The California Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that county watchdog agencies are prohibited from disclosing suspected gang tattoos or inking Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies, at least until the county negotiates with the sheriff’s union. He said he could not be forced to answer questions about his group.
The California Court of Appeals, Second Department, wrote in a 28-page opinion that while there is “substantial public interest in removing gang lieutenants from law enforcement,” labor negotiations may not take as long. He said there was no “evidence” to suggest that. To significantly delay the investigation into the group.
The legal dispute that led to this week’s ruling began last year after the county Office of Inspector General demanded that dozens of deputies show their tattoos and reveal the names of other suspected gang members. . Employee unions immediately fought back with a May 2023 lawsuit and formal labor grievance.
The union representing rank-and-file members, Assn. In the case of a Los Angeles deputy sheriff, he praised Wednesday’s decision.
“As other courts and county labor boards have previously ruled, the Court of Appeals today ruled that the inspector general is not above the law,” said union President Richard Pippin. told the Times. “All ALADS wanted to do was sit down with the county during the process and negotiate what the rules would be for the investigation that the inspector general would conduct.”
Inspector General Max Huntsman also viewed the ruling as positive.
“The court found that the public’s interest in law enforcement’s efforts to eliminate gangs was ‘substantial’ and that the inspector general’s decision regarding the investigation was non-negotiable,” he told the Times late Wednesday. . “As the court found, the OIG is required to consult with labor unions about the effectiveness of its investigations, but may reject their proposals. ” will continue even after negotiations. ”
The Department of Sheriff’s Office said in a statement that the ruling does not affect ongoing efforts to investigate “alleged law enforcement gang activity” and that the agency “encourages” deputies to “engage” with oversight agencies. He said he is doing so.
It was unclear whether the county intended to appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court, and its comment was deferred to the sheriff’s department.
The department has long faced allegations that secretive vice groups run amok in certain stations and prisons, controlling command staff and fostering a culture of violence. A Loyola Marymount University report released in 2021 identified at least 18 such groups that have existed in the past 50 years, including those known as the Executioners and the Banditos. It also includes a group known as
Members of the former are said to have tattoos of Nazi-inspired skulls and AK-47s, while members of the latter are said to be known for matching tattoos of skeletons equipped with sombreros, bandoliers, and pistols. .
In January 2020, the county adopted an ordinance giving subpoena powers to certain supervisory officials as part of an effort to improve oversight of the sheriff’s department. But months later, the councilors’ union filed a labor complaint, arguing that the county needed to negotiate the effects of the new ordinance before forcing councilors to comply with the ordinance.
In late 2022, the Los Angeles County Employee Relations Board sided with the union, saying members would not be required to comply with subpoenas served under the new ordinance until the bargaining process is concluded.
But then, in May 2023, before negotiations were concluded, Huntsman’s office sent letters to 35 members of Congress suspected of being members of executioners or bandits.
The OIG’s letter asks the members (whose names have not been released) to show the tattoos, reveal the names of other members who wear similar ink, and have been invited to join groups related to the tattoos. ordered to answer questions about whether there is. The letter was not a formal subpoena, so it was unclear whether lawmakers would actually face any consequences if they ignored it.
But less than a week later, Sheriff Robert Luna sent a department-wide email instructing staff to comply with the OIG’s request. Employees who obstruct or delay the investigation may be disciplined or fired based on county policy, the email said.
The union objected, and the same month, the county filed a labor complaint and lawsuit alleging that the county was violating the California Constitution’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights and privacy rights. . The union also argued that the planned interviews amounted to a “material and adverse change in the terms and conditions of employment” and therefore required negotiation.
In the end, the lower court rejected most of the union’s issues, but sided with the union on the labor issue, agreeing that mandatory interviews were a new term of employment that needed to be negotiated, and that There is no compelling need for an immediate investigation.” .
The county appealed the decision in September, and the appellate court issued its decision this week.
In the meantime, the two sides discussed and reached an agreement on a different policy, which also mentioned the need to cooperate with surveillance investigations. In September, the ministry announced its long-awaited policy banning agents from organized crime groups, which included a statement stating that it would cooperate with the inspector general’s investigation.
“Employees are expected to participate in these surveys and answer questions truthfully,” the policy states. It’s unclear how the policy will affect the ongoing debate over whether lawmakers should reveal their tattoos.
Source link
