Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyer Blog

Alleging a massive and ongoing violation of public privacy, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have filed suit against both the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department and the Los Angeles Police Department.

The groups say that the lawsuit stems from the agencies' ongoing use of license plate-reading devices, which are affixed to patrol vehicles.

Our Los Angeles sexual assault attorneys know that these tiny cameras are on constant alert, routinely scanning the license plates of passing vehicles and comparing them to criminal databases. The primary goal, police say, is to search for stolen vehicles or vehicles that are registered to those with felony warrants.

Police agencies have not been shy about praising the technology, saying that it allows them to catch more stolen vehicle suspects than they ever would on their own. The cameras also tabulate the exact location of the vehicle and the time at which it was recorded, which can allow officers to track suspects, even if they launch a search months or possibly years after the vehicle was spotted.

However, the lawsuit maintains that in doing so, the police have stored information that amounts to a violation of privacy. The issue is not so much the initial scan. Rather, it's the storing of that information indefinitely into a database, regardless of whether those license plates scanned were connected to vehicles or individuals suspected of involvement in a crime.

The ACLU and the EFF are demanding that if law enforcement agencies are going to continue collecting this information, they should destroy it within a matter of weeks if it is deemed not useful for the purposes of a pointed criminal investigation.

The argument is that, while the benefit for law enforcement agencies of hanging onto this information is miniscule, the potential privacy violations of law-abiding citizens are numerous, particularly because these records are kept for anywhere from five years to indefinitely.

While law enforcement officials have declined to speak about the case since the filing of the lawsuit, LAPD Chief Charlie Back has previously defended the practice, saying that it has "unlimited potential" for investigators. The chief went on to say in one interview that the information collected by these scans may not only connect the vehicles or suspects to crimes that have already occurred, but to crimes that will yet occur.

So now we are investigating crimes that haven't happened yet? That's an extremely troubling precedent.

The LASO has nearly 80 police cruisers that are equipped with these devices, although little more than half of those are in working order right now. The rest are undergoing upgrades to improve the storage capabilities. Additionally, there are nearly 50 fixed cameras that are positioned at various locations throughout the county.

The LAPD has said it has about 100 of the devices.

They are certainly not alone in their practice. A survey last year conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum found that 7 out of 10 police agencies in the country employ these same devices.

The lawsuit was filed after the two privacy groups requested that the agencies turn over one week's worth of the data collected in the search. The agencies responded by saying that it didn't have to do so, because the information gathered was investigative. This, despite the fact that much off the information collected is culled automatically, with no connection to any specific investigation.

The privacy groups are confident that a release of the data from this short window will reveal how much peoples' privacy is being violated.

Continue reading "Los Angeles Sheriff's Department Sued for Violating Privacy" »

The family of a man who was unarmed when he was fatally shot by two Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department deputies has filed a $15 million lawsuit against the agency and the county, alleging civil rights violations and wrongful death.

Our Los Angeles sexual assault attorneys understand the victim's widow has two little girls who will now grow up without their father. Authorities have said that they believed the 36-year-old was reaching for a gun as he got out of the vehicle following a short chase that ended in Willowbrook. That, the deputies say, is why they fired.

Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, the lawsuit alleges the two responding deputies shot their guns at the unarmed man while he stood with his hands above his head. As such, the homicide was both unjustified and unreasonable. The lawsuit indicates that witnesses and autopsy reports both back a different version of events than the one told by the deputies, who the widow's attorney described as "trigger happy." The bullets that took his life, the lawsuit alleges, were discharged at him from behind, and the wounds on his right forearm indicates his hands were up at the time those shots were fired.

The autopsy report indicates he was shot five times in both the lower and upper back.

The lawsuit alleges that the deputies actions were either intentional or negligent.

The sheriff's office is conducting its own internal investigation while the two deputies have been removed from active duty - standard procedure when a deputy is involved in an on-duty death.

From there, criminal prosecutors will make a determination on whether the action was legal.

Initial reports from the sheriff's office were that the deputies only opened fire on the man after he "made movements like he had a gun" and then turned around quickly, as if to run. Why deputies would shoot him for running is unclear, especially because he was not suspected of any violent offense.

Accounts are that on the night in question he was riding in the passenger seat of his brother's vehicle. The two were leaving the quinceañera of the victim's niece and were on their way home. It was shortly before 10:30 p.m. at the time.

An officer attempted to stop the vehicle for speeding. It's unclear why the brother did not stop immediately, but in any case, the "chase" did not go on for long. The victim then got out of the vehicle.

A woman watching from across the street from her bedroom window said that the victim complied with deputies' orders to stop running. He put his hands on his head. The officers said the victim reached for his waistband. The witness didn't see that. Instead, she said, she watched as deputies fired several rounds into the victim's back.

The brother then put the car in drive again and once again sped away, causing more cruisers to give chase. He was later arrested without incident.

Continue reading "LASD Faces $15M Lawsuit After Deputy Fatally Shoots Unarmed Man" »

The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department is once again the target of a civil lawsuit, this one by two deputies who had been part of a jail gang intelligence unit.

Our Los Angeles harassment lawyers understand that the two were reportedly working with a special unit in the agency when they learned that a number of department personnel were allegedly involved in illegal gangs at the jail.

Upon their release of this information, they say they were harassed, retaliated against, and prosecuted out of malice. The deputies have filed suit against the county, the sheriff, the undersheriff, and two other members of the department.

The two plaintiffs say they had been assigned to a unit called Operation Safe Jails. This unit was responsible for getting inmates to become informants, in a broader effort to curb violence between the many rival gangs that thrive inside jails.

In the course of their work, the deputies allegedly learned that at the Men's Central Jail in downtown L.A., another deputy was reportedly working closely with a gang member belonging to a white supremacist group, while a custody assistant was working with another prison gang. In effect, these employees had allegedly become powerful agents in assisting these gangs in meeting some of their end goals.

In the case of the custody assistant, a lieutenant turned over the case for investigation. An employee recently pleaded guilty to accepting a bribe in exchange for smuggling cocaine inside the jail.

However, the evidence turned over against the deputy reportedly fell on deaf ears. The lieutenant declined to pursue an investigation, instead allegedly presenting the deputy in question with the memo written by the two investigating deputies.

The goal, the plaintiffs say, was not only to intimidate them in order to prevent further investigations along those lines, but also to allow the subject of the investigation time to cover up any illegal actions.

From that point on, the two plaintiffs say they suffered harassment and threats from other deputies. One of the plaintiffs had received a DUI, and the dash camera video was posted online. Additionally, that DUI charge was boosted from a misdemeanor to a felony, allegedly without cause.

The mistreatment they suffered went beyond even harassment and malicious prosecution, they say. The lives of one of their key informants was purposely endangered, they said, after he was moved without cause from protective custody into the general population, where it was well-known he would be vulnerable to serious attack.

The plaintiffs claim that high-ranking officials within the agency, including the sheriff, blatantly ignored the safety concerns they raised, dismissed their warnings about deputies pairing up with jail gang members, and attempted to circumvent an investigation initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI).

The lawsuit claimed that the agency took exceptional measures to hide a certain inmate from the FBI, which sought to question him in the case of the deputy alleged to be associated with the white supremacist group.

The deputies said their own lives were threatened, and they were called "snitches" and "race traitors." They accuse both the lieutenant and the undersheriff of being a part of a gang called the Vikings, which was allegedly a racist police gang that was an extension of the prison gang. Members of the law enforcement gang reportedly had the gang's symbol tattooed somewhere on their bodies.

The two plaintiffs are seeking compensation in the form of penalties and damages, including lost and future wages.

Continue reading "Los Angeles Sheriff's Department Sued for Harassment, Retaliation" »

In his campaign to become city controller, Councilman Dennis Zine has said that his top priority would be to audit the risk management division of the Los Angeles Police Department, in an effort to determine why the agency has had so many officers recently embroiled in litigation.

Our Los Angeles sexual assault attorneys are encouraged by this pledge of action. However, according to news reports, it comes from a man who himself was the subject of a sexual harassment claim back in 1997, when he was a sergeant for the department.

In the last several years, the city has reportedly spent more than $50 million just on legal settlements. Zine has said that if officers were better supervised by their commanders, many of these situations could have been curbed before they went out of control.

Between 2006 and 2012, the city spent nearly $101 million on lawsuits. A little less than half of that was given to plaintiffs who had alleged either police misconduct or civil rights violations. Those kinds of allegations comprised the largest portion of payouts.

But the second-largest portion involved employee-on-employee complaints. For those, the city reportedly shelled out nearly $32 million, according to a report released by the chief legislative officer of the city.

And these kinds of cases have only increased in recent years.

However, they weren't nearly as common during the time period in which Zine was accused of his wrongdoing. At the time, it was alleged that he had asked a female subordinate officer to attend a work-related function with him in Canada.

Zine allegedly contended the two were dating. The female officer said they were merely friends. He later admitted that he had made romantic overtures toward her over the course of the trip. However, he insisted he never acted improperly.

Among the claims of harassment against Zine was that he had put a handful of condoms and a container of urine in the female officer's suitcase after she had refused his advances. Other officers would later say they had done this as a prank, though it was never clear what their motive may have been.

On another occasion, it was alleged that Zine climbed into the female officer's bed one night and rubbed himself against her. They had been sharing a hotel room during the trip. When she demanded that he get out, he did.

Such wildly inappropriate advances from a supervisor to a subordinate on a work-related trip, if they took place, could hardly be viewed as anything but sexual harassment.

Although an internal investigation resulted in Zine being cleared off the allegations, the disciplinary panel said that this was "hardly vindication" for the sergeant, as his actions had displayed incredibly poor judgment. Furthermore, those actions resulted in taxpayers having to pay $60,000 to defend the city against a civil action brought by the female officer. In the end, both parties reached an undisclosed settlement amount.

Still, Zine insists that all of that is irrelevant because he was technically cleared of the charges.

Plus, he said his case was of little consequence, considering that others' cases have cost the city millions of dollars - only to see the employees accused of wrongdoing later promoted. This is the professional culture that Zine has reportedly taken issue with, and that he has pledged to investigate.

Continue reading "L.A. Police Department Lawsuits to be Probed, Vows Candidate" »