Former police officers filed petition for writ of administrative mandate challenging city’s decision to terminate their employment.
The Superior Court denied petition, and officers appealed.
The Court of Appeal held that:
- Board of Police Commissioner’s special order regarding use of digital in-car video system (DICVS) did not preclude city from taking disciplinary action against officers;
- Penal Code provision prohibiting intentional eavesdropping without parties’ consent did not preclude use of DICVS recording;
- Notice published by city professional standards bureau regarding use of recordings of personal communications in disciplinary proceedings did not bar use of DICVS records; and
- Substantial evidence supported trial court’s finding that officers did not have right to representation during meeting with their commanding officer.