State Supreme Court strikes down law punishing false police misconduct complaints

The state Supreme Court ruled 6-1 on Monday that a Penal Code section, which criminalizes knowingly false complaints against police officers and requires complainants to sign an advisory, violates the First Amendment.

Justice Joshua P. Groban, writing for the majority, stated that the Penal Code's provisions "threaten censorship of ideas" by deterring citizens from filing truthful or well-intentioned complaints of police misconduct.

Groban sided with the City of Los Angeles in an opinion that cites multiple federal court decisions and reversed an appellate ruling. Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles, 2025 DJDAR 10457 (Cal. S. Ct., filed June 29, 2022).

He was troubled by a provision in the Penal Code forbidding law enforcement agencies from accepting an official claim of misconduct unless the complainant reads and signs an admonition in bold printed capital letters.

The statement warns, at the end, "IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO MAKE A COMPLAINT THAT YOU KNOW TO BE FALSE. IF YOU MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST AN OFFICER KNOWING THAT IT IS FALSE, YOU CAN BE PROSECUTED ON A MISDEMEANOR CHARGE."

Groban wrote in a footnote that the law's criminal provision and admonition requirement create a "potent disincentive" for individuals to report misconduct, especially in a complaint that might come down to the word of a citizen against a police officer.

The state Supreme Court addressed the issue 23 years ago, concluding that the admonition was allowed. People v. Stanistreet, 29 Cal.4th 497. (2002). But Groban wrote that subsequent federal court rulings "rejected its analysis."

"First, section 148.6(a) does not merely regulate speech, but imposes criminal liability on speech," he wrote.

Groban added that it is "asymmetrical in its application, criminalizing knowingly false complaints filed against law enforcement personnel -- and expressly requiring complainants be told of that possibility -- while leaving unregulated (and requiring no admonition against) knowingly false claims that a witness might make against the complainant during any ensuing investigation."

Justice Goodwin P. Liu dissented, arguing that the law is constitutional because it targets unprotected speech and protects the integrity of government processes.

"Section 148.6 is no more unconstitutional than laws that make it a crime to commit perjury, file a false police report, submit a false document to a public agency, or lie to a government official concerning an official matter," he wrote.

Such laws "protect the integrity of [g]overnment processes, quite apart from merely restricting false speech," Liu wrote.

He also rejected claims of asymmetry, noting that peace officers are subject to harsh penalties for filing false reports.

Michael A. Morguess, a senior associate with Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver PC who represents the Los Angeles Police Protective League, expressed disappointment with the ruling and said his client "will be weighing its options and next steps."

Matthew K. Nguyen, a Cooley LLP associate who represented the American Civil Liberties Union, hailed the majority decision.

"It takes tremendous courage for victims and witnesses of police misconduct to come forward and seek justice and accountability," he wrote. "A resounding majority of the California Supreme Court made clear today that speaking truth to power is a fundamental right protected by the First Amendment."

Liu, however, wrote: "Speculative assertions of a chilling effect, without facts, do not suffice to entirely jettison the statute on free speech grounds," citing thousands of complaints filed in 2018, despite the advisory, as evidence that the law does not suppress good-faith complaints.

"But trust is a two-way street, and our men and women in uniform have a hard enough job without having to deal with knowingly false allegations of misconduct," Liu concluded. "Because section 148.6 targets unprotected speech and has not been shown to pose a substantial risk of suppressing protected speech, I cannot agree that it violates the First Amendment."