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...
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.