Garrity Rights       
  • Garrityrights.org
  • Basics
  • FAQ
  • Case Summaries
  • Resources
  • Blog
  • Training
  • Contact

Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles

6/16/2011

34 Comments

 
I have made a change to the FAQ page; specifically to the question "Does management have to advise an employee of their rights?"

A person in California who explored this web site pointed out that in my discussion of this question, I had omitted California's Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles (40 Cal.3d 822, 1985).  In this case, the state's Supreme Court found that when a public employee might be charged with a criminal offense, management must advise them of their rights.  The Court based this ruling on California's Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, which states that once it is "deemed" that an employee might be charged with a criminal offense, the employee must be "immediately informed of his constitutional rights."

In this case, the employee (Lybarger) was a Los Angeles police officer whose unit was under investigation for a variety of potentially criminal offenses.  When questioned by IAD, he was told that a criminal offense was pending, and that if he refused to answer questions, he would be considered insubordinate and could lose his job.  He still refused to answer questions, and was terminated.

The state Supreme Court found that "the discipline . . . must be set aside because appellant was never advised that any statements he made could not be used against him in a subsequent criminal proceeding" (825). 

It is important for readers to note that this decision only applies in California.  However, similar requirements do apply in federal service and in the states covered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin), and possibly also the states of the Second Circuit (Connecticut, New York, Vermont).  

In regard to Lybarger, a couple additional points are worth making.

First, this case illustrates the benefit of state legislation clarifying and codifying Garrity Rights in the form of a "law enforcement officers' bill of rights."  These statutes can streamline understanding of Garrity, and, as we can see in Lybarger, they can create tangible rights over and above those derived from the Garrity-related case law.  Without the state legislation, there might have been no clear obligation for management to advise Lybarger of his rights.  

Other states have enacted similar legislation.  While I applaud the creation of such "law enforcement officers' bills of rights," it does lead me to the question: what about other public employees in that state?  This excellent legislation goes beyond Garrity and provides additional protections - but only for law enforcement employees.  Teachers, plow truck drivers, social workers, etc. are left with a lesser set of rights. While I applaud the existence of a "law enforcement officers' bill of rights," why not a "public employees' bill of rights"?

Second, in this case, I would argue that Lybarger would possibly have been protected by Garrity regardless of the legislation requiring that he be advised of his rights.  He'd been brought in for questioning relative to possible criminal offenses, and had been told that if he refused to answer questions, he could be terminated.  It seems to me that at that point, his answers are compelled and are therefore protected, regardless of any advisement of his rights.  See Uniformed Sanitation I.

However, I say this only as a musing.  The employee in this case had much better protection due to the existence of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act.  
34 Comments
leo clothier
10/23/2014 07:42:24 am

michael lybarger was a neighbor of mine a few years ago. he has since moved out of state. he explained the case to me and equated this to the miranda rule. he was innocent and received a very handsome settlement. a perfect example of overreaction by the city of l.a. and incompitence costing taxpayers more money.

Reply
Codey Lybarger
9/10/2015 10:22:19 am

My last name is Lybarger too! :D

Reply
Jeff
3/21/2018 09:55:33 am

I was a public employee at a California District Hospital. I was told I had to attend a hearing and answer questions involving an accusation of a crime that supposedly happened at a co-workers house. I initially brought my attorney and was told I could not have one present and that I would be fired for insubordination if I didn't participate and answer all the questions. Well the sheriff's department was the one running the questioning. So my work essentially forced me to give a statement regarding a criminal accusation to the "police" without my attorney present. I am concerned that Lybarger won't apply to me because I am not a peace officer, however I am pretty upset that this happened given how many people are being release from prison, years later, because they didn't have an attorney present during questioning and got tied up on something. The organization didn't tell me that I would be protected under Garrity, and I wouldn't have been anyway since it was the Sheriff's department doing the questioning anyways. I pretty much don't know what to do and am feeling pretty angry and used. Incidentally, no charges were actually ever filed, but I was fired for something (they haven't specifically said)

Reply
Don Taylor link
3/21/2018 01:47:28 pm

It is true that since you are not a law enforcement officer, you wouldn't have been covered by Lybarger, because that court ruling was based on the state's Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act. However, if your employer did the threatening re. insubordination - in effect, "answer the sheriff's department's questions or you're fired," then that triggered Garrity because at that point your answers were compelled by your employer, even though it wasn't your employer doing the questioning. These protections don't necessarily help with being disciplined (you should have requested a union steward, if you have a union), but if they do prosecute you, you have a potential argument that your statements were compelled and are thus unusable as evidence. Feel free to send me an email (see the "Contact" tab on the website) if you want to discuss this further.

Reply
Gerald link
4/25/2019 08:37:42 pm

Who ended up winning?

Reply
Shaunn
1/6/2020 05:57:05 am

I was born a Lybarger. Wondered if Michael was the child of my dad's uncle Cal. My grandpa's nickname was "Flea". Actually Clarence.
Anyone know?

Reply
Thomas Stockton link
3/4/2022 12:39:59 pm

This excellent legislation goes beyond Garrity and provides additional protections - but only for law enforcement employees. Thank you for the beautiful post!

Reply
Kenneth Killough link
4/27/2022 02:39:13 pm

The state's Supreme Court found that when a public employee might be charged with a criminal offense, management must advise them of their rights. Thank you for making this such an awesome post!

Reply
www.westhollywoodtreeservice.com link
7/26/2022 06:49:04 am

Who won the case?

Reply
Anaheim attorney link
8/13/2022 12:33:06 pm

These statutes can streamline understanding of Garrity, and, as we can see in Lybarger, they can create tangible rights over and above those derived from the Garrity-related case law. Thank you for taking the time to write a great post!

Reply
San diego divorce lawyer link
8/13/2022 01:26:40 pm

This excellent legislation goes beyond Garrity and provides additional protections - but only for law enforcement employees. Thank you for taking the time to write a great post!

Reply
Brandon Sundberg link
10/20/2022 02:08:49 pm

Was a Los Angeles police officer whose unit was under investigation for a variety of potentially criminal offenses. When questioned by iad, Thank you for the beautiful post!

Reply
Darrell Meade link
3/13/2023 11:11:04 am

Was a Los Angeles police officer whose unit was under investigation for a variety of potentially criminal offenses. When questioned by IAD, he was told that a criminal offense was pending, and that if he refused to answer questions, Thank you for taking the time to write a great post!

Reply
robin edwin link
5/11/2023 07:40:56 am

"I really enjoyed reading this post. Your approach to the subject is refreshing and unique."

Reply
JOHN link
3/19/2024 01:07:14 pm

Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles serves as a pivotal case in defining the boundaries of government employer speech restrictions. Its implications highlight the delicate balance between free expression and governmental authority.

Reply
Michael Henry link
4/23/2024 05:52:08 am

What was the end result of case??

Reply
Williamson link
4/23/2024 05:55:26 am

I find your perspective on the topic to be both refreshing and distinctive, offering a unique viewpoint that stands out.

Reply
criminal defense attorney in los angeles link
5/22/2024 09:32:13 pm

This article does an excellent job of explaining the intricacies of the Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles case and its implications for public employees' rights, particularly regarding Garrity Rights. It clarifies the importance of state legislation, like law enforcement officers' bills of rights, in protecting employees' rights during investigations. The author's thoughtful analysis not only sheds light on the legal complexities but also raises important questions about extending similar protections to other public employees. Overall, this article deepens my understanding of the topic and highlights the need for comprehensive legislation to safeguard the rights of all public servants. Great job!

Reply
Rubin Law P.C. link
5/24/2024 04:56:20 am

This article does an excellent job of explaining the significance of the Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles case and its implications for public employees in California. It sheds light on the importance of legislation like the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act in safeguarding employees' rights, especially in situations involving potential criminal offenses. The author's insights into the need for broader protections for all public employees, not just law enforcement, raise important questions about fairness and equity in the workplace. Additionally, the article prompts readers to consider the intersection of legal precedent and statutory rights, providing valuable context for understanding complex legal issues. Overall, it's a thought-provoking piece that enhances understanding of employee rights and legal protections.

Reply
IOP Programs Los Angeles link
12/27/2024 11:11:25 pm

Los Angeles' Intensive Outpatient Programs (IOP) offer a flexible yet intensive approach to mental health and addiction treatment, allowing individuals to maintain work or family responsibilities while receiving care.

Reply
California Network Cable Installation Techs link
2/27/2025 10:33:30 am

The article presents a clear and detailed analysis of Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles and its significance in protecting public employees' rights during internal investigations. It effectively highlights how the case reinforced Garrity protections, ensuring that compelled statements cannot be used in criminal prosecutions. This ruling remains crucial in safeguarding due process while maintaining accountability in law enforcement and other public sectors. Well-explained and insightful!







Reply
California Low Voltage Tech link
3/3/2025 08:20:55 am

This article provides a clear explanation of the Lybarger case and its significance in protecting public employees’ rights during internal investigations. The distinction between Garrity rights and Lybarger warnings is crucial for ensuring that employees understand their obligations and protections when facing questioning. It would be interesting to explore how this ruling has influenced law enforcement policies and internal investigations over the years. Thanks for shedding light on such an important legal precedent!

Reply
Gilroy, CA link
3/25/2025 11:03:50 am

This article provides an important discussion on Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, a case that highlights the legal protections for public employees during internal investigations. The explanation of how Lybarger rights relate to Garrity rights is particularly useful for law enforcement officers and government employees facing administrative inquiries. It would be helpful to include real-world implications, case precedents, or practical advice for those navigating similar situations. Overall, a valuable resource for understanding public employee rights and legal protections!

Reply
TurkeyMedicals link
4/13/2025 05:35:27 am

Beveridge Model:

Healthcare is provided and funded by the government through tax payments. Healthcare workers are typically government employees. This model is known for providing universal care.

Example: The UK, Spain, and Scandinavia use variations of this system.

Reply
Teknik Elektro link
5/5/2025 01:20:10 am

What was Lybarger's occupation?

Reply
Repelis24 link
5/5/2025 06:52:38 am

Great amazing blog i like it

Reply
https://turkeymedicals.com Cost of braces Istanbul link
5/8/2025 11:28:12 pm


A breakdown of the costs of braces treatment in Istanbul, with options ranging from traditional metal braces to more modern, invisible aligners.

Reply
The AZmip link
5/13/2025 02:41:47 am

Nice to be here!

Reply
micky link
5/17/2025 03:51:36 am

Criminal lawyers in San Diego are legal professionals specializing in defending individuals accused of crimes within the San Diego area. They represent clients in various cases, from misdemeanors to felonies, including DUI, drug crimes, violent offenses, and more, working to protect their rights and build a defense.

Reply
Low Voltage Tech link
5/20/2025 08:35:43 am

The Garrity Rights blog's discussion of *Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles* (1985) offers a compelling examination of a landmark case that continues to shape the rights of public employees during internal investigations. The California Supreme Court's decision emphasized that public employees, such as police officers, must be informed that while they are required to answer questions related to their duties, any compelled statements cannot be used against them in subsequent criminal proceedings . This ruling reinforces the delicate balance between an employer's need to investigate misconduct and an employee's Fifth Amendment protections. The blog effectively highlights the enduring significance of this case, underscoring the necessity for public agencies to provide clear advisements to employees to uphold constitutional rights and ensure fair disciplinary processes.

Reply
Gamcore link
5/27/2025 11:39:57 am

This blog was… how do you say it? Relevant!! Finally I have found something which helped me. Thanks!

Reply
Latest Blog link
5/27/2025 09:53:23 pm

good post, thanks for share .

Reply
Hotscope link
5/28/2025 02:57:55 am

Hello there! Nice post! Please inform us when all could see a follow up!

Reply
Mental Health Treatment link
6/2/2025 12:59:50 am

One size doesn’t fit all with mental health care. What works for one person might not work for another, and that’s okay. Keep trying until you find the right fit.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    June 2011
    April 2011

    Categories

    All
    Advisement
    Garrity
    Lybarger
    Police Officers
    Public Employees

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.