Los Angeles Times

McDonnell is urged to fight ruling

Activist groups want L.A. County sheriff to appeal decision on problem deputies list.

- By Maya Lau

One court after another has ruled that a secret list of about 300 Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies who have lied, stolen, tampered with evidence, and committed other misconduct must remain confidenti­al.

But some groups across the state are still pushing for the names to be handed over to prosecutor­s.

One organizati­on in Los Angeles is going further, saying that informatio­n about deputies’ pasts should be available to anyone. On Monday, it launched an online gallery of deputies named in public reports of officer-involved shootings and other incidents.

Theproblem­atic.org was created by the advocacy group Dignity and Power Now as a way to gather informatio­n and solicit tips about deputies who have been accused of misconduct. The data on the site, which features 22 deputies, draws primarily from news reports and public documents but does not purport to necessaril­y reflect those officers on the department’s secret list.

“This website is designed to give the public insight into who are the deputies harming their communitie­s,” said Patrisse Cullors, founder of Dignity and Power Now. The group advocates for inmates and their families and is a frequent critic of the county Sheriff ’s Department, which runs the largest jail system in the nation.

Leaders from two deputies’ unions criticized the site. Lt. Brian Moriguchi, president of the Profession­al Peace Officers Assn., said the project is “simply trying to embarrass or ‘out’ officers” without benefiting public safety.

And the department, in a statement, called into question the site’s accuracy, saying it “has the potential to be inflammato­ry and jeopardize the safety of the deputies and their families.”

Shannon Soper, commu-

nications director for Dignity and Power Now, said the group has simply organized publicly available informatio­n, inspired by other websites that collect media reports on officer conduct, and provides a resource for the public to share informatio­n about deputies in their communitie­s.

Sheriff Jim McDonnell has yet to say whether he will appeal to the state Supreme Court an appeals court decision July 11 that barred him from sending prosecutor­s the names of deputies whose misconduct could damage their credibilit­y as witnesses — even in pending criminal cases in which the deputies could testify. Last fall, McDonnell tried to give the list to prosecutor­s, but a deputies’ union sued.

“We take very seriously the precedent-setting nature of this case and are currently assessing all legal options with our counsel of record. We expect to make an informed decision in the near future once all factors, options, and potential ramificati­ons are assessed in this complex legal matter,” the department said in a statement.

The decision left open the possibilit­y that names could be disclosed under a court order. Right now, police agencies in at least a dozen counties in the state regularly send prosecutor­s lists of officers with credibilit­y issues.

The 1963 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Brady vs. Maryland obligates prosecutor­s to alert defendants to any evidence favorable to the defense, which could include informatio­n that undermines an officer’s credibilit­y. Not doing so could result in wrongful conviction­s.

California has some of the strictest protection­s on law enforcemen­t officer records in the country. Discipline hearings, personnel files and the names of officers accused in internal investigat­ions are secret.

On Thursday, the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission is expected to consider authorizin­g a formal letter to urge McDonnell to appeal the recent court decision. In March, the commission adopted a resolution supporting the sheriff ’s effort to notify prosecutor­s about deputies found by internal investigat­ors to have committed acts of “moral turpitude.”

Those misdeeds could involve domestic violence, bribery, brutality, writing false reports, lying to investigat­ors, unreasonab­le force and discrimina­ting against others.

“If the sheriff decides that he wants to appeal, I think that is the right decision,” said Los Angeles County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl.

“From my point of view, the list is not harmful to deputies,” she said.

Representa­tives from Dignity and Power Now, the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and the California Public Defenders Assn. on Monday urged McDonnell to appeal the recent decision.

Those organizati­ons filed a friend-of-the-court brief, known as an amicus brief, on the sheriff ’s behalf in March.

“This has statewide repercussi­ons,” said Michael McMahon, chair of the amicus committee of the California Public Defenders Assn., based in Sacramento. “The court of appeals decision seems to be a real setback to the smooth and reliable administra­tion of criminal justice statewide.”

But Det. Ron Hernandez, president of the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, said the appeals court made the right decision and that it doesn’t violate defendants’ right to a fair trial.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States