A former Los Angeles police sergeant who says she was targeted for termination because of her claims that the Internal Affairs Division tries to silence some officers is asking a judge to release personnel records from two department captains she contends were in part responsible for her difficult work atmosphere.
Sarah Dunster’s amended Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit alleges whistleblower protection, retaliation, failure to prevent harassment, discrimination and wrongful discharge. On Tuesday, her attorneys filed a “Pitchess” motion with Judge William Fahey, which if granted would allow the plaintiff and her attorneys to see the personnel files of two department members in order to fine possible misconduct evidence.
The motion seeks information, among other things, of any complaints, reports and allegations made by any department employee of retaliation and harassment against the then-captain of the Hollywood Division station as well as another captain who was one of Dunster’s supervisors.
“Following her actions in defending her officers from unjustified investigation and potential discipline, (Dunster) began again hearing the familiar refrain from command staff … such as `stop making waves’ and `stop stirring the pot,”’ Dunster’s attorneys state in their court papers.
In their previous court papers, lawyers for the City Attorney’s Office denied Dunster’s allegations and cited multiple defenses, including violation of the statute of limitations and that the city has immunity from her claims.
In her lawsuit brought last March 21, Dunster said the department’s Internal Affairs Division maintains a “hostile investigation process” engineered to suppress and intimidate officers and that “IA investigators are driven by incentives to terminate officers in order to secure promotions, thus perpetuating a corrupt system.”
Dunster was hired in 2011 and assigned to the Hollywood station. In December of that year, Dunster accompanied Officer Reynaldo Amaya in apprehending people allegedly involved in illegal marijuana-related activities, according to the suit, which further states that Amaya was later investigated for allegedly discarding a suspect’s marijuana and providing misleading information to a sergeant.
Although Amaya acknowledged that he did not speak with Dunster about the marijuana, she was “subjected to a harassing and intimidating environment orchestrated by IA,” according to the suit, which also alleges that the command staff tried to coerce the plaintiff into testifying against Amaya, then penalized her for refusing to do so and called her statements misleading.
Then-LAPD Chief Charlie Beck criticized the investigation, stating that it insinuated that Dunster was aware of the marijuana’s location when she reasonably was not, the suit states.
“Moreover, the investigating officer fabricated a policy to prevent Dunster from refreshing her recollection with the video that was exploited to unjustly implicate her,” the suit alleges.
A captain pressured Dunster not to pursue action against IA, stating, “Take your lumps and in five years, it’ll go away” while warning her that she could be fired if she fought back, the suit states.
Despite the command staff’s alleged intimidation, Dunster was promoted to sergeant in 2019 and to detective two years later, the suit states.
But Dunster and her team faced persistent harassment from IA due to her advocacy on behalf of fellow officers during investigations and she was warned to “stop stirring the pot,” the suit alleges.
Stemming from a citizen complaint, IA launched an “unjustified investigation” against Dunster in February 2023, alleging failure to assume command and control, providing misleading information and providing false statements, the suit states.
The accusation stemmed from a woman’s complaints that two offers inappropriately touched her, according to the suit. Dunster went to the scene in her supervisor role and determined that the woman’s claims were refuted by an officer’s body camera, the suit states.
“Despite substantive evidence to the contrary, including testimony from the department’s own expert in body-worn video, Dunster was fired,” the suit states.
Dunster later attended a Board of Rights hearing in which a sergeant testified about defects of the body-worn camera system, supporting the idea among other things that false complaints do not need to be investigated further, the suit states.
“Nonetheless, Dunster was terminated due to this scapegoat incident, a pretextual move by IA and command staff to oust her due to her vocal opposition against them and her efforts to shield targeted fellow officers,” the suit states.