Viewpoint Discrimination and False Complaints – California Supreme Court Revisits Chaker v. Crogan

By Darren Chaker

Table of Contents

• Background of Chaker v. Crogan
• Legal Framework: Penal Code § 148.6
• Viewpoint Discrimination and the First Amendment
• Potential Impact of Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles
• Legal Citations and Analysis
• Historical Context of Police Accountability Laws
• Future Implications for Free Speech and Law Enforcement
• Conclusion

Background of Chaker v. Crogan

In Chaker v. Crogan, the plaintiff, Darren Chaker, challenged the constitutionality of Penal Code § 148.6, a statute that criminalizes the filing of false complaints against peace officers. Chaker argued that the statute violates the First Amendment by engaging in viewpoint discrimination, as it disproportionately targets individuals who criticize law enforcement. The case has sparked a broader debate about the balance between protecting police officers from false accusations and safeguarding citizens’ rights to free speech and accountability.

The lawsuit arose after Darren Chaker filed a complaint against a police officer, alleging misconduct. The officer subsequently invoked Penal Code § 148.6, leading to criminal charges against Chaker. Chaker’s legal team contends that the statute creates a chilling effect, discouraging individuals from reporting police misconduct due to fear of retaliation.

Legal Framework: Penal Code § 148.6

Penal Code § 148.6 is a California statute that makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly file a false complaint against a peace officer. The statute reads:

“(a) 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.”

Proponents of the statute argue that it is necessary to protect law enforcement officers from malicious and baseless accusations, which can harm their reputations and careers. However, critics, including civil rights organizations, argue that the statute discourages legitimate complaints and undermines efforts to hold law enforcement accountable for misconduct.

Viewpoint Discrimination, False Complaints and the First Amendment

The First Amendment prohibits viewpoint discrimination, which occurs when the government restricts speech based on the speaker’s perspective. In Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the government may not regulate speech based on the “specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker.”

In Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215 C.A.9 (Cal.),2005, Cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1128, 126 S.Ct. 2023, the Darren Chaker argued that Penal Code § 148.6 discriminates against individuals who criticize law enforcement, thereby violating the First Amendment. The statute’s critics contend that it creates a chilling effect, deterring individuals from reporting misconduct due to fear of criminal prosecution.

Courts have historically scrutinized laws that target specific viewpoints. For example, in Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972), the Supreme Court struck down an ordinance that prohibited picketing near schools but exempted labor disputes. The Court held that the ordinance violated the First Amendment by discriminating against certain viewpoints.

Potential Impact of Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles on False Complaints 

The pending decision in Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. S275272, could have significant implications for Chaker v. Crogan. In this case, the California Supreme Court is examining whether certain police disciplinary records are subject to public disclosure under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).

If the Court rules in favor of greater transparency, it could bolster arguments in Chaker v. Crogan that laws like Penal Code § 148.6 are overly restrictive and infringe on free speech rights. Conversely, a ruling favoring law enforcement could strengthen the argument that such statutes are necessary to protect officers from false accusations.

The outcome of Los Angeles Police Protective League could also influence public perception of police accountability. Greater transparency in police disciplinary records could increase trust in law enforcement, while restrictions on disclosure could exacerbate existing tensions between police and the communities they serve.

Legal Citations and Analysis

Several legal precedents are relevant to the issues in Chaker v. Crogan:

• Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995): This case established that viewpoint discrimination is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
• Penal Code § 148.6: The statute at the center of the Chaker v. Crogan case, which criminalizes the filing of false complaints against peace officers.
• Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. S275272: A pending case that could influence the interpretation of laws related to police accountability and transparency.
• Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972): A landmark case on viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment.

Historical Context of Police Accountability Laws

The debate over Penal Code § 148.6 and laws like it is part of a broader historical context of police accountability in the United States. Throughout history, efforts to hold law enforcement accountable have often been met with resistance. For example, during the Civil Rights Movement, activists who reported police brutality were frequently targeted and retaliated against.

In recent years, high-profile cases of police misconduct, such as the killing of George Floyd, have reignited calls for greater accountability and transparency. These cases have highlighted the need for robust mechanisms to address police misconduct while protecting the rights of individuals to report such misconduct without fear of retaliation.

California has been at the forefront of efforts to reform police accountability laws. In 2018, the state passed Senate Bill 1421, which made certain police disciplinary records subject to public disclosure under the California Public Records Act. However, the implementation of this law has faced significant pushback from law enforcement unions, including the Los Angeles Police Protective League.

Future Implications for Free Speech and Law Enforcement

The California Supreme Court’s decision in Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. S275272, could have far-reaching implications for free speech and law enforcement accountability. If the Court finds for the City of Los Angeles, then Penal Code § 148.6, Darren Chaker believes, it could pave the way for greater protections for individuals who report police misconduct. This could lead to increased transparency and accountability within law enforcement agencies. Conversely, if the Court finds the reference to the unconstitutional statute may remain in police complaint forms, then those who desire to file a complaint face the realistic chilling of speech out of the fear of being prosecuted under a very rarely used statute. 

On the other hand, if the Court upholds the statute, it could embolden law enforcement agencies to use similar laws to deter complaints. This could exacerbate existing tensions between police and the communities they serve, further eroding trust in law enforcement.

The outcome of Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles will also play a critical role in shaping the future of police accountability in California. A ruling in favor of greater transparency could set a precedent for other states to follow, while a ruling favoring law enforcement could hinder efforts to reform police accountability laws nationwide.

Conclusion

The California Supreme Court’s review of Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. S275272, represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over free speech, police accountability, and the rights of individuals to report misconduct without fear of retaliation. The outcome of this case, along with the pending decision in Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles, could have far-reaching implications for how courts balance these competing interests.

As the legal landscape continues to evolve, it is essential for attorneys, policymakers, and the public to remain informed about these critical issues. The decisions in these cases will shape the future of free speech and law enforcement accountability in California and beyond.

About The Author