Mastagni Holstedt and the California Association of
Highway Patrolmen secured a significant victory on September 11, 2026, when the
San Bernardino County Superior Court denied the California Highway Patrol’s
petition for a writ of mandate in California Highway Patrol v. California
State Personnel Board (Case No. CIVSB2517865). Judge Lily L. Sinfield upheld
the State Personnel Board’s decision to reject dismissal of Sergeant Daniel
Howard and to impose a demotion to officer instead. The result is a big win for
fairness and for the principle that serious work can include human error
without ending a career.
The night that produced the charges was unlike anything
most highway patrol supervisors ever confront. On June 22, 2021, Raymond Loftin
stole a Peterbilt tractor and drove it the wrong way on Inland Empire freeways
at speeds of sixty to seventy five miles per hour. He evaded officers across
multiple jurisdictions for about an hour and a half, blew through three traffic
breaks, continued on a sparking rim after a spike strip, and struck a guardrail
before meeting a roadblock on Interstate 10. A CHP lieutenant with nearly
thirty years of service testified that he had never seen a big rig driven the
wrong way on multiple freeways. Howard,
a combat veteran, had worn sergeant stripes for less than two months. He had
not received specialized sergeant training and had not yet come to know the
Rancho Cucamonga officers under his command. He found himself directing five
officers in that unprecedented scene.
The Department sought to end Howard’s career for his
conduct during the pursuit and the shooting that followed. Howard appealed.
After a six day evidentiary hearing, Administrative Law Judge Gregory W. Brown
sustained some allegations and rejected others. He found dismissal too harsh.
The State Personnel Board adopted that proposed decision on November 4, 2024,
and reduced the penalty to a demotion from sergeant to officer. The Department
then asked the superior court to overturn the Board’s decision. The court
refused.
The Board’s reasoning, which the court accepted, recognized
he faced a difficult incident that required a balanced penalty. Howard had
fourteen years of service and generally positive performance reviews. He had
earned promotion to sergeant and had received commendations. His history
demonstrated an established record of public service rather than a pattern of
disregard for duty. The Board also credited the extraordinary setting. Howard
faced a unique, tricky, and high stakes problem without the training and local
familiarity that a more seasoned sergeant would have brought to the same
roadblock. He put his own life at risk in an effort to protect others. The
administrative law judge found that his actions may have saved innocent
motorists or fellow officers.
At the hearing Howard took responsibility for his actions
and recognition of the seriousness of the incident. He broke down in tears
over the loss of life that occurred in the course
of his duties. The administrative law judge found that this response spoke well
of his moral character and of his capacity to learn. The evidence supported
affording him the opportunity to continue serving.
The evidence and testimony at hearing did not support the
CHP’s depiction of his conduct and alleged inconsistent statements. The
administrative law judge found that the evidence painted a more complex picture
than a simple policy violation, and the court agreed that this was a reasonable
reading of the record. Howard explained that his priority was to stop the truck
and arrest the occupants. He screamed at the truck to stop as he stepped onto
the roadway. On the shooting itself the Department agreed at the hearing that
Howard believed the truck was going to hit him. The parties did not contest
that Howard fired because he believed he was in imminent danger. Consideration
of a proper penalty based on tactical judgments must take into account his
reasonable beliefs. The court held that substantial evidence supported the
finding that Howard discharged his firearm on that honest perception of
imminent harm. The Department’s later argument that he created his own danger
by leaving cover did not erase that core fact.
On the claim that he failed to take command after the
shots, the record showed chaos ensued, rather than an abandonment of his duty.
Another officer warned of possible crossfire in a span of frantic moments.
Howard testified that he immediately broadcasted that he had fired, though the
transmission may have been muffled by other radio traffic that witnesses
described as fast and furious. The court concluded that the Department had not
proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Howard failed to advise dispatch
that shots had been fired. The record also did not support allegations he lost
composure, rather it established he was working through an unfolding crisis
with incomplete information and competing radio traffic.
The administrative law judge concluded that demotion
would correct the command and safety protocol problems without destroying a
fourteen year career. That is proportionate discipline. Employees, including
peace officers, make mistakes. The question is whether the penalty matches the
person, the circumstances, and the likelihood that the same failure will be
repeated. The SPB imposed a measured reduction in rank that keeps the officer
in service while removing him from a supervisory role.
Review under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 asks
whether the Board stayed within its authority, whether the hearing was fair,
and whether the findings and the penalty rest on substantial evidence and
reasoned judgment. Generally, a court will afford great deference to the SPB’s
determination unless the Board acted arbitrarily or beyond the bounds of
reason. See Fisher v. State Personnel Board (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1. If
reasonable minds can differ on the penalty, the Board’s choice stands. See Department
of California Highway Patrol v. State Personnel Board (2026) 122
Cal.App.5th 418.
Although unpublished, the ruling confirms that a long and
generally positive work history is central to any penalty analysis. It also
confirms that isolated scrutiny of an imperfect command in an unprecedented
pursuit does not render an officer unfit for duty. Howard faced an imminent
threat of death or serious bodily injury and his decision-making must be
considered in light of his work history,
gaps in his training, his commendations, and genuine remorse.