Can a peace officer waive the statute of limitations on sexual assault allegations against him?

The County, however, once again makes a distinction between investigation files relating to conduct prior to employment and files relating to conduct during employment. This distinction applies here, the County argues, to preserve Madrigal's rights under the Bill of Rights Act with respect to all matters except those matters that arose prior to his employment with the County. To that limited extent, we agree with the County that an employee may waive the protections of the Bill of Rights Act. Where the employee's waiver is limited to an investigation of matters that arose prior to employment, and where the waiver expires after one year, so the employee is not subject to continuing investigation long after being hired, enforcement of the waiver would not particularly undermine the public purpose of the Act. Rather, in such a case, enforcement of the waiver would serve that purpose by facilitating an earlier hiring date for new peace officers who are transferring from other agencies. In other words, a limited waiver of the type described would be consistent with stable employer-employee relations between peace officers and their employers. (Cf. Bickel v. City of Piedmont (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1040, 68 Cal. Rptr.2d 758, 946 P.2d 427 [developers may waive the statutory time limitation during which a public entity must act on a request

[118 Cal.Rptr.2d 178]

for a development permit]; Cowan v. Superior Court (1996) 14 Cal.4th 367, 58 Cal. Rptr.2d 458, 926 P.2d 438 [criminal defendants may waive a statute of limitations].)

[118 Cal.Rptr.2d 178]