Civilian commissions that review the conduct of local law enforcement agencies have long been criticized for lacking teeth.
One way to remedy that is to give the civilian groups subpoena power so they can compel witnesses to testify or a department to provide documents.
Law enforcement agencies, including the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, have pushed back against that idea. But in 2020, L.A. County voters approved Measure R, which gave subpoena power to the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission.
Six years later, the commission is still having trouble getting the department to comply.
“L.A. County voters said loud and clear in 2020 we wanted real oversight with subpoena power.. for real accountability of the largest Sheriff’s Department in the nation,” said Hans Johnson, chair of the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission. “We still don’t have it."
A big part of the delay is state labor law that requires the county to meet and confer with the union that represents sheriff’s deputies about the impacts of any changes in the law, including subpoena power.
It's a process that has taken years.
Johnson and others accuse the union and county lawyers of dragging their feet. He said the commission is supposed to have independent and unfettered oversight of the Sheriff’s Department, which has a history of deputy misconduct.
The oversight commission has gone to court to challenge the meet-and-confer requirement.
Others cite additional factors that may be causing problems and slowing the process, including the number of agencies involved and the fact that the oversight committee doesn’t have authority to use lawyers that are independent from the county.
The Sheriff’s Department has said it cooperates with the oversight commission to the extent the law allows.
A beating leaves unanswered questions
Shortly before L.A. County voters passed Measure R, the Board of Supervisors also voted to authorize subpoena power for the civilian oversight panel. State law also allows it.
The oversight panel wants to use that power to access several case files.
In 2024, an L.A. County sheriff’s deputy pleaded guilty in federal court in connection with beating a transgender man in Whittier a year earlier. The incident was caught on video, and the deputy admitted later that he retaliated against Emmett Brock, a 23-year-old high school teacher who was on his way home from work when he gave the deputy the middle finger.
Prosecutors said Deputy Joseph Benza III punched Brock repeatedly and bashed his head onto the pavement.
In a plea agreement, Benza admitted to one felony count of deprivation of rights under color of law. The FBI found a group of deputies had exchanged text messages with Benza discussing how to cover up his action, according to the Los Angeles Times. Eight deputies were relieved of duty as a result, the Times reported.
But after reviewing the incident, the process left the oversight commission with questions, according to Johnson.
Why did the initial internal review of the Feb. 10, 2023 incident find that Benza had committed no violations of department policy?
Why was a sergeant who had been involved in the incident allowed to head an internal investigation into what occurred?
And what steps has the Sheriff’s Department taken to ensure such a coverup doesn’t happen again?
In an effort to get those answers, the commission issued a subpoena to the department in February 2025 seeking use-of-force reports, body-worn camera and bystander footage as well as witness statements related to the incident. The Sheriff’s Department refused to comply, according to Johnson.
“It was another failure by the Sheriff Department to respect and comply with oversight,” Johnson said.
On the advice of county lawyers, the department cited state laws and rulings by the L.A. County Employee Relations Commission that require the county to meet and confer with labor unions that may be affected by the subpoenas before complying with them.
“California labor relations law, the County’s Employee Relations Commission (ERCOM), and recent court decisions legally obligate the County to meet-and-confer with its union partners,” county counsel said in a statement.
The executive director of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs said the negotiations should be fairly simple: “How is the deputy going to be compensated? How are they going to be notified? Should they appear in their uniform? Should they appear in a suit?”
Other reasons for the delay
County counsel told LAist that lawyers for the county and union “have communicated extensively” and met seven times regarding Measure R.
Yet the statement didn’t say why the negotiations had not concluded six years after Measure R was passed.
One possible reason, according to Hsieh, is the number of parties involved in the negotiations, which includes the Sheriff’s Department, the county Board of Supervisors, the Civilian Oversight Commission, the county chief executive office and two labor unions.
“This is a multi-party process and because of that there are a lot of different interests,” he said.
Robert Bonner, a former federal judge and one-time chair of the oversight commission, argued the meet-and-confer requirement is a stalling tactic by the deputies union and shouldn’t apply to the issuance of subpoenas.
“These subpoenas are issued under state law. There is no meet and confer obligation whatsoever,” Bonner said. “The county counsel’s argument is weak.”
The meet-and-confer requirement under labor law can be an obstacle for effective oversight of law enforcement organizations, according to Cameron McEllhiney, executive director of the National Association for the Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement.
“Labor laws, officer bill of rights — all of those can become impediments to oversight,” McEllhiney said. “It's a challenge everywhere.”
County lawyers also represent both the Sheriff’s Department and the Civilian Oversight Commission in negotiations.
The current chair of the commission said that’s a conflict of interest.
“County counsel is not acting in the interests of pursuing oversight in Los Angeles County through the COC,” Johnson said.
Bonner agreed, saying the county counsel’s office can’t fairly represent the interests of both the Sheriff’s Department and the oversight commission.
“It's taking a position that is adverse and in conflict with the commission’s position with respect to enforcing its subpoenas,” Bonner said.
A Los Angeles Grand Jury came to a similar conclusion. In a report last month, the panel also found that county counsel’s representation of both the Sheriff’s Department and the Civilian Oversight Commission does constitute a conflict of interest..
“Recent trends in oversight now call into question whether they can equally and fully represent the ‘public interest,’” the report stated.
“County Counsel is conflicted in equally representing the BOS [Board of Supervisors], LASD and the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission,” the report continued “Accordingly, we recommend: COC would have its own legal staff, i.e., no longer represented by County Counsel.”
In a statement to LAist, county counsel denied any conflict, and essentially said it's not a conflict because, technically, the commission is an extension of the Board of Supervisors.
The statement read: County counsel’s legal advice to the oversight panel does not create an attorney-client relationship “separate and distinct” from counsel’s relationship with the Board of Supervisors, “so it is not possible for a conflict of interest to exist when County labor issues are at issue.”
It continued: “In fact, the courts viewed the COC and Sheriff as all one County entity for the purposes of labor issues.”
What’s next?
The oversight commission, meantime, decided to go around county counsel in an attempt to enforce the Brock subpoena and two others — one involving the beating of Joseph Perez in July 2020 in East Valinda and one involving the fatal shooting of Andres Guardado in June of 2020 in West Rancho Dominguez.
Perez has filed a civil rights lawsuit that is pending. The Guardado family won an $8 million dollar settlement with the county.
The commission hired Bonner on a pro bono basis to file a lawsuit against the Sheriff’s Department seeking enforcement. The suit was filed last month.
In January, a new state law took effect that said civilian law enforcement oversight panels were entitled to confidential personnel records.
The law has triggered new meet and confer negotiations between county lawyers, the Sheriff’s Department and the union representing deputies.
