LOS ANGELES – A Los Angeles County sheriff’s commander can proceed to trial with his lawsuit against the county, in which he alleges he was wrongfully reassigned to a less prestigious position after questioning why deputies involved in a 2021 incident in which nearly 70 shots were fired during service of a search warrant were not disciplined.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Joseph Lipner denied a defense motion to dismiss Cmdr. William E. Jaeger’s most recently revised complaint, finding that there is a triable issue of whether the plaintiff was subjected to retaliation. Lipner heard arguments on the county’s dismissal motion on April 10, took the case under submission and issued a final ruling Friday.
According to his suit, Jaeger was hired in November 1990, was promoted to captain in 2019 and to commander in April 2022, according to his suit. As commander of the Professional Standards Division, Jaeger oversaw the Internal Affairs Bureau, the Internal Criminal Investigations Bureau and the Advocacy Bureau.
That same month, Jaeger began service on an executive force review committee tasked with reviewing the Internal Affairs Bureau investigation of a May 2021 incident involving a search warrant executed by the Operation Safe Street Gang Team of the detective division and also personnel from the Industry Sheriff Station and the District Attorney’s Office, the suit states.
The service of the warrant resulted in 69 rounds of fire and as part of the review, a panel consisting of three commanders, chaired by Jaeger, was assigned to make recommendations with respect to any corrective action and/or discipline deemed necessary for any LASD personnel found to have violated department policy, the suit states.
During an April 2022 hearing, the LASD chiefs the detective division and east patrol divisions repeatedly opined during the hearing that no discipline should be imposed on any of those involved in the shooting “despite clear issues with the tactics used on that day, the pre-planning of the search execution and the shooting itself,” the suit states.
The chiefs instead insisted that the personnel involved should only receive more training, according to the suit.
In contrast, Jaeger said he believed that there may have been many LASD policy violations during the incident and that it preliminarily appeared that discipline should be imposed on the various participants, according to the suit.
At the conclusion of the April 2022 hearing, the panel determined that the tactics used by various participants had been outside of LASD policy and merited suspension of a various number of days, including eight days for a lieutenant, according to the suit, which further states that one chief did not concur with any of the findings or discipline recommended.
Because the panel and the detective division chief were not in agreement, the next step according to LASD policy would have been for then- Sheriff Alex Villanueva to make a final decision as to the outcome, but instead the next day Assistant Sheriff Holly Francisco removed Jaeger from the committee, convened a new panel that still included the other commanders and scheduled a new hearing, the suit states.
Jaeger spoke to members of LASD management, including then- Undersheriff Timothy Murakami, telling him that the new hearing was against LASD policy and would discredit the department’s stated commitment to proper investigations and oversight of major uses of force, the suit states. Murakami initially told Jaeger that he understood, but later called the plaintiff into a meeting with an LASD chief and told the plaintiff he was being transferred to the Court Services Division, the suit states.
The LASD chief told Jaeger he should have compromised on the discipline and “should not have aired the LASD’s dirty laundry in a public meeting in front of the Office of the Inspector General and counsel for the county of Los Angeles,” the suit states.
The judge said he disagreed with the argument of county attorneys that there is no law that Jaeger could have reasonably believed was violated.
“Plaintiff asserts that he was protesting against an effort not to investigate in good faith serious allegations of excessive use of force, essentially, a form of coverup,” Lipner wrote, adding that the commander reasonably believed that the department was “whitewashing the incident, thus tacitly encouraging the use of excessive force.”
Jaeger’s job transfer has “significantly tarnished Cmdr. Jaeger’s stellar reputation and damaged his career,” the suit states.
Trial of Jaeger’s lawsuit is scheduled for Aug. 11.
