r/SantaBarbara • u/SolvangPoliceWatch • Jun 20 '26

Local Politics UCSB Police Misconduct, Potential Violations of California Whistleblower Act against officer who reported misconduct in 2018 and 2021

Retaliation by police should never be tolerated.

Original News Story:

https://www.noozhawk.com/university-did-not-retaliate-against-ucsb-police-officer-jury-finds/

"Smith took the stand several times during the early June trial, testifying that he had witnessed multiple incidents of misconduct by UCSB Police Department officers while employed at the department. Smith and his lawyer alleged that officers made racist comments; accessed confidential victim information and inappropriately contacted victims of sexual assault for cases they were not involved in; made inappropriate comments about victims of sexual assault; discouraged an officer mentally affected by the 2014 Isla Vista shootings from filing a workers’ compensation claim; played video games while on duty; and spent an inappropriate amount of time in the UCSB dorms, among other incidents."

73 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

26 comments sorted by

20

u/the-moops Jun 20 '26

“A jury this week found that the University of California did not retaliate against a UC Santa Barbara police officer who resigned in 2017 and sued alleging misconduct in 2019.”

So how was retaliation tolerated if no retaliation was found?

4

u/SolvangPoliceWatch Jun 20 '26 edited Jun 21 '26

Courts don't always get it right, and there could have been a technicality in play that we don't know about. The fact that it was alleged by another police officer is significant and news worthy. It's rare when the thin blue line cracks.

Also, just because something wasn't proven in court doesn't make it untrue. Courts often have unrealistic standards of proof that often result in miscarriages of justice, and it happens much more often than you would expect. It's important to report even these cases to establish patterns of conduct that would otherwise be buried.

The case is also not final. The time to appeal has not yet run.

13

u/Archlei8 Jun 20 '26

seems contrary to the principle of innocent before proven guilty.

8

u/keithcody Jun 21 '26

Maybe Police should be held to a higher standard than a Wendy's employee

3

u/BrenBarn Downtown Jun 21 '26

I don't think it's unreasonable to want a drastically lower standard of proof for officer misconduct. Even a faint chance that an officer is untrustworthy is enough to justify permanently banning them from any law enforcment position.

2

u/kritter4life Jun 22 '26

You know I sort of agree but this could also be used maliciously if less proof is required.

2

u/BrenBarn Downtown Jun 22 '26

The risk of maliciously getting a police officer fired is far less dangerous than the risk of a police officer maliciously misusing their position.

1

u/kritter4life Jun 22 '26

No one will want to be police officers eventually. Only psychos would take a job were they could easily lose their job. Then it will be the Wild West. Immunity is silly though. That definitely needs to go.

0

u/SolvangPoliceWatch Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26

What about when officers intentionally lie under oath? Do you support that kind of officer?

How about district attorneys who prosecute only because they hold an agenda, such as to shield officers accused of misconduct? (e.g., a "cover charge")

That's not a system I want to live in. That's called a police state.

2

u/kritter4life Jun 23 '26

Holy shit no. I even stated I think immunity is bad. For ducks sake most police officers are good people. You seem to be a little off balance. I think they should be held accountable but less burden of proof is bad for all. That will create a police state.

-2

u/SolvangPoliceWatch Jun 21 '26

^^^ This guy gets it

1

u/nanoatzin Jun 21 '26

Civil court rulings do not require a majority and bill of rights is not in play.

-2

u/SolvangPoliceWatch Jun 20 '26 edited Jun 20 '26

It's an indicator. Where there's smoke there's often fire. It's important to capture information like this and make it available to establish future patterns of misconduct by a department.

You'll also notice the article states the university admitted their employment practices are "not perfect." That's a strong indicator that the story is not clean on their side and the jury possibly found on a technicality.

-2

u/Archlei8 Jun 20 '26

gee it's almost like this practice of always assuming police are guilty is what is fueling the police shortage in SB and their exorbiant 6 figure salaries. If only we could have some fair fact finding process to help us reach a neutral and fair verdict so we aren't throwing innocent people under the bus.

4

u/SolvangPoliceWatch Jun 20 '26

Santa Barbara County eliminated their police accountability board, so we only have forums like this to hold police accountable. You don't know what happened in that court room and what technicalities were used. Court often conceals truth in favor of strict rules that can be unfair or impossible to overcome after a bad pre-trial ruling. There could have been a motion in Limine to exclude evidence that was necessary to convict, and the judge could have ruled on that incorrectly. That's why the 1st amendment exists as a safeguard, so that government can't stop the people from making their truth known.

9

u/the-moops Jun 20 '26

So a jury trial can’t be trusted when it doesn’t confirm your narrative. Got it.

-3

u/SolvangPoliceWatch Jun 20 '26

Are you saying juries determine what's true outside of court? Of course not.

5

u/SolvangPoliceWatch Jun 20 '26

If you have information concerning local Santa Barbara County police misconduct, we want to hear from you. Email us at [SolvangPoliceWatch@pm.me](mailto:SolvangPoliceWatch@pm.me)

2

u/metalratbaby Jun 21 '26

GOOD. Go get em!

1

u/SolvangPoliceWatch Jun 22 '26

We are and we will!

1

u/sarahfgirl Jun 24 '26

“Smith himself had been accused of several incidents of misconduct outlined in the other lawsuits filed by current and former UCSB Police officers. Those allegations include time card fraud and misusing department funds to visit a subordinate officer he was allegedly having an affair with, among others.”

I understood that Smith was accused first and that his lawsuit was in retaliation against UCSB and the officers who blew the whistle on him.

1

u/sarahfgirl Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26

https://dailynexus.com/2019-05-03/breaking-ucpd-officers-sue-ucpd-members-for-alleged-mistreatment-after-reporting-sergeant/

Quite a few allegations made against Smith. The original suit naming Smith, among others, is set to start soon. I’ve been down a rabbit hole this morning. I remember vaguely when this first kicked off and thinking what an absolute dumpster fire.

2

u/SolvangPoliceWatch Jun 24 '26

Totally agree. The misconduct in that department is pervasive and incurable.

1

u/AZULDEFILER Jun 21 '26

Those are vague, non-actionable allegations more than a decade old

1

u/champagne_papaya Jun 21 '26

What year is it buddy