Bonome v. City of Riverside

Citations: 10 Cal. App. 5th 14; 215 Cal. Rptr. 3d 654; 2017 WL 1101107; 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 264Docket: E064925

Court: California Court of Appeal; March 24, 2017; California; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Camillo Bonome, Jr., a former Riverside Police Officer, was subject to disciplinary action after a 2013 internal investigation found he inadequately handled a sexual abuse case involving a minor. Following his injury on duty in October 2012, Bonome applied for and received disability retirement. He subsequently requested a retirement identification badge with a Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) endorsement, which was denied by the City of Riverside and Police Chief Sergio Diaz, who claimed he was not 'honorably retired' as defined by Penal Code section 16690. Bonome filed a petition for writ of mandate, arguing he was entitled to the CCW endorsement and a good cause hearing if denied. The trial court ruled in his favor, affirming his status as honorably retired and entitling him to a hearing. On appeal, the City and Chief Diaz contended the trial court erred in its interpretation of 'honorably retired' without considering legislative history. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision, confirming that while the City could deny the CCW endorsement for cause, Bonome was entitled to a good cause hearing if such denial occurred.

On May 30, 2013, Chief Diaz recommended the termination of Bonome from the Riverside Police Department based on his failure to properly investigate and document child abuse allegations reported to him on June 7, 2012. Bonome received a Notice of Intent to Impose Discipline that day and was given until June 10, 2013, to respond during a Skelly hearing. His counsel requested an extension to complete a disability retirement application for a work-related back injury. Bonome applied for industrial disability retirement on June 25, 2013, and was officially retired due to this disability on August 2, 2013, leading to the suspension of termination proceedings. However, on August 29, 2013, the Riverside Police Department denied Bonome a CCW endorsement on his retirement badge, citing he was not 'honorably retired' as defined by section 16690 due to the pending termination notice. Chief Diaz indicated Bonome would have been terminated had he not sought disability retirement. 

On December 19, 2013, Bonome filed a Writ to compel the City and Chief Diaz to issue a retirement badge with a CCW endorsement, asserting his entitlement as an honorably retired officer under section 25900 and section 16690. He argued his disability retirement should qualify as 'honorably retired,' despite the statute's exclusion of those who retire in lieu of termination. On April 17, 2015, the City and Chief Diaz opposed the Writ, interpreting section 16690 to exclude individuals who retire in lieu of termination, claiming Bonome's retirement was such a case. They argued that legislative history supported their interpretation, asserting that a literal reading of the statute would yield unintended consequences.

Bonome was deemed not honorably retired, thus ineligible for a CCW endorsement or a good cause hearing. The City and Chief Diaz requested judicial notice of legislative materials related to Assembly Bill 578, which informed section 16690, while Bonome argued the statute's plain language only excluded those accepting service retirement in lieu of termination. The trial court, during the June 12, 2015 hearing, indicated its intention to grant the Writ, ordering the City and Chief Diaz to either issue a CCW endorsement or deny it and provide a good cause hearing. The court acknowledged the legislative materials but chose not to consider them, finding the statute's language clear. It reasoned that the distinction between service and disability retirements was rational, as service retirements can be negotiated while disability retirements cannot. The trial court expressed reluctance to amend the statute and concluded that Bonome did not fit within its plain language. Consequently, the court ordered the City and Chief Diaz to issue either a CCW endorsement or a certificate stating 'No CCW privilege' with a good cause hearing. The City and Chief Diaz appealed, arguing the trial court erred by ignoring legislative history, which they claimed indicated the Legislature's intent to deny CCW endorsements for retirements in lieu of termination, regardless of type. The interpretation of the statute is subject to de novo review on appeal. Section 25400 prohibits carrying concealed weapons but exempts peace officers who are active or honorably retired. Section 16690 defines 'honorably retired' to include peace officers who have qualified for and accepted either a service or disability retirement.

The term "honorably retired" as defined in Section 16690 excludes officers who opt for service retirement instead of facing termination, but includes those who take disability retirement. Statutory interpretation prioritizes legislative intent, primarily derived from the statute's clear language. The trial court found the statute's wording unambiguous, affirming that only those accepting service retirement in lieu of termination are excluded from being considered honorably retired. The City and Chief Diaz contended that this interpretation leads to an absurd result since Bonome sought disability retirement due to impending termination. However, the court maintained that interpreting the statute according to its plain meaning does not produce an absurd outcome. It clarified that Bonome’s situation was straightforward; he was either disabled or not, and the Legislature had the opportunity to clarify exclusions for disability retirement but did not. Legislative history supports that the only exclusion pertains to those opting for service retirement to avoid punitive actions. The statute’s definitions derive from amendments to prior legislation, consistently excluding only service retirement in lieu of termination.

The legislative history indicates that a bill aims to clarify the process for retired deputies to obtain credentials, addressing previous uncertainties. Despite existing provisions for honorably retired individuals, it was noted that credentials could be denied without clear reasons from the department. The proposed bill mandates that all retired personnel, except those retiring to avoid disciplinary action, receive a clearly identified certificate from their law enforcement agency. This aims to eliminate ambiguities that could lead to unjust denial of retiree status or restrictions on firearm possession. The City and Chief Diaz argue that the Legislature intended to exclude from concealed carry weapon (CCW) endorsements those who retire due to disability in lieu of termination. However, it is acknowledged that an individual cannot simply opt for disability retirement to evade termination, as demonstrated by Bonome, whose disability was substantiated by evaluations. The City retains the discretion to deny Bonome his CCW endorsement for good cause, a determination that would require a separate hearing. The court affirms the trial court's order granting the writ of mandate and awards the respondent costs on appeal.