Ruling Opens Police Records to Probe of Melee

Police officers in this city lost a bid Wednesday to shield the department’s internal affairs reports from a federal investigation of possible civil rights violations during a police clash with unruly revelers on the Fourth of July 1994.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier court ruling that officers’ constitutional rights would not be violated by the release of internal affairs documents sought by the U.S. Department of Justice.

The ongoing federal investigation, begun by the FBI in November 1994, centers on allegations of excessive force by police during a holiday melee.

In 1994, more than 150 people were arrested as Huntington Beach police dealt with people burning furniture in the streets and throwing bottles. Last year, an unruly crowd again formed and, while overall incidents were fewer, the 1995 Fourth of July was the first to include a killing. A 21-year-old Huntington Beach man was shot in the chest by another crowd member after the two argued.

In 1994, Huntington Beach Police Chief Ronald E. Lowenberg praised his rank and file for acting “quickly and decisively,” but some people in the crowd alleged that officers used batons in reckless attacks on bystanders.

Allison Jill Gonsowski, then a 17-year-old high school student, said she told FBI investigators that police broke her jaw and loosened five teeth in an unprovoked attack.

Police officials have been steadfast in defense of officer actions during the annual celebrations. For the 1994 holiday weekend, police received seven citizen complaints. Police internal affairs investigators found the charges unfounded in two of those cases. In four cases, there was not enough information to evaluate officer actions. The resolution of the seventh complaint was not available Wednesday.

The documents related to those seven complaints and other internal affairs investigations directed at Fourth of July 1994 incidents are not shielded by 5th Amendment protections, the court ruling Wednesday states.

The constitutional protection from self-incrimination is not violated by a federal subpoena seeking the records, the court ruled, although state laws do protect some officer statements that may be within those records.

Internal affairs investigations include an interview session with police officers where the subject is told that he or she must give a full and accurate account of their actions or risk department sanctions that could include firing.

The California Supreme Court has ruled that those compelled statements, made in a setting that doesn’t extend officers self-incrimination protection, cannot be held against the officer in court.

The appellate court opinion released Wednesday outlined the measures that federal investigators and prosecutors would be bound by law to follow should the investigation proceed. They include screening documents for “tainted” passages or having a special hearing to show federal investigators had an independent source for evidence.