Complaints against Police Officers

[Underdog]

Well, the California Supreme Court has finally issued a pro-police ruling. They have ruled that California Penal Code secton 148.6 is constitutional. Among other things, this section makes it a crime to make a false complaint against a peace officer. The section had previously been held unconstitutional by a California appellate court.

The case is People v. Stanistreet, Cal.4th [No. S102722. Dec. 5, 2002.]. It hasn't been published yet but it is available on findlaw.com if anyone needs it. It was probably also published in "The Daily Journal", a California legal trade paper, shortly after December 5th.

Here is the text of 148.6 PC:

148.6. (a) (1) Every person who files any allegation of misconduct against any peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, knowing the allegation to be false, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(2) Any law enforcement agency accepting an allegation of misconduct against a peace officer shall require the complainant to read and sign the following advisory, all in boldface type:
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER FOR ANY IMPROPER POLICE CONDUCT. CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRES THIS AGENCY TO HAVE A PROCEDURE TO INVESTIGATE CITIZENS' COMPLAINTS. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO A WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF THIS PROCEDURE. THIS AGENCY MAY FIND AFTER INVESTIGATION THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO WARRANT ACTION ON YOUR COMPLAINT; EVEN IF THAT IS THE CASE, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE COMPLAINT AND HAVE IT INVESTIGATED IF YOU BELIEVE
AN OFFICER BEHAVED IMPROPERLY. CITIZEN COMPLAINTS AND ANY REPORTS OR FINDINGS RELATING TO COMPLAINTS MUST BE RETAINED BY THIS AGENCY FOR
AT LEAST FIVE YEARS. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO MAKE A COMPLAINT THAT YOU KNOW TO BE FALSE. IF YOU MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST AN OFFICER KNOWING THAT IT IS FALSE, YOU CAN BE PROSECUTED ON A MISDEMEANOR CHARGE.

I have read and understood the above statement.

______________________________________________
Complainant

(3) The advisory shall be available in multiple languages.
(b) Every person who files a civil claim against a peace officer or a lien against his or her property, knowing the claim or lien to be false and with the intent to harass or dissuade the officer from carrying out his or her official duties, is guilty of a misdemeanor. This section applies only to claims pertaining to actions that arise in the course and scope of the peace officer's duties.

<small>[ 12-14-2002, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: Underdog ]</small>

[Traffic_Goddess]

Damn...that's cool!

[Tacdriver]

Does anyone remember the Judge Judy episode where an LAPD officer sued .....and won the case? A somewhat elderly lady filed a complaint against him for harassment during a traffic stop in which the officer cited her for speed. I don't know if she pled or was found guilty. The department did an investigation and found no wrong doing on the officer's part yet, the complaint tarnishes his record. Goofy LAPD laws maybe but because of this, he sued her. JJ scolded her and he won the case!! Hooray for LE finally I thought. The court room even clapped ....I couldn't believe it.

[rugbyman]

I saw one on JJ where the cop sued for a false complaint against him and lost! same type of stuff in that he said his reputation was tarnished etc etc.
JJ was quite hard on him.

[rugbyman]

I saw one on JJ where the cop sued for a false complaint against him and lost! same type of stuff in that he said his reputation was tarnished etc etc.
JJ was quite hard on him.

[Sig220Man]

While I generally don't go around watching "TV Courtroom" shows, I did happen to catch an episode of Judge Judy (I was sick, flat on my back on the living room sofa, and was so ill I didn't have the energy to change the channel) where an LAPD officer sued someone for making a false complaint against him. However, it was a man, not an elderly woman, whom the officer came across at the scene of a bar fight. The male claimed that the officer had beat him.

I guess he was too *****faced to realize it, but a camera crew from the show "LAPD -- Life on the Beat" had accompanied the officer. It showed the man had already been pretty severely beaten by the time officers showed up, and that the officer in no-way touched him (I don't think the officer WANTED to touch him... he was pretty bloody <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> ). That footage was presented in JJ's court to show the officer didn't do anything wrong. In the end JJ found in favor of the officer, and made the drunk male pay quite a bit of money towards a Police Widows and Orphans fund.

Now while I'm glad the State SC let the law stand, I'm concerned about what will happen if/when this law is heard before the 9th Circuit. As we all know it's not exactly the most pro-LE set of judges :rolleyes:

"The department did an investigation and found no wrong doing on the officer's part yet, the complaint tarnishes his record. Goofy LAPD laws maybe..."

It's not just those goofy LAPD complaint procedures...it's the nature of how police complaints can bite you in the ***** in the future.

In CA we have a unique courtroom procedure known as a "Pitchess Motion." It is named for former LA County Sheriff Peter Pitchess. In a Pitchess Motion, a criminal defense attorney can petition the court to open up the officer's personnel record for review by the judge. If the judge sees anything in the record (such as prior complaints) to support an allegation that the officer was involved in misconduct, and that such behavior has an impact on the case, now such information can be presented to a jury.

So if there was a complaint (sustained or not) against you years ago for calling an African-American the "N" word, and now Johnnie Cochran is telling this to a mostly-black jury while defending his black client, you can see how false complaints can still negatively impact an officer years down the road.

<small>[ 12-17-2002, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: Sig220Man ]</small>

[Underdog]

Luckily, Pitchess Motions are subject to a five year statute of limitations. Unfortunately, Brady Motions are not subject to a statute of limitations.

The law in California regarding slander suits by police officers has been all over the map. Some courts have held that Civil Code section 47.5 is unconstitutional in that it provides special protections to police officers. The recent ruling by the California Supreme Court would seem to cast doubt upon the rationales expressed by the lower courts.

A federal district court also ruled that the law was unconstitutional. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the lower court didn't have jurisdiction to hear the case. (I think they were wrong on this issue). Thus, the law on such law suits is still not clear in California.

I have a strategy that I think might work even if a court were to rule that 47.5 is unconstitutional. If anybody really needs the info, let me know.

[Sig220Man]

The thing about slander suits is that an awful lot of people who like to make false complaints against police don't have a lot of money themselves.

Morally it may be a victory, but who pays for your attorney until you can collect on that judgment?

That's why I'm happy the CA Supreme Court ruled the way it did. It's really the only effective way to discourage false complaints.

[Underdog]

You can sue for up to $5000 in small claims court in California. Neither party to a law suit in small claims court is allowed to bring an attorney. The filing fees are minimal. While some defendants may not have any money, the moral victory may be worthwhile.

[PelicanDriver]

I believe 47.5 was found un unstitutional by the same appelate court that found 148.6 unconcstitutional. It seems likely that the Supreme court might overturn that ruling also, but the case would have to be appealed there and they would have to accept it.

I know people that have used 47.5 in small claims court in the past. It was a great tool to use against truly malicious liars.

In the Stanistreet case (148.6) the complainants claimed that an officer exposed himself at a Police Activities League event. With a few dozen witnesse there, it was probably easy to show that the complaint was knowingly false. I don't know what the stats are, but my guess is that people were only prosecuted under 148.6 when the evidence against them was overwhelming.

[Underdog]

California Civil Code section 47.5 was found unconstitutional by a state appellate court. That ruling is only binding on courts within the same district.

The recent California Supreme Court ruling regarding California Penal Code Section 148.6 overturned a lower court ruling that was based on a rationale identical to that used to find 47.5 unconstitutional. Because of this, there is at least a good faith argument for an extension of the same principle to find that Civil Code section 47.5 is constitutional. That good faith argument is probably all that is needed to procede with a slander suit without the court finding that a frivolous law suit had been filed.

The argument about the constitutionality of these two sections stems from a line of U.S. Supreme Court Cases that said that government can not penalize speech based on the content of the speech. This concept is variously known as content neutrality, content based discrimination, etc.

The argument is that California Civil Code section 45 allows suits for libel. California Civil Code section 46 allows suits for slander. However, California Civil Code section 47 does not allow public officials to sue for slander or libel. California Civil Code section 47.5 then provides an exception and allows peace officers to sue for knowingly false complaints. Because peace officers are allowed special protections not given to other government officials, the section is not content neutral and is thus unconstitutional.

There are flaws in this argument. As the California Supreme Court recently pointed out, even the U.S. Supreme Court had provided for exceptions to the content neutrality principle.

My belief is that the best approach is to file suit pursuant to sections 45, 46, and 47.5. If a judge rules that section 47.5 is unconstitutional because it violates content neutrality, the officer should then move for a ruling that section 47 is unconstitutional because it also violates the principle of content neutrality. This is because section 47 allows the general public to sue for liabel and slander but does not allow government officials to sue for liabel and slander. Given a ruling that section 47 is unconstitutional, the law suit should be allowed to procede based on on either section 45 or 46.

[PelicanDriver]

Good analysis...wish you were on the bench :)

[Underdog]

My department has benched me a time or two but that's a different story.

<small>[ 12-22-2002, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: Underdog ]</small>