Bruce Tindall said:
Have been assaulted 3 times in the 3rd degree. Filed on the third time. Court will not act because of not enough witnesses. After 1st and 2nd assault subject discovered that I was a police officer. Subject than made several attempts to have me disciplined by contacting Sheriff and other individuals in the hierarchy. No action was taken because Subject failed to sign a formal complaint. After 3rd assault occurred in front of my fiance I filed charges just to have the prosecutor inform me that there were not enough witnesses. Subject than faxed a complaint to the Captain were it was forwarded to my immediate supervisors and I was called in for an informal briefing in order to bring the others up to speed on the situation. I asked to obtain a copy of the fax and was denied. I asked if it would be available upon a civil suit and was informed that they would entertain that if it I was to file. According to other sources in the department the fax made completely false accusations towards me and the subject attempted to depict himself as the victim when he has been the aggressor all three occasions. Please advise. Have more complete details on history if needed.
My response:
Advise you about what ?
You're a police officer and you're letting someone "assault" you ? Three times, no less ! Here's a clue . . . Officer, you have the power of arrest. If you see a crime being committed, you can arrest the perpetrator.
Then, you've supplied no State name as is instructed at the top in RED letters (and it would have been nice to have the County name also), and then you give vague and ambiguous "details" - - at best. For example, describe the 1st and 2nd "events" - - what led up to each, and describe what the perp did to make you think there was an assault on those two occassions. Then, explain why you, as an officer of the law, didn't take any action on the 1st and 2nd events.
Is this the way you write your incident reports for the Department ?
Please read the following, and you tell me if you still think you'd have a chance at winning a Civil Lawsuit against a citizen and a Citizen Complaint - - -
ACLU Overturns Law and Protects CA Citizens
From Being Sued by Police
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, October 20, 1999
LOS ANGELES, CA -- In a victory for free speech, the American Civil Liberties Union today overturned a state law allowing police to sue individuals who lodge complaints against them.
The ACLU lawsuit challenged California Civil Code § 47.5 -- the only law of its kind in the nation -- that gives police officers a special right to sue citizens who file complaints of misconduct against them.
"This ruling affirms the basic right of all citizens to speak out about police misconduct," said ACLU of Southern California Staff Attorney Daniel Tokaji who argued the case. "The court has recognized how vital it is to have an open channel of communication between the police and the communities they serve. No longer will citizens with legitimate complaints against police officers worry that they could lose their life savings or their home because they have the courage to speak out."
The case, Gritchen v. Collier, arose from a 1997 incident in which Myron Gritchen was stopped while driving by Long Beach police officer Gordon Collier. Gritchen believed the officer had treated him in a discourteous manner and so filed a complaint with the Long Beach Police Department. Later that year, Officer Collier threatened to sue Mr. Gritchen for filing the complaint.
"The ACLU has always contended that citizen complaints are protected speech guaranteed under the First Amendment of the Constitution," said John Crew, Director of the ACLU's Police Practices Project. "We challenged the legality of California's Civil Code because it singled out citizen complaints for disfavored treatment."
"Under this statute, police, but no other public officials, were allowed to bring defamation claims based on citizen complaints," Crew added. "Clearly, the court agreed with our argument that this law was unconstitutional."
The court determined that Civil Code § 47.5 violated the First Amendment by specially targeting speech critical of peace officers. U.S. District Court Judge Gary Taylor ruled that, "Section 47.5 has . . . (a chilling) effect, since it imposes greater risk upon citizens who report claimed police misconduct and thereby discourage the filing of complaints."
The Court also found that, "No showing has been made that there is a serious problem of false complaints against police; Significant protections from false complaints are already afforded to police officers by their internal oversight agencies."
"There has been a long-standing and statewide problem of police officers filing retaliatory lawsuits against people who lodge misconduct complaints," said Crew, who served as co-counsel along with Tokaji and ACLU of Northen California managing attorney Alan Schlosser. "At least four such cases were brought by San Francisco police officers."
"While the ACLU has succeeded in defeating each of those cases, the chilling effect of the threat of being sued for merely filing a complaint has remained," Crew added. "This ruling should end that intimidating practice once and for all."
ACLU Wins Key Battle in Case to Protect Free Speech
In Citizen Complaints About Police
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, August 11, 2000
LOS ANGELES -- The ACLU of Southern California won a key victory this week in their challenge to the Constitutionality of a state law that makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly file a false allegation of misconduct against a peace officer.
"This law, which was held unconstitutional by the court today, treated complaints against police officers differently from other types of complaints," said ACLU of Southern California staff attorney Dan Tokaji. "The court's ruling sends a clear message. The people have a right to complain about police abuse without fear of criminal prosecution."
The statute has frequently been used to discourage people from filing complaints, Tokaji said, as it was in the case of La France Hamilton, an African American man who was attacked by police officers last year during a bicycle traffic stop and who later tried to file a complaint at the San Bernardino Police Department. The watch commander threatened Hamilton with criminal prosecution under the law, and Hamilton decided not to file.
"Mr. Hamilton's case demonstrates that when states try to create exceptions to the U.S. Constitution, they expose their residents to grave dangers and serious abuses," Tokaji added. "The law blocks citizen complaints and frustrates the mechanisms by which police are held accountable to the communities they are supposed to serve."
In denying the City of San Bernardino's motion to dismiss portions of the ACLU's complaint, Judge Robert Timlin said, "California courts have noted the dramatic impact peace officers tend to have on the public and the great potential for social harm if power by peace officers is abused...Debate on public issues and criticism of peace officers, just as with other public officials is speech 'at the very center of the constitutionally protected area of free discussion.'"
In a similar case, Gritchen v. Collier, the ACLU of Southern California succeeded in challenging the civil twin of this statute, which allowed peace officers to make defamation claims against those who file citizen complaints against them. That decision is currently on appeal.
A previous release on today's case is online at
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n022900b.html
Read about the companion case, Gritchen v. Collier, at
http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n102099c.html
IAAL
[Edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE on 02-09-2001 at 06:46 PM]
