Quote :

"False Accusations Against Police Protected By DAVID KRAVETS Associated Press Writer November 3, 2005, 8:53 PM EST SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court on Thursday nullified a California criminal law adopted after the Rodney King beating that made it unlawful for citizens to knowingly lodge false accusations against police officers. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the law was an unconstitutional infringement of speech because false statements in support of officers were not also criminalized. The decision, hailed by civil liberties groups and opposed by state prosecutors and law enforcement groups, overturns the California Supreme Court, which in 2002 ruled that free speech concerns took a back seat when it came to speech targeting police officers. Lawmakers enacted the law after a flood of hostile complaints against officers statewide following King's 1991 taped beating. The 1995 law is punishable by up to six months in jail. The imbalance generated by the law "turns the First Amendment on its head," Judge Harry Pregerson wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel. Darren Chaker, 33, of Beverly Hills, challenged the law after he was convicted in San Diego County in 1999 of making a false complaint against an El Cajon police officer. Chaker appealed to California's courts, to no avail. A federal judge had ruled against him as well, so he went to the San Francisco-based appeals court. "It was up to the police department to determine if the speech was false," Chaker said. "I made a complaint against a police officer for twisting my wrist and was charged as a criminal." The American Civil Liberties Union hailed the decision. "To us, it was a clear example to cut off criticism of the government," said ACLU attorney Alan Schlosser. Michael Schwartz, a Ventura County prosecutor who on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association urged the appellate court to uphold Chaker's conviction, said he was disappointed with the outcome. "It's a controversial issue that people disagree about," he said. He said the statute in question is used sparingly. San Diego County prosecutors said they were considering asking the appeals court to reconsider or asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision. "

Even the california supreme court ruled in favor of the law...


now the check and balance is gone


LET THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS BEGIN!!!!!!!!!

11/4/2005 7:24:24 AM

hmmmm. yeah, its bad that people can now make false reports against police officers, but I also agree with the reasoning. This law did serve to curb criticism of police officers, since police were pretty much the enforcers. I also like that they stated they had a problem with the lack of accountability for false supportive claims for police officers.

11/4/2005 9:42:17 AM

Quote :

"law did serve to curb criticism of police officers"

The law sought to curb False Accusations not criticism......you could always criticize the police.


Now there is no recourse or stopping someone for falsely accusing an officer of any act. Mind you the police department would invesitgate the claim, and if true take action, however if it was false...the accuser could get up to 6 months jail

11/4/2005 10:00:56 AM

^ This is just fucking great. I wrote several months ago how my wife was stopped by a policewoman. The policewoman gave her a ticket which was a bunch of lies. No, I'm not saying it was inaccurate if you get all legalistic and disect every word. It was a blatant lie. She said my wife did not have a registration when

a) she did;
b) she was never asked for it.

The policewoman also said my wife was speeding 18 over, which was a lie too. But that one _alone_ could be a result of a malfunctioning radar. The registration shit was clearly a lie though.

Anyway, we complained to the internal affairs. They told us later our facts had not been confirmed. Duh! Now you're saying we should have gone to prison? Thank God, you fucks are in control by sane courts.

11/4/2005 11:35:17 AM

MathFreak

your situation would not be impacted by above said law.

Now if your wife said the policewoman had abused her (hit, someother form of abuse) and the claim was false then your wife would be held accountable.

The law states "To knowingly Lodge a false complaint" and to the best of your knowledge you lodged a valid complaint, and did not knowingly make a false statement.

Aside from that fact...you should have fought that ticket hard. Did ya?

11/4/2005 12:00:47 PM

The absence of registration charge was dropped, and the speeding was reduced to 9 over, and she had gone 8 over, so we had no problem with the eventual outcome.

I'm concerned about the enforcement of the law. How will they differentiate between my wife lying about the fact that she had a registration and telling the truth? After the fact there's no way to check it.

11/4/2005 12:08:51 PM

well i would imagine that if there is no evidence one way or the other the charge would be dropped and nothing would happen to either person. but if evidence was found that the person was outright lying about it, there would/should be a penalty for it.

i don't think jailtime is necessary, but a fine would be in order.

11/4/2005 12:14:57 PM

OK, but isn't it already a crime to make false statements to the police? I'm talking about when you file a complaint.

11/4/2005 12:16:03 PM

They couldn't use that law against you

IA couldn't prove you were lying or were telling the truth

In your case you did not knowingly lie, and the facts did not support you in either way.

Want me to try to find you the law?

11/4/2005 12:16:16 PM

Quote :

"148.6. (a) (1) Every person who files any allegation of misconduct against any peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, knowing the allegation to be false, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (2) Any law enforcement agency accepting an allegation of misconduct against a peace officer shall require the complainant to read and sign the following advisory, all in boldface type: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER FOR ANY IMPROPER POLICE CONDUCT. CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRES THIS AGENCY TO HAVE A PROCEDURE TO INVESTIGATE CITIZENS' COMPLAINTS. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO A WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF THIS PROCEDURE. THIS AGENCY MAY FIND AFTER INVESTIGATION THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO WARRANT ACTION ON YOUR COMPLAINT; EVEN IF THAT IS THE CASE, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE COMPLAINT AND HAVE IT INVESTIGATED IF YOU BELIEVE AN OFFICER BEHAVED IMPROPERLY. CITIZEN COMPLAINTS AND ANY REPORTS OR FINDINGS RELATING TO COMPLAINTS MUST BE RETAINED BY THIS AGENCY FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO MAKE A COMPLAINT THAT YOU KNOW TO BE FALSE. IF YOU MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST AN OFFICER KNOWING THAT IT IS FALSE, YOU CAN BE PROSECUTED ON A MISDEMEANOR CHARGE. I have read and understood the above statement. ______________________________________________ Complainant (3) The advisory shall be available in multiple languages. (b) Every person who files a civil claim against a peace officer or a lien against his or her property, knowing the claim or lien to be false and with the intent to harass or dissuade the officer from carrying out his or her official duties, is guilty of a misdemeanor. This section applies only to claims pertaining to actions that arise in the course and scope of the peace officer's duties. "

11/4/2005 12:30:26 PM

Quote :

"How will they differentiate between my wife lying about the fact that she had a registration and telling the truth? After the fact there's no way to check it."

I think you could at least prove that the car was registered at the time, even if you can't prove whether or not you had the registration information on you. But I agree, there should be some check to keep police from issuing unnecessary tickets/arrests and a punishment if they do. It often happens at political protests that police will arrest people on charges that they know won't hold up in court and that aren't really fair charges just to be able to control the crowd and get them out of there.

11/4/2005 1:52:24 PM

Holy crap. I swear, a cop just wrote me a ticket for doing something I didn't do.

[Edited on November 5, 2005 at 10:37 AM. Reason : What do you think? Take it to the Lounge?]

11/5/2005 10:37:19 AM

He could not have POSSIBLY done that. YOu should go to prison for even SUGGESTING that, you sick fuck!

P.S. I still don't understand why the law is needed. Wasn't it already a crime to make false statements to the police? Regardless the topic.

[Edited on November 5, 2005 at 11:22 AM. Reason : .]

11/5/2005 11:20:18 AM

Quote :

"Wasn't it already a crime to make false statements to the police?"

Unfortunately, it is, but its the 9th Circut. Everything goes!

11/5/2005 11:39:10 AM

this is the problem:

Cop: *twists kids arm*
Kid: Complains
Cop: I didn't do it!
Cop: *arrests kid for making a false complaint*

11/5/2005 11:40:35 AM

Quote :

"Now there is no recourse or stopping someone for falsely accusing an officer of any act."

You mean there's no such thing as libel now? Really? I had no idea!

Obviously the California statute is an example of gross overlegislation aimed at galvanizing the police department into taking action against complaints made against it.

The accusation has to be "knowingly false," but that is a phrase proven in a court of law -- and since the crime specified is a misdemeanor, it will indeed go straight to court at the expense of the accuser.

The police are basically in a position of being able to accuse the accuser without much statutory friction standing in their way. That is not a good situation for anyone involved, and it most certainly should have a chilling effect on the willingness to come forward with true accusations.

11/5/2005 1:04:17 PM

I particularly liked this part:

Quote :

" false statements in support of officers were not also criminalized. "

11/5/2005 2:19:56 PM