Court Backs City’s Curbs on Officer’s Second Job

SAN FRANCISCO — In a victory for municipalities, the state Supreme Court on Tuesday gave cities wide authority to prevent police officers and other public employees from taking off-duty jobs that could pose a conflict of interest.

The court unanimously upheld the refusal by Long Beach officials to permit an officer to work as a civil process server within the city.

Attorneys for two dozen California cities had urged the court to uphold the Long Beach prohibition, noting that virtually all municipalities--in an effort to ensure undivided loyalties--now bar moonlighting that they view as incompatible with official duties.

The justices rejected contentions by lawyers for police organizations that granting such authority to cities conflicted with state law and intruded on an individual’s right to seek employment.

Statute Interpreted

The court, in an opinion by Justice Marcus M. Kaufman, held that a 1971 state statute that bars certain types of off-duty employment was not meant to prevent cities from imposing additional limitations.

The 1971 law prohibits local officers and other employees from off-duty jobs that infringe on city time; require work that may be subject to review by governmental supervisors; provide pay for tasks that workers would do as public employees; or involve the use of official authority or facilities.

The legislative history of the statute “persuasively demonstrates” that it was “intended to guide, not to confine, the local agency’s exercise of authority,” Kaufman wrote.

The court noted also that several advisory opinions issued by the state attorney general’s office also have upheld local regulations aimed at preventing conflict of interest.

Long Beach Assistant City Atty. Robert E. Shannon praised the decision, saying it gave new strength to restrictions imposed by municipalities throughout the state.

Such regulations, for example, prevent city-paid attorneys from practicing law privately, even on their own time, or prohibit property assessors from working privately for real estate firms.

Other Employees

“While this covers other employees as well, this is a particularly sensitive issue for police officers,” Shannon said. “It’s always been our position that local entities should have the option, within reasonable limits, to limit outside employment where it creates even the perception of inconsistency with city employment.”

The attorney for the Long Beach officer in the case was not available for comment.

The ruling could have an immediate effect on negotiations between the Los Angeles Police Department and the 6,600-member Los Angeles Police Protective League--talks that had reached an impasse over the drafting of rules governing off-duty employment by city officers.

Both sides agreed Tuesday that the decision could weaken the bargaining position of the League, which is opposing new limits on off-duty work by officers in private security services.

“This issue is still a matter of negotiation--but the decision seems to give wide leeway to the city,” said Mary Ann Healy of Los Angeles, an attorney for the League. “Some officers own their own security businesses--and such a rule could wipe them out economically.”

Cmdr. Bill Wedgeworth, employee relations administrator for the LAPD, welcomed Tuesday’s ruling, citing the department’s concern over officers working for private security firms in the same districts where they perform official duties.

“We don’t want them to be tempted to give special treatment to private clients,” Wedgeworth said.

Job Request Denied

The case before the justices arose in 1985 when Long Beach Officer Russell Peterson was denied permission to work off duty as a civil process server for a local hospital. The Police Department denied the request on the grounds that it was incompatible with Peterson’s duties as an officer.

The city, among other things, limits off-duty employment to 20 hours per week, bars work where alcoholic beverages are sold and specifically prohibits work as a civil process server--a job that sometimes results in volatile confrontations.