Spielbauer v. County of Santa Clara
Filed February 9, 2009
Cite as S150402

Denial of Immunity to Fired County Employee Upheld

Thomas Spielbauer was a lawyer working as deputy public defender for Santa Clara County when he was dismissed in July 2003 after 23 years in office based on administrative charges. He was charged of misleading Superior Court Judge Paul Teilh at a court hearing on January 2003 by refusing to answer questions about the incident.

During administrative hearing, a hearing officer and the Santa Clara County personnel board had agreed that Spielbauer deliberately withheld the fact that “he had spoken to the witness at his home after investigators were unable to locate him”.

He refused to answer questions during the investigation and as a result, he was fired on charges of insubordinations and conduct unbecoming a public employee.

Following that, Spielbauer claimed that the public defender had a vendetta against him because he had criticized Villareal’s management. He also tried unsuccessfully to qualify a ballot initiative that would have made the office of public defender elective.

Next, Spielbauer petitioned for writ of mandate, which the Santa Clara Superior Court denied. The superior court also rejected his arguments that he could not be compelled to answer potentially incriminating questions without an offer of immunity.

During review, the Sixth District court of appeal found that there was “substantial evidence that Spielbauer engaged in conduct unbecoming a county employee” but reversed the decision regarding the self-incrimination issue.

However, the Supreme Court held that a public entity may discipline an employee for refusal to answer questions during the internal investigation. Consequently, the High Court upheld the decision to fire Spielbauer when he refused to answer questions

Further, the Supreme Court held that the Deputy Public Defender is not entitled to formal immunity during internal investigations. The court emphasized that the self-incrimination clauses protect a person from being compelled to be a witness against himself, or herself, in a criminal proceeding, but do not protect the individual from being forced to admit wrongdoing in some other context.

It therefore reversed the ruling of the Sixth District appellate court that favored Spielbauer, who was fired for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a public employee. The court rejected as “exaggerated, if not entirely mistaken” the Court of Appeal’s premise that it is unfair to use an exclusionary rule to legalize “what would otherwise be the unconstitutional compulsion of self-incriminatory utterances.”

The High Court therefore held that, absent a contrary statute, a public employer, acting for noncriminal reasons, may demand answers from its own employee about the employee’s job conduct and may discipline the employee’s refusal to cooperate, without first involving the prosecuting authorities in a decision about granting formal immunity.