Plaintiff, former La Palma Police Officer — Deposition 6 of 7, Byer v. City of La Palma.
Plaintiff · Former La Palma Police Officer
Transcript excerpts reviewedWho he is
Byer is the plaintiff. He began his law enforcement career as a probationary officer with the Huntington Beach Police Department, leaving without completing probation around April 2021 after being told his training would not continue. He joined the La Palma Police Department as a trainee shortly after, trained under Officer Justin Braasch (Phase I & II) and Officer Ron Lopino (Phase III & “Ghost Phase”), and became a solo patrol officer around the end of December 2022. His training and completion were approved up the chain by then-Captain Amend and then-Chief Kim. Officer Jay Choi, who had started roughly two months ahead of him, became his regular partner at the same time Sergeant Koh became his supervisor.
Connection to the case
As the officer who reported directly to Sergeant Koh and worked the same beat as Officer Choi, Byer is the person whose treatment is compared throughout the case to a similarly situated colleague. Byer testified his first supervisor, Sergeant Garcia, evaluated him mid-2022 as needing “more proactivity” (more traffic, pedestrian, and bike stops) and cited report-writing errors — criticism Byer said he acted on by increasing stop activity and having his partner review his reports. When Koh took over as his supervisor around late December 2022, Byer testified the character of supervision changed almost immediately: within the first couple of weeks, Koh began coming into the field, personally making traffic stops in Byer's beat, and calling Byer over to “take the handle” — complete the paperwork — on stops Koh himself had initiated. Byer testified this happened “almost daily,” multiple times a shift, a practice he and other officers called a “sergeant special.” Byer testified he asked Choi repeatedly whether the same thing was happening to him and Choi consistently said no, and that in roughly a full shift schedule partnered with Choi, Byer could not recall Koh ever doing the same to Choi's beat.
Key testimony
Byer testified Koh made a comment during a briefing, after Byer returned from a family vacation, saying “nice tan” — which Officer Miranda, his partner that day, told him afterward was a backhanded remark because new officers were expected not to take time off. Byer testified Koh separately said, on a different occasion as watch commander, that he wished he had an “all Korean police staff or police force,” naming himself, Choi, and two Korean reserve officers; Byer said he felt “shocked” a supervisor would say that in front of others. Byer testified Koh was “constantly very friendly” with Choi — discussing Korean baseball, Korean food, and Korean-language phrases — and that he experienced none of that same rapport with Koh himself. Byer also testified Koh instructed him, more than once, to look for “Black people with prison tats” and drivers who “appear to have prison tats,” and separately to focus on Hispanic and Black male drivers; Byer recounted one specific nighttime stop of an African-American driver where he told Koh he “couldn't tell any prison tats” because it was dark. Byer testified he complained to Captain Amend about the volume of “sergeant special” stops starting around mid-to-late January 2023 (an informal, off-site meeting at a coffee shop before his shift), and complained again about what he described to Amend as “racial profiling” in a second meeting in late January or early February 2023 — followed by additional complaints on February 9 and March 31, 2023, the specifics of which he could not recall in detail. Byer testified Amend's response was consistently some version of “don't expect anything to happen overnight, but I will talk to him,” and that Byer told Amend he could not continue tolerating the treatment and did not want to have to leave his job. Byer testified he does not have direct knowledge that Amend ever spoke to Koh, but believed he did because the number of car stops assigned to him in his own beat increased further afterward. Byer also testified about two personnel-log entries Koh wrote him up on — one accusing him of falling asleep on shift (which Byer disputed, saying he simply didn't hear a radio call before immediately answering a follow-up phone call), and one involving jail-cell key handling during an inmate transport, where Byer testified some of Koh's written details were inaccurate but that he was told refusing to sign such logs was “heavily frowned upon,” so he signed anyway. Byer testified his May 31, 2023 annual evaluation, authored solely by Koh, gave him an overall rating of “Needs Improvement” and recommended against a step increase he was otherwise eligible for, despite having received a step increase at his six-month mark. Byer submitted his resignation within a day of signing that evaluation, testifying it was the deciding factor together with his fear — based on what he says happened to his prior partner, Officer Zack Goble, whose probation was extended near its 18-month mark and who was terminated shortly after complaining to HR — that continuing at La Palma would lead to the same outcome. Byer testified that in his exit interview and a follow-up written email to HR analyst Crystal Wilkerson, he reported Koh's treatment, the “all Korean” comment, and his prior complaints to Amend and to Sergeant Guerrero, and that he never received a response to his follow-up requests for an update. He also testified he understood two other officers, Andrew Kim and an officer he knew as “Suh” — both of whom he believed to be Asian — had separately had complaints or issues with Koh, including one instance where Koh confronted Kim in a parking lot after learning Kim had given him an unfavorable anonymous review.
Possible relevance to the verdict
This summary is based on selected excerpts across a 256-page transcript, not the complete document, and reflects both direct examination by defense counsel and a brief re-direct by plaintiff's counsel at the close of the deposition. As the plaintiff, Byer has a direct financial and personal stake in the outcome of the case, and this account should be read alongside — not in place of — the other depositions on this page. It does not reflect the full testimony, cross-examination in its entirety, or any context the excerpted portions omit.