Police love triangle prompts lawsuit

A San Diego police officer involved in a love triangle with two other officers — one in San Diego and one in Riverside — was denied the city’s legal help on Tuesday with a lawsuit filed by one of the other officers.

The lawsuit says Officer Stephanie Audette illegally tampered with the cell phones of two married officers — San Diego Officer Kevin Hychko and Riverside Officer Gioconda Hychko — after her affair with Kevin Hychko was discovered in 2013.

It claims Audette used her authority as a police officer to persuade a Verizon employee to help her resume communicating with Kevin Hychko by removing a “block” on her number put in place by Gioconda Hychko shortly after she discovered the affair.

The suit, filed in February by Gioconda Hychko, seeks punitive and exemplary damages against the city, Verizon and Audette, who previously worked for Verizon.

It says Audette denied Gioconda Hychko’s right to block cell phone numbers by reversing the block, and that Audette also illegally obtained private information about the family like their home address and calling histories.

The City Council voted unanimously on Tuesday not to help pay for Audette’s legal defense because her alleged actions occurred outside the scope of employment and because representing her would be a conflict of interest for the city.

A legal memo from Chief Deputy City Attorney David Karlin issued on Tuesday says Audette’s alleged cell phone tampering was “personal in nature and did not have any connection with her duties as a police officer.”

Her actions, the memo says, had a personal motive unrelated to work and the alleged tampering took place after her shift ended that day.

In the memo, Karlin also said there would be a conflict for the city because Audette accessing the Verizon account of the Hychkos could be a violation of Police Department policies.

Before the council vote, Councilman David Alvarez questioned why Audette hadn’t been fired based on her admissions about the tampering during a disciplinary hearing against Kevin Hychko about his relationship with Audette and two other females.

“There needs to be action taken,” said Alvarez, contending that Audette’s actions clearly violated state law.

The city fired Kevin Hychko in April 2015 for his alleged improper relationships and for allegedly being dishonest about them when questioned by supervisors. He had been an officer since 2007.

He recently filed a legal request to be reinstated with full back pay and benefits.

The lawsuit says part of the city’s liability to Gioconda Hychko stems from the Police Department not acting when they first learned of Audette’s alleged tampering during disciplinary actions against Kevin Hychko in 2013 and 2014.

“San Diego Police Department management officials, up to an including the chief of police, were aware of Audette’s illegal and tortious conduct as early as July 2013, however, the department took no disciplinary action against Audette, and by not doing so condoned and ratified said conduct,” the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit says Verizon is liable because part of Gioconda’s montly cell phone bill of more than $100 includes the ability to block callers of her choice. But, she alleges, a company employee helped Audette tamper with the phones of her and her husband so that she couldn’t take advantage of that opportunity with Audette’s number.

The lawsuit doesn’t name the Verizon employee who allegedly helped Audette, referring to him only as “John Doe.”

The memo from the city attorney’s office says Kevin Hychko met Audette in January 2013 when he pulled her over for a traffic infraction and discovered she was a recruit in the San Diego Police Academy.

The memo also describes their affair as “a brief romantic relationship that ended by March or April 2013.” But later, the memo says Hychko continued to meet with Audette over a two-year period, while on duty, which the memo described as “a violation of department policies and orders.”

Gioconda Hychko’s lawsuit says she didn’t file litigation until nearly three years after the alleged tampering because she knew nothing of it until summer 2015, when she saw the transcripts from her husband’s disciplinary hearing.

The suit says she has suffered “embarrassment, shame, humiliation, mortification and anxiety” by the actions of the city, Verizon and Audette.