The 9th Circuit at work . . . . . . .
Posted on 11/03/2005 6:24:04 PM PST by ncountylee
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - 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 also criminalized.
The decision, hailed by civil liberties groups and opposed by state prosecutors 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.
Lawmakers enacted the law 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 the law "turns the First Amendment on its head," Judge Harry Pregerson wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel.
Darren Chaker, 33, of Beverly Hills, challenged the law after he was convicted in San Diego County in 1999 of making a false complaint against an El Cajon police officer.
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 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.
Sounds like people were filing false reports and the 9th said that that is constitutionally protected.. Am I missing something here? Or can I just start accusing people of anything?
I am sure that the logic used by the Court was that the state law did not suppress speech in a content neutral fashion.
That makes a lot of sense when the congress is working to criminalize partisan blogging in the three months before a federal election.
Idiots....
Good question. If it is constitutional to make false statements against the police, would it not also be constitutional to make false statements against non-police?
Indeed. I seem to remember that women who made up a rape accusation against Michael Irvin ended up getting criminal charges filed against her. Then again its the 9th circuit, where the constitution is read quite loosely, well except for the second amendment where "the people" means anything but.
To expand it further, does this ruling apply to all law enforcement officials - Federal, State, and Local, and does it include all Government officials? And as 308MBR points out, does that, or will it, extend to blogs as well?
The 9th Circuit at work . . . . . . .
Lunatics in black robes.
I'm having a hard time getting over the first sentence here. "A federal appeals court...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."
Does that mean that up until the Rodney King incident, it was not illegal to make false accusations against police officers?
I wonder if by extension, it might apply to Libby, who is alleged to have made false statements during an investigation of a crime that was never committed.
Lunatics in black robes.
If it does extend to the Feds, Martha Stewart is owed a piece of her life back from the Government.
Why shouldn't it be legal to lie? You aren't under oath when being questioned. The police can lie to you to get you to trip up yourself.
Agreed... how can it not be actionable... let alone legal... to raise a false allegation? Would this mean that it is open season on cops for slander?
But I assume there was the same "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for conviction under this statute? In this case I believe there were several witnesses who contradicted the events depicted in his complaint.
"Does that mean that up until the Rodney King incident, it was not illegal to make false accusations against police officers?"
Slander and libel have always been civil cases not criminal. It's only criminal if your under oath...
Why they got it right is that it is only a crime to file a false report against a police officer, but not for filing a false report in support of the officer. A lie is a lie, and should be treated as such no matter who it helps.
I've long wondered that. This business of "lying to police officers"... without being under oath. Dunno how that started.
There is obstruction of justice, but there is also the 5th amendment.
"It is not a crime to make a false statement against anyone."
Well, it was AGAINST THE LAW in Kaleefornia until the court nullified it.
I couldn't disagree more. Filing a false report against an officer is to accuse an innocent person of a crime. Filing a false report in support of an officer has no effect, unless it becomes testimony in a trial, in which case it would already be perjury.
Yeah, "false accusation" is like rule number 3 in the Code of Hammurabi. Right before the one about removing stupid judges.
People have been prosecuted Federally for giving a false statement to an officer. This statute needs to be looked at too in light of the recent ruling. I realize there are some differences, but if a person is not under oath and makes a false allegation against an officer, there is no real difference then in deliberately giving a false statement, while not under oath, to an investigator in other cases.
Kerry is still and idiot. And that's the truth.
And all my life I've been filling out forms that warn me it's against the law to fib about anything! :(
*head smack*
Yes, but if we were talking about affadavits this would not be an issue.
"There is obstruction of justice, but there is also the 5th amendment."
Correct, but the 5th Amendment does not give you the right to lie - it only gives you the right to not incriminate yourself. You have the option of silence. That is why police read you your Miranda rights when you are placed under arrest.
If you are pro-actively misleading police, I cannot see how the Fifth Amendment would cover you.
This is a joke, right?
But if you aren't under oath... it's not up to me to do the cops' job either. Otherwise, cops should just walk up to anybody on the street and ask "Have you ever broken the law?" Then just arrest anybody that says no.
"It is not a crime to make a false statement against anyone. It is a civil issue and one can be sued. The cop can still sue in a civil court."
There's a lot of inaccuracy in those loose words. Many lies outside of the courtroom are criminal.
Many public forms have perjury statements on them -- I assume many police report forms for departments around the country are no exception...if a police report were filed falsely, public resources would be wasted on wild goose chases, and without the sting of criminal charges, individuals could turn to make false reports en masse just to cause the police to waste their time on wild goose chases for fun or to distract the police.
Crimes such as fraud and misrepresentation (such as the old 'bait and switch' tactic in unethical sales tactics) are based entirely upon lies committed outside of the courtroom while not under oath. Lying about hours billed (and overbilling in general) are felony crimes based upon lies.
True enough. It's an easy and painless fix, I'd think. And it would be interesting to see who comes out in favor of perjury in favor of the police.
"Hmmm...Another thread about police and here you are."
And so are you... Hmmm
"If the ninth circuit included ordinary citizens along with police officers would you support that decision as well?"
It's not a crime to "lie" about an ordinary citizen. It is a civil issue not a criminal issue. Police can still sue in civil court for libel just like a ordinary citizen can.
Yes, I find it ironic that the Feds or the police are actually encouraged to lie to you and can do so with impunity, but that is you make a mis-statement you're charged with obstruction (or perjury if it's during a sworn deposition).
The Ninth Circus strikes again.
Whether or not filing false testimony in favor of an officer should be criminalized is an entirely separate issue.
Is the court now saying that any law should be thrown out that is not encyclopedic in its coverage? Maybe they also should have included a section that makes it a crime to insult your dog.
What I'm saying is that these are separate issues, and there's no constitutional provision saying that each law must cover all possible ground. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
"But if you aren't under oath... it's not up to me to do the cops' job either. Otherwise, cops should just walk up to anybody on the street and ask "Have you ever broken the law?" Then just arrest anybody that says no."
Probable cause would control in such a case. Also, they could just refuse to answer.
If anyone can file a false report before a case goes to trial and takes the oath, then it would stand to reason that it should be legal to obstruct justice, no? Can you imagine the implications of that?
The law means what the 9th court wants it to mean. Morons.
There's all sorts of statements that wouldn't necessarily rise to obstruction.
"You ran a stop light back there..."
"No, I didn't".
BAM-- why settle for a petty little red light charge when you can go for the gusto and nail somebody for some serious jail time?
Probable cause is easy to show, and it is almost never required. When that officer pointed his radar run down the road, does he have probable cause to search ~your~ car for its speed? Of course not. Nobody cares about that anymore.
Those "judges" are sick clowns. It's okay to knowingly lie about police.
Screw those judges. They should all (deleted etc).
I can't believe the evil they're coming out with.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.