"in finding that the admonishment describing penalties for filing false has the potential to deter "citizens from filing truthful (or at least not knowingly false) complaints of police misconduct". The warning exhibits "numerous characteristics that, considered together, sufficiently burden a protected form of speech - namely, truthful (or at least well-intentioned) complaints of police misconduct - so as to warrant heightened constitutional scrutiny," Associate Justice Joshua Groban wrote in the majority opinion."
"At the LAPD, officials went further, demanding that complainants affirm, in bold font and all capital letters, that they understand the potential penalties. "IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO MAKE A COMPLAINT THAT YOU KNOW TO BE FALSE," the LAPD form reads. "IF YOU MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST AN OFFICER KNOWING THAT IT IS FALSE, YOU CAN BE PROSECUTED ON A MISDEMEANOR CHARGE.""
California Supreme Court ruled that an admonishment shown to complainants before filing LAPD complaints can deter truthful complaints and therefore burdens protected speech. The ruling was 6-1, finding that the warning's language and presentation could chill citizens from reporting police misconduct. The decision centered on a 1995 law criminalizing knowingly false complaints but criticized the LAPD's bold, all-caps affirmation that warns of misdemeanor prosecution. The court found the warning biased because those who lie in defense of officers face no parallel sanctions. The statute was judged not narrowly tailored, creating an asymmetrical criminal provision warranting heightened constitutional scrutiny.
Read at San Jose Inside
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]