A California appeals court said Wednesday that county supervisors cannot compel Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies to reveal suspected gang tattoos or to answer questions about gang tattoos — at least until the county has negotiated a deal with the deputies’ union.
In a 28-page opinionThe Second Division of the California Court of Appeal said the public interest to “remove law enforcement agencies from gang representatives is substantial,” but there is no “any evidence” to suggest labor negotiations will take a long time to meaningfully delay the investigation. to the group.
The resulting legal dispute verdict this week began last year, after the county Office of the Inspector General sued dozens of deputies for revealing the tattoos and names of other suspected gang members. The union quickly countered with a May 2023 lawsuit as well as a formal labor complaint.
The union represents rank-and-file representatives – in the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs – lauded Wednesday’s decision.
“As other courts and county labor boards have previously ruled, the Court of Appeals today found that the inspector general is not above the law,” Union President Richard Pippin told The Times. “All ALADS wants is a voice in the process, to sit down with the district and discuss what rules are going to be followed for the investigation that the inspector general is doing.”
Inspector General Max Huntsman also made the decision a positive one.
“The court found that ‘the public interest in eliminating gang law enforcement is ‘substantial’ and that the inspector general’s decision to investigate is non-negotiable,” he told The Times late Wednesday. “As the court found, the OIG should consult with the union about the effects of the investigation but may reject its proposal. My office’s investigation will continue after the ‘quick’ negotiations described by the court.
The Sheriff’s Department said in a statement that the decision will not affect ongoing efforts to investigate “law enforcement allegations of gang activity” and that officials “encourage” deputies to “engage with” the watchdog.
It is not clear whether the county intends to appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court, and the county deferred comment to the Sheriff’s Department.
Department has been facing allegations for a long time about a group of secret agents running around certain stations and prisons, controlling command staff and promoting a culture of violence. Loyola Marymount University report released By 2021, at least 18 groups have existed in the past five decades, including one known as Executioners and others are known as Banditos.
Members of the former are alleged to sport skull tattoos with Nazi imagery and AK-47, while members of the latter are allegedly known for matching skull tattoos equipped with sombreros, bandoliers and pistols.
In January 2020, as part of an effort to improve oversight of the Sheriff’s Department, the district adopted the ordinance which gives subpoena power to certain supervisory officials. But a few months later, the representative union filed a labor complaint arguing that the district needs to negotiate through the effects of the new rules before forcing deputies to comply with.
At the end of 2022, the Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission sided with the union, saying deputies would not have to obey subpoenas issued under the new regulations until the bargaining process is complete.
But in May 2023 – before the bargaining was completed – Huntsman’s office sent a letter to 35 deputies suspected of being members of the Executioners or Banditos.
The OIG letters ordered the deputies — whose names have not been made public — to reveal their tattoos, name other deputies with the same ink and answer questions about whether they had been invited to join tattoo-related groups. Because the letters aren’t official subpoenas, it’s unclear whether deputies will face any consequences for ignoring them.
But less than a week later, Sheriff Robert Luna sent an email directing department staff to comply with the OIG’s request. Any employee who obstructs or delays the investigation, the email said, could be disciplined or fired according to district policy.
The union took issue with it, filing a labor complaint and lawsuit that same month, accusing the district of violating its 4th and 5th Amendment rights as well as its right to privacy outlined in the California Constitution. The union also said the planned interviews were “significant and detrimental changes to the terms and conditions of employment” and required bargaining.
In the end, the lower court rejected most of the union issues, but agreed with the labor issue, agreeing that the forced interview was a new working condition that had to be offered and writing that it “didn’t need a direct investigation” beforehand. .
The district appealed the decision in September, and the appeals court issued a decision this week.
In the end, both sides agreed and agreed on different policies – but they also mentioned the need to cooperate with the surveillance investigation. In September, the department rolled out the long awaited wisdom banning deputy gangs, which includes a paragraph stating that the department will cooperate with the inspector general’s investigation.
“Employees must participate in this investigation,” wisdom said“answer the questions, and do so honestly.” It’s unclear how the policy could affect disputes over whether deputies should reveal tattoos.
