How have courts dealt with a petition for writ of mandate where a citizens review board report containing negative findings was placed in an officer's personnel file?

In Hopson v. City of Los Angeles (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 347, a citizens review board report containing negative findings was placed in an officer's personnel file. The superior court denied the officer's petition for writ of mandate requesting the opportunity for an administrative appeal. The court of appeal reversed, focusing on the possible impact of placing the report in the officer's personnel files. (Id. at p. 351.) It based its decision in part on the testimony of the chief of police that a report in the personnel package would impact the career opportunities of the officers. The personnel package was available for any kind of promotion, and would be considered a "mark against them." (Id. at p. 353.) The court concluded there was a "potential impact" on future career opportunities even if a single entry of report was made at the time. Thus, the report constituted a punitive action as set forth in sections 3303 and 3304.

In Caloca v. County of San Diego (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1209, county sheriff deputies and their association brought a petition for writ of mandate to compel the county

Page 8