This story is free to read because readers choose to support LAist. If you find value in independent local reporting, make a donation to power our newsroom today.
California Supreme Court strikes down warning on LAPD citizen complaint forms
LAPD Headquarters in front of City Hall.
(
Chava Sanchez
/
LAist
)
A warning that people see before filing complaints against Los Angeles police officers creates a barrier to free speech, the California Supreme Court ruled today in a long-running lawsuit over the language.
The high court ruled 6-1 in favor of the city of Los Angeles and against the union that represents its police officers in finding that the admonishment describing penalties for filing false has the potential to deter “citizens from filing truthful (or at least not knowingly false) complaints of police misconduct”.
The warning exhibits “numerous characteristics that, considered together, sufficiently burden a protected form of speech — namely, truthful (or at least well-intentioned) complaints of police misconduct — so as to warrant heightened constitutional scrutiny,” Associate Justice Joshua Groban wrote in the majority opinion.
The ruling turned on a 1995 law that sought to create consequences for false claims against police officers: Anyone filing a complaint against an officer could face criminal charges if they knowingly sign a false report.
-
This court observer program started last summer when the Trump administration’s deportation campaign ramped up in Southern California. -
The divisive 4-3 vote approves the issue of preliminary layoff notices to more than 3,000 employees. -
Safe parking lots, street medicine and hygiene programs for unhoused Angelenos could all be on the chopping block, according to a recent city report.
At the LAPD, officials went further, demanding that complainants affirm, in bold font and all capital letters, that they understand the potential penalties.
“IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO MAKE A COMPLAINT THAT YOU KNOW TO BE FALSE,” the LAPD form reads. “IF YOU MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST AN OFFICER KNOWING THAT IT IS FALSE, YOU CAN BE PROSECUTED ON A MISDEMEANOR CHARGE.”
Sponsored message
The court found that the warning is biased in favor of the police because witnesses who make false statements in defense of an accused officer would face no charges for lying.
“While the Legislature had a legitimate and significant interest in remedying the harmful effects of abusive false claims of police misconduct, (the law) is not narrowly tailored to meet those objectives,” Groban wrote. “Instead, the statute establishes an ill-defined, asymmetrical criminal provision that is accompanied by an unusual admonition requirement.”
The Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union representing LAPD officers, argued that the form is constitutional and necessary to prevent false complaints that would tie up an officer’s career.
The decision reversed a California appellate court ruling in this case and a 2002 California Supreme Court decision in a related case, both of which agreed with the police union that the warning passed constitutional muster.
California law is now in line with multiple federal court rulings, which found that the warning violates the First Amendment.
“It takes tremendous courage for victims and witnesses of police misconduct to come forward and seek justice and accountability," attorney Matt Nguyen of the firm Cooley LLP, who represented civil rights nonprofits at oral argument in the case, said in a written statement. "A resounding majority of the California Supreme Court made clear today that speaking truth to power is a fundamental right protected by the First Amendment.”
In a dissent, Associate Justice Goodwin Liu said the law and the warning are “no more unconstitutional than laws that make it a crime to commit perjury, file a false police report, submit a false document to a public agency, or lie to a government official concerning an official matter.”
Sponsored message
This story was originally published by CalMatters, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that explains California policies and politics and makes its government more transparent and accountable.
Trending on LAist
-
Husband and wife Felix Agyei and Hazel Rojas combine food from their heritages, creating a marriage of West African and Filipino cooking -
The need for affordable housing in L.A. continues to far exceed the number of vouchers available to low-income renters. -
One L.A. County child care provider is turning decades of experience into videos that resonate with caregivers across the country. -
Sharpen your pencils and open your spreadsheets. We’re going to talk about pregnancy and work — from family leave to accommodations during pregnancy, and where you can pump when you return to work. -
She sat down with us in April, nearly 50 years after the night she turned down Marlon Brando's Best Actor Oscar — which is still among the most memorable and contentious in Academy Awards history. -
The goal is to reduce the often inequitable police enforcement of crossing the street. In Los Angeles, nearly a third of citations each year are written to Black pedestrians, who make up about 9% of the city’s population.
Best of LAist
