California Senate Bill 16 (SB 16)  2023 – 2024 – Release of Records – Police officers

On September 2, 2021, the California Senate approved Senate Bill 16 (“SB 16”). Now on Governor Newsom’s desk, SB 16 reflects further efforts to increase transparency in law enforcement. In 2018, Governor Brown signed into effect legislation that significantly changed the confidential status of peace officer personnel files. SB 16 aims to expand on that change, making additional peace officer records admissible in court and accessible to the public as well as making it mandatory for agencies to review a lateral peace officer’s personnel file prior to employing that officer.

Admissibility of Peace Officer Personnel Files

Evidence Code section 1045 currently allows for relevant records of complaints, investigations of complaints, or discipline imposed related to an event in which the peace officer participated in or perceived to be admitted in court, with some exceptions. The court is required to exclude information related to complaints regarding conduct that occurred more than five years before the event that is the subject of the litigation.

SB 16 would amend Evidence Code section 1045 to remove the five year limit, allowing parties to introduce information related to complaints about conduct at any time, provided the court finds such information relevant to the matter at hand.

Accessibility of Peace Officer Personnel Files

In 2018, Governor Brown signed into effect sweeping changes to public access to peace officer personnel files. SB 16 would expand the categories of records accessible to the public pursuant to a California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) request to include records related to the following:

• Sustained findings involving complaints of unreasonable or excessive force
• Sustained findings that a peace officer failed to intervene against another officer using clearly unreasonable or excessive force
• Sustained findings of conduct involving prejudice or discrimination based on a protected classification (e.g. race, age, sex)
• Sustained findings of unlawful arrest or unlawful search

SB 16 would further expand the scope of accessible records by increasing the required record retention period from five to fifteen years where misconduct is sustained, and require the release of records for peace officers who resigned prior to the close of the investigation into their conduct.

SB 16 would also amend Penal Code section 832.7 to require law enforcement agencies to release records pursuant to a CPRA request within forty-five (45) days of the request, except as authorized by the section. Currently, there is no time limit to provide responsive records.

Law Enforcement Agency Review of Records

SB 16 would amend Penal Code section 832.12 making it mandatory for a law enforcement agency to request and review any record of investigation from a previous employing agency involving the lateral officer prior to employing that peace officer.

Conclusion

SB 16 reflects a further push to increase transparency in law enforcement, buoyed by the events that took place in the summer of 2020. Should SB 16 be signed into effect, law enforcement agencies must ensure their record retention policies and procedure for responding to CPRA requests comport with redefined scope of accessible records. Our office will continue to monitor SB 16 and provide updates on the status of the bill.

source

New Law Expands Public Access to Police Misconduct Records

SB 16 Signed Into Law by Gov. Gavin Newsom on September 30

California’s governor signed a package of public safety measures today, including SB 16, which clarifies and expands on the law requiring the disclosure of police records. The new law provides agencies with more specific guidance on how and when to disclose police personnel records.

The procedural changes to the law—like timing for disclosure and mandating certain retention periods—go into effect in 2022. More substantive changes—including expanding the scope of disclosures required by adding four new categories of records for release—will not be implemented until 2023. This delayed enactment gives local agencies a year to prepare for the disclosure of the backlog of police records that will surely be requested in light of this new law. A flurry of litigation may also ensue and disputes over the law’s application will garner substantial public interest.

As discussed in detail here, SB 16 will require disclosure when there is:

• a sustained finding involving a complaint that alleges unreasonable or excessive force;
• a sustained finding that an officer failed to intervene against another officer using force that is clearly unreasonable or excessive;
• a sustained finding made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in conduct including, but not limited to, verbal statements, writings, online posts, recordings and gestures involving prejudice or discrimination against a person on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status; or
• a sustained finding made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that the peace officer made an unlawful arrest or conducted an unlawful search.

DUE PROCESS READS>>>>>>

Due Process vs Substantive Due Process learn more HERE

Understanding Due Process  – This clause caused over 200 overturns in just DNA alone Click Here

Mathews v. Eldridge – Due Process – 5th, & 14th Amendment

 Mathews Test – 3 Part Test– Amdt5.4.5.4.2 Mathews Test

“Unfriending” Evidence – 5th Amendment

At the Intersection of Technology and Law

What Is Traversing a Warrant (a Franks Motion)?

Dwayne Furlow v. Jon Belmar – Police Warrant – Immunity Fail – 4th, 5th, & 14th Amendment

Obstruction of Justice and Abuse of Process

What Is Considered Obstruction of Justice in California?

Penal Code 135 PC – Destroying or Concealing Evidence

Penal Code 141 PC – Planting or Tampering with Evidence in California

Penal Code 142 PC – Peace Officer Refusing to Arrest or Receive Person Charged with Criminal Offense

Penal Code 182 PC – “Criminal Conspiracy” Laws & Penalties

Penal Code 664 PC – “Attempted Crimes” in California

Penal Code 32 PC – Accessory After the Fact

Penal Code 31 PC – Aiding and Abetting Laws

What is Abuse of Process? 

What is a Due Process Violation? – 4th Amendment & 14th Amendment

What’s the Difference between Abuse of Process, Malicious Prosecution and False Arrest?

Defeating Extortion and Abuse of Process in All Their Ugly Disguises

The Use and Abuse of Power by Prosecutors (Justice for All)

ARE PEOPLE LYING ON YOU?
CAN YOU PROVE IT? IF YES…. THEN YOU ARE IN LUCK!

Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law

Federal Perjury – Definition by Law

Penal Code 132 PC – Offering False Evidence

Penal Code 134 PC – Preparing False Evidence

Penal Code 118.1 PC – Police Officer$ Filing False Report$

Spencer v. Peters– Police Fabrication of Evidence – 14th Amendment

Penal Code 148.5 PC –  Making a False Police Report in California

Penal Code 115 PC – Filing a False Document in California

 Under 42 U.S.C. $ection 1983 – Recoverable Damage$

42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Right$

18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of Right$ Under Color of Law

18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against Right$

Section 1983 Lawsuit – How to Bring a Civil Rights Claim

 Suing for Misconduct – Know More of Your Right$

Police Misconduct in California – How to Bring a Lawsuit

How to File a complaint of Police Misconduct? (Tort Claim Forms here as well)

Deprivation of Rights – Under Color of the Law

What is Sua Sponte and How is it Used in a California Court? 

Removing Corrupt Judges, Prosecutors, Jurors
and other Individuals & Fake Evidence from Your Case 

Anti-SLAPP Law in California

Freedom of Assembly – Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment Right

How to Recover “Punitive Damages” in a California Personal Injury Case

Pro Se Forms and Forms Information(Tort Claim Forms here as well)

What is Tort?

Tort Claims Form
File Government Claim for Eligible Compensation

Complete and submit the Government Claim Form, including the required $25 filing fee or Fee Waiver Request, and supporting documents, to the GCP.

See Information Guides and Resources below for more information.

Tort Claims – Claim for Damage, Injury, or Death (see below)

Federal –  Federal SF-95 Tort Claim Form Tort Claim online here or download it here or here from us

California – California Tort Claims Act – California Tort Claim Form Here or here from us

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Non-Prisoner Complaint) and also UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT PDF

Taken from the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Forms source

WRITS and WRIT Types in the United States

Can I Use Text Messages in My California Divorce?

Two-Steps And Voila: How To Authenticate Text Messages

How Your Texts Can Be Used As Evidence?

California Supreme Court Rules:
Text Messages Sent on Private Government Employees Lines
Subject to Open Records Requests

case law: City of San Jose v. Superior Court – Releasing Private Text/Phone Records of Government  Employees

Public Records Practices After the San Jose Decision

The Decision Briefing Merits After the San Jose Decision

Rules of Admissibility – Evidence Admissibility

Confrontation Clause – Sixth Amendment

Exceptions To The Hearsay Rule – Confronting Evidence

Prosecutor’s Obligation to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence

Successful Brady/Napue Cases – Suppression of Evidence

Cases Remanded or Hearing Granted Based on Brady/Napue Claims

Unsuccessful But Instructive Brady/Napue Cases

ABA – Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Frivolous, Meritless or Malicious Prosecution – fiduciary duty

Section 832.7 – Peace officer or custodial officer personnel records

Senate Bill No. 1421 – California Public Records Act

Assembly Bill 748 Makes Video Evidence Captured by Police Agencies Subject to Disclosure as Public Records

SB 2, Creating Police Decertification Process and Expanding Civil Liability Exposure

The Right To Know: How To Fulfill The Public’s Right Of Access To Police Records

How Access to California Police Records

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department SB-1421 Records

 SB1421 – Form Access to California Police Records

California Statewide CPRA Requests Submit a CPRA Request 

Electronic Audio Recording Request of OC Court Hearings

Here is the Public Records Service Act Portal for all of CALIFORNIA Click Here

Police BodyCam Footage Release

GRANDPARENT CASE LAW 

Do Grandparents Have Visitation Rights? If there is an Established Relationship then Yes

Third “PRESUMED PARENT” Family Code 7612(C) – Requires Established Relationship Required

Cal State Bar PDF to read about Three Parent Law –
The State Bar of California family law news issue4 2017 vol. 39, no. 4.pdf

Distinguishing Request for Custody from Request for Visitation

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) – Grandparents – 14th Amendment

S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)

9.32 Particular Rights – Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship

Child’s Best Interest in Custody Cases

When is a Joinder in a Family Law Case Appropriate? – Reason for Joinder

Joinder In Family Law Cases – CRC Rule 5.24

GrandParents Rights To Visit
Family Law Packet OC Resource Center
Family Law Packet SB Resource Center

Motion to vacate an adverse judgment

Mandatory Joinder vs Permissive Joinder – Compulsory vs Dismissive Joinder

When is a Joinder in a Family Law Case Appropriate?

Kyle O. v. Donald R. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 848

Punsly v. Ho (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1099

Zauseta v. Zauseta (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1242

S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)

Ian J. v. Peter M

Download Here this Recommended Citation

Sexual assault in jail. Domestic violence complaints against an officer ignored. Knocked out teeth followed by a cover up. Throw in tens of thousands of stolen bullets, an illegal choke hold, falsified police reports, and cavorting with sex workers and you’ve got an emerging picture of what California’s new police transparency law has revealed in its first six months.

Those cases involving California peace officers are detailed in documents recently made public under a landmark transparency law that undid decades of secrecy surrounding police internal affairs files.

But six months after Senate Bill 1421 went into effect, some of the state’s largest law enforcement agencies haven’t provided a single record.

Some law enforcement organizations are charging high fees for records, destroying documents and even ignoring court orders to produce the files.

‘DRAGGING THEIR FEET’

The law, authored by State Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), covers records of shootings by officers, severe uses of force and confirmed cases of sexual assault and dishonesty by officers. Skinner said the revelations that have come out so far are proof that the law is working to shed sunlight on police misconduct.

But she said it’s troubling that major state agencies, such as the California Highway Patrol, which employs more than 7,300 officers, haven’t yet produced a single record.

“If the state agencies themselves are acting like they’re above the law, that’s absolutely the wrong model and the wrong example to set for the rest of the local government agencies up and down the state,” Skinner said.

Skinner said she plans to call for oversight hearings to push for full disclosure.

“We’ll have to start being more proactive about really poking them if they’re dragging their feet,” she said.

Officials with many law enforcement agencies insist they’ve done nothing wrong, saying they are trying to release records as best they can. They also dispute that there is anything improper about the records that have been destroyed.

Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva acknowledged earlier this year that public records requests were “stacking up.” He has said he’s asked the county Board of Supervisors for funding to hire more people to handle requests.

“People are asking for the world,” he said. His office did not respond to requests to comment for this story.

Villanueva’s department has refused to search for records, instead demanding that reporters identify specific cases they are seeking. The Sheriff’s Department released records pertaining to one deputy to the Los Angeles Times, and a handful of separate files to KPCC/LAist, but nothing to the Orange County Register.

The files from the Sheriff’s Department included internal affairs records for Deputy Caren Mandoyan, who was fired for dishonesty and domestic violence and later reinstated by Villanueva. The documents also showed that Mandoyan had admitted to having a tattoo linked to a secret society of deputies.

The failure to disclose police records under the new law is also happening among law enforcement agencies in Southern California.

Both the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and the Long Beach Police Department have yet to release any records to KPCC/LAist, the Los Angeles Times, the Orange County Register or KQED.

The Los Angeles County Probation Department, which supervises youths held in detention, has declined to release records, claiming disclosure of records about cases involving minors is prohibited by law. Records from the department, which also supervises adults, could be redacted to remove names of protected individuals.

After a San Francisco judge ordered the state Department of Justice to release SB1421-related records in May, the agency issued two dated internal investigations into misconduct by state agents. The department has since failed to provide additional records.

The Attorney General’s Office is expected to appeal the judge’s ruling, arguing that it shouldn’t have to provide the files it has on local agencies and otherwise seeking to narrow the records it is required to release.

At a recent San Francisco Police Commission meeting, public defenders addressed the difficulty they’ve been having getting records on officer dishonesty from the Bay Area’s largest police department.

“All it takes to support charges and hold individuals in jail is testimony by police officers,” said law student Will Kirkland, who is interning for the public defender. “Of course many officers in San Francisco are honest and have records of integrity. But for the minority of officers who don’t, their word is still being relied upon to keep people locked up. And that’s why we are simply requesting compliance with the law.”

SFPD has released only partial documentation from four shootings by officers — and no disciplinary records. The department has said promptly releasing the files is too taxing, and it has invoked a dozen extensions. A department spokesman said SFPD is hiring 11 people to respond to requests.

The Los Angeles Police Department has released more than a dozen files and is issuing additional documents on a rolling basis.

Public access advocates say they’re troubled by the pace of the release of records.

“They’re just delaying the inevitable,” said Jim Ewert, general counsel of the California News Publishers Association, which lobbied in favor of the new law. He added the agencies are “wasting taxpayer funds” by stalling and dragging out the release of the records.

$25 A MINUTE

Several agencies are seeking high fees for the public records.

The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department charged KPCC/LAist $1,655 to redact audio from shooting investigations, including that of Deputy Gonzalo Inzunza, who shot at four people in seven months and was the subject of KPCC podcast Repeat. The department has yet to provide the tapes.

The city of Bakersfield estimated that reviewing the audio and body camera footage related to a single shooting would cost about $6,621.60. Footage related to cases from the past five years, when Bakersfield Police shot 28 people, would cost an estimated $185,000.

West Sacramento estimated it would cost $25 per minute to redact its footage, meaning the material from five shootings would cost $25,000 in total.

Skinner said her office is monitoring the issue.

“If we see a pattern of this kind of really prohibitive costs then it is appropriate and essential for the legislature to revisit and relook at it,” Skinner said.

The California Supreme Court is also considering a case that could limit the amount that agencies can charge for review and redaction.

BURNED AND SHREDDED

Some agencies destroyed records before they could be turned over to the public.

Earlier this year, the Downey Police Officers’ Association went to court in an attempt to force the city to destroy records older than five years, arguing that doing so would be in keeping with the records retention schedule.

KPCC/LAist, the Los Angeles Times and the Long Beach Post opposed the union. The court sided with the media organizations in May, paving the way for records to be released.

KPCC/LAist reporters learned recently that many of the records sought had already been purged before the beginning of the year, including the investigation into Officer Steven Gilley’s 2011 deadly police shooting of Michael Nida, an unarmed father of four.

Police shooting investigations can amass hundreds of pages of witness statements, forensic reports and officer interviews as well as video and audio files. The city’s attorney promised to hand over what little was preserved – a 33 page report, which still hasn’t been provided.

Sarah Lustig, Downey’s attorney, said the city will produce records in keeping with new law, but also may continue to purge older records based on its retention schedule.

While cities like Downey, Inglewood, Fremont, and Morgan Hill destroyed records before Jan. 1, the Yuba County Sheriff destroyed years’ worth of records including internal affairs investigations of dishonesty and sexual misconduct on Jan. 16, two weeks after the new law went into effect.

Yuba had already received requests from the Los Angeles Times, the Bay Area News Group and KQED for records disclosable under SB 1421.

County Counsel Andrew Naylor said this was a routine purge, completely unrelated to the law. But many of the records that were destroyed had already been kept years beyond their required retention dates, and were potentially responsive to pending public records requests.

Naylor said the fact that they were destroyed just days after they became disclosable was a coincidence.

“They’d fallen behind,” he said.

David Snyder, director of the First Amendment Coalition, called Yuba County’s move “highly suspicious.” He said once the county understood that the public were seeking these records, it had a duty to preserve them.

LEGAL FIGHT

Attempts by several police unions to ask judges to block the release of records have largely failed. The unions argued the new law did not apply to records of incidents that happened before Jan. 1.

In March, more than 170 agencies were either in active litigation or refusing to produce records as they waited for direction from the courts. Now, Ventura County appears to be the only local government barred from releasing records due to active union litigation.

One of the state’s top police lawyers, who led the fight to block access to pre-2019 cases, said the fact that thousands of those records have nevertheless been released did not create a crisis.

“I don’t think the sky is falling,” Michael Rains said in an interview Wednesday. “If anything, members of the public probably got some reading enjoyment.”

Rains said most of the law enforcement unions his firm represents had given up on blocking the release of older cases, following a series of losses and rejections in several county superior courts and state appeals courts.

The state Supreme Court has declined to hear the issue multiple times. But that may not be the last word. A Ventura County judge resurrected the “retroactivity” issue in a June 19 ruling that bucked every other decision to date. As a result of the ruling, pre-2019 records remain sealed in that county.

The Ventura County Public Defender, which intervened in the case to fight for access to pre-2019 records, has not decided whether to appeal.

But for most agencies outside of Ventura County, Rains said they should provide the records or face lawsuits from news organizations and other groups. He said he was surprised that some of the largest agencies in the state have still not produced much or any information.

“Unless the agency is in complete disarray and it has no staff that would be able to … respond to these requests, which is a problem, they should be able to get them out,” Rains said.

Senator Skinner said she will be monitoring which agencies are releasing records and other issues with the new law as they arise.

“First and foremost I want to take my state agencies to task,” she said. “And then we can start looking at what ways either we need to modify the legislation or what ways we need to have public hearings to basically, in a way, shame these agencies for refusing to comply with the law.”

source

The wrongful conviction of an innocent person should be every prosecutor’s greatest concern
(FUCKING LAUGHABLE AT BEST OC DA IS A HARD NOSED ASHOLE MORON VINDICTIVE 2 FACED PAY TO PLAY CRIMINAL HIMSELF, SO YEAH I CALL BULLSHIT CIU).
A prosecutor’s highest priority should be ensuring innocent people are never prosecuted.

The Conviction Integrity Unit (“CIU”) of the OCDA investigates claims of factual innocence presented by defendants who were convicted in the County of Orange, California. 

A defendant or attorney seeking to have a conviction reviewed should complete the Conviction Integrity Intake Form and submit it to the OCDA

cited https://orangecountyda.org/ciu/

Conviction Integrity Unit (“CIU”) of the Orange County District Attorney OCDA

 

OCDA OFFICE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

The Orange County District Attorney’s Office – Bureau of Investigation supports the prosecutorial and law enforcement endeavors of the District Attorney. It provides a wide range of policing services tasked with suppressing crime and ensuring all criminal cases filed in Orange County are thoroughly investigated.

The Bureau of Investigation (Bureau) is the Orange County District Attorney’s Office (OCDA) law enforcement division. The Bureau is comprised of more than 130 sworn police Investigators who are seasoned law enforcement professionals recruited from other law enforcement agencies. District Attorney Investigators have extensive investigative experience, highly developed technical skills, exemplary work records, and an outstanding personal history. The Bureau also employs 90 non-sworn support team members.

Investigators assist prosecutors in trial by developing leads and locating additional witnesses, uncooperative or reluctant witnesses, ensuring the safety of victims and witnesses, and engaging in trial strategy with their prosecutor partners.

Their work is extensive, includes writing and serving search and arrest warrants, investigating original cases in complex matters, and going the extra mile to ensure the law is enforced in a just, honest, efficient, and ethical manner.

The Bureau’s “Special Assignments” unit responds to and investigates officer-involved shootings, custodial deaths, police officer criminal misconduct allegations, public corruption, and other sensitive or complex investigations. In addition, OCDA Investigators are assigned and participate on 10 different local, state, and federal task forces. These task forces allow law enforcement to leverage the abilities and expertise of the various participating agencies, which results in coordinated and effective investigations of the highest level crimes.

OCDA Investigator Expertise

• AB 109 Task Force
• Automobile Insurance Fraud
• Branch Court Services
• Child Abduction
• Child Abuse
• Civil Gang Injunctions
• Cyber Crimes
• DEA Task Force
• Cold Case Homicide Task Force
• Consumer Protection
• DNA Collection
• DNA Investigations
• Elder Abuse
• Environmental Protection
• Family Protection
• Felony Panel
• Gangs
• Homicide
• Human Trafficking Task Force
• In-Home Support Services Fraud
• Insurance Fraud
• Juvenile
• Major Fraud
• Medical Insurance Fraud
• Narcotics Enforcement Team 
• Orange County Auto Theft Task Force (OCATT)
• OC Gang Reduction and Intervention Partnership (GRIP)
• Orange County Housing Fraud
• Orange County Regional Computer Forensics Laboratory (RCFL)
• Organized Crime
• Professional Standards Division
• Protective Services Unit/Threat Assessment
• Public Assistance/Welfare Fraud
• Real Estate Fraud
• Sexual Assault
• Sober Living Task Force (SLIP)
• Special Assignments/Special Prosecutions
• TARGET
• Taskforce Review of Homicide and Sex Offenses (TracKRS)
• U.S. Marshall Task Force
• Vehicular Homicide
• Workers Compensation

cited https://orangecountyda.org/bureau/https://orangecountyda.org/bureau/

YOU ARE WORTHLESS JEALOUS BUMBLING LYING MORONS INCAPABLE OF SURVIVAL WITHOUT A GOVERMENT JOB, TOO DUMB TO SURVIVE LIKE A CIVILLIAN 

YOU ARE THE REASON PEOPLE SHOULD USE CONTRACEPTIVES, THE ONLY REASON, YOU ARE NOT NEEDED, YOU LIE YOU  ARE DUMB AND CORRUPTED = USELESS!
TO SPARE THE INTELLEGENT FROM DEALING WITH YOUR INSANITY OF YOUR INCOMPETANCE AND BIAS 

YOUR PARENTS WOULD HAVE SAVED THE GOVERMENT FROM A TORT

YOU ARE GUILTY OF CAUSING LYING ABUSING YOUR POWER HARMING DISOBEYING A COURT ORDER AIDING AND ABETTING A FUGITIVE CHILD ENDANGERMENT AND HARM TOP MY CIVIL RIGHTS AND CONSPIRACY TO HARM MY CIVIL RIGHTS

AND YOU ARE GUILTY ARE HARMING THE REALTIONSHIP TIME WITH MY SON. YOU HAVE HARMED THE REALTIONSHIP BETWEEN Daddy & Son  –  EACH ONE OF YOU WILL PAY $$ AND YOUR REPUTATION AND ACTIONS WILL BE FOREVER CEMENTED IN WEB HISTORY.

https://goodshepherdmedia.net/daddy-son-suffer/

Maybe CIU should investigate SIU, LHPD, GGPD and the Head DA Todd Spitzer as he is the superior who through pecking order oversees the subordinates under his control.  DA Bradbury (subordinate noun/adjective/verb) subordination and subordinate control of my case has committed Malicious Prosecution, he is guilty too of not watching his subordinate as his elected office has duties he is clearly failing and other duties he clearly violates and does run pay to play games as well.

“Personal involvement in deprivation of constitutional rights is prerequisite to award of damages, but defendant may be personally involved in constitutional deprivation by direct participation, failure to remedy wrongs after learning about it, creation of a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occur or gross negligence in managing subordinates who cause violation.”(Gallegos v. Haggerty, N.D. of New York, 689 F. Supp. 93 (1988). This ruling make DA Todd Spitzer Negligent and a conspirator18 U.S. Code § 241 to the violation of my (42-us-code-1983-civil-action ) civil rights and is a violation of code 18 U.S. Code § 242

Before we place the stigma of a criminal conviction upon any such citizen the legislative mandate must be clear and unambiguous. Accordingly that which Chief Justice Marshall has called ‘the tenderness of the law Page 11 of 48 for the rights of individuals’ [FN1] entitles each person, regardless of economic or social status, to an unequivocal warning from the legislature as to whether he is within the class of persons subject to vicarious liability.Congress cannot be deemed to have intended to punish anyone who is not ‘plainly and unmistakably’ within the confines of the statute. United States v. Lacher, 134 U.S.  624, 628, 10 S. Ct. 625, 626, 33 L. Ed. 1080; United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476,485, 37 S. Ct. 407, 61 L. Ed. 857. FN1 United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95, 5 L.Ed. 37.

We do not overlook those constitutional limitations which, for the protection of personal rights, must necessarily attend all investigations conducted under the authority of Congress. Neither branch of the legislative department, still less any merely administrative body, established by Congress, possesses, or can be invested with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168,196 [26: 377, 386].
We said in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 630 [29: 746, 751]—and it cannot be too often repeated—that the principles that embody the essence of constitutional liberty and security forbid all invasions on the part of the government and its employes of the sancity of a man’s home, and the privacies of his life.
As said by Mr. Justice Field in Re Pacific R. Commission, 32 Fed. Rep. 241,250, “of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from the inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.”

“Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law.”   In re McCowan(1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.

“All are presumed to know the law.” San Francisco Gas Co. v. Brickwedel (1882), 62 C. 641; Dore v. Southern Pacific Co. (1912), 163 C. 182, 124 P. 817; People v. Flanagan (1924), 65 C.A. 268, 223 P. 1014; Lincoln v. Superior Court (1928), 95 C.A. 35, 271 P. 1107;  San Francisco Realty Co. v. Linnard (1929), 98 C.A. 33, 276 P. 368.

“It is one of the fundamental maxims of the common law that ignorance of the law excuses no one.”  Daniels v. Dean (1905), 2 C.A. 421, 84 P. 332.

In Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2002.)  held that a malicious criminal prosecution was a naked constitutional tort, and was actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 under the 4th Amendment. They just said it, basically out of thin air.

Prosecutional Misconduct – SCOTUS Rulings re: Prosecutors

WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE TRUTH CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE

To Learn More…. Read MORE Below and click the links Below 

We also have the Reichle v. Howards (2012) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment

YOU CAN IF……

, If there is no TRUE-THREAT attached and the copy of the assessment roll that is located in an assessor’s office or accessible through computer terminals located in county offices,
nor do they affect the contents of the assessment roll.

Let’s say some cop wronged you but worse committed or concealed his own crimes! He is a police officer bound to obey all laws, but if you could bring this to the public’s attention with a news leaflet or flyer or website that was used to get attention to his behavior and form a gathering called a PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY then that would be exercising your freedom of speech.

You however cannot post the address and tell people or the officer that you are going to TRUE THREAT to HARM THEM.  You also cannot encourage others to commit a TRUE THREAT to HARM THEM

Posting Police Officer’s Name On Internet Found Legal

First Amendment grounds But Repercussions Troubling For Florida Man

A Florida man arrested for posting a local police officer’s address on RateMyCop.com won a lawsuit on First Amendment grounds but has had problems getting a job since his arrest. -db

cited https://www.wired.com/2010/06/dumbest-case-ever/ and https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2010/06/posting-police-officers-name-on-internet-found-legal-but-repercussions-troubling-for-florida-man-2/

IF ALL YOU DO IS POST AND YOU POST TRUTHFUL ACCOUNTS OF NEWS OF THEIR DOINGS YOUR 1ST AMENDMENTS ARE INTACT, JUST DONT TRUE THREAT THEM, so never do that!  The address would be needed to form a peaceful assembly to protest their unlawful actions

1. Karlan v. City of Cincinnati (1974) Police officers should not be considered “fighting words,” because police officers are trained to exercise a higher degree of constraint than the average citizen.
2. Miller v. US, 230 F 486 at 489 The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.
3. Constitutional Law § 101 – law chilling assertion of rights – 7.  If a law has no other purpose than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it is patently unconstitutional.  Shapiro v Thompson, 394 US 618, 22 L Ed 2d 600, 89 S Ct 1322.
4. Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights.“
5. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, (1886) “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486 ,489 “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
6. “A distinction must be here observed between excess of jurisdiction and the clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject-matter any authority exercised is a usurped authority and for the exercise of such authority, when the want of jurisdiction is known to the judge, no excuse is permissible.” Bradley v.Fisher,13 Wall 335, 351, 352.
7. “No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance, with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law are bound to obey it.” “It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the authority which it gives.” Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859)
8. “No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives. “Shall it be said… that the courts cannot give remedy when the citizen has been deprived of his property by force, his estate seized and converted to the use of the government without any lawful authority, without any process of law, and without any compensation, because the president has ordered it and his officers are in possession? If such be the law of this country, it sanctions a tyranny which has no existence in the monarchies of Europe, nor in any other government which has a just claim to well-regulated liberty and the protection of personal rights.” See Pierce v. United States (“The Floyd Acceptances”), 7 Wall. (74 U.S.) 666, 677 (“We have no officers in this government from the President down to the most subordinate agent, who does not hold office under the law, with prescribed duties and limited authority”); Cunningham v. Macon, 109 U.S. 446, 452, 456, 3 S.Ct. 292, 297 (“In these cases he is not sued as, or because he is, the officer of the government, but as an individual, and the court is not ousted of jurisdiction because he asserts authority as such officer. To make out his defense he must show that his authority was sufficient in law to protect him… It is no answer for the defendant to say I am an officer of the government and acted under its authority unless he shows the sufficiency of that authority”); and Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 287, 5 S.Ct. 903, 912
9. 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983.” Trezevant v. City of Tampa (1984) 741 F.2d 336, hn. 5 Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237,243. (1895) “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.” S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905).
10. “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.” SHAPIRO vs. THOMSON, 394 U. S. 618 April 21, 1969 .
11. Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137,(1803) “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”
12. “Nothing is gained in the argument by calling it ‘police power.’” Henderson v. City of New York, 92 U.S. 259, 2771 (1875); Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 501 (1934).
13. “An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the government.” Brookfield Const. Co. v. Stewart, 284 F.Supp. 94.
14. Failure to obey the command of a police officer constitutes a traditional form of breach of the peace.  Obviously, however, one cannot be punished for failing to obey the command of an officer if that command is itself violative of the constitution.  Wright v. Georgia, 373 U.S. 284, 291-2.
15. That an officer or employee of a state or one of its subdivisions is deemed to be acting under “color of law” as to those deprivations of right committed in the fulfillment of the tasks and obligations assigned to him. Monroe v. Page, 1961, 365 U.S. 167.         (Civil law)
16. Actions by state officers and employees, even if unauthorized or in excess of authority, can be actions under “color of law.”    Stringer v. Dilger, 1963, Ca. 10 Colo., 313 F.2d 536.  (Civil law)
17. “The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.” Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60;  Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613.
18.   Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
19. “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887.
20. The Ninth Circuit also continued its pre-Galbraith malicious prosecution jurisprudence and held that in in addition to constituting a 4th Amendment violation, that one could sue for a malicious criminal prosecution if the prosecution was brought to deprive the innocent of some other constitutional right, such as attempting to frame an innocent in retaliation for protected exercise of First Amendment free speech, or, as a naked constitutional tort. See, Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062, 1069–72 (9th Cir. 2004.) i
21. FEDERAL LAW NOW PROVIDES A REMEDY FOR A MALICIOUS CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
    In Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S  (April 4, 2022) for the first time in the history of the Americann Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court finally held that there is a Constitutional Tort of Malicious Criminal Prosecution. The Supreme Court also went on to hold that in order to sue for a Malicious Criminal Prosecution, that the underlying criminal action only need not result in a conviction of the accused for the accused (and  now plaintiff), for the underlying criminal case to be considered to be “favorably terminated”; a “favorable termination” of the underlying criminal case being a required element of that claim.
    Although under California law you may not recover damages for your malicious criminal prosecution because of immunity provided in Cal. Gov’t Code § 821.6  (See, Asgari v. City of Los Angeles, 15 Cal. 4th 744 (1997), at least now there is a federal remedy for the police attempting to frame you; finally.
22. Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

We also have the True Threats – Virginia v. Black is most comprehensive Supreme Court definition – 1st Amendment

ARE PEOPLE LYING ON YOU? CAN YOU PROVE IT? IF YES…. THEN YOU ARE IN LUCK!

We also have the Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law

We also have the Federal Perjury – Definition by Law

We also have the Penal Code 132 PC – Offering False Evidence

We also have the Penal Code 134 PC – Preparing False Evidence

We also have the Penal Code 118.1 PC – Police Officers Filing False Reports

We also have the Spencer v. Peters – Police Fabrication of Evidence – 14th Amendment

We also have the Penal Code 148.5 PC –  Making a False Police Report in California

We also have the  Penal Code 115 PC – Filing a False Document in California

Know Your Rights Click Here (must read!)

 Under 42 U.S.C. $ection 1983 – Recoverable Damage$

42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Right$

$ection 1983 Lawsuit – How to Bring a Civil Rights Claim

18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of Right$ Under Color of Law

18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against Right$

$uing for Misconduct – Know More of Your Right$

Police Misconduct in California – How to Bring a Lawsuit

New Supreme Court Ruling – makes it easier to sue police

 California Civil Code Section 52.1 Interference with exercise or enjoyment of individual rights

Contesting / Appeal an Order / Judgment / Charge

Options to Appealing – Fighting A Judgment Without Filing An Appeal Settlement Or Mediation 

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 Motion to Reconsider

Penal Code 1385 – Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise

Penal Code 1538.5 – Motion To Suppress Evidence in a California Criminal Case

CACI No. 1501 – Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings

Penal Code “995 Motions” in California –  Motion to Dismiss

California Government Code 6254.21 and 6254.24:

6254.21.

• (a) No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.
• (b) No person shall knowingly post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official, or of the official’s residing spouse or child on the Internet knowing that person is an elected or appointed official and intending to cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatening to cause imminent great bodily harm to that individual. A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor. A violation of this subdivision that leads to the bodily injury of the official, or his or her residing spouse or child, is a misdemeanor or a felony.
• (c) (1) No person, business, or association shall publicly post or publicly display on the Internet the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official if that official has made a written demand of that person, business, or association to not disclose his or her home address or telephone number. A written demand made under this paragraph by a state constitutional officer, a mayor, or a Member of the Legislature, a city council, or a board of supervisors shall include a statement describing a threat or fear for the safety of that official or of any person residing at the official’s home address. A written demand made under this paragraph by an elected official shall be effective for four years, regardless of whether or not the official’s term has expired prior to the end of the four-year period. For this purpose, “publicly post” or “publicly display” means to intentionally communicate or otherwise make available to the general public. ?(2) An official whose home address or telephone number is made public as a result of a violation of paragraph (1) may bring an action seeking injunctive or declarative relief in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a jury or court finds that a violation has occurred, it may grant injunctive or declarative relief and shall award the official court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
• (d) (1) No person, business, or association shall solicit, sell, or trade on the Internet the home address or telephone number of an elected or appointed official with the intent to cause imminent great bodily harm to the official or to any person residing at the official’s home address. ?(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an official whose home address or telephone number is solicited, sold, or traded in violation of paragraph (1) may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a jury or court finds that a violation has occurred, it shall award damages to that official in an amount up to a maximum of three times the actual damages but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000).
• (e) An interactive computer service or access software provider, as defined in Section 230(f) of Title 47 of the United States Code, shall not be liable under this section unless the service or provider intends to abet or cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatens to cause imminent great bodily harm to an elected or appointed official.
• (f) For purposes of this section, “elected or appointed official” includes, but is not limited to, all of the following: (1) State constitutional officers. (2) Members of the Legislature. (3) Judges and court commissioners. (4) district attorneys. (5) Public defenders. (6) Members of a city council. (7) Members of a board of supervisors. (8) Appointees of the Governor. (9) Appointees of the Legislature. (10) Mayors. (11) City attorneys. (12) Police chiefs and sheriffs. (13) A public safety official as defined in Section 6254.24. (14) State administrative law judges. (15) Federal judges and federal defenders. (16) Members of the United States Congress and appointees of the President.
• (g) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude punishment instead under Sections 69, 76, or 422 of the Penal Code, or any other provision of law.

6254.24.

As used in this chapter, “public safety official” means the following:

• (a) An active or retired peace officer as defined in Sections 830 and 830.1 of the Penal Code.
• (b) An active or retired public officer or other person listed in Sections 1808.2 and 1808.6 of the Vehicle Code.
• (c) An “elected or appointed official” as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 6254.21.
• (d) Attorneys employed by the Department of Justice, the State Public Defender, or a county office of the district attorney or public defender.
• (e) City attorneys and attorneys who represent cities in criminal matters.
• (f) Specified employees of the Department of Corrections, the California Youth Authority, and the Prison Industry Authority who supervise inmates or are required to have a prisoner in their care or custody.
• (g) Non-sworn employees who supervise inmates in a city police department, a county sheriff’s office, the Department of the California Highway Patrol, federal, state, and local detention facilities, and local juvenile halls, camps, ranches, and homes.
• (h) Federal prosecutors and criminal investigators and National Park Service Rangers working in California.
  cited privacy for cops

Assembly Bill 1813 (Stats 2010, ch. 194)

Can Police Lye on Affidavits  – Short Answer, NO! THAT IS A VIOLATION OF PC 118.1

Not if they Value their Career & Freedom and Don’t want civil responsibility

Police have no expectation of privacy on phone calls.  Police lines are recorded expectations end there!

Under Penal Code 118.1 PC, it is a crime for peace officers to make a knowingly false statement in a crime report, even if it is not a “sworn statement” made under oath. A violation is a wobbler that prosecutors can charge as either a misdemeanor or a felony.

Normally, a false assertion is only a criminal act if it is made under a declaration of perjury. This section makes it a crime even if the officer did not certify it as true or sign the report under penalty of perjury.

The language of the statute reads that:

118.1. (a) Every peace officer who, in their capacity as a peace officer, knowingly and intentionally makes, or causes to be made, any material statement in a peace officer report, or to another peace officer and the statement is included in a peace officer report, regarding the commission or investigation of any crime, knowing the statement to be false, is guilty of filing a false report, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or in the state prison for one, two, or three years.

(b) This section does not apply to a peace officer writing or making a peace officer report, with regard to a false statement that the peace officer included in the report that is attributed to any other person, unless the peace officer writing or making the report knows the statement to be false and is including the statement to present the statement as being true.

Examples

• an officer stating that a suspect had cocaine in his pocket (when he really had no drugs).
• a law enforcement officer reporting that the accused resisted arrest (when he really did not).
• a police officer stating that he saw the suspect with a gun in his hand (when he really found it in some nearby bushes).

Defenses

An officer can fight a false reporting charge with a legal defense. A few common defenses are:

• mistake,
• falsity relates to an immaterial matter, and/or
• false information by a third party.

Penalties

As a misdemeanor, the crime is punishable by:

• custody in county jail for up to one year, or
• misdemeanor (or summary) probation.

As a felony, the offense is punishable by:

• imprisonment in state prison for up to three years, or
• felony (or formal) probation.

Our California criminal defense attorneys will discuss the following in this article:

• 1. When is filing a false report a crime?
  • 1.1. Official capacity
  • 1.2. Criminal matter
  • 1.3. Material matter
  • 1.4. Knowingly
• 2. Are there legal defenses to 118.1 PC?
  • 2.1. Mistake
  • 2.2. Falsity relates to an immaterial matter
  • 2.3. False information by a third party
• 3. What are the penalties?
• 4. Can an officer get a conviction expunged?
• 5. Does a conviction affect an officer’s gun rights?
• 6. What can a person do if the victim of a false police report?
• 7. Are there related laws?
  • 7.1. Perjury – PC 118
  • 7.2. Malicious prosecution
  • 7.3. False report of a crime – PC 148.5

1. When is filing a false report a crime?

Penal Code 118.1 PC is the California statute that makes it a crime for a police officer to file a false report on a criminal matter.¹

A prosecutor must prove the following to prove a case under this code section:

1. the defendant is a police officer and while acting in his official capacity,
2. wrote a report in a criminal matter,
3. the report included false information about a material matter, and
4. the officer acted knowingly when he entered the false information in the report.²

Note that if the above are proven true, an officer is guilty even if he did not sign the report under penalty of perjury.

Questions often arise under this statute on the meaning of:

• official capacity,
• criminal matter,
• material matter, and
• knowingly.

1.1 Official capacity

This law only applies to those reports an officer files when he is acting as a police officer. It does not apply to any reports that he makes in his personal capacity.

In addition, it only applies to those reports he makes to the agency that employs him.

Example: Nicole is an officer with the LAPD. She writes two reports. One in her personal capacity on the recent rise in crime that she presents to her son’s grade school class. The other is on a criminal matter for the FBI.

Here, Nicole is unlikely guilty of a crime if she includes false information in either report. The first report is written in her personal capacity. The second is written for the FBI and not the LAPD.

1.2. Criminal matter

This code section only applies to criminal matters. Many times, police officers write reports in connection with purely civil or administrative matters, such as:

• traffic accidents,
• fires, or
• earthquakes.

If an officer is not reporting on a crime specifically, this section does not apply.

1.3. Material matter

For a guilty charge under PC 118.1, the false statement must be “material.” This means it must relate to something of significance or importance. This is opposed to a matter that is trivial or incidental in nature.³

Example: San Francisco police officer Jones is eating lunch at a diner. He gets a report of a shooting. He races to the crime scene and does not see the suspect. He later files a report. In it, he says he was eating in his car when he learned of the crime.

Here, Jones is not guilty of a crime. While it is false that he was eating in his car, this is of a trivial matter. He would be guilty, though, if he reports that he saw the suspect when he arrived at the crime scene. This is false information of a material matter.

1.4. Knowingly

An officer is only guilty under this law if he knowingly enters false information.

According to California criminal law, a person acts knowingly if he understands that facts exist which bring his actions within the provisions of this code section.⁴

Police often write their reports hours or even days after witnessing or investigating a crime. Memory does fade and falter. Honest mistakes in reporting are not criminal.⁵

Example: Nia is a San Diego police officer. She gets called to the scene of an assault case. The victim has a bloody nose. Nia files a report later that day and does not remember where the victim was bleeding. She states in her report that she believed the victim had blood over one eye.

Here, Nia is not guilty of a crime. While she was wrong in reporting on the location of the blood, this falsity was due to a mistake in recollection. She did not knowingly falsify the information.

2. Cops Lying 118.1 PC

2.1. Mistake

An officer is only guilty under this law if he knowingly includes false information in a report. This means it is a defense for an accused to show that:

• while he may have entered false information in a police report,
• he did so mistakenly and not on purpose.

2.2. Falsity relates to an immaterial matter

There can only be a PC 118.1 guilty charge if an officer falsified information on a material matter. This is opposed to information that is deemed trivial in nature. Therefore, it is a defense for a defendant to show that the false information was not on anything material to the case.

2.3. False information by third party

A police officer is not guilty of a crime if:

• he files a report of a crime, and
• includes in it false information given by a witness or other third party.

An officer is only guilty for his own false information.

Example: Marcos is an officer and responds to the scene of a battery. A witness lies and tells Marcos that he saw the suspect hit the victim “with his own eyes.” Marcos includes this information in his report of the case.

Here, Marcos is not guilty under PC 118.1. While his report includes false information, Marcos did not falsify anything. He just recorded a lie that was made by a witness.

3. What are the penalties?

A violation of this code section is a wobbler offense. This means the district attorney can charge it as either a misdemeanor or a felony.

As a misdemeanor, the crime is punishable by:

• custody in the county jail for up to one year, or
• misdemeanor (or summary) probation.⁶

As a felony, the offense is punishable by:

• imprisonment in state prison for up to three years, or
• felony (or formal) probation.⁷

4. Can an officer get a conviction expunged?

An officer convicted of this crime is entitled to an expungement if he:

1. successfully completes probation, or
2. completes a jail term (whichever is relevant).

If a party violates a probation term, he could still possibly get the offense expunged. But this would be in the judge’s discretion.

Under Penal Code 1203.4, an expungement releases an individual from virtually “all penalties and disabilities” arising out of the conviction.⁸

5. Does a conviction affect an officer’s gun rights?

A conviction under this statute may have a negative effect on a defendant officer’s gun rights.

According to California law, convicted felons are prohibited from acquiring or possessing a gun in California.

This means that:

• if an officer violates the law and the prosecutor charges him with a felony, and
• the accused is convicted of the same,

the defendant will lose his rights to own and possess a gun.

6. What can a person do if the victim of a false police report?

There are several things a person can do if he is the victim of a false police report. These include:

1. cross-examine the officer – a criminal defense attorney would do this during a California jury trial. The lawyer would hopefully be able to make the officer provide information that is inconsistent with his report.
2. file a complaint – a person can file a police misconduct complaint with the officer’s department. If the person was charged with a crime because of the report, a complaint may result in the reduction or dismissal of charges.
3. run a Pitchess motion – a Pitchess motion is a request by the defense to access an officer’s personnel record. This access is sought to see if other people have complained about the officer committing similar misconduct.
4. Sue the police  – there’s always the possibility of filing a lawsuit against the police officer, his department and the city. This is usually only a viable option if a person can prove that the officer lied and that the false statement caused him to be wrongly arrested, convicted and/or jailed. Many of these lawsuits get brought under United States Code 1983.

7. Are there related offenses?

There are three laws related to Penal Code 118.1. These are:

1. perjury – PC 118,
2. malicious prosecution, and
3. false report of a crime – PC 148.5.

7.1. Perjury – PC 118

Perjury is a crime in California per Penal Code 118 PC. California law defines “perjury” as deliberately giving false information while under oath.

Note that this crime can be committed by:

1. police officers, and
2. non-officers alike.

7.2. Malicious prosecution

Malicious prosecution is a civil lawsuit filed by a person that is the victim of another’s:

• meritless, and
• harmful claim.

To succeed in the suit, the plaintiff must prove:

• the defendant made a frivolous claim against the plaintiff,
• the lawsuit was filed not to win, but rather for some other purpose, and
• the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the frivolous claim.

Unlike malicious prosecution, a charge under PC 118.1 is criminal in nature and filed by the state.

7.3. False report of a crime – PC 148.5

Penal Code 148.5 PC is the California law against making a false report of a crime. Specifically, this section applies when a person makes a false report of a crime to a:

• police officer,
• prosecutor,
• grand jury, or
• state or local employee assigned to accept reports from citizens (such as a 911 operator).

Note that while PC 118.1 applies to police officers, PC 148.5 applies to only non-officers.

Legal References:

cited https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/118-1/