Falsely accusing cops ruled legal in California
By The Associated Press,
freedomforum.org staff
11.01.01
Printer-friendly page
Two California state appeals courts this week have cited the First Amendment in trumping two laws — one a state statute, the other a city voting ordinance.
On Oct. 30, the 2nd District Court of Appeal overruled a state law that made it a crime to knowingly make a false accusation against a police officer. The same day, the 1st District Court of Appeal threw out a San Francisco voting law that allowed for write-in candidates during city election primaries, but not during runoffs.
As for the statute barring false complaints against officers, the Ventura County appeals court ruled that the law selectively bans a certain type of expression. This makes it a violation of the First Amendment, the court wrote in its decision.
The decision came out of an appeal filed by plaintiffs Shaun Stanistreet and Barbara Atkinson. They accused an Oxnard police officer of committing lewd conduct. The charges were determined to be false, and the two were found guilty of violating the law.
Stanistreet and Atkinson appealed, saying the law was unconstitutional. The appeals court agreed. Citing previous decisions, it said allowing citizens the freedom to report suspected illegal activity outweighs the occasional harm against individuals that may occur.
A similar case at the Solano Superior Court in Fairfield was dismissed two weeks ago. Two women driving to Reno, Nev., were stopped by a California Highway Patrol officer for speeding. Kimberly Joan Reed and Rita Lena Jamerson later filed a complaint that the officer was discourteous.
Using a tape recording of the stop, the CHP said the officer had acted professionally and that the complaint was false. Criminal charges were brought against them. But Solano County's judge said the charges against the women were unconstitutional.
The state Legislature revised citizen-complaint procedures about law officers after the Rodney King incident in March 1991. In response to a number of false allegations that came up as a result of the revisions, the Legislature put this section into effect.
Meanwhile, a state appeals court has ruled that San Francisco voting laws must allow for write-in candidates during runoff elections for mayor or other city offices.
San Francisco currently allows write-ins only during city election primaries. The race for office goes to a runoff between the top two vote vote-getters if no one from the primary field secures a majority of the vote.
The appeals court said San Francisco's runoff practice violated the California Constitution and the First Amendment rights of speech for voters and write-in candidates.
During runoffs, San Francisco provides no line for write-in candidates.
A lower court had dismissed the suit stemming from the 1999 mayoral election, which Willie Brown won. The suit was brought by Michael Edelstein, a write-in candidate for the office. The case does not affect the election's outcome.
The court noted that the California Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that write-ins should be allowed during runoffs in San Diego municipal elections. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled otherwise in the 1992 case Burdick v. Takushi.
The 1st District urged the California Supreme Court to revisit its 1985 decision to clarify the conflict.
Update
California high court to review false-accusations law
State appeals court had struck down statute that prohibits making untrue complaints about police officers.
01.24.02
Related
Magistrate advises striking Nevada citizen-complaint rules
Report recommends that federal judge rule in favor of self-proclaimed government watchdog Sam Dehne.
08.13.01
ACLU challenges California law allowing police to sue complainants
'We have the right to report anything we see that … is not right,' says woman who filed brutality complaint.
11.13.98
California high court weighs law barring false complaints against cops
During oral arguments, some justices suggest they may uphold state law that lower court found limits free expression.
10.09.02
