Police Can’t File Suits Over False Complaints, Appeals Court Rules

Peace officers may not sue citizens who file false complaints against them, a state appellate court has concluded in a decision that won praise from civil libertarians Thursday.

The 4th District Court of Appeal in Orange County said a law giving police special rights to sue complaining civilians violates the 1st Amendment right to free speech.

Critics of the law said the court’s decision would encourage citizens to speak up if they witness police abuse.

“This decision gives citizens the freedom to report police misconduct without fear of being sued,” said Daniel Tokaji, staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California, which assisted in the case. “It makes clear that you have the right not to remain silent as well the right to remain silent.”

Others, however, said the decision would harm police morale by subjecting officers to an increase in unfounded civilian complaints.

“The court basically said it’s OK to try to destroy an officer’s career intentionally by lying, and that there is no recourse available,” said Anthony Santana, legal counsel for the California Assn. of Highway Patrolmen. “This [law] was the only thing officers had to deter people from taking potshots at them.”

The decision, issued Wednesday, involved a Yorba Linda man who was stopped for suspected drunk driving by the California Highway Patrol on Interstate 5 in Santa Ana.

Bill Kiousis, owner of the Mad Greek restaurant in Stanton, was arrested and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of reckless driving after drinking.

He also filed a complaint against CHP Officer Donovan Walker, accusing the patrolman of treating him rudely during the December 1997 stop and threatening him with violence and jail if he declined a sobriety test.

“He felt like he was treated like an animal,” said Holly McGregor, the attorney for Kiousis. “He thought the officer’s employer should know and do something about it, so he filed a complaint.”

The CHP conducted an internal investigation and, based largely on a tape recording Walker made of the traffic stop, determined there was no merit to the complaint. Walker subsequently sued Kiousis for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Normally, a person cannot sue over comments made during an official proceeding. But a 1982 state law--unique to California--makes a special exception for police officers. The statute was passed at the urging of law enforcement after a Bay Area police chief was called a drunkard and incompetent by a neighbor.

Ruling on Walker’s lawsuit, a Superior Court judge concluded that the officer had failed to prove he suffered any damage from Kiousis’ complaint. Walker appealed, landing the matter before the appellate court.

In a 34-page decision, a three-judge panel of the 4th District Court struck down the law because it treats speech about one group of public officials--peace officers--differently from speech about others.

The decision, written by Justice Betty A. Richli, recognizes the state’s desire to discourage “false complaints against law enforcement officers which might inhibit them in the vigorous performance of their duties.”

But that desire, the court said, does not justify the violation of speech rights afforded by the law, particularly “in view of the substantial importance of preserving citizens’ ability to seek redress for official misconduct.”

Although the decision prevents peace officers from suing over comments made about them as part of the citizen complaint process, they retain the right to sue if they believe they were defamed in another context.

Walker’s attorney, Thomas Hadley of Fullerton, said he had not yet spoken with his client and did not know whether he would appeal.

But Hadley took issue with the court’s conclusion, saying police officers deserve the special exemption that allowed them to sue for defamation. Without it, he said, “officers in the field will be constantly second-guessing themselves and internal affairs will be constantly chasing down a lot of false complaints.”

“We’re talking about complaints made with malice, by people who knew they were false or made with reckless disregard for the truth,” Hadley said. “This guy clearly made this complaint out of anger over getting stopped, and he won’t be the last.”

Attorneys for Kiousis painted a different picture, noting that it was their client who was sued and, in McGregor’s words, “dragged through three years of litigation costing him thousands of dollars.”

“Fortunately, he’s had the resources to afford this,” McGregor said. “But what about the people out there who can’t? This law had a tremendous chilling effect on people’s willingness to complain if they thought they had been mistreated by a police officer.”

The decision marked the first review of the law by a state appellate court. In 1999, a federal judge declared the statute unconstitutional on similar grounds, but the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision.