Riverside police seek to fire three veteran officers over custom license plates

RIVERSIDE, Calif. — The Riverside Police Department plans to fire three patrol officers accused of using disabled veteran license plates on their personal vehicles, Chief Larry Gonzalez confirmed Friday.

The officers—Timothy Popplewell, Raymond Olivares, and Richard Cranford—were suspended in May 2025. A lawsuit filed by the men in July 2025 alleges the department is discriminating against them based on their status as disabled veterans.

All three officers hold a 100% disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which qualifies them for the specialized DMV plates. These plates provide owners with significant parking privileges and reduced vehicle fees.

Department officials allege the officers misrepresented their physical limitations to obtain the benefits. The Riverside City Council recently rejected a proposed settlement in the case.

The officers remain on leave pending a hearing to respond to the evidence against them. One of the men, Popplewell, was previously convicted of vandalism in January 2025.

The disciplinary fallout at the Riverside Police Department has transitioned from a localized personnel matter into a broader legal flashpoint, exposing a fundamental disconnect between federal disability standards and the operational requirements of law enforcement.

At the center of the dispute is a technical bifurcation in the definition of "disability." Under Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regulations, a "100% disability rating" serves as a metric for service-connected compensation—accounting for a range of physical and mental health conditions—rather than a statutory declaration of unemployability. However, Riverside officials appear to be operating under a different interpretive framework, viewing the receipt of maximum veteran benefits by officers in elite, physically taxing units like SWAT as a prima facie case of integrity failure or insurance fraud.

This tension highlights a systemic policy challenge for American law enforcement agencies, which heavily prioritize the recruitment of military veterans for their tactical proficiency and disciplined backgrounds. The Riverside case suggests that the very benefits intended to support these veterans may now be viewed as being in direct conflict with their professional duties.

As this litigation proceeds, it is likely to serve as a national bellwether. The outcome could establish a significant legal precedent, forcing municipalities to reconcile the statutory protections afforded to disabled veterans with the rigorous physical and ethical mandates of public safety roles. For cities across the U.S., the ruling will likely redefine the parameters of how veteran-status employees are vetted and retained in high-intensity positions.

This incident does not directly impact business operations—from local phở restaurants to the nail salon industry—nor does it affect remittances or visa categories such as F2B, H-1B, TPS, or EB-5. However, the news may still resonate deeply within Little Saigon and other enclaves, given the community’s high concentration of veterans and military families. Discussions are expected to center on the treatment of former service members by public agencies and the inherent complexities of navigating veterans' disability benefits.