The ACLU is today filing suit in federal court on behalf of an African-American bicyclist who was physically assaulted by San Bernardino police officers for no good reason, and whose free speech rights were then violated when he attempted to file a citizen complaint about the incident. The ACLU is co-counseling with private attorneys Joe Freeman and Robert Seaman, of the law firm Seaman & Freeman.

The case, Hamilton v. City of San Bernardino, mounts the first known challenge to the constitutionality of a California criminal statute that chills citizen complaints against

peace officers. This statute being challenged, California Penal Code ﾌ_148.6, is the criminal counterpart to California Civil Code ﾌ_47.5, which the ACLU successfully challenged in Gritchen v. Collier, 73 F. Supp. 2d 1148 (C.D. Cal. 1999).

The case arises from an incident that took place March 3, 1999. The plaintiff, LaFrance Hamilton, alleges that he was stopped by San Bernardino Police Officers while riding his

bicycle. After a brief verbal exchange, the officers pulled Hamilton off his bicycle, forced him to

the ground, searched him, and handcuffed him, based on their contention that Hamilton lacked a proper bicycle license. One of the officers ordered Hamilton to sit in the dirt, and then grabbed Hamilton around the throat, kicked his legs out from under him, landed on top of him, and placed a knee on his chest while continuing to choke him.

Upon being released, the lawsuit alleges Hamilton went to the San Bernardino Police Department for the purpose of lodging a citizen complaint regarding the officers' actions. The watch commander at the department, who had already been informed by another officer of the incident, used the threat of prosecution under California Penal Code ﾌ_148.6 to discourage Hamilton from filing a citizen complaint. To this date, Hamilton has not filed a complaint because of the threat of prosecution under ﾌ_148.6.

The ACLU contends that Penal Code ﾌ_148.6 is unconstitutional because it treats complaints against peace officers differently from complaints against all other public officials. They claim the warning that citizens must be given under the law can be used to intimidate citizens like Hamilton who wish to file legitimate complaints of police abuse or misconduct. A similar argument was accepted by the federal district court in Gritchen v. Collier, in striking down a comparable civil statute.

"We all know that people in this country have the right to remain silent. But they also have the right not to remain silent," said ACLU staff attorney Dan Tokaji. "Every citizen has a basic right to speak out against police misconduct. The recent events surrounding the LAPD demonstrate

what can happen when this right is violated and the 'code of silence' prevails. We have brought this lawsuit so that concerned citizens can report abusive police officers without fear of retaliation."

In addition to making a claim for violation of his First Amendment rights, Hamilton's lawsuit alleges that his constitutional rights were violated during the stop and arrest on March 3, 1999.

The thirty day suspension of CRASH unit activities and transfer of CRASH personnel are positive - but inadequate - steps in restoring confidence in the operations of the LAPD. Fundamental change is what is essential.

The ACLU renews its call to city leaders to create an independent blue-ribbon commission that can look at the systemic problems throughout the department, with a procedure in place to ensure that changes are actually implemented. The problems are structural and cultural. Piecemeal change is not the answer.

Today the ACLU of Southern California, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Japanese American Citizens League, and California Women's Law Center announced the six-figure settlement of a significant retaliation lawsuit against the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (LASD), and asked that Los Angeles County take immediate steps to make sure that such misconduct does not recur. In a letter to each of the county supervisors, the civil rights groups will call for the creation of an independent review process, so that the LASD can prevent similar incidents and avoid its own version of the ongoing LAPD scandal.

The settlement of over $138,000 includes damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest, and puts an end to the Moriguchi v. County of Los Angeles litigation. This case arose from a racist drawing that was posted on an official bulletin board of the Metrolink office of the LASD. The caricature depicted an Asian face with eyes slanted shut and exaggerated buck teeth, wearing round wire-rim glasses, with the words 'ah so!' next to his face. After Deputy Moriguchi, at that time a 10-year veteran with an impeccable record, raised his concerns with his superior officers, he alleges he was subjected to retaliation, including false misconduct charges, his locker being raided, and his girlfriend being followed by another LASD officer.

The Sheriff's department's actions reveal a classic 'code of silence' designed to stifle internal criticism, much like what has recently come to light in the LAPD. On July 20, 1999, a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury returned a unanimous verdict that defendants had illegally retaliated against Moriguchi for speaking out. Although the county initially appealed, it has now dropped its appeal.

In an attempt to improve the working conditions in the Sheriff's department, Moriguchi was willing to withdraw all of his claims for money damages, if the county would agree to set up a civilian review board to examine complaints of discrimination and harassment. The county rejected Moriguchi's proposal.

Civil rights groups join Moriguchi in calling upon the county to revisit this issue and, in particular, to set up an independent office external to the Sheriff's department, so that officers are free to speak up about other officers' misconduct without fear of retaliation . In an open letter to the Board of Supervisors, civil rights groups urged that this issue be put on the board's agenda no later than March 28, 2000.