Sacramento police spokesman Norm Leong said investigators suspect Lisa Gargano, 37, was under the influence of prescription drugs when she lost control of her vehicle and drove through the front of the store at 3230 Arena Boulevard around 9 a.m. Sunday.





An off-duty Sacramento County Sheriff's deputy faces felony DUI charges after she drove her SUV through the front of a Natomas Starbucks Sunday morning, injuring three people.

QUOTE:
"She takes Norca, Soma, Xanax, and sometimes up to 30 a day."
Then she has to take alcohol ?
even though it was off-duty, is likely going to cost her job. Officials are reportedly telling Gargano if she doesn't resign by tomorrow, she will face being fired"

ok .. Have a promlem with something How come she is taking these drugs close to 30 a day .. when for pain releiver , such as Vicodin ( Norco )6-8 hrs its is 30 count only .. even with Soma that is every 8 hrs .. No one can take these lik popping lik candy .. & they ( the cops ) Knew of this for the past 3 yrs

QUOTE:
Another news station is reporting that she has had a history of prescription drug abuse that the department put her through rehab and she was allowed back out to police our streets earlier this year.

I'll bet that the Xanax is what she was popping like Skittles!

EAPs are the culprit why she was still on the job. Employee Assistance Programs. If any employee, including a cop, comes forward voluntarily and requests help, the city is obligated to get them that help, including substance abuse. As far as her using on or off-duty, what job did she have within the agency? Jails, courts, patrol, R&D, where did she work and was it in an office full of people or solo on patrol or other individual office job where she could hide it better?

They have something similar where I work, but the bosses are a whole lot different about it! They will get you the help you need but once that is done, you are kicking rocks!

policeyourown1st wrote:

QUOTE:
They have something similar where I work, but the bosses are a whole lot different about it! They will get you the help you need but once that is done, you are kicking rocks!

I wish that were the case. Unfortunately, labor law in California keeps any employer, public or private, from firing a person who has been through or has requested EAP substance abuse assistance.

What we have here is a double edged sword. Of course we lose the experienced hand because of their own habits, but what we get to replace is likely to be 10 times worse. This new generation has no work ethic, no gutts, and way too much of that "I can't" bullshit!

policeyourown1st wrote:

QUOTE:
What we have here is a double edged sword. Of course we lose the experienced hand because of their own habits, but what we get to replace is likely to be 10 times worse. This new generation has no work ethic, no gutts, and way too much of that "I can't" bullshit!

You been sneaking into my classroom and listening to my students PYO?

Not yet, but sounds like it could be fun!

policeyourown1st wrote:

QUOTE:
What we have here is a double edged sword. Of course we lose the experienced hand because of their own habits, but what we get to replace is likely to be 10 times worse. This new generation has no work ethic, no gutts, and way too much of that "I can't" bullshit!

The older guys kept her on. She should have been fired a few years ago it sounds like to me. Probably another affirmative action case to scared to fire a women. They probably let the male officers do her dirty work. Allot like my agency. P***Y fever got to have that women in uniform at all cost.

rwill wrote:

QUOTE:
policeyourown1st wrote:

QUOTE:
What we have here is a double edged sword. Of course we lose the experienced hand because of their own habits, but what we get to replace is likely to be 10 times worse. This new generation has no work ethic, no gutts, and way too much of that "I can't" bullshit!

The older guys kept her on. She should have been fired a few years ago it sounds like to me. Probably another affirmative action case to scared to fire a women. They probably let the male officers do her dirty work. Allot like my agency. P***Y fever got to have that women in uniform at all cost.

Wow. A bit misogynic aren't we RW? What makes you think that women are an AA hire? Some of the best cops I know are female and have held their own in fights, right next to their male counterparts. Are there some that shouldn't be cops? Sure. Just like some males I know that shouldn't be allowed either. As far as her working situation, would you have the same thoughts if this was a guy with the same problem and time on the job?

And as far as the old guys, I'll take that old gray beard in a confrontation any day over a young pup who may have some big guns for arms but knows nothing about how to deal with people.

And as far as her being allowed to stay on the job, well son, you better brush up on human resource regulations in your agency, which are dictated by state law. In California, where this occurred, firing anyone with a substance abuse problem is hard, even a cop. So those "old" guys who kept her on board have their hands tied by state labor law.

Know of what you speak before you speak.

err Homer, CA is "at will" emloyment state. While they may have to fight with the union, it's not as hard as you claim to terminate an employee. I'm sure you've seen people railroaded out of a position for stupid or vailid reasons.

Big Red wrote:

QUOTE:
err Homer, CA is "at will" emloyment state. While they may have to fight with the union, it's not as hard as you claim to terminate an employee. I'm sure you've seen people railroaded out of a position for stupid or vailid reasons.

Not in every job or circumstance. I worked in an "at will" position after I retired. No problems, but even then, they had to do so for "cause" or eliminate the position. To get rid of even an "at-will" employee takes weeks if not months, unless there is a direct threat of violence or the potential for violence.

After I retired, I worked corporate security for a while. I've been in on many a termination as security to assist an office in case of an employee wanting seek revenge. One worker in particular was let go only after the HR folks dilly-dallied around for weeks and finally cut the guy loose. He was a machinist and wanted to get his tools, but refused to go to his locker and left. We cut the lock off a few days later and there was a locked and cocked .380 automatic with extra loaded magazines. He was ready for business but security being on site kept him from potentially carrying out any violence.

It would be nice if you could walk up to recalcitrant person who is under performing and fire them on the spot, but the CA labor code and union agreements make that near impossible.

disagree, most applications state the at will provision. You can be terminated for any or no reason, been there done that! The unemployment laws vary as you can be fired for any reason, but can still collect if reasons don't meet their definition of misconduct. I've heard of places that would send you packing for being late one time.

Thank god I don't live in California any more 1st of all, you have more tax payers moving out of your state than coming into your state mostly because people thinking like you have ruined your state. And every cop out there knows that 7 out of 10 women are political hires. Probably 30 % of all cops hired in general are due to political reasons not based on skill, education, etc. Who you know and we will lower that standards to make sure your hired. Then we can sit around and wonder what happened to LE and why so many thugs get hired now days.

Big Red wrote:

QUOTE:
disagree, most applications state the at will provision. You can be terminated for any or no reason, been there done that! The unemployment laws vary as you can be fired for any reason, but can still collect if reasons don't meet their definition of misconduct. I've heard of places that would send you packing for being late one time.

Red, will have to agree to disagree. In the public sector, it is difficult to fire anyone outright, without first going through progressive discipline, unless it was something like insubordination, a criminal act, etc. Factor in both union contracts and labor law requirements and unless the job is strictly an at will job, there is a process to go through, that if not followed exactly, the employee may end up getting their job back. Seen it happen because of HR screw ups.