Mastagni Holstedt and the California Association of Highway Patrolmen secured a significant victory on September 11, 2026, when the San Bernardino County Superior Court denied the California Highway Patrol’s petition for a writ of mandate in California Highway Patrol v. California State Personnel Board (Case No. CIVSB2517865). Judge Lily L. Sinfield upheld the State Personnel Board’s decision to reject dismissal of Sergeant Daniel Howard and to impose a demotion to officer instead. The result is a big win for fairness and for the principle that serious work can include human error without ending a career.
The night that produced the charges was unlike anything most highway patrol supervisors ever confront. On June 22, 2021, Raymond Loftin stole a Peterbilt tractor and drove it the wrong way on Inland Empire freeways at speeds of sixty to seventy five miles per hour. He evaded officers across multiple jurisdictions for about an hour and a half, blew through three traffic breaks, continued on a sparking rim after a spike strip, and struck a guardrail before meeting a roadblock on Interstate 10. A CHP lieutenant with nearly thirty years of service testified that he had never seen a big rig driven the wrong way on multiple freeways. Howard, a combat veteran, had worn sergeant stripes for less than two months. He had not received specialized sergeant training and had not yet come to know the Rancho Cucamonga officers under his command. He found himself directing five officers in that unprecedented scene.
The Department sought to end Howard’s career for his conduct during the pursuit and the shooting that followed. Howard appealed. After a six day evidentiary hearing, Administrative Law Judge Gregory W. Brown sustained some allegations and rejected others. He found dismissal too harsh. The State Personnel Board adopted that proposed decision on November 4, 2024, and reduced the penalty to a demotion from sergeant to officer. The Department then asked the superior court to overturn the Board’s decision. The court refused.
The Board’s reasoning, which the court accepted, recognized he faced a difficult incident that required a balanced penalty. Howard had fourteen years of service and generally positive performance reviews. He had earned promotion to sergeant and had received commendations. His history demonstrated an established record of public service rather than a pattern of disregard for duty. The Board also credited the extraordinary setting. Howard faced a unique, tricky, and high stakes problem without the training and local familiarity that a more seasoned sergeant would have brought to the same roadblock. He put his own life at risk in an effort to protect others. The administrative law judge found that his actions may have saved innocent motorists or fellow officers.
At the hearing Howard took responsibility for his actions and recognition of the seriousness of the incident. He broke down in tears over the loss of life that occurred in the course of his duties. The administrative law judge found that this response spoke well of his moral character and of his capacity to learn. The evidence supported affording him the opportunity to continue serving.
The evidence and testimony at hearing did not support the CHP’s depiction of his conduct and alleged inconsistent statements. The administrative law judge found that the evidence painted a more complex picture than a simple policy violation, and the court agreed that this was a reasonable reading of the record. Howard explained that his priority was to stop the truck and arrest the occupants. He screamed at the truck to stop as he stepped onto the roadway. On the shooting itself the Department agreed at the hearing that Howard believed the truck was going to hit him. The parties did not contest that Howard fired because he believed he was in imminent danger. Consideration of a proper penalty based on tactical judgments must take into account his reasonable beliefs. The court held that substantial evidence supported the finding that Howard discharged his firearm on that honest perception of imminent harm. The Department’s later argument that he created his own danger by leaving cover did not erase that core fact.
On the claim that he failed to take command after the shots, the record showed chaos ensued, rather than an abandonment of his duty. Another officer warned of possible crossfire in a span of frantic moments. Howard testified that he immediately broadcasted that he had fired, though the transmission may have been muffled by other radio traffic that witnesses described as fast and furious. The court concluded that the Department had not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Howard failed to advise dispatch that shots had been fired. The record also did not support allegations he lost composure, rather it established he was working through an unfolding crisis with incomplete information and competing radio traffic.
The administrative law judge concluded that demotion would correct the command and safety protocol problems without destroying a fourteen year career. That is proportionate discipline. Employees, including peace officers, make mistakes. The question is whether the penalty matches the person, the circumstances, and the likelihood that the same failure will be repeated. The SPB imposed a measured reduction in rank that keeps the officer in service while removing him from a supervisory role.
Review under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 asks whether the Board stayed within its authority, whether the hearing was fair, and whether the findings and the penalty rest on substantial evidence and reasoned judgment. Generally, a court will afford great deference to the SPB’s determination unless the Board acted arbitrarily or beyond the bounds of reason. See Fisher v. State Personnel Board (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1. If reasonable minds can differ on the penalty, the Board’s choice stands. See Department of California Highway Patrol v. State Personnel Board (2026) 122 Cal.App.5th 418.
Although unpublished, the ruling confirms that a long and generally positive work history is central to any penalty analysis. It also confirms that isolated scrutiny of an imperfect command in an unprecedented pursuit does not render an officer unfit for duty. Howard faced an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury and his decision-making must be considered in light of his work history, gaps in his training, his commendations, and genuine remorse.
