Can deputies be forced to show their tattoos to investigators? Not yet, the appeals court said

A California appeals court said Wednesday that the county's watchdog cannot compel Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies to reveal suspected gang graffiti or answer questions about inked gangs — at least until the county negotiates with labor unions.

In a 28-page opinionThe Second Division of the California Court of Appeals said the public interest in “abolishing the law enforcement agencies of gang deputies is great,” but there was “no evidence” to suggest that the staff negotiations would take so long that the investigation would be reasonably delayed. in groups.

A legal dispute ensued this week's decision it began last year, after the Office of the Inspector General wanted dozens of deputies to show their mugshots and name some suspected gang deputies. The trade unions quickly postponed the May 2023 case and the official labor complaint.

The union that represents the vice presidents – the Assn. to a Los Angeles Sheriff's Deputy – praised Wednesday's decision.

“As other courts and the state labor board have ruled, the Court of Appeals today found that the inspector general is not above the law,” union President Richard Pippin told The Times. “What ALADS wanted was to express it, to sit down with the district and discuss what the rules of the investigation by the inspector general will be.”

Inspector General Max Huntsman also described this decision as good.

“The court found that the public interest in ending gang law enforcement is 'overwhelming' and that the inspector general's decision to investigate is irrevocable,” he told The Times late Wednesday. “As the court found, the OIG must discuss the outcome of the investigation with the unions but may reject their proposals. My office's investigation will continue after the 'expedited' deliberations described by the court.”

The Sheriff's Department said in a statement that the decision will not interfere with its ongoing efforts to investigate “suspected gang activity” and that officials are “encouraging” deputies to “cooperate” with law enforcement agencies.

It is unclear whether the county intends to appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court, and the county deferred comment to the Sheriff's Department.

The door He has been facing suspicions for a long time about groups of secret vices that run marijuana in certain stations and prisons, control the command staff and promote a culture of violence. Loyola Marymount University report issued 2021 identified at least 18 such groups that have existed over the past five decades, including the so-called Assassins and others known as Banditos.

The first members allegedly sported tattoos of a skull with a Nazi image and an AK-47, while its members are allegedly known for their similar tattoos of a skeleton with a sombrero, bandolier and gun.

In January 2020, as part of an effort to improve the Sheriff's Department's surveillance, the district adopted the law that gave the power to summon certain supervising officers. But a few months later, the deputies' union filed a labor complaint arguing that the district should discuss the implications of the new law before forcing deputies to comply.

In late 2022, the Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission sided with the union, saying deputies should not have listened to subpoenas issued under the new law until the bargaining process was over.

But then in May 2023 – before the deal was finalized – Huntsman's office sent letters to 35 deputies suspected of being members of the Assassins or Banditos.

The OIG letters ordered the deputies — whose names have not been released publicly — to show their tattoos, provide the names of any other deputies sporting the same ink and answer questions about whether they would be invited to join a group related to their tattoos. Because the letters were not formal subpoenas, it was unclear whether deputies would face any consequences for ignoring them.

But less than a week later, Sheriff Robert Luna sent a department-wide email directing employees to comply with the OIG's request. Any employees who obstruct or delay the investigation, the email said, could be disciplined or fired under district policies.

Unions countered, filing a labor complaint and lawsuit that month, accusing the district of violating deputies' 4th and 5th amendment rights and their privacy rights enshrined in the California Constitution. The union also argued that organized negotiations make “substantial and negative changes to the terms and conditions of employment” and thus require negotiation.

In the end, the lower court dismissed most of the union's issues but agreed with them on the labor issues, agreeing that forced bargaining was a new employment condition that needed to be discussed and writing that “there is no compelling need for an immediate investigation” before that. .

The district appealed the decision in September, and the appeals court issued its decision this week.

Meanwhile, the two sides agreed and reached an agreement on a different policy – but one that also implies the need for cooperation and oversight investigations. In September, the department launched its own long awaited policy to prevent deputy gangs, including a section noting that the department will cooperate with the inspector general's investigation.

“Workers must participate in this investigation,” the policy says“answer the questions, and do it honestly.” It's unclear how that policy would affect the ongoing debate over whether deputies should reveal their tattoos.