Sponsored message
Logged in as
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • County approves $700K payout for LAist reporter
    A screenshot from a video image shows a woman being held down on a pavement by two uniformed sheriff's deputies while three other deputies stand over them
    KPCC/LAist correspondent Josie Huang being detained by the L.A. County Sheriff's Department on Sept. 12, 2020.

    Topline:

    The L.A. County Board of Supervisors Tuesday approved a $700,000 settlement with LAist correspondent Josie Huang, who was arrested and injured by sheriff’s deputies while covering a 2020 protest in Lynwood. The settlement includes a requirement that the L.A. County Sheriff's Department re-train deputies on the rights of journalists.

    The backstory: Huang’s arrest drew widespread criticism from elected leaders and journalism organizations at the time. Deputies had claimed she interfered with their arrest of a protester. The district attorney’s office refused to file charges and a judge later found her factually innocent. Huang suffered multiple injuries, including scrapes and bruises to her knees, ankle and face, as well as emotional distress.

    The reforms: The LASD has agreed to provide deputies with watch briefings on press rights before patrol assignments, like protests, in which they are likely to come into contact with members of the news media. The department has also agreed to issue written guidance to all employees on the law and policies governing their interactions with members of the news media.

    What Huang said: “This settlement upholds the rights of journalists and helps ensure that what happened to me won’t happen to other reporters. My arrest was traumatic, but I hope that some good can still come of this experience.”

    The L.A. County Board of Supervisors Tuesday approved a $700,000 settlement with LAist correspondent Josie Huang, who was arrested and injured by sheriff’s deputies while covering a 2020 protest in Lynwood. The settlement includes a requirement that the L.A. County Sheriff's Department re-train deputies on the rights of journalists.

    In a legal claim against the county, Huang alleged deputies detained her without legal justification and used unjustified force because she was gathering news in a public place, according to the settlement.

    Huang’s arrest drew widespread criticism from elected leaders and journalism organizations at the time. Deputies had claimed she interfered with their arrest of a protester. The district attorney’s office refused to file charges and a judge later found her factually innocent.

    “This settlement upholds the rights of journalists and helps ensure that what happened to me won’t happen to other reporters,” Huang said in a statement. “My arrest was traumatic, but I hope that some good can still come of this experience.”

    The settlement includes two mandated reforms at the sheriff’s department:

    • A requirement that the LASD provide deputies with watch briefings on press rights before patrol assignments, like protests, in which they are likely to come into contact with members of the news media
    • A requirement that the LASD issue written guidance to all employees on the law and policies governing their interactions with members of the news media.

    Those laws include SB98, which protects journalists’ rights to cover demonstrations. Its passage was spurred in part by Huang’s arrest.

    Supervisor Hilda Solis, who in 2021 introduced a motion in support of the state bill, said in a statement on Tuesday that she "was grateful that the bill was eventually signed into law in 2021 by Governor Gavin Newsom and that members of the press have more safeguards to continue to cover critical stories for our communities.”

    Settlement 'sends a strong message'

    “This settlement sends a strong message and, importantly, holds officials accountable for what happened to our client,” said Katie Townsend, deputy executive director and legal director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which represented Huang, along with the law firm Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher.

    Townsend said it would help prevent unlawful arrests of journalists in the future.

    Susan Seager, a UC Irvine law professor who specializes in press freedom, called the settlement “a huge win,” but was skeptical the reforms would change the behavior of deputies.

    “I’m just cynical about the deputies out in the field treating reporters any differently than they have in the past,” said Seager, who has represented journalists in court. “I see settlement of lawsuits handled by the county counsel’s office and I don’t know how much the sheriff’s department really takes it to heart.”

    Of the training, she said, “I’d like to see how good it is.”

    The LASD issued a statement that did not directly address the settlement.

    "There was a thorough internal investigation into this incident and the appropriate administrative action was taken," the department said. "We understand the role of the media during newsworthy events and make every effort to accommodate them with a designated press area and appropriate access."

    County Supervisor Kathryn Barger issued a statement after she voted to approve the settlement.

    “Reporters have rights that undeniably must be protected, and our County has processes in place to ensure members of the press are protected and supported," she said. "I am hopeful that this settlement brings some sense of closure to Ms. Huang and the press community at large.”

    Will the settlement change police behavior?

    UCLA law professor Joanna Schwartz has written about how large monetary payouts in police misconduct cases don’t always lead to changes in police behavior. In her writing, she notes the amounts are often small compared to a county’s overall budget.

    But she said the Huang settlement may be different.

    “It's a somewhat unique case,” she said. “When it comes to using force against reporters, it seems like a pretty bright line for the department to draw that this is not the right conduct to engage in.”

    At the same time, law enforcement abuse of journalists in L.A. is not uncommon, said Adam Rose, who is press rights chair at the Los Angeles Press Club.

    “While most police-press interactions are pretty routine, our region's two biggest agencies (LASD and LAPD) have disturbing legacies of abusing press rights,” he said. “This is just one moment from decades of well-documented misconduct.”

    Rose said he knew of at least nine lawsuits filed by L.A. journalists against LASD or LAPD for police brutality since 2020, the year George Floyd was murdered by Minneapolis police and street protests exploded.

    Huang’s settlement is one of the largest in the nation to an individual reporter whose rights were violated while covering the 2020 protests.

    In settling the case, the county admitted no wrongdoing.

    “I would like to see some acknowledgement of wrongdoing — not just money,” said Christina Bellantoni, director of USC Annenberg’s Media Center. “It's so important that young journalists learning how to do this aren’t worried they are going to be violently hurt when doing their job.”

    Huang echoed the sentiment in her statement, albeit for all journalists.

    “Journalists in Los Angeles County should be able to record police activity in public without fear of unlawful arrest,” she said. “As the public’s eyes and ears, we must be able to cover protests and document how law enforcement responds to those protests.”

    In a statement, LAist Executive Editor Megan Garvey praised Huang's focus on press freedoms.

    "From the time Josie was released from jail, her top concern was doing everything she could to make sure what happened to her didn't happen to another journalist doing their job," Garvey said. "And that started in the car ride home, when we were able to start looking through what she'd recorded on her phone during the arrest."

    Details of the 2020 incident

    Huang, an award-winning journalist, was leaving a news conference by then-Sheriff Alex Villanueva when she started using her phone to film a group of deputies arresting a protester. A deputy ordered her to back away.

    “Without giving her time to comply, deputies aggressively tackled Huang to the ground, causing her injury,” according to a statement from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Huang suffered multiple injuries, including scrapes and bruises to her knees, ankle and face, as well as emotional distress.

    In a draft complaint, her lawyers wrote that “the force used was wildly out of proportion to that needed to effectuate the arrest of Ms. Huang, who, at 5’5 and 122 lbs., was far smaller than the multiple deputies who tackled her, posed no physical threat, and had not committed any crime.”

    Huang’s phone fell to the ground. Two deputies stepped on it. The phone survived and was recovered by a fellow journalist. It documented much of what happened.

    “Law enforcement tried to destroy evidence rather than preserve it,” said Michael Dore of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher. “And then the former sheriff made false claims about Ms. Huang’s reporting work that the evidence refuted.”

    Among other things, Villanueva said Huang never identified herself as a reporter. Huang’s video captures her shouting that she is a reporter. She was also wearing a lanyard with her press credential.

    But the department continued to tweet false statements about Huang.

    “LASD’s false Twitter posts were retweeted thousands of times, prompting a flood of racist and misogynistic slurs and threats directed at Ms. Huang and her family,” the draft complaint states.

    A memo to the board of supervisors from the county’s litigation cost manager recommending approval of the settlement contained only the deputies’ account of what happened. The memo said the deputies involved were retrained, but makes no mention of discipline, which typically is confidential.

  • Heavy surf and high tides hit beaches
    A small turquoise cabin reading CRYSTAL COVE on a sandy beach clearly recently affected by high tides.
    Several historic cabins in Crystal Cove State Park, like this faced some damage and flooding during recent heavy surf and high tides.

    Topline:

    Heavy surf, high tides and rip currents have done some damage to the Southern California coast, with potentially dangerous conditions expected to last at least until Thursday.

    Why it matters: A young girl was recently swept into the ocean and killed, and some coastline infrastructure has been damaged.

    Keep reading...for more on the recent heavy surf and high tides.

    Heavy surf, high tides and rip currents have done some damage to the Southern California coast, with potentially dangerous conditions expected to last at least until Thursday.

    Just last week in Laguna Beach, a 5-year-old girl drowned after she was swept into the ocean by powerful surf.

    In Crystal Cove State Park, tides over 7 feet and heavy surf damaged part of a historic cabin, and nearly flooded another. A lifeguard tower was nearly pulled into the water.

    Metal foundations under a small cabin on a shoreline.
    Heavy surf and high tides pulled sand from beneath a cabin at Crystal Cove Historic District.
    (
    Erin Stone
    /
    LAist
    )

    “ At the peak of it, just the biggest waves I've ever seen here in my experience as a lifeguard,” said Jake Beckley, who’s been a Crystal Cove lifeguard for six years. “We've lost pretty much the entire beach at certain points.”

    The tide reached as high as The Beachcomber restaurant at one point, and pulled chunks of a historic seawall from beneath a cabin nearby.

    Sandra and Rigo Garcia of San Dimas have been visiting Crystal Cove to stay in those historic cabins since the late 1990s. They’ve seen the beach change over the decades.

    “The tide is just so high that it took all the sand, and we're just like, ‘Oh, where's my beach?’” Sandra Garcia said as they sat under an umbrella on the sand of a small road.

    Rigo Garcia pointed to the patch of sand in front of them.

    An older couple wearing sunglasses and summer clothes stands on a beach.
    Sandra and Rigo Garcia have been coming to Crystal Cove for decades and have seen the beach change.
    (
    Erin Stone
    /
    LAist
    )

    “This spot was always the greatest spot, because I would come early in the morning, set up the easy-ups and chairs, and we always had plenty of real estate,” he said. “The kids would be able to swim maybe 10, 15 yards while they're out there. But now it's so dangerous…too many rocks.”

    A strong southern swell, combined with high tides, has led to the coastal erosion and flooding. The highest tides of the year, however, usually come in the winter, but over the last week some beaches have seen record high tides for this time of year, according to the National Weather Service.

    Riley Pratt, an environmental scientist with California State Parks Orange County District, said these events are a window into the future – as pollution in our atmosphere heats up the planet and melts glaciers, sea levels rise.

    “As sea levels rise, things like this are gonna become more common, and their impact is going to be proportionally greater because the baseline is shifting,” he said. “That's going to change what is this just annual cycle into something that's new and that we haven't seen before.”

    But for now, the beach is crowded, the sun is shining, and summertime is in the air. And for the Garcias and their fellow beachgoers, there’s no time like the present.

    “Earth changes, so you have to go with it,” said Sandra Garcia. “Even though it has changed so much, we still can enjoy it… and be thankful that we have this paradise here.”

  • Sponsored message
  • Housing measure won’t be on the November ballot
    A row of small airplanes are parked just off the runway at Santa Monica Airport.
    Small aircraft are parked just off the runway at Santa Monica Airport.

    Topline:

    Voters in Santa Monica will not see a measure on the November ballot aiming to allow 3,000 affordable housing units on one-quarter of the land for the city’s soon-to-close airport.

    The backstory: Proponents have been gathering signatures for a measure that would ask the city’s voters to set aside a quarter of Santa Monica Airport’s land for income-restricted housing. The airport is set to close at the end of 2028. Santa Monica voters have already supported turning it into a large park. But some say the city needs to create more opportunities for low- and moderate-income workers to live near their jobs.

    What’s new: Supporters of the housing initiative had until mid-June to submit 7,038 signatures in order to qualify for the November 2026 ballot. They now say they will not meet that deadline. “Community volunteers are continuing to gather signatures,” said Rachele Smith, a spokesperson for the hospitality workers union Unite Here Local 11. Smith said proponents now aim to submit enough signatures by Aug. 12 to qualify for the ballot in November 2028.

    Park planning moves forward: In 2014, more than 60% of Santa Monica voters supported Measure LC, which prohibited using airport land for any development purpose other than parks and recreation. However, Measure LC left open the possibility of altering course through another public vote. The City Council recently accepted $10.5 million in county and state funding for park planning. Supporters of the housing measure want to keep 75% of the airport’s land dedicated to the creation of a park, with the rest available for housing development.

    What’s next: Whether housing supporters will be able to qualify for the 2028 ballot remains to be seen. Ann Bowman, a Santa Monica Great Park Coalition board member, said park supporters “are very excited” by recent developments. “This land must not be privatized as it's been by a small aviation clique for the past 70-plus years,” Bowman said.

  • Governor says he's on Trump's 'hit list'
    A man wearing a navy blue button up shirt points his finger while speaking to an older man wearing a navy blue suit jacket and black baseball cap.
    President Donald Trump listens to Gov. Gavin Newsom after arriving on Air Force One at Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles on Jan. 24, 2025.

    Topline:

    Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday accused President Donald Trump of placing him on a political “hit list” and directing federal investigators to go on a “fishing expedition” for a crime it could use to indict him.

    Why now: The Democratic governor declared that the president was targeting him not for his “mean tweets,” but because Newsom is considering a run for president in 2028. His office said federal agents have contacted friends, former employees, business associates, donors, and organizations connected to the Newsoms but did not specify further. Neither the governor nor first partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom have received subpoenas yet, Newsom’s office said, but he “looks forward” to receiving them.

    Awaiting confirmation: The White House referred questions about Newsom’s comments to the Department of Justice. A Department of Justice spokesperson did not immediately respond.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday accused President Donald Trump of placing him on a political “hit list” and directing federal investigators to go on a “fishing expedition” for a crime it could use to indict him.

    The Democratic governor declared that the president was targeting him not for his “mean tweets,” but because Newsom is considering a run for president in 2028.

    “In recent days, federal agents have knocked on the doors of family friends and former employees,” Newsom said in the video. “Not because they found a crime, but because they simply are trying to find one.”

    Newsom stated that he was “proud” to join Trump’s so-called “enemies list” that has also included former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, the former vice presidential candidate.

    The governor claimed that federal agents were demanding records and “abusing the grand jury process” by “digging through years and years of random documents.” Neither the governor nor first partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom have received subpoenas yet, Newsom’s office said, but he “looks forward” to receiving them.

    His office said federal agents have contacted friends, former employees, business associates, donors, and organizations connected to the Newsoms but did not specify further.

    The accusations first came in a fiery video statement released Monday, but provided no concrete evidence that the president had orchestrated such a probe and did not identify any of the associated groups or people he said the Justice Department was looking into.

    “You can subpoena my records. You can investigate me. You can harass me. Put my name on any and every enemies list that you have,” Newsom said. “But leave my wife and family out of your personal vendetta!”

    The White House referred questions about Newsom’s comments to the Department of Justice. A Department of Justice spokesperson did not immediately respond.

    This is a developing story that will be updated.

    This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

  • CA admits to using systems it failed to report
    Large signage of the seal of California on a concrete building with windows. Underneath it is text that reads "State of California" on building.
    Every year, California agencies report to the state technology department on their use of "high-risk" decision systems.

    Topline:

    State officials have found they are using six high-risk AI-like systems. One year ago, they reported using zero.

    Why it matters: A year ago, California officials had to report under a new state law how they used automated systems to make important decisions about people’s lives. They said they never did — a startling answer for a number of reasons, sources told CalMatters at the time, including that there were several prominent examples to the contrary.

    More details: Now, the state has issued a more expansive answer: It is currently using six automated systems to make consequential decisions about the lives of Californians. The systems are used to do things like:

    • Predict whether incarcerated people will re-offend 
    • Evaluate whether unemployment claims are fraudulent
    • Remotely administer exams for California State University students 
    • Detect when college students use generative AI to write assignments.

    Read on... for more on the systems used by the state.

    A year ago, California officials had to report under a new state law how they used automated systems to make important decisions about people’s lives.

    They said they never did — a startling answer for a number of reasons, sources told CalMatters at the time, including that there were several prominent examples to the contrary.

    Now, the state has issued a more expansive answer: It is currently using six automated systems to make consequential decisions about the lives of Californians.

    The systems are used to do things like:

    • Predict whether incarcerated people will re-offend 
    • Evaluate whether unemployment claims are fraudulent
    • Remotely administer exams for California State University students 
    • Detect when college students use generative AI to write assignments.

    That's according to a report released Friday by the state's technology department. The report is required under a 2023 law mandating that that state agencies annually disclose their use of “high-risk automated decision systems,” which the law defines as systems “used to assist or replace human discretionary decisions that have a legal or similarly significant effect, including decisions that materially impact access to, or approval for, housing or accommodations, education, employment, credit, health care, and criminal justice.”

    The law was pushed by civil rights, privacy, and civil liberties groups concerned about harms from AI-like systems. Numerous such systems have been shown to produce results biased against marginalized groups, including those used for high-stakes testing, predicting recidivism, and detecting AI-generated texts.

    CalMatters flagged last year’s report as surprising, noting that the state corrections department had reported using software to predict post-release behavior and that the employment department used a fraud detection system that paused benefits for 600,000 Californians between Christmas and New Years in 2020, according to a Legislative Analyst’s Office report.

    Though the report names six high-risk systems in use today, state agencies have used some for several years now. Those include COMPAS, which has been used by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to assign recidivism scores to inmates for at least a decade.

    The technology department said in the report that it found more systems for its report this year because it evaluated responses from state agencies more thoroughly, including by meeting with agencies and questioning them about their systems.

    In addition to the six high-risk systems, the department’s report disclosed an additional six systems initially flagged as high risk but later determined not to be. One was AI used for legislative bill analysis by the California Department of Finance.

    The report also notes two high-risk systems that are not currently in use: the Department of Cannabis Control is developing artificial intelligence to analyze whether marijuana packaging violates a law against appealing to children and California State University discontinued use of a language model for reviewing job applications.

    Results of the second annual survey come after cities like San Jose and San Francisco released their first AI inventories in recent months. They also come at a time when California-based AI companies like Anthropic and OpenAI are going public and seeking government contracts. Americans are split on whether they trust AI and surveys last year by TechEquity and Carnegie California found that the majority of Californians want safety over innovation. A Gallup poll to evaluate the opinions of Americans found similar results.

    Senate Bill 1248, a bill that would have prohibited state employees from using automated decision systems as the sole basis for decisionmaking, was killed last month in the state’s rapid-fire appropriations process.

    What’s missing

    While the newly-released report shares more information than last year’s, several questions remain about the state’s use of artificial intelligence and other automated systems.

    The report does not include generative AI pilot projects underway with support from the governor’s office to do things like help businesses file taxes, support state employees who work on homelessness, and an AI assistant named Poppy that uses language models like Anthropic’s Claude to do things like draft documents, research policy, or build custom AI tools, according to a state website. The website says that 67 state departments provided input during the pilot phase and statewide rollout of Poppy begins next month.

    A California State University contract with OpenAI to provide a version of ChatGPT is also not mentioned, though surveys of AI use in educational settings have found that the technology can do more harm than good.

    The 2023 law mandating the annual high-risk systems report excludes reporting by a number of state agencies, including the judicial branch and the University of California college system. Reporting by CalMatters last month found that a majority of the roughly 60 courts that operate statewide have adopted generative AI use policies. Courts in Los Angeles and Riverside counties have begun testing an AI tool to act as a clerk, drafting orders and producing research memos.

    CalMatters is compiling an inventory of automated decisionmaking systems in use by state and local agencies throughout California in order to provide transparency into how governments are using decisionmaking systems and AI. Know about an AI system in use by a state or local agency? Email khari@calmatters.org.

    This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.