 |
PRESS RELEASE |
|
PRESS RELEASE |
|
Release Date: November 3, 2005
Contact: Michael Rushford
(916) 446-0345 |
LAW PUNISHING FALSE COMPLAINTS AGAINST POLICE RULED UNCONSTITUTIONALIn a ruling announced on November 3, a panel of the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has announced that a California law which punishes as a misdemeanor, the intentional making of a false complaint against a police officer, violates a person’s constitutional protection of free speech. The ruling came in the case of Chaker v. Crogan which involved the misdemeanor conviction of Darren Chaker, who has made a hobby of suing law enforcement agencies in the San Diego area. The Court’s 3 to 0 ruling, authored by Judge Harry Pregerson states “Only knowingly false speech critical of peace officer conduct is subject to prosecution under section 148.6. Knowingly false speech supportive of peace officer conduct is not similarly subject to prosecution.” Because of this, the Court concluded “the statute impermissibly regulates speech on the basis of a speakers viewpoint.” “The Ninth Circuit’s ruling ignores the difference between complaints against police, and statements by the police and their supporters. Complaints against officers start a legally mandated investigation of the officer, while statements supporting the officer do not have a remotely similar influence on the process. By forcing California to treat different types of statements similarly, the Ninth Circuit has given Californians a license to file false complaints against the police,” said Criminal Justice Legal Foundation Attorney Charles Hobson. Hobson filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief opposing Chaker’s claim. The case stems from the April 1996 arrest of Chaker, by El Cajon police on a theft charge. Four months later, Chaker, who had filed at least ten other lawsuits against various law enforcement agencies in San Diego, sued the city seeking $25,000 in damages for excessive force. In 1997 he made a formal complaint with the El Cajon Police Department alleging excessive force against the arresting officer and signed a statement attesting, “that the facts given were true and correct to the best of his knowledge and were submitted under penalty of perjury.” An investigation found no evidence to support the complaint and several witnesses disputed Chaker’s account of the arrest. In 1999 Chaker was convicted of the misdemeanor charge under California’s law against knowingly making a false complaint against a police officer. He was sentenced to two days in jail, a small fine, and three years probation. Over the next three years Chaker appealed unsuccessfully raising multiple claims against his arrest and trial. He then filed a series of habeas corpus petitions in the Superior Court which were rejected. In 2000, Chaker filed one habeas corpus petition in the state court of appeal, two habeas corpus petitions in the California Supreme Court and one in Federal District Court. All of his state petitions were rejected. In 2001 and 2002, he filed three amended petitions with the Federal District Court, each raising new issues. Prior to filing his second amended petition, Chaker’s three-year probation ended. In July 2003, the District Court rejected all of Chaker’s claims, but ruled that his First Amendment claim, introduced for the first time after he had completed his sentence, could be appealed. Chaker’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit was accompanied by a brief from three chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) supporting his claim that the state’s false complaint law violates the Constitution’s free speech protection. The Sacramento-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation joined the case at the invitation of the San Diego District Attorney. The Foundation’s argument focuses upon two points 1) federal rules do not allow consideration on habeas corpus of claims raised after a defendant is released from custody, and 2) the First Amendment does not prohibit states from making it a crime to intentionally lie in a formal complaint about the conduct of a police officer. “It is very likely that this particularly bizarre ruling will be appealed to a more rational forum,” said Hobson.
|