What is the test for "abuse of discretion" in civil service discipline cases involving a deputy sheriff's conduct?

As case law establishes, "[a]n abuse of discretion occurs where . . . the administrative decision manifests an indifference to public safety and welfare." (Hankla v. Long Beach Civil Service Com. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1222 (Hankla).) Thus, " '[i]n considering whether such abuse occurred in the context of public employee discipline, . . . the overriding consideration . . . is the extent to which the employee's

Page 19

conduct resulted in, or if repeated is likely to result in, "[h]arm to the public service." ' " (Id. at pp. 1222-1223.) "The public is entitled to protection from unprofessional employees whose conduct places people at risk of injury and the government at risk of incurring liability." (Id. at p. 1223.) Public safety is especially implicated when police officer performance is at issue because "police officers 'are the guardians of the peace and security of the community, and the efficiency of our whole system, designed for the purpose of maintaining law and order, depends upon the extent to which such officers perform their duties and are faithful to the trust reposed in them.' " (Id. at p. 1224.) "A deputy sheriff's job is a position of trust and the public has a right to the highest standard of behavior from those they invest with the power and authority of a law enforcement officer." (Talmo v. Civil Service Com. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 210, 231.)