Board Debates Law on Police Suing Citizens

The humdrum drone of the Board of Supervisors’ usual deliberations was punctuated Tuesday by a sharp ideological debate over the 1st Amendment and police conduct.

The occasion was a motion by conservative Supervisor Mike Antonovich to direct county lawyers to file briefs supporting police officers suing citizens who they allege have lodged false misconduct complaints against them.

An American Civil Liberties Union lawyer and a former public defender appeared at the microphone, charging that the law allowing such suits keeps citizens from lodging legitimate complaints.

“I would be very reluctant to file a complaint because I would have no way of knowing that I would not be sued,” said Daniel P. Tokaji of the ACLU.

Tokaji cited one case being defended by the ACLU in which a San Francisco woman witnessed a police officer beating a handcuffed suspect. She cooperated with an investigation that found the officer had used excessive force, Tokaji said. The witness still was sued by the officer, who is seeking $25,000.

Dennis Slocumb, a lieutenant in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and president of the county’s professional peace officer’s union, said the board should support police who do their jobs.

Slocumb told the supervisors that bad complaints by citizens can significantly affect officers’ careers, even if they ultimately are cleared.

“I have no problem with us being under a microscope from courts, our own internal affairs people, grand jurors,” Slocumb said. But in these cases, “we’re talking about malicious, false lies perpetuated against policemen to stop them from doing their duty.”

Defense lawyers say police officers have been increasingly relying upon an obscure 17-year-old law that allows them, unlike other public employees, to file defamation suits in response to complaints made in “spite, hatred or ill will.”

The ACLU is challenging the law in two court cases, one in Long Beach and the other involving the San Francisco woman.

Antonovich’s initial motion was to file friend of the court briefs supporting officers--and the statute--in those cases. However, when he determined that they were “inappropriate” for county lawyers to join, he asked the county’s attorneys to monitor all such lawsuits and to find an appropriate case to support.

“We’re not talking about complaints that are justified,” Antonovich said. “We’re talking about malicious attempts.”

But Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, a liberal who, as a city councilman 20 years ago, sued the Los Angeles Police Department over its surveillance tactics, cautioned against such a move.

He read a letter from Merrick Bobb, the county’s special counsel for the Sheriff’s Department, opposing the motion. Bobb wrote that the law can “chill” citizens’ rights to file complaints.

“There is no question that the expense and uncertainty of defending a defamation suit, even if the defamation action is meritless, will substantially dissuade individuals from making good-faith complaints,” Bobb wrote.

If the board supported such a law it would be opposing recommendations by the Kolts Commission on brutality in the Sheriff’s Department, Bobb wrote.

Acknowledging that police “probably have the toughest job,” Yaroslavsky said he still could not back the law.

“Having seen what we’ve been through in this county and in the city of Los Angeles . . . I think we’ve learned a few lessons,” Yaroslavsky said. “In a free society, we’ve got to give the citizen the benefit of the doubt.”

Yaroslavsky amended Antonovich’s motion so county lawyers will simply give quarterly reports on challenges to lawsuits brought by officers.

Antonovich ultimately agreed to the amendment, which passed unanimously. “It’s a step forward,” he said.