Officer Reinstated After Civil Service Commission Overturns Termination

In a critical decision reaffirming principles of due process and proportional discipline, the five-member Alhambra Civil Service Commission ruled termination was excessive for Police K-9 Officer Sergio Llamas following a multi-day evidentiary hearing. Officer Llamas had been terminated by the Alhambra Police Department in December 2024. While the Commission upheld one allegation related to his failure to obtain a work permit for outside employment, it determined all other allegations and the ultimate penalty — termination — were excessive and not supported by the evidence.

Officer Llamas, an eight-year veteran with no prior disciplinary history, had been charged with dishonesty on a promotional application, failure to obtain a work permit for outside employment related to partial ownership in a family-owned transport (towing) company and improperly using his position during a family-related law enforcement encounter. After four days of evidentiary hearings, the Commission rejected all of the most serious allegations (often 5–0 or 4–1), concluding that neither the dishonesty charges nor the claim of using his position to influence had been proven, even by the low burden of a preponderance of the evidence.

Officer Llamas was represented in the proceedings by attorney Kasey Castillo of KC Law Group. Castillo argued that the City failed to meet its burden of proof, particularly in light of the seriousness of the dishonesty charge. “These types of allegations carry lasting professional consequences,” Castillo noted, “and require more than speculation or subjective interpretation — they require actual evidence of intent, which was not present here.” She emphasized that mere allegations or speculative beliefs are simply not enough to support such serious disciplinary action.

Under oath, the City called the chief of police, the assistant chief of police and the human resources director. Besides himself, the Appellant called to testify a police sergeant, a detective from a neighboring agency and internal affairs investigations expert, Marlon Marrache. Additionally, Officer Llamas submitted seven sworn declarations of co-workers and acquaintances attesting to his character and reputation for honesty and truthfulness — qualities that had been put at issue by the Department.

A central issue in the case was Officer Llamas’s promotional application for the rank of corporal, which referenced prior work experience related to his long-standing family business. The Commission found that while some information on the application was confusing, it found no evidence of intent to deceive. Officer Llamas testified consistently and credibly about his business involvement and portion of ownership, which actually pre-dated his hiring by the police department, and which was part of both his employment application and his previous corporal application (and never previously at issue). Further, his ownership in the business was widely known by all police employees, including the chief and assistant chief.

Crucially, expert witness Marrache — a former California State Dominguez Hills lieutenant and retired LAPD sergeant, now internal affairs investigator, law enforcement instructor and host of The IA Guy: A Police Podcast — testified that dishonesty allegations in police disciplinary cases should be considered seriously enough by the finders of fact to almost require a standard of proof resembling clear and convincing evidence due to their potential to end careers. “If you’re going to call someone a liar,” Marrache testified, “you’d better have a substantial amount of evidence to prove it so.” Marrache concluded that the evidence against Officer Llamas fell short of even a preponderance of the evidence. The Commission overwhelmingly agreed, often voting 5–0 in favor of Officer Llamas on the allegations amounting to dishonesty.

As for the outside employment allegation, the Commission acknowledged that a form had not been filed, but testimony from multiple department officials — including the City’s own human resources director — revealed that there was no clear policy or training regarding disclosure of passive business ownership. Even the assistant chief admitted that Officer Llamas' ownership interest had been widely known for years since his hiring and was never flagged as an issue. The chief testified that the ownership interest itself was not problematic.

Officer Llamas testified on his own behalf. He expressed his understanding of the work permit requirement for outside employment (versus self-employment) and his regret for any confusion despite almost a decade of ownership of the business. He committed to making sure all paperwork would be completed appropriately going forward.

As to the imposition of penalty, attorney Castillo emphasized the lack of notice of a potential policy violation for the work permit, and that the absence of any prior misconduct, coupled with the officer’s long record of exemplary service, should have triggered not only the benefit of the doubt, but progressive discipline — not termination. The Commission agreed.

Following his reinstatement, Officer Llamas was returned to his position on the Department’s SWAT team; however, he was not reunited with his K-9 partner. Although K-9 assignments had historically lasted for the working life of the dog, Officer Llamas had only had the dog for about two years before being placed on administrative leave. The Department asserted that he had not submitted a request to extend the assignment — despite the fact that he was terminated at the time — and reassigned the dog during his absence. After his reinstatement, Officer Llamas formally requested an extension of his K-9 assignment, but the request was denied. He was informed by both the chief and assistant chief that, contrary to past practice, the Department was no longer granting extensions beyond the initial three-year term due to internal movement and staffing considerations. Whether this new limitation will be applied consistently to other K-9 handlers remains to be seen.

This outcome highlights the importance of ensuring that disciplinary actions are progressive, rooted in fair notice, supported by credible evidence and applied consistently with department policy. It also shows that despite being vindicated, an officer may never truly be made “whole.” 

Officer Llamas remains committed to continuing his law enforcement career, with his name and professional reputation now restored. He wishes to publicly thank the Alhambra Police Officers’ Association (APOA) for its steadfast support throughout this process, to the many department members who attended the hearing on day one to show their solidarity, and the PORAC Legal Defense Fund for its vigorous representation, including procuring the testimony of expert Marrache on his behalf.

A tip to the readers: check to see if your department requires an outside work permit for even passive ownership in any business, LLC, or if you get rental income, day trade stocks, etc. You never know when it could be considered “outside employment,” necessitating written permission from the chief of police.

About the Authors

Kasey A. Castillo, Esq. is the principal attorney of KC Law Group, where she handles first-responder criminal and administrative defense, general counsel matters and police foundation/non-profit compliance. Kevin L. Warner is a third-year law student at Purdue Global Law School and serves as a law clerk at KC Law Group. His dedication to trial preparation and contributions to the written closing argument played a key role in the successful outcome of this case.