. Jeffrey R.A. Edwards, Esq.Mastagni, Holstedt, Amick, Miller & JohnsenA Professional Corporation
Personally delivered to person(s) at add ress(es) listed below.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
declaration was executed on August 9, 2011, at Lakeport, California.
Lloyd C. Guintivano