Page 1
Court of Appeal:
L.A. County May Not Quiz Sheriff’s Deputies on Gang Ties
2022 Legislation Does Not Eliminate Need of Employer to Confer With Unions on Working Conditions, Opinion Says, Upholding Ruling That Interviews Must Come After Discussions or a Resolution of Union’s Grievance
By a MetNews Staff Writer
|
|
|
|
New legislation aimed at deterring the formation of “gangs” among law enforcement officers does not override the preexisting obligation of employers to meet and confer with unions over working conditions, the Court of Appeal for this district held yesterday, affirming an injunction against the County of Los Angeles interviewing 35 sheriff’s deputies and requiring that they supply photos of their tattoos.
The deputies chosen to undergo quizzing are suspected of being members of one of two gangs—the Executioners or the Banditos.
Issuing the order, on May 12, 2023, was county Inspector General Max Huntsman. He acted, in part, pursuant to Penal Code § 13670(b) which says that “[a] law enforcement agency shall cooperate in any investigation into these gangs by an inspector general, the Attorney General, or any other authorized agency.”
Deputies were alerted that they would be asked who invited them to join a gang, “Who else have you seen the tattoo on?” and “Who else has told you they are/were in the group?,” as well as being queried:
“Have you ever been told about other deputies who might be in or have been in the group? If so, which deputies? Who told you this?”
Under the order, as later limited, photos would have to be produced depicting any tattoos appearing on “shoulder to arm, . . . face, neck, and legs from the knees and below.”
Luna Requires Cooperation
Sheriff Robert Luna directed the officers to comply. Under Penal Code §13510.8, law enforcement agencies are required to investigate a suspected member of a “law enforcement gang.” Such a group is defined by subd. (b)(7) of that statute as “a group of peace officers within a law enforcement agency who may identify themselves by a name and may be associated with an identifying symbol, including, but not limited to, matching tattoos, and who engage in a pattern of on-duty behavior that intentionally violates the law or fundamental principles of professional policing.”
However, those Penal Code sections, the Court of Appeal declared, do not authorize a bypassing of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (“MMBA”), codified at Government Code §3500 et seq. which requires employers to confer with unions—in the present instance, with the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (“ALADS”). ALADS filed a grievance over Huntsman’s order with the Los Angeles County Employee Relation Commission, as well as seeking injunctive relief—which Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James Chalfant granted.
Pro Tem’s Opinion
The opinion affirming the injunction was authored the opinion for Div. Five by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Angela Davis, sitting on assignment. She wrote:
“We conclude the trial court committed no error in determining ALADS showed a probability of prevailing on its claim that the interview directive triggered the duty to meet and confer (or bargain) with ALADS under the MMBA and we find the trial court acted within its discretion in balancing of the interim harm.”
She declared that “Penal Code section 13670 does not mention, let alone purport to exempt its implementation from, the meet-and-confer requirements of the MMBA.”
The jurist went on to express agreement with the county and the ACLU, as amicus curiae, that “the public’s interest in ridding law enforcement agencies of gangs is substantial, and that it was incumbent upon the trial court to consider that important public interest.” However, she observed, “the trial court duly considered this interest” in its weighing process.
The case is Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles, B331881.
Jason W. Kearnaghan, Kent R. Raygor and Valerie E. Alter of the downtown Los Angeles firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, represented the county. Jacob A. Kalinski, Richard A. Levine and Brian P. Ross of the Encino firm of Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver acted for ALADS.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company