Law Upheld on Police Complaints

The California Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously upheld a state law making it a misdemeanor to knowingly file a false allegation of misconduct against a police officer.

The court said that although criticism of government officials “is among the quintessential rights Americans enjoy under the 1st Amendment ... a knowingly false statement and a statement made with reckless disregard for truth do not enjoy constitutional protection.”

The court noted that the 1995 law was written in the aftermath of the March 1991 beating of motorist Rodney G. King by Los Angeles police officers.

“Law enforcement agencies throughout the state revised their citizen complaint procedures to promote greater accountability on the part of their line officers,” the court said, quoting testimony before an Assembly committee.

“A glaringly negative side effect [was] the willingness of many of our less ethical citizens to maliciously file false allegations of misconduct against officers,” the court continued. “Against this backdrop, the Legislature enacted section 148.6.”

Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling stemmed from the 1998 convictions of Oxnard residents Shaun Stainstreet and Barbara Atkinson for filing a false accusation that an Oxnard police officer exposed himself to about 50 teenagers at a Police Athletics League awards banquet.

When the Police Department was unable to corroborate the allegations, Ventura County prosecutors charged the couple. Stainstreet and Atkinson were convicted and sentenced to 90 days in jail and three years’ probation.

They were released after serving 50 days.

Stainstreet and Atkinson filed an appeal, saying that their accusations had been true. In October 2001, the 2nd District Court of Appeal overturned their misdemeanor convictions.

The appellate court accepted the evidence that the couple had filed a false accusation, but ruled that the law violated the 1st Amendment.

Two months ago, the state Supreme Court began reviewing the appellate ruling.

The American Civil Liberties Union, arguing on behalf of the couple, contended that criminalizing speech against police, but not against other public officials, was unconstitutional because it singled out officers.

The law could deter legitimate complaints out of fears of prosecution, the ACLU said.

The Ventura County district attorney’s office countered that without the law, police officers would have no protection against false allegations of misconduct.

In the ruling handed down Thursday, the Supreme Court concluded that the law is constitutional on its face.

“Section 148.6 proscribes only constitutionally unprotected speech -- knowingly false statements of fact,” the court said. “Moreover, it does not apply to all accusations of misconduct against police officers but only to complaints filed with a law enforcement agency in a way that legally obligates the agency to investigate the complaint.

“The circumstance that it covers only those persons -- peace officers -- who will be the subject of mandatory investigation does not render it unconstitutional,” the court said.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Michael D. Schwartz, who prosecuted Stainstreet and Atkinson, said he was pleased with the court’s decision.

“It was the right ruling,” he said. “On the common-sense level, the Constitution should not protect people who are lying.”

ACLU attorney Peter Eliasberg expressed disappointment.

“There are lots of federal court rulings that disagree with this state court ruling on this critical 1st Amendment issue,” Eliasberg said.

Atkinson stood behind her allegations Thursday, contending that police covered up evidence that would have supported them.

She said she will try to take the case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ruling was the second this week by a San Francisco-based appellate court giving protection to police officers from false statements by citizens.

On Tuesday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Beverly Hills police officer’s $10-million slander suit against singer George Michael can move ahead, saying that statements made by Michael about the circumstances of his 1998 arrest on charges of exposing himself should be heard by a jury.

In a sharp dissent, Judge Stephen Reinhardt said the decision gives police the opportunity to file a suit almost any time they are accused of wrongdoing.