CHP Captain Sues CHP For Defamation; Search Violations

[Ayatollahgondola]

What kind of a Maroon law officer keeps the tools of his perverse and illicit affair in his locker at the station? Doh!...I forgot; he was having sex at work.
Poor baby; Now he has to sue to get his good name back?

Beginning in about 2006, Capt. MARQUEZ became romantically involved with a woman
by the name of Judy Cook. Capt. MARQUEZ, who was married at the time, concealed his
relationship and maintained it as a private matter. Capt. MARQUEZ' relationship with
Mrs. Cook was no one's business and was maintained by Capt. MARQUEZ as a private fact
and held within his zone of privacy.
8. In about August 2008, Mrs. Cook's husband discovered the relationship and sent a
complaint letter to the Secretary of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency.While some of the factual allegations were correct, Mr. Cook's complaint letter was filled
with libelous statements which were clearly aimed at exacting revenge against Plaintiff Capt.
MARQUEZ. On about August 20,2008 Mr. Cook sent a second complaint letter addressed
to CHP Commissioner Joseph A Farrow which was again filled with libelous false
statements about Capt. MARQUEZ. Subsequent to receiving the Cook complaint letter,
the CHP initiated an investigation into Mr. Cook's complaint letters.
9. On about September 3, 2008, Plaintiff Capt. MARQUEZ received notice from Chief R.J.
Chappelle of Notice of Initiation of An Investigation for "alleged misuse of state time and position over the past three years." The purported notice indicated that Plaintiff s "storage
space, lockers, vehicles, desks, and/or storage spaces" would be searched on September 3,
2008, at 1700 hours. Plaintiff received the notice late in the day of September 3rd which did
not afford him sufficient time to arrange for a representative from the California Association
of Highway Patrolmen. On September 3, 2008, at about 5:00 p.m., Chief Chappelle met
Capt. MARQUEZ at the Sacramento CHP location and served him with the Notice of
Initiation of Investigation. Plaintiff was then flanked by Chief Chappelle and Assistant
Chief Hagler and asked to surrender his cell phone. Next, Lieutenant Richard and Sgt.
Paxton took possession of Capt. MARQUEZ' state vehicle and proceeded to search it.
10. Again, without representation present, Defendants continued their unlawful search of
Plaintiff Capt. MARQUEZ' property. The search next turned to Plaintiff Capt. MARQUEZ'
office desk where two (2) "flash" drives (also known as "thumb drives") were located.
Defendants Lt. M. Richard, Sgt. Paxton, Sgt. Price and Officer Vasiliou were present and
collectively took possession of the 2 flash drives. Defendant Officer Vasiliou of Defendant
CHP's Computer Crimes Investigation Unit physically took possession of Plaintiff Capt.
MARQUEZ' personal flash drive without consent.
11. No verbal or written consent to search Plaintiff Capt. MARQUEZ's personal flash drive was
provided to Defendants. Indeed, Defendant CHP has a form "CHP 202D" which its internal
policies and procedures manual calls for the signature of the officer subject to the internal
investigation so that a consent to search is memorialized. Plaintiff Capt. MARQUEZ'
alleges on information and belief that Defendant CHP has an unwritten policy in place of
refusing to provide the CHP 202D form to officers subject to investigation so that their
investigators can later testify that they obtained verbal consent for an otherwise illegal
search. Additionally, as of September 3,2008, Defendants CHP were looking for electronic
proof and/or evidence that Plaintiff Capt. MARQUEZ had "misused state time and/or
property" only as set forth in Defendant Chief Cheppelle's Notice of Initiation of
Investigation.
12. Having violated Plaintiff Capt. MARQUEZ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by
conducting a warrant less search of his personal flash drive, Defendants next proceeded to
search Plaintiffs locker. Plaintiffs locker was opened and therein was located two (2)
sealed boxes, sealed with tape. Next, Defendants Chief Chappelle, Chief Hagler, Lt. Richard
went with Plaintiff Capt. MARQUEZ to Plaintiffs locker. Therein, two boxes were located
sealed with tape. At no time was Plaintiff Capt. MARQUEZ asked to give consent to open
the sealed boxes. Defendants and each of them were looking for any and all evidence to
sustain punitive action against Plaintiff Capt. MARQUEZ. The two tape sealed boxes
were taken out of the locker by Defendant Sgt. Paxton. Again, Plaintiff Capt. MARQUEZ
was not asked for nor did he provide consent to search the contents of the two boxes.
Plaintiff was not presented with nor did he execute a CHP 202D consent to search. Capt.
MARQUEZ' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated. Providing tacit
support of violating Plaintiffs constitutional and statutory rights were Defendants Chief
Chappelle, Chief Hagler and Sgt. Price.
13. The two tape sealed boxes were opened. The contents of the allegedly obtained flash drive
and within the two boxes were subsequently used by Defendants CHP to exact punitive
action against Plaintiff Capt. MARQUEZ in the form of termination of employment. On
May 15, 2009 Defendants CHP terminated Capt. MARQUEZ.

Defendant CITY OF FOLSOM (sued enoneously as CITY OF FOLSOM POLICE
DEPARTMENT) hereby submits its opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel an Order
Compelling Inspection Demand.
I. INTRODUCTION
The plaintiff, Carlos Marquez, was terminated from his job at the California Highway
Patrol (CHP) for admittedly having sex at work and misusing state time by making thousands of
telephone calls to his mistress and wnting pornographic sonnets while he was supposedly
working. The plaintiff, who was a Captain at the time, kept sexual paraphernalia including dildos,
strap-on penises, and pornographic videos, in his work locker. Moreover, the plaintiff fabricated
driver's licenses for himself and his mistress purportedly to protect their identities when checking
into hotels together. Nevertheless, the plaintiff is suing the City of Folsom, CHP and his fomier
co-workers claiming that his rights were somehow violated.