A 16-year clean record outweighed a single lapse that cost taxpayers under $300
A California appeals court upheld a one-year suspension, not dismissal, for a highway patrol officer who claimed overtime pay he did not earn.
A California Highway Patrol officer will keep his badge despite claiming overtime he did not earn, after a state appeals court declined to overturn the lighter penalty a personnel board handed down.
The Court of Appeal's Second Appellate District affirmed the one-year suspension on July 29, 2026, in a ruling later certified for publication. The CHP had wanted him fired.
The dispute started with a highway maintenance program. When the officer's assignment ended early one morning in September 2017, policy required him to stay at the station for the rest of his shift to claim full overtime. Instead, he drove 35 miles home - and still billed the whole 10 hours.
The CHP determined he had "dishonestly" reported his time and was "fraudulently compensated" $288.98 for roughly three hours and 45 minutes he did not work. It also found he failed to log his patrol car's return time on eight occasions.
The agency dismissed him in February 2020. But the case turned into a fight over the right punishment, not the facts, which were largely undisputed.
An administrative law judge first cut the penalty to a one-month suspension. The State Personnel Board then rejected that, finding the officer had been dishonest - yet still landed on a one-year suspension rather than dismissal.
Why not fire him? The board leaned on the "totality of the circumstances." The officer had served since 2006 with no prior discipline and strong reviews. His overtime claim was a single, isolated episode, not the repeated pattern that had led to other officers being dismissed. That record, the board said, deserved "serious consideration."
The board did not treat lax enforcement as an excuse. It noted that "management's neglect in overseeing its personnel does not necessarily excuse wrongful behavior engaged in by their officers." Officers, it stressed, are held to a higher standard.
The appeals court agreed the conduct was serious and harmed public trust. But it held the board had not abused its discretion. Citing earlier rulings, the court noted that dismissal "is not required in every case of dishonesty" - and where reasonable minds could differ on the penalty, the board's call stands.
The court also flagged a lasting cost: because of the dishonesty finding, the officer's record must be disclosed to defense lawyers in criminal cases for the rest of his career.
The ruling underscores that a proven act of dishonesty does not automatically require termination when a long, clean record sits on the other side of the scale - at least where a personnel board holds the final say.
