SAN MATEO COUNTY
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER PREVAILS IN ARBITRATION
In a disciplinary case submitted to final and binding arbitration,
Correctional Officer Brian Haslinger prevailed in an arbitration which
completely exonerated him of misconduct. Haslinger was represented by
Dan Connolly of LDF Panel Firm Clisham & Sortor in San Francisco.
Haslinger, a correctional officer with the San Mateo County Sheriff's
Office and assigned to the Maguire Correctional Facility, was charged
with giving pod keys to an inmate. As a result of the alleged conduct,
contraband was smuggled into the jail and disseminated to the inmates.
The Sheriff's Office charged Haslinger with violating boilerplate
General Orders pertaining to performance and conduct. Haslinger was
suspended for thirty days. Both parties agreed to submit the following
issue to a panel of hearing officers, an arbitrator and a member
designated by the Sheriff's Department and a deputy sheriff's
association representative:
"Whether Officer Brian Haslinger gave a pod key or pod keys in
the Maguire Correctional Facility to [an inmate] between January and
August, 1995?"
The only evidence in support of the Sheriff's Office's case was the
testimony of the inmate, a convicted felon, as well as the felon's
botched polygraph examination. The felon claimed he received pod keys
from Haslinger and another deputy; although the other deputy testified
at Haslinger's arbitration that at times he did give the felon a key to
open up a specific cell or supply closet on the upper tier, he carefully
monitored the felon's actions. That deputy retired on an industrial
disability because of his debilitating knee injuries which compelled him
to give a pod key to the felon, then an inmate worker, to climb to the
upper tier to open a cell.
The Sheriff's Office also relied on a polygraph examination
administered to the felon which purportedly confirmed his veracity.
However, upon cross-examination at Haslinger's arbitration, the
polygrapher conceded he had inappropriately framed one of the test
questions: "Since February did both Deputy X and Officer Haslinger
permit you to use the keys to pod 4 West?" The felon's affirmative
response was accurate as to Deputy X but inaccurate as to Haslinger and
thus tainted the polygraph examination results. Equally important,
though, was the test question: "Have you told any lies in this case
to the San Mateo Sheriff's investigators?" Despite the felon's
negative response, the polygrapher conceded that, during a pre-test
interview, the felon denied that Haslinger allowed him to use the
computer when he had previously advised the San Mateo investigators
differently. In other words, he lied. Not surprisingly, the polygraph
examination failed to detect his dishonesty. Finally, the polygrapher
admitted during cross-examination that during the pre-test interview,
the felon admitted to lying to his probation officer, his teachers, his
attorney -- even his wife!
Other than the felon (whose past crimes include credit card fraud and
escape from the Marin County jail) and his polygraph examination
results, the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office had no evidence to prove
its case. No deputies, correctional officers or other inmates, for that
matter, testified that they saw Haslinger give the felon a pod key or
keys.
Testimony adduced at the arbitration also established the felon as a
master manipulator, a schemer out to retaliate against Haslinger because
Haslinger terminated his privileged status as an inmate worker. Also
produced at the hearing were the felon's correspondence with the Sheriff
and the District Attorney asking for favored treatment (secure housing
or lenient sentencing) in return for his snitching on other inmates.
In its unanimous decision, the arbitration panel (including the
Sheriff's Office representative) concluded the following:
"The burden of proving that [Haslinger] gave [the felon] the
pod keys is squarely on the County. Even assuming that the County has
presented sufficient evidence to shift the burden of coming forward
with evidence to the grievant, [the felon's] testimony has been
successfully rebutted by [Haslinger's] testimony. Unlike [the felon's]
testimony, [Haslinger's] testimony was straightforward and consistent.
[Haslinger's] testimony has persuaded the panel that [Haslinger] has a
keen awareness of jail security issues which predates the advent of
these proceedings. This concern is reflected in his contemporaneous
log entries that occurred prior to any charges of misconduct. Finally,
the County was unable to 'poke any holes' in [Haslinger's] version of
events during cross-examination. Under the circumstances, the panel
must conclude that [Haslinger's] testimony is credible. ...[Haslinger]
may not be found guilty of the charges by association. Rather, the
charges against him must be proved with specificity and by means of
reliable evidence. In the unanimous opinion of the members of the
panel, [the felon's] testimony is not convincing or reliable when
evaluated against the testimony of [Haslinger]. [The felon's] motives
are questionable and his testimony contains material inconsistencies
...based on the independent judgment of the members of the panel, [Haslinger's]
testimony is found to be more credible and more persuasive than [the
felon's] testimony. In sum, the County has not presented the quality
or quantity of evidence which would be required in order to sustain
the charges against [Haslinger]. Therefore, it must be found that [Haslinger]
did not give pod keys to [the felon] during the period from January to
August of 1995."
Fortunately, the PORAC Legal Defense Fund and the San Mateo County
DST's commitment to Haslinger gave him the resources and wherewithal to
prevail at his arbitration and to clear his name. The charges and the
thirty day suspension will be removed entirely from Haslinger's
personnel file.
