POST revokes certification of LA County deputy Braulio Robledo after finding he lied during internal investigation

The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training voted on March 6, 2025, to adopt the advisory board’s recommendation and revoke the POST certification of former Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department deputy Braulio Robledo.

Investigators presented a case centered on a January 2, 2020 traffic stop near the Commerce Casino. The division told the commission that, while the underlying allegation of stolen poker chips was not sustained by the agency or POST, the division found clear and convincing evidence that Robledo repeatedly made false statements to supervisors and during subsequent internal‑affairs interviews about whether he had conducted that stop.

Robbie Bringoff, presenting the case for the division, summarized the investigative record and said available evidence included a unit history report showing the respondent ran the complainant’s license plate, GPS data placing the deputy at the stop location, surveillance video showing the deputy’s patrol car at the scene, and a recorded phone call in which a station deputy told Robledo the watch sergeant was inquiring about the Commerce Casino stop. Bringoff told commissioners the deputy gave inconsistent statements, denied receiving or reading mobile‑data‑computer (MDC) messages from the watch sergeant, and later claimed not to recall recorded conversations; the division concluded the denials were false.

Bringoff also reviewed Robledo’s prior administrative findings reported to POST, including a 30‑day suspension in 2023 for making false statements in an internal investigation and earlier unresolved inquiries about suspected participation in a law‑enforcement gang (which POST closed as not meeting the clear‑and‑convincing standard). The division said it included that history under its authority to consider prior conduct when evaluating dishonesty allegations.

Defense counsel Elizabeth Gibbons disputed the division’s presentation and said selective transcript excerpts were misleading. Gibbons told the commission that the complainant’s account changed, that the complainant later reported more cash than chips and that the complainant then withdrew cooperation; she also said the supervisors’ interviews did not consistently memorialize a specific allegation that the stop occurred in front of the Commerce Casino. Gibbons argued those factors and the elapsed time before internal‑affairs interviews complicated recollections and undermined claims of deliberate falsehoods.

Commissioners expressed differing concerns about evidentiary completeness. Several members requested fuller transcripts and more of the investigative record be made available before a final, evidentiary determination. The commission then adjourned into closed session to deliberate. After reconvening, a roll call recorded the commission’s decision to adopt the advisory board recommendation. The final tally recorded 10 votes in favor and 3 votes against.

Staff noted that adopting the advisory board’s recommendation at this stage is a preliminary, non‑evidentiary determination that the division’s factual presentation, if proven at a later administrative hearing, would satisfy the statutory/regulatory standard for seriousness; any final disciplinary outcome depends on the administrative hearing record and subsequent commission action.