To: David Ready

The Petersen Law Firm, A Law Corporation (949) 335-1300 Fax: (714) 850-0274

From: Gregory G. Petersen, Esq.

Date: September 11, 2010
Re: Citizen’s Complaint concerning Chief of Police Dominguez

I am filing this Citizen’s Complaint pursuant to California Penal Code § 832.5,

as a citizen, against Chief of Police, David Dominguez, for engaging in unethical,
unlawful, and potentially criminal conduct, including his abuse of authority, retaliation
and intimidation of persons, both inside and outside the police department, with
regard to his efforts to conceal his personal misconduct at the Warm Sands vice
operation conducted in the summer of 2009. This information personally known to
him, concerning the actions at the investigation should have been disclosed by him in
a properly administered internal investigation. It was not. You are the person now
responsible for compliance with the requirements of Penal Code § 832.5 in this
matter since the Chief of Police has, after being confronted, admitted he is a proper
suspect and of the investigation. Accordingly with the requirements imposed on you
as the City Manager of Palm Springs, it is now your duty to investigate this matter
pursuant to Palm Springs Municipal Code § 2.08.010 (Ordinance No.116, § 2(a)-(b)).
This provides that you ensure that all the city’s laws and ordinances are enforced and
to discipline and dismiss the chief of police. While the retained counsel used to act
as the City Attorney can assist you, the Charter and the Municipal Code place this
duty at your door.
The facts are as follows:
During the Warm Sands vice Operation in the summer of 2009, Chief
Dominguez was in the undercover vehicle during the surveillance on the evening of
the 19th, seated between the video camera operator and the suspects engaged in
 that Mc Erlain is not likely to make any finding that would harm his fellow command
officer and friend. Simply put, I am alleging that he did so in order that he may cover
up his own culpability in the matters under investigation. In taking the actions noted
above, the Chief of Police has:
1. Violated the Palm Springs City Charter § 701(e)-(f), Personnel Rules
and Policies, by failing to properly make promotions from eligibility lists and instead
passing over personnel for arbitrary and retaliatory motivations; violated § 701(h) by
failing to ensure that employees in the Police Department are evaluated fairly at
The Petersen Law Firm, A Law Corporation (949) 335-1300 Fax: (714) 850-0274

regular intervals;
2. Violated the Memorandum of Understanding by and between PSPOA
and the City of Palm Springs by failing to make promotions according to the rankings
on the eligibility list established by competitive examination;
3. Violated the Palm Springs Municipal Code § 2.08.010 (Ordinance
No.116, § 2(a) by violating the law;
4. Violated California Government Code §§ 5400 and 5401, which
require the accurate keeping of records pertaining to government activities;
5. Violated California Government Code § 3305, which provides that
“[n]o public safety officer shall have any comment adverse to his interest…used for
any personnel purposes by his employer, without the public safety officer having first
read and signed the instrument containing the adverse comment,” by making
adverse decisions against promotion based on information not previously provided to
officers in his department;
6. Withheld exculpatory evidence known to exonerate a peace officer, by
failing to disclose that, during the Warm Sands vice operation in the summer of 2009,
he was present on the occasion when certain comments were made about the
subjects under surveillance and, in fact, that he initiated the conversation in which
statements were made about the subjects. Since then, Chief Dominguez has acted
maliciously, dishonestly, and unlawfully by failing to disclose facts known personally
to him, as a witness to, and active participant in, the same conduct for which he has
now caused subordinate officers to be investigated;
7. In doing the acts above, he abused his authority in order to protect his
own reputation, conceal his wrongdoing, and deny the truth that he, Chief
Dominguez, made the statements above in connection with the subjects under
surveillance in Warm Sands in the summer of 2009;
 8. In making statements in the community, City Council included, he has
made at least four sets of his version of what occurred there, all of which were false
statements on what happened; and
8. In doing the acts above, Chief Dominguez failed to disclose
information he is legally and ethically obligated to disclose.
THEREFORE, as a result of this conduct, I hereby request the City Manager
to:
a. Disqualify the Chief of Police from receiving any reports or other
The Petersen Law Firm, A Law Corporation (949) 335-1300 Fax: (714) 850-0274

information related to the investigation of comments made during the Warm Sands
surveillance;
b. Disqualify Ed Mc Erlain from participating in the investigation of the
Warm Sands incident because he has a conflict of interest as a former colleague and
personal friend of Chief Dominguez, and therefore lacks the necessary impartiality to
ensure that a full and fair investigation is conducted, because his appointment is
tainted with a conflict of interest, violates the rules and regulations of the department
as well as the MMBA; and
c. Shut down any further investigation of officers in connection with the
Warm Sands incident until there is a neutral fact-finder appointed agreed upon by the
PSPOA and the City Management.
As to the immunity of any person involved in this matter under the California
Tort Claims Act please note the following excepts this conduct from any claim that it
was protected government action:
820.21. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, the civil
immunity of juvenile court social workers, child protection workers, and
other public employees authorized to initiate or conduct investigations
or proceedings pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 200)
of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code shall not
extend to any of the following, if committed with malice:
(1) Perjury.
(2) Fabrication of evidence.
(3) Failure to disclose known exculpatory evidence.
(4) Obtaining testimony by duress, as defined in Section 1569 of the
Civil Code, fraud, as defined in either Section 1572 or Section 1573 of
 the Civil Code, or undue influence, as defined in Section 1575 of the
Civil Code.
(b) As used in this section, "malice" means conduct that is intended
by the person described in subdivision (a) to cause injury to the
plaintiff or despicable conduct that is carried on by the person
described in subdivision (a) with a willful and conscious disregard of
the rights or safety of others.
Pursuant to California Penal Code § 832.5 please provide the determination
The Petersen Law Firm, A Law Corporation (949) 335-1300 Fax: (714) 850-0274

in this matter as allowed by law to me.