California Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Criminalizing False Police Misconduct Complaints

L.A. Police Protective League v. City of L.A. :: 2026 :: Supreme Court of California Decisions :: California Case Law :: California Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia

Two-Decade Legal Battle Ends with First Amendment Victory Over Controversial Warning Requirement

November 10, 2025

---

BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front)

The California Supreme Court ruled 6-1 on November 10, 2025, that Penal Code Section 148.6(a)—which criminalized knowingly false complaints against police officers and required citizens to sign warnings before filing misconduct complaints—violates the First Amendment. The decision explicitly overrules the court's 2002 Stanistreet precedent and aligns California law with federal court rulings that found the statute unconstitutionally chills protected speech. Law enforcement agencies must immediately cease using the advisory warning and cannot criminally prosecute citizens under Section 148.6(a)(1). The ruling applies intermediate scrutiny, finding that while the state has legitimate interests in protecting officers from false accusations, the statute burdens substantially more speech than necessary and deters truthful complaints of police misconduct. This decision affects complaint procedures for all California law enforcement agencies and removes a barrier to police accountability that had been contested for over two decades.

---

In a landmark decision that overturns its own 23-year-old precedent, the California Supreme Court ruled that a state law criminalizing knowingly false complaints against police officers violates the First Amendment by chilling protected speech. The 6-1 decision in Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles marks the culmination of a decades-long conflict between law enforcement unions seeking accountability for false accusations and civil rights advocates warning that criminal penalties deter legitimate complaints of police misconduct.

The Statute at Issue

California Penal Code Section 148.6(a), enacted in 1995, made it a misdemeanor to file any allegation of misconduct against a peace officer "knowing the allegation to be false." The statute also required law enforcement agencies to provide complainants with a prominently displayed advisory warning before accepting their complaints. The warning, which had to appear in boldface type, stated:

"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."

The statute singled out complaints against peace officers for this special treatment—no similar criminal provision existed for false allegations against other public officials such as teachers, firefighters, or elected representatives.

Origins of the Dispute

The legislative history revealed that Section 148.6 was enacted in response to concerns from law enforcement agencies about the burden of investigating false complaints. Supporters argued that malicious citizens were filing fabricated allegations to retaliate against officers or harm their careers, consuming valuable investigative resources and potentially creating permanent marks on officers' personnel files.

The Los Angeles Police Department initially complied with the statute's advisory requirement. However, beginning in the early 2000s, multiple federal courts began ruling that the law violated the First Amendment. In 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Chaker v. Crogan that Section 148.6 unconstitutionally discriminated based on viewpoint by criminalizing false statements critical of police officers while leaving unregulated false statements made in support of officers during the same investigations.

Following a consent decree with the federal government and the Chaker decision, the City of Los Angeles stopped requiring complainants to sign the advisory warning. Even after the consent decree expired, the city continued to decline enforcement based on constitutional concerns.

The Police Union's Challenge

In 2020, the Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL), the union representing LAPD officers, sued the city to compel enforcement of Section 148.6(a)(2)'s advisory requirement. The union argued that the law remained valid under the California Supreme Court's 2002 decision in People v. Stanistreet, which had upheld the statute's constitutionality.

The Los Angeles County Superior Court agreed with the union, finding itself bound by Stanistreet despite subsequent federal rulings. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, reasoning that only the California Supreme Court itself could overturn Stanistreet.

Evolving Constitutional Landscape

The California Supreme Court granted review and initially heard oral arguments in the case. However, a pivotal development occurred on June 27, 2025, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton. That case involved Texas's age-verification requirements for pornographic websites and clarified when content-based regulations that target unprotected speech can nevertheless trigger heightened scrutiny due to their incidental burden on protected expression.

The California Supreme Court vacated submission and ordered supplemental briefing on the impact of Free Speech Coalition. The parties were directed to address a critical question: whether regulations targeting unprotected speech (like false statements) must still face intermediate scrutiny when they incidentally burden protected speech (like truthful complaints).

The Supreme Court's Analysis

In his majority opinion for the 6-1 court, Associate Justice Joshua Groban explicitly overruled Stanistreet and held that Section 148.6(a) unconstitutionally burdens protected speech. Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero and Justices Carol Corrigan, Leondra Kruger, Kelli Evans, and Martin Jenkins joined the majority.

Justice Groban acknowledged that the court's 2002 decision in Stanistreet may have been sound based on First Amendment doctrine at that time. However, subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions—particularly United States v. Alvarez (2012) and Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (2025)—had fundamentally altered the constitutional framework.

The Alvarez Foundation

In United States v. Alvarez, the Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act, which criminalized false claims about receiving military medals. Justice Anthony Kennedy's plurality opinion established that false statements are not, by virtue of their falsity alone, excluded from First Amendment protection. The Court emphasized that content-based restrictions on speech are "presumed invalid" and require exacting scrutiny, even when targeting traditionally unprotected categories like defamation.

Free Speech Coalition's Impact

The June 2025 Free Speech Coalition decision proved equally significant. While upholding Texas's age-verification law for pornographic websites under intermediate scrutiny, the Supreme Court clarified that content-based regulations within proscribable categories of speech still trigger heightened scrutiny when they create an "incidental burden" on protected expression.

Applying this framework, the California Supreme Court determined that Section 148.6(a) exhibited "numerous characteristics that, considered together, sufficiently burden a protected form of speech—namely, truthful (or at least well-intentioned) complaints of police misconduct—so as to warrant heightened constitutional scrutiny."

Intermediate Scrutiny Analysis

Under intermediate scrutiny, the government must demonstrate that its regulation serves an important governmental interest and is substantially related to achieving that objective without burdening substantially more speech than necessary. While the California Supreme Court recognized the Legislature's legitimate interest in protecting officers from false accusations and preventing waste of investigative resources, it found Section 148.6(a) failed the narrow tailoring requirement.

The statute was not narrowly tailored for several reasons:

1. Overbreadth: The criminal provision and mandatory warning applied to all misconduct complaints, regardless of severity, motivation, or context. A citizen who made an honest mistake in recounting events could face criminal prosecution.

2. Chilling Effect: The prominent warning, combined with criminal penalties, would predictably deter citizens with legitimate grievances from coming forward. Research on complaint patterns and testimony in federal cases documented instances where the advisory successfully discouraged complainants.

3. Viewpoint Discrimination: As the Ninth Circuit observed in Chaker, the statute criminalized false speech critical of officers while leaving unregulated false statements made by officers or witnesses supporting officers during the same investigations.

4. Less Restrictive Alternatives: The state could achieve its objectives through perjury prosecutions (which already apply to sworn statements), civil sanctions, or educational programs without the sweeping criminal prohibition targeting a specific category of political speech.

Dissent and Debate

Justice Goodwin Liu dissented, arguing that the majority improperly expanded intermediate scrutiny and that the statute served important interests in protecting officers and ensuring efficient complaint processes. The dissent contended that citizens who knowingly file false complaints have no First Amendment right to do so and that the advisory merely informed them of existing legal consequences.

However, the majority emphasized that the issue was not whether false statements merit protection, but whether the statutory scheme's design would deter protected speech. The court noted that many citizens lack sophisticated legal knowledge and might be deterred from filing legitimate complaints by fear of criminal prosecution, especially given power disparities between civilians and law enforcement.

Real-World Impact

The decision highlighted concrete examples of the statute's chilling effect. In Hamilton v. City of San Bernardino (2000, 2004), LaFrance Hamilton, a Black man who alleged that officers had beaten him after stopping him for lacking a bicycle license, attempted to file a complaint. The watch commander provided him with the Section 148.6(a)(2) advisory and warned him about potential prosecution. Hamilton never filed his complaint, instead pursuing a civil rights lawsuit.

Similarly, in Chaker v. Crogan, Darren Chaker was convicted under Section 148.6(a)(1) for alleging excessive force during his arrest. His conviction was eventually overturned by the Ninth Circuit, but only after years of state and federal habeas proceedings. These cases demonstrated how the statute could function as a weapon to discourage legitimate complaints.

Implications for Law Enforcement

The ruling has significant practical implications for California law enforcement agencies. Agencies must immediately revise their personnel complaint procedures to remove the Section 148.6(a)(2) advisory and cease any reliance on the criminal provision in Section 148.6(a)(1).

Matt Nguyen of Cooley LLP, who represented civil rights organizations as amici curiae, stated: "It takes tremendous courage for victims and witnesses of police misconduct to come forward and seek justice and accountability. 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."

The Los Angeles Police Protective League expressed disappointment, with attorneys from Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver indicating that the decision removes an important accountability mechanism for false complaints. The union had argued that officers face career damage from false allegations that become part of their permanent records, regardless of investigation outcomes.

Broader Constitutional Context

The decision represents the latest chapter in ongoing tensions between protecting police officers from false accusations and safeguarding citizens' right to report misconduct. Twenty-one other states have enacted various forms of age-verification or complaint-advisory requirements, though most do not specifically criminalize false complaints against police.

The ruling arrived amid heightened national attention to police accountability following high-profile incidents and the 2020 protests over police violence. Civil rights organizations, including the ACLU of Southern California, had filed amicus briefs arguing that Section 148.6 disproportionately affected communities of color and created barriers to addressing systemic misconduct.

Notably, the California Supreme Court issued this decision just four days after ruling that the First Amendment does not prevent criminal prosecution of nursing home workers who willfully and knowingly "misgender" transgender patients. The juxtaposition highlighted the court's nuanced approach to First Amendment issues, distinguishing between workplace anti-discrimination enforcement and restrictions on political speech critical of government officials.

Legislative Response Uncertain

As of this reporting, California legislators have not indicated whether they will attempt to revise Section 148.6 to address the constitutional deficiencies identified by the court. The Ninth Circuit in Chaker suggested that California could cure the constitutional problems by making all parties to misconduct investigations—including officers and witnesses—subject to criminal liability for knowingly false statements.

However, such revisions face practical and political obstacles. Perjury statutes already criminalize false sworn statements, and extending criminal liability to informal investigative statements could create new complications for law enforcement operations.

The Federal-State Dynamic

The case exemplifies recurring tensions in American federalism regarding constitutional interpretation. The California Supreme Court's 2002 Stanistreet decision had reached the opposite conclusion from federal district courts addressing the same statute. The Ninth Circuit's 2005 Chaker ruling created a direct conflict with state law, leaving the City of Los Angeles in an impossible position: comply with state court orders or respect federal constitutional holdings.

This tension persisted for two decades until the California Supreme Court reconsidered its precedent in light of evolving U.S. Supreme Court doctrine. The decision demonstrates that state supreme courts, while authoritative on state law, must ultimately conform their constitutional interpretations to federal standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Conclusion

Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles represents a significant victory for First Amendment advocates and police accountability proponents. By explicitly overruling Stanistreet and invalidating Section 148.6(a), the California Supreme Court aligned state law with federal precedent and removed a statutory barrier to reporting police misconduct.

The decision reaffirms foundational First Amendment principles: government cannot suppress criticism of public officials simply because some of that criticism may be false or harmful to individual reputations. While false statements enjoy no special constitutional protection, laws targeting them must be carefully calibrated to avoid deterring the protected speech that is their inevitable casualty—the complaints of police misconduct that help ensure accountability in a democratic society.

As Justice Groban wrote for the majority: "While the Legislature had a legitimate and significant interest in remedying the harmful effects of abusive false claims of police misconduct, section 148.6(a) is not narrowly tailored to meet those objectives."

---

Sources and Citations

1. Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles, No. S275272, 2025 Cal. LEXIS (Nov. 10, 2025). Available at: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2025/s275272.html

2. California Supreme Court Official Opinion Page. Available at: https://courts.ca.gov/opinion/published/2025-11-10/s275272

3. People v. Stanistreet, 29 Cal. 4th 497 (2002) (overruled by L.A. Police Protective League v. City of L.A., No. S275272 (Cal. Nov. 10, 2025)).

4. Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2005). Available at: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-9th-circuit/1261662.html

5. Hamilton v. City of San Bernardino, 107 F. Supp. 2d 1239 (C.D. Cal. 2000); Hamilton v. City of San Bernardino, 325 F. Supp. 2d 1087 (C.D. Cal. 2004).

6. United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/709/

7. Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, 606 U.S. 461 (2025). Available at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf

8. Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, "Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles: California Supreme Court Finds Statute Criminalizing Knowingly False Allegations of Police Misconduct Violates the First Amendment" (Dec. 1, 2025). Available at: https://www.lcwlegal.com/news/los-angeles-police-protective-league-v-city-of-los-angeles/

9. CalMatters, "California Supreme Court strikes down warning on LAPD citizen complaint forms" (Nov. 12, 2025). Available at: https://calmatters.org/justice/2025/11/lapd-citizen-complaint-forms/

10. Davis Vanguard, "Court Strikes Down L.A. Police Complaint Law as Unconstitutional" (Nov. 14, 2025). Available at: https://davisvanguard.org/2025/11/california-supreme-court-rules-false-complaints/

11. GMSR Appellate Lawyers, "Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles, S275272" (Nov. 26, 2025). Available at: https://www.gmsr.com/los-angeles-police-protective-league-v-city-of-los-angeles-s275272/

12. ACLU of Southern California, "ACLU Challenges California Criminal Law That Chills Citizen Complaints Against Police" (Mar. 3, 2000). Available at: https://www.aclusocal.org/en/news/aclu-challenges-california-criminal-law-chills-citizen-complaints-against-police

13. American Civil Liberties Union National, "Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton" (July 18, 2025). Available at: https://www.aclu.org/cases/free-speech-coalition-inc-v-paxton

14. U.S. Courts, "Facts and Case Summary - U.S. v. Alvarez." Available at: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/educational-activities/first-amendment-activities/us-v-alvarez/holding-us-v-alvarez

15. First Amendment Encyclopedia, "United States v. Alvarez (2012)" (Jan. 7, 2025). Available at: https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/united-states-v-alvarez/

16. Constitution Annotated (Congress.gov), "Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton: Free Speech, Age Verification, and Protecting Minors Online." Available at: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.9-3-1/ALDE_00013950/

17. California Legislative Analyst, "Summary of United States v. Alvarez" (2012). Available at: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0313.htm

18. Supreme Court Case Database. Available at: https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/case/s275272-los-angeles-police-protective-league-v-city-los-angeles

19. California Penal Code Section 148.6. Available at: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-148-6/

20. Electronic Frontier Foundation, "The Supreme Court's Decision on Age Verification Tramples Free Speech and Undermines Privacy" (Dec. 10, 2025). Available at: https://www.eff.org/pages/supreme-courts-decision-age-verification-tramples-free-speech-and-undermines-privacy