Monday, August 3, 2026
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Officer Who Lied on Time Sheet Properly Spared Firing
Opinion Affirms Judge’s Determination That State Personnel Board Did Not Commit Manifest Abuse of Discretion in Countermanding CHP by Reducing Penalty for Exaggerating Hours Worked to One-Year Suspension
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district has upheld a trial court determination that a state board did not commit a manifest abuse of discretion in overturning a decision to fire a law enforcement officer who lied on a time-sheet that he had been working during a three-hour and 45-minute period when he was actually at home, fraudulently obtaining $288.98 in compensation.
Presiding Justice Maria Stratton of Div. Eight authored the unpublished opinion, filed Thursday. It affirms a judgment by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Curtis A. Kin denying a petition for a writ of mandate sought by the California Highway Patrol (“CHP”).
The CHP terminated the employment of officer Nathaniel Partridge in 2020 for lying on time records for Sept. 17, 2017 and tangential offenses; the State Personnel Board (“SPB”) reduced the punishment to a one-year suspension; the CHP sought reinstatement of the penalty it imposed.
Partridge came under investigation in 2019, as numerous others did, when it surfaced that East Los Angeles CHP deputies, assigned to a program under which they provided protection to Caltrans workers, routinely reported as on-the-job-hours the time, often amounting to overtime, after completing their assigned duties, on the theory that such was permissible provided they had remained on-call.
Kin’s Ruling
In denying a writ on Nov. 2, 2023, Kin said:
“CHP cites cases for the proposition that courts do not tolerate peace officer dishonesty….That is true, and the courts should not. But this Court has considered all of CHP’s cited authorities and finds they do not support a finding that the SPB manifestly abused its discretion under the circumstances of this case.
“Case law does not support the proposition that discharge is required in all instances m which a police officer is found guilty of dishonesty. Without question a law enforcement officers dishonesty may warrant discharge and often should.”
After providing a string of citations to cases where firings of dishonest officers were upheld, the judge set forth:
“However, these cases do not counsel that termination is the only appropriate penalty for every single act of dishonesty irrespective of the circumstances. To the contrary, nothing prevents the SPB from considering mitigating circumstances in fashioning the appropriate discipline for any particular act of dishonesty.”
He noted that “Partridge’s misconduct” merely amounted to “falsely claiming three-plus hours of unearned overtime.”
CHP’s Position
The CHP appealed, arguing that Kin erred in minimizing the fact that Partridge had evinced dishonesty. It said in an appellate brief prepared by merely Deputy Attorney General Jaclyn V. Younger:
“Despite finding him ‘plainly dishonest’, the SPB overturned Partridge’s dismissal. This was an abuse of discretion. Because of the unique role they play in society and the immense power entrusted them, peace officers are held to a higher standard of behavior and it is essential that peace officers are unassailably honest. Partridge’s dishonesty resulted in harm to public service.
“His misconduct not only resulted in financial harm, but it brought embarrassment to CHP. Therefore, dismissal is the only appropriate penalty for Partridge’s theft, dishonesty, deception, and lack of accountability.”
The brief went on to say:
“As a State employee, Partridge’s compensation comes from public funds. The compensation that Partridge received in overtime pay was a theft of taxpayer dollars. Partridge’s conduct is completely irreconcilable with his obligations as a CHP officer.”
Stratton’s Opinion
Stratton viewed the matter as Kin had. She wrote:
“The CHP contends because Partridge was dishonest, he is likely to be dishonest again, and dismissal is the only appropriate penalty. However, dismissal is not required in every case of dishonesty.”
The presiding justice went on to declare:
“We cannot say this is the exceptional case in which reasonable minds cannot differ as to the appropriate penalty.”
She wrote that “Partridge knowingly claimed several hours of unearned overtime pay on one occasion, a dishonest act and serious error in judgment that harmed the public and could cause the public to question the integrity of the CHP and its officers,” but opined:
“When considering the misconduct and the surrounding circumstances, the SPB could reasonably conclude the evidence did not demonstrate Partridge had a propensity to lie, cheat, or deceive, and that what was at issue here was an isolated incident of very poor judgment….”
It was also charged that on eight occasions in 2017 and 2018, Partridge failed put down on a form the time he returned his patrol vehicle. Stratton said that “was a violation of policy, but it did not necessarily signify wrongdoing as opposed to carelessness.”
The case is California Highway Patrol v. California State Personnel Board (Partridge) B336135.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company