When a cop gets fired over a firearm

[masameet]

Happened in my neck of the woods. A local cop was fired after she bought an evil black rifle.

As part of the county's anti-drug task force, she told her chief that the task force's commander had suggested she upgrade her handgun to an assault rifle, because she was the only one not to have a department-approved, high-powered rifle. So her chief issued her a letter and she bought the rifle. But it turned out that she never got the initial OK from the commander to get the rifle and and her dept. fired her after she was found out. Just this past Thursday the California 1st District Court of Appeals affirmed her firing for insubordination, incompetence and violating department regulation as the rightful course of action.

I can understand insubordination and violating department regs. But where does incompetence come in? From being plain dumb to think she could get away with her deception?

[cowboykenny]

what is the case i would like to look at it.

[fullrearview]

what is the case i would like to look at it.

^^ This.

Not much info. That being said, you would think the chief's letter equals permission.

[bruss01]

Happened in my neck of the woods. A local cop was fired after she bought an evil black rifle.

As part of the county's anti-drug task force, she told her chief that the task force's commander had suggested she upgrade her handgun to an assault rifle, because she was the only one not to have a department-approved, high-powered rifle. So her chief issued her a letter and she bought the rifle. But it turned out that she never got the initial OK from the commander to get the rifle and and her dept. fired her after she was found out. Just this past Thursday the California 1st District Court of Appeals affirmed her firing for insubordination, incompetence and violating department regulation as the rightful course of action.

I can understand insubordination and violating department regs. But where does incompetence come in? From being plain dumb to think she could get away with her deception?

I'm not totally understanding you... when you say "she failed to get the ok from the commander" is this a special form that has to be completed, which she neglected/forgot/omitted to obtain? Which would basically be a careless paperwork error. Or are you saying she LIED about having the commander's OK? It doesn't make sense that she'd lie about it... I mean, where's the percentage in that? What for, other than to have an AW she could use on the job for the task force? It seems like if it's legitimately work related she'd have no issue getting the official OK for it. So it sounds like you're talking about a paperwork snafu, but if so, that sounds like a pretty harsh smackdown for a paperwork error.

If you're saying she tried to "sneak" the purchase of an AW for her exclusive personal use under the radar... hoping her chief and the TF commander just wouldn't happen to talk to each other and she could keep them both hoodwinked...that would be pretty dumb. Trash an entire career in law enforcement because you can't live with a bullet button or a Monsterman grip? How can you have that poor judgment and still be a cop? Oh, right, maybe you're saying "you can't". Little clarification would be good, thanks.

[BigDogatPlay]

what is the case i would like to look at it.

+1

I'm thinking there is a lot more to the story. The CLEO letter is the exemption. With that in hand she is good to purchase, register (part of the purchasing process) and possess.

If there was some policy of the sheriff or the task force, lots of task forces are managed by the sheriff, then that might be another story.

[Ron-Solo]

Way too much missing information to make any conclusions.

[nick]

If I understand this correctly, she didn't have her commander's Ok, but she told the chief did had it. Is the commander's Ok required for such things? Isn't it up to the chief to issue the letter? In which case, I can see the insubordination and such, but not the "illegal" weapon.

[masameet]

Would being part of the county's SWAT team require her to have written authorization from both the SWAT leader and her chief?

Link to the SF Chronicle story.

Could not find the decision on the 1st District's website.

[5shot]

Without reading the whole thing and having all the facts, it looks like she was fired for lying. Most police administrators understand that anyone can err and make mistakes, or use poor judgement at times. But most administrators and the public will not tolerate dishonesty in cops. I've seen a lot of guys fired for lying about something that probably would have only got them a few days off. Bad judgement can be improved on. Dishonestly is a character trait.

[Heiko]

A former Hercules police officer who lied to get an assault rifle was rightfully fired, a state appeals court ruled Thursday.

Audrey Lake falsely told then-Hercules Police Chief Fred Deltorchio that she had received authorization to buy a rifle from a commander of WestNET, a western Contra Costa County anti-drug task force.

Lake told the chief that the commander had asked her to upgrade from a handgun to a rifle and that she was the only member of the task force without a rifle. The chief told her to get permission from the head of the city’s SWAT team, and Lake bought a rifle in San Jose.

Deltorchio later learned that the WestNET commander had never told Lake to buy the weapon, a three-judge panel of the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco said Thursday. She was rightfully fired for insubordination, incompetence and violating department regulations, the court said.

There you go. It was all about lying to the Chief about why she needed the letter and the AW. I'm sure there were other issues with her too, hence the incompetence justification.

[FLIGHT762]

Like others have said, there is a lot missing from the article. The Officer seems to have taken some unapproved short cuts to get her rifle. Departments have some differing rules and regulations as to how to go through the chain of command to get approval on the use of firearms.
The only way to know is to see the IA investigation report, which we won't see.

The only other way would to see the Court documents of the case.

As for the issue of just using a bullet button or monster man grip, that wouldn't fly either as most departments only authorize certain firearms for on duty use. There are rules and regulations covering that. The Officer would have to formally qualify with that firearm before they could use it.

The Commander seems to be a Commander of the multi agency task force and is very likely not to be a Commander from the Officer's agency.

The #1 reason to quickly get you fired is to lie. It looks like that's what the Officer did.

[9mmepiphany]

Reading it makes more sense.

It started with a lie to the Chief, of her department, about what the Commander, of a multi-agency task force, told her...that in and of itself is usually grounds for termination...and has little to do with the fact that it was about obtaining a rifle (which is where I would think the violating department regulation comes in).

Notice that they didn't mention the illegal possession of the rifle as one of the grounds for dismissal. So she really wasn't fired for an illegal firearm...it is just what drew attention to her actions.

Incompetence is one of those administrative charges, like placing the department in a bad light (embarrassing the department) is purposely vague and covers a lot of territory. It could be anything from, "Not doing it correctly" to "Getting caught" to something else unrelated that they just stacked on during her administrative investigations/hearings

[masameet]

OK, Tang. Changed the title per your post.

[Databyter]

Happened in my neck of the woods. A local cop was fired after she bought an evil black rifle.

As part of the county's anti-drug task force, she told her chief that the task force's commander had suggested she upgrade her handgun to an assault rifle, because she was the only one not to have a department-approved, high-powered rifle. So her chief issued her a letter and she bought the rifle. But it turned out that she never got the initial OK from the commander to get the rifle and and her dept. fired her after she was found out. Just this past Thursday the California 1st District Court of Appeals affirmed her firing for insubordination, incompetence and violating department regulation as the rightful course of action.

I can understand insubordination and violating department regs. But where does incompetence come in? From being plain dumb to think she could get away with her deception?

This seems fishy to me. Sounds like they just wanted to get rid of her for some reason. She made a mistake, but it appears she had help, and the charge is worded very strongly.

[SVT-40]

You lie you die.

It's a shame as it seems if she had just followed here agencies policies and procedures she could have properly obtained and used the rifle.

Interesting also is that the task force did not have it's own armory. I worked a team back in the late 90's and we had all sorts of long gun options. I had a issued MP5SD and a 14" Benelli M1 entry shot gun which I carried in my van for three years.

My agency could have cared less what long guns I used. That is as long as I attended the proper training and kept current with quals on what ever I used.....