California Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Penalizing False Citizen Complaints Against Police

By Robert Phillips, Deputy District Attorney (Ret)

Citizen Complaints Against Law Enforcement Officers and the Making of False Complaints, per Pen. Code § 148.6(a), and the First Amendment:   

The California Supreme Court just published a landmark case decision dealing with the constitutionality of Penal Code § 148.6(a)’s requirement that private citizens who wish to file a so-called “citizen’s complaint” against a peace officer, complaining of police misconduct, must first read an admonishment and acknowledge (by signing) the fact that the act of knowingly filing a false complaint alleging police misconduct constitutes a misdemeanor. (P.C. § 148.6, subd. (a)(2))  

Pen. Code § 148.6(a)(2), in effect, prohibits law enforcement from accepting an official claim of misconduct unless the complainant reads and signs an admonition, which must be written in bold printed capital letters, warning the citizen (in addition to the citizen’s right to file such a complaint) that: “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.” 

The case is Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles (Nov. 10, 2025) __ Cal.5th __ [2025 Cal. LEXIS 7261].  The issue presented in this case is whether Pen. Code § 148.6(a)’s provisions violate the complaining citizen’s First Amendment constitutional free speech rights. In a LONG (90 page) decision, the majority of the Court (6-to-1) ultimately concludes that 148.6(a)(2)’s requirements do in fact violate the First Amendment. 

California’s Supreme Court has previously considered this issue.  (See People v. Stanistreet (2002) 29 Cal.4th 497.)  In Stanistreet, the Court ruled that Pen. Code § 148.6(a)(2)’s requirements do not violate the First Amendment. Since then, however, a number of federal courts have ruled to the contrary, holding that section 148.6(a) (or its equivalent) does in fact violate the First Amendment. (See Chaker v. Crogan (9th Cir. 2005) 428 F.3d 1215; Hamilton v. City of San Bernardino (C.D.Cal. 2004) 325 F.Supp.2nd 1087, 1091; and Eakins v. Nevada (D.Nev. 2002) 219 F.Supp.2nd 1113; striking down a similar ....

© 2026 Legal Updates, LLC.
This content is protected by copyright law. Republishing or redistribution in any form without written permission is strictly prohibited. For licensing or reprint requests, contact support@legalupdates.com.