[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
History See other History Articles Title: Court: false accusations against police are protected speech Court: false accusations against police are protected speech DAVID KRAVETS Associated Press SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court on Thursday nullified a California criminal law adopted after the Rodney King beating that made it unlawful for citizens to knowingly lodge false accusations against police officers. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the law was an unconstitutional infringement of speech because false statements in support of officers were not criminalized. The decision, hailed by civil liberties groups and opposed by the California District Attorneys Association and law enforcement groups, overturns the California Supreme Court, which in 2002 ruled that free speech concerns took a back seat when it came to speech targeting police officers. The case concerns Penal Code Section 148.6, which lawmakers enacted after a flood of hostile complaints against officers statewide following King's 1991 taped beating. The 1995 law is punishable by up to six months in jail. "The imbalance generated by section 148.6, i.e., only individuals critical of peace officers are subject to liability and not those who are supportive, therefore turns the First Amendment on its head," Judge Harry Pregerson wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel. The case concerned Darren Chaker, now 33 of Beverly Hills, who was convicted in San Diego County in 1999 of making a false complaint against an El Cajon police officer. Chaker was originally arrested for "theft of service" for retrieving his car from a mechanic without paying - charges that were later dropped. He complained that the arresting officer, without provocation, hit him in the ribs and twisted his wrist. Authorities charged him for allegedly making up the story, and he was convicted by a jury in 1999 after a hung jury in the initial trial. He was sentenced to two days in custody, 15 days of community service and three years' probation. Chaker appealed to California's courts, to no avail. A federal judge had ruled against him as well, so he went to the San Francisco-based appeals court. "It was up to the police department to determine if the speech was false," Chaker said. "I made a complaint against a police officer for twisting my wrist and was charged as a criminal." The American Civil Liberties Union hailed the decision. "To us, it was a clear example to cut off criticism of the government," said ACLU attorney Alan Schlosser. Michael Schwartz, a Ventura County prosecutor who on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association urged the appellate court to uphold Chaker's conviction, said he was disappointed with the outcome. "It's a controversial issue that people disagree about," he said. He said the statute in question is only used sparingly. San Diego County prosecutors said they were considering asking the appeals court to reconsider or asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision. Pregerson wrote that precedent for his ruling stemmed from a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down a hate-speech ordinance in St. Paul, Minn., which banned speech that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the law imposed special prohibitions on speakers who express views on "disfavored subjects" but did not punish those speaking on behalf of favored topics. Thursday's decision undercuts the California Supreme Court, which in a 2002 unanimous decision by Justice Ming Chin, upheld the statute and the 30-day sentences of two Oxnard residents who complained that an Oxnard police officer exposed himself to about 50 teenagers at an awards banquet. The Oxnard Police Department said it investigated the couple's allegations and could not corroborate them, so Ventura County prosecutors charged Barbara Atkinson and Shaun Stanistreet for filing a false complaint. The two, who vigorously maintained the allegations against the officer were true and were being covered up, were convicted by a jury and ordered to serve 30 days. California's justices, in ruling against the pair's First Amendment challenge, ruled the potential harm from false reports could damage an officer's credibility and even waste police resources investigating the complaints. The case decided Thursday is Chaker v. Crogan, 03-56885.
Poster Comment: Boonie Rat MACV SOCOM, PhuBai/Hue '65-'66
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: boonie rat (#0)
I was kind of outraged when I saw the headline, but this makes perfect sense to me.. I would think it unecessary, however because in a court, sworn statement or any place this would matter, there's perjury and obstruction laws to punish both scenarios equally.
Zogby Poll- "By a margin of 53% to 42%, Americans want Congress to impeach President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq."
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||