In Steinert v. City of Covina (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 458, officer Stephanie Steinert of the Covina Police Department was terminated for disclosing the confidential criminal records of an individual named Robert Tirado to Wendy Roff, a crime victim who reported to Steinert that Tirado had committed vandalism. (Id. at p. 461.) In obtaining Tirado's criminal records from the database, Steinert designated her records search as being for training purposes. The use of criminal records for training purposes was prohibited by the Covina Police Department and California Department of Justice policy. During a routine audit of criminal records searches, a Department of Justice employee discovered Steiner's "training" designation, and informed the police department. (Id. at p. 460.) Thereafter, the support services manager for the police department discovered that Steinert had made the "training" designation and taken a vandalism report around the time she conducted the records search. Although the vandalism report taken from the victim Roff did not mention Tirado by name, the report and Tirado's rap sheet suggested there was a connection between Roff and Tirado. The support services manager relayed this information to Steinert's commanding officer, Sergeant Curley. (Steinert, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at pp. 460-461.) Later that day, Curley called Steinert into his office and questioned her about the records search. Steinert told Curley that Roff had mentioned Tirado in reporting the vandalism to her and that was why she had accessed Tirado's criminal records. Curley instructed Steinert to be sure to include names such as Tirado's as "mentioned persons" in her crime reports, and to use a case number when searching criminal records rather than designating the searches as being for training purposes. Steinert received the instructions well. Curley then asked Steinert whether she had disclosed any of Tirado's confidential information to Roff. Steinert replied that she had not. Curley was required to audit two crime reports each week, and later decided to audit Roff's crime report as one of his routine audits. He contacted Roff and discovered that Steinert had disclosed confidential information about Tirado to Roff. Curley then initiated an internal affairs investigation of Steinert that ultimately led to her dismissal. (Steinert, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at p. 461.) The Steinert court concluded that substantial evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that Curley's interrogation of Steinert was not an interrogation that could lead to punitive action, but "a routine interrogation in the normal course of duty, counseling, or informal verbal admonishment, such that no violation of her POBRA rights occurred." (Steinert, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at pp. 461-463.) The court emphasized that, at the time Curley questioned Steinert, he believed she had made a "simple error" and his questioning of her was not "'likely to result to any punitive action'" against her. (Id. at p. 464.) Furthermore, the internal affairs investigation of Steinert focused on her act of lying to Curley about not having disclosed Tirado's confidential information to Roff, not on the information available to Curley at the time he questioned Steinert about her search of Tirado's criminal records. (Id. at p. 465.)