In 2015, the Internal Affairs Unit of the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety in California opened an investigation into David Meinhardt, an officer who also happened to be the president of the Sunnyvale Public Safety Officers’ Association. IA was following up on a complaint that Meinhardt was using an air horn excessively at an intersection near a lieutenant’s home. To the credit of the investigating officer, he requested that he be taken off the inquiry, as he believed that his close relationship to the lieutenant making the allegation could give an appearance of partiality. The police chief denied this request.
The interview with Meinhardt quickly became hostile: “When the IA investigator interviewed Meinhardt, Meinhardt was rude with his answers and the tension increased as the interview progressed with Meinhardt clenching his jaw, grasping the arms of his chair, and turning red. At the end of the interview, the IA investigator attempted to break the tension by saying ‘are we okay, Meinhardt, because it looks like you want to fucking shoot me.’” The IA investigator acknowledged it was a bad joke. Meinhardt became agitated and yelled at the IA investigator, who immediately apologized. An outside investigator finished the air horn inquiry in October 2016, sustaining no charges against Meinhardt.
When a new chief came into power in 2017, Meinhardt told the chief he felt he was “wronged” during the air horn investigation, that the process itself was defective, and that if the IA investigator were promoted, he would “go to the press.” Right around the same time, the IA investigator told the new chief that he was ready to leave the position altogether. The chief granted his request and named a replacement in March 2017.
Later that month, the Department held a meeting, allowing for Union leaders and commanders to informally discuss employment issues. At this meeting, Meinhardt and the new chief had a private conversation. Meinhardt’s recollection of the conversation was that the chief, in discussing the need to modernize the IA process, said that an investigation into 13 IA cases revealed “errors, lies, omissions and systematic corruption” and that the IA investigator “would be removed.” The chief later denied making any such statements. At another meeting, “Meinhardt asserted the IA investigator was involuntarily removed from that position. The city manager and other city leaders clarified that the IA investigator was not forced out of the IA unit and rather voluntarily wanted to change assignments.”
It wasn’t until August of that year that Meinhardt wrote the letter that led to his discipline. In the letter, sent to all Department personnel, all Union members, and all members of the Sunnyvale City Council, he “criticized the IA modernization project, questioned the transparency regarding issues with the current IA process, raised concerns regarding the consulting firm that the city contracted with to complete the modernization, and set forth Meinhardt’s lack of confidence in the chief.” Meinhardt’s eventual discipline, however, was based on his assertion that the IA investigator had been “removed,” characterizing the officer’s change in assignment as a “removal” that “just so happened to be at the conclusion of a fairly large internal affairs investigation.”
Meinhardt was suspended, which was upheld by the Sunnyvale Personnel Board. On appeal to the trial court, Meinhardt asserted that his letter raised matters of public concern, constituting protected speech that could not serve as the basis for discipline. The Court disagreed, finding that Meinhardt knew that his statement about removal of the IA investigator was false, as well as harmful to the reputation and authority of the officer and the Department. Meinhardt appealed once more.
The California Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the ruling of the trial court, clarifying that the discipline was warranted because it was based on the identifiable falsehoods, not the matters in the letter that were arguably of public concern.
“While the Board did not sustain a charge of Meinhardt ‘being un-truthful or knowingly making false, misleading or malicious statements that are reasonably calculated to harm the reputation, authority or official standing of this Department or its members,’ it did sustain a charge of ‘making false statements to any supervisor or fellow employee unless specifically directed by the chief as part of a departmental investigation.’ More importantly, based on our independent review, the weight of the evidence supports a finding that Meinhardt’s statement that the IA investigator was ‘removed’ was recklessly – if not knowingly – false. Meinhardt’s First Amendment interest in the false statement decreases because of its falsity, its recklessness, and the context surrounding it – Meinhardt’s personal dispute and animosity toward the IA investigator.”
The Court also rejected Meinhardt’s argument that the trial court had reached the conclusion that the Department was sufficiently harmed by his false statement to justify termination on the basis of the embarrassment caused to the investigator. As the Court noted, “The IA investigator testified he frequently had to spend time explaining to those who questioned him, including subordinates, that he was not removed involuntarily. He had to address not just rumors, but the letter specifically. The IA investigator testified to the identifiable disruptions.”
Meinhardt, v. City of Sunnyvale, 2024 WL 4690357 (Cal. Ct. App., 2024).