Arbitrator finds police officer did not intentionally lie about warrant application, concludes prosecutor's placement of officer on Brady list and declining to allow him to testify does not provide just cause for termination

After a thorough review of the facts, Arbitrator Joseph Daly concludes that Eden Prairie police officer Travis Serafin did not lie about his handling of an application for a search warrant, and did not intend to mislead the court when he testified. Law Enforcement Services, Inc., Brooklyn Center, Minnesota [Travis Serafin] And City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Those allegations were the basis for the County Attorney's office designation of  the officer as a Brady officer and his decision that he would not use the officer as a witness in any case. As a result of the County Attorney's decision, the Department terminated the employment of Officer Serafin for his "inability to perform an essential function of his job as a police officer" i.e to provide courtroom testimony.

While the factual background is somewhat complicated, essentially the dispute arose when grievant sought to replace what he described as the lost first page of an application for a search warrant. In doing so, he printed out a new first page. That new page was somewhat different from the first page that had been on the original application. Grievant testified that the new page, consistent with all of his other search warrant applications, contained language seeking authorization to search any vehicles on the property. That language, according to grievant, had inadvertently been excluded from the first version of the affidavit, something grievant asserted he was not aware of at the time.

The confusion about that discrepancy led to grievant being disciplined by a reprimand, and removal from a Task Force and SWAT and required to attend additional ethics courses and work with  a supervisor in the creation and execution of search warrants. In response to a grievance filed over the discipline, the Department noted that "if we thought you had done this on purpose we would have fired you." That discipline was upheld by the City Manager as "final" and grievant worked for two and a half months as a patrol officer without incident.

Thereafter, the County Attorney notified the Department that it believed grievant had intentionally modified the application after it had been signed and had testified falsely about the circumstances. The Count Attorney notified the Department that "it cannot permit Mr. Serafin to ever be called as a witness in any case prosecuted by the office."

The Union claimed that the Department's actions violated the principle of double jeopardy, and were contrary to a MOU providing that a Brady designation "is not, in and of itself, related to the employee’s employment and will not be used by Eden Prairie PD for disciplinary purposes.” It also asserted that any conclusion that grievant intentionally misrepresented the circumstances surrounding  the creation of the new page was factually unsupported. It relied on prior arbitration awards, including Benton County and Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. (discussed in Arbitrator rejects claim that Deputy's "isolated lying incident" makes him Giglio impaired or provides just cause for termination) and sought to distinguish the decision in City of Cloquet and Teamsters Local 346 (discussed in Arbitrator upholds termination of "Brady" officer after County Attorney declines to use him as a witness). The City maintained that the arbitrator did not have the authority to modify the County Attorney's decision concerning who to call as a witness and therefore "the only question for the arbitrator in this proceeding is whether Mr. Serafin’s inability to perform an essential function of his job as a police officer—provide courtroom testimony—constitutes 'just cause' for his termination."

Substantially sustaining the grievance, Arbitrator Daly concluded that grievant "is a credible witness who made a mistake." He noted:

This arbitrator has no authority to tell the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office, or the City of Eden Prairie City Attorney’s Office what witnesses they may call. But he does have the authority to opine that Mr. Serafin has faced a grave injustice in being classified as a Brady/Giglio officer. He should not be classified as an incredible officer. Just the opposite. His entire professional experience as a police officer, his hard work, his training, the very high opinion that his fellow officers hold of him, and his testimony show he is highly credible and capable. If this arbitrator had the authority to order the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office, and the City of Eden Prairie Attorney’s Office to remove its label of Brady/Giglio as applied to Officer Serafin and change each decision to no longer call Officer Serafin to testify, I would do so. But I do not have that authority. On the other hand, I would hope that Officer Serafin would have an opportunity to continue his work as a skilled and respected police officer in the City of Eden Prairie or in some other city he chooses to work. At least if he is called in a serious case for which he has critical evidence, such as murder in the first degree case, and the defense attorneys are given the information about his unfortunate mistake in the Holmes search warrant, he can use some of the language in this arbitration hearing to let the judge and jury know that at least an arbitrator who heard the facts in-full has concluded that Officer Serafin is a highly credible police officer who was terminated without just cause. 

He ordered the grievant's reinstatement to his former position with a loss of back pay for the time off because of his "unintentional mistake."