Under California’s Government Code, an employee organization aims to represent employees of a public agency in their relations with that agency. In a recent case, such an organization sued Los Angeles and its chief of police.
The recent case of Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles et al. addressed section 148.6 of California’s Penal Code. Subdivision (a)(1) of that section makes it a crime to file a knowingly false allegation of misconduct against a peace officer, while subdivision (a)(2) requires law enforcement agencies to require complainants to sign an advisory stating that filing a knowingly false complaint may result in criminal prosecution.
In People v. Stanistreet (2002), the California Supreme Court upheld section 148.6 against a suit alleging that the law was an impermissible content-based speech restriction under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In Chaker v. Crogan (2005), a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed with that ruling. Section 148.6 was an impermissible viewpoint-based speech restriction under the First Amendment, the panel said.
From 2001 to 2013, Los Angeles City and the U.S. were parties to a consent decree that prevented the city from requiring complainants to sign the advisory required by section 148.6. Even after the consent decree expired, the city still did not require complainants to sign the advisory.
In 2017, The Los Angeles Police Protective League, which was an employee...
KFTC conducts on-site inspection of Daiso over alleged unfair trade practicesClaims of support for Chinese platforms spread on social mediaAli and Temu user numbers actually declinePast Coupang cas...