In recent years, peace officers, while in the course and scope of their duties, have come under increasing scrutiny and criticism. However, unlike years past, a complaint of police misconduct passes through the critical eye of a reporter, a news editor, and ultimately the court of public opinion.
Social media now allows snippets of incidents---either video and/or audio---to receive instant and widespread circulation. Media outlets often report these incidents, without proper fact-checking, and ultimately contribute to instant judgment, without all the facts, by the public, media, politicians, and sometimes even police chiefs or sheriffs.
However, as we all know, snippets don't tell the whole story. And, sometimes, the accusations are outright falsehoods. There are myriad incidents that support this contention as illustrated by a recent example in Georgia. In this case, a recording device proved accusations against an officer to be false.
In the Georgia case, a Stone Mountain police officer pulled over a vehicle for expired registration. The driver was a Fire Captain, and shortly after the stop; he was joined by a friend who was also a Fire Department employee. Following the stop, both parties alleged in a complaint the officer cursed at them and created a "sense of fear" at the scene. However, unbeknownst to the two Fire Department employees, the officer had a
body camera and patrol car camera that recorded the stop-and proved that the officer never cursed. In fact, the officer acted professionally as the Fire Department employees "name dropped" high-ranking public safety officials.
However, even though that recording disproved the complaint of police misconduct that is far from a satisfactory outcome. A complaint against a Sheriff's Deputy or Police Officer, even when eventually determined unfounded, may have significant consequences. The deputy or officer has to endure an investigation by internal affairs and, their union has to expend money and time defending against this complaint. The ability to promote or transfer can be affected while the case is investigated, and those investigations can take up to a year. The "unfounded" complaint remains in the personnel file of the deputy or officer, where it may be raised again by the media, if another personnel complaint is lodged in the future. And, most importantly, the reputation of that deputy or officer is tarnished pending the conclusion of the investigation
In California, it used to be a crime to make a false complaint against a police officer, but that law was found to be
unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit in 2005. The court found the "free speech" rights of the public to accuse falsely deputies and officers of misconduct rendered the statute unconstitutional. There should not be a "free pass" for making false accusations of misconduct, even if the courts will not allow those false accusations to be a crime.
On the civil side, California Civil Code Section 47.5 allows a peace officer to sue civilly for a false complaint. However, the California Appellate Courts are split on whether the section is constitutional, with the most recent decision holding it is. Further, there is another hurdle. California Civil Code Section 426.5 s
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation statue (S.L.A.P.P) likely allows a defendant in a civil suit brought under section 47.5 to file a challenge to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the lawsuit violates the S.L.A.P.P. statute and is designed to stop the reporting of official misconduct. The consequences of losing the S.L.A.P.P. challenge is that officer who filed suit must pay the defendant's attorney fees and costs. Thus, it raises the bar to bring a lawsuit under section 47.5
As peace officers, we are sworn to uphold the law and maintain the public trust. Deputies should be held accountable for their behavior, both acknowledged for properly executing their duties and trained or disciplined for inappropriate behavior. The public must be held accountable, as well, if they file a false complaint of misconduct.
George Hofstetter is President of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs. ALADS is the collective bargaining agent and represents more than 8,200 deputy sheriffs and district attorney investigators working in Los Angeles County. George can be at [email protected].
