Injunction on Deputies Put on Hold : Law enforcement: A federal appeals court delays a judge’s order that sheriff’s employees follow department guidelines on searches and use of force.

The U. S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, without comment, temporarily blocked a federal judge’s order requiring the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to adhere to its own rules governing use of force.

The emergency stay was requested by lawyers for the county, who contended that U. S. District Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. had overstepped his authority by imposing the order in a civil rights lawsuit against deputies in Lynwood.

The stay was granted minutes before a 5 p.m. deadline, when the unusual order placing all Sheriff’s Department employees under the judge’s mandate was to take effect.

A formal hearing on the appeal was scheduled for the first week in December, but court officials in San Francisco said a three-judge panel may review the matter as soon as Friday.

“I am not terribly surprised that with such an unusual order the Court of Appeals is taking a bit of a wait-and-see attitude,” said Kevin S. Reed, Western Regional counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which is representing some of the plaintiffs.

Officials at the county counsel’s office, which is representing the Sheriff’s Department, could not be reached for comment.

Hatter issued his order Monday, but delayed implementation for 24 hours to give county lawyers a chance to seek a stay.

His order called for all department employees to “follow the department’s own stated policies and guidelines regarding the use of force and procedures for conducting searches.” The judge also ordered the Sheriff’s Department to provide him with monthly reports of all excessive-force complaints made against deputies.

Hatter, who could not be reached for comment, did not specify what action he would take if his order were disobeyed. But he could impose fines or even jail time if he found county officials in contempt.

At the County Board of Supervisors meeting Tuesday, some supervisors expressed dismay that the Sheriff’s Department was fighting the order.

“We’re telling the public that we’re not going to follow our own rules and procedures,” Molina said. “The judge said follow your own rules, and we should say, ‘Yes sir!’ ”

Supervisor Ed Edelman added, “It is troubling to have the county appeal an order that says follow your own policies and procedures.”

County Counsel DeWitt Clinton told supervisors that deputies already face disciplinary action by the sheriff if they violate policies. He expressed concern that, under the court order, sheriff’s deputies also could face contempt proceedings if they violated policies dealing with use of force or searches.

“Our position is that we are obligated to follow our own procedures, and we are,” he said. The judge’s order, however, “is an improper intrusion on the sheriff’s ability to run his organization.”

A Sheriff’s Department spokesman said Sheriff Sherman Block will address the matter at his monthly open house today.

Hatter’s order marked the opening round in a class-action civil rights lawsuit filed on behalf of more than 70 Lynwood residents who alleged that deputies engaged in systematic acts of brutality, including shooting, beating, house-trashing and racial slurs.

In his order, however, Hatter crossed out language proposed by the plaintiffs that would have limited the restraints to deputies in Lynwood. Instead, the order applies to all the department’s 8,000 officers and 4,000 civilian employees.

“We were surprised at the breadth,” said George V. Denny III, one of the attorneys for plaintiffs. “However, I think Judge Hatter had looked very carefully at what’s going on in the county, of which Lynwood is just a microcosm.”

Attorneys on both sides were still trying to figure out the practical effect of such a ruling, which was broader than plaintiffs had sought and so broad that defendants contended it could bring the department to its knees.

Lawyers agreed that enforcement of the ruling would probably be left to the plaintiffs, who would notify the judge if they believed any deputies were violating the department’s guidelines.

But there was disagreement as to whether the judge wanted to be notified only if the 70 Lynwood residents were victims of abuse--or whether anyone was subjected to abuse.

Attorneys said it was also unclear whom the judge might hold in contempt for violations of the order: the county, individual deputies or Block.

Steven Manning, an attorney representing 20 deputies named in the suit, speculated that the plaintiffs could take advantage of the ruling to allege an endless stream of “innocuous” policy violations, thus “creating a federal crime of something that wasn’t before.”

“How long would it be before you have every officer (in court) the next day?” he said. “You could close down the station.”

Reed, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund attorney, contended that such arguments were an indication that the department has something to hide.

“If they’re worried about that, they must think their deputies violate Sheriff’s Department policies over and over again,” Reed said. “If that’s what they think, maybe their deputies should be brought against Judge Hatter on a daily basis.”

Both sides noted that the U. S. Supreme Court has been reluctant to permit federal judges to meddle in the affairs of local law enforcement agencies.

In one case, a federal judge ordered sweeping changes in the Philadelphia Police Department after finding that officers were making improper arrests and illegal searches. But the high court in 1976 concluded that such changes marked an “unwarranted intrusion” by authorities into the affairs of city officials.

In a controversial Los Angeles case, a federal judge banned the used of chokeholds by the Los Angeles Police Department after as many as 17 deaths had been linked to the tactic. But in 1983, by a single-vote margin, the Supreme Court overturned the ban, saying a federal court generally “is not the proper forum” to settle disputes about local police methods.

Erwin Chemerinsky, a professor who teaches constitutional law at USC, said the whole question of the Lynwood case hinges on whether the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court believes Hatter’s order was too much of an intrusion.

“It’s clear the Supreme Court doesn’t want federal courts controlling local police departments,” Chemerinsky said. “But what’s so clever about the judge’s order is that he’s just saying, here’s your guidelines, stick to them. Is that so different that it will be allowed?”

Times staff writers Dean E. Murphy and Richard Simon contributed to this story.