LOS ANGELES (CNS) – Multiple Los Angeles police officers have given sworn declarations in opposition to a motion by the city of Los Angeles to dismiss lawsuits collectively filed by hundreds of officers with sensitive assignments who allege their safety was affected by the mistaken release of the plaintiffs’ photographs in 2023.
“Since the release of my service photo, I avoid public spaces and am very cautious when I am in a public space,” says one such officer identified only as John Doe 137. “I am in constant fear that someone will be able to identify me, follow me home and harm me or my family.”
Doe 138 says he always carries his firearm when he leaves home, even if just to go grocery shopping.
Another officer, John Doe 2, says he was working undercover when at the time of the dissemination of his photo and that his life has changed “forever” as a result.
“Since the release of my personal and private information, I have been forced to alter my social media accounts, change my mailing address and alter my family trust and real estate holdings in order to get back some of the privacy that I have lost,” Doe 2 says.
Yet another officer, John Doe 51, says he once did operations in county jails to try and elicit confessions and acquire other information, making him an enemy to people who seek revenge against him. The photo release has affected his mental health, Doe 51 says.
“Although I understand that being a police officer is a dangerous job, I never expected that the LAPD would release my private information, placing my life and my spouse’s life in imminent danger,” Doe 51 states.
The declarations were filed Thursday with Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David S. Cunningham III, who is scheduled to hold a hearing on the city’s dismissal motion on Sept. 18. In the anti-SLAPP motion, the City Attorney’s Office says the city “acknowledges its error in producing these department photographs and even filed a separate suit for return of such photos. However, the litigation privilege is absolute and applies even to malicious acts, a far cry from the City’s inadvertence here. Thus, the complaints must be dismissed.”
The state’s anti-SLAPP — Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation — law is intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate those who are exercising their free-speech rights.
The LAPD released the officers’ images through the California Public Records Act after a request by Knock LA journalist Ben Camacho. The Stop LAPD Spying Coalition, an activist group, then put the photos and other information of about 9,000 officers into a publicly accessible database in March 2023.
The city initially refused to release the photos, but in September 2022, the city agreed to settle the lawsuit with Camacho by producing pictures of all full-time, active duty, sworn police officers, except for officers then working in an undercover capacity as of July 2022..
“That communicative exchange inadvertently included some LAPD officers who were working in undercover capacities,” according to the City Attorneys’ Office’s court papers. “Those officers, and hundreds of LAPD officers who had previously worked on ad-hoc undercover assignments but are currently working in public capacities, filed these suits a year after their department photos were released.”
The inadvertent photo production, “while regrettable, is not actionable,” according to the City Attorneys’ Office, which further argues that the photo production was related to the settlement of a CPRA suit and therefore constitutes First Amendment protected activity.
But according to one of the two lawsuits, prior to the department making the photos available, the officers went to great lengths to keep their identities concealed. The officers serve in or were previously assigned to such units as the Major Crimes Division, the ATF Gun Violence Reduction Task Force, the Gangs and Narcotics Division and human trafficking.
“Due to the photo release, plaintiffs now reasonably fear retribution from … extremely dangerous criminals, which may involve harassment, intimidation, injury and death to themselves and their families,” the suit states.
The complaint alleges negligence, failure to perform a mandatory duty, for legal malpractice by the City Attorney’s Office, invasion of privacy, public disclosure of private facts, negligent infliction of emotional distress and breach of contract.
The City Attorney’s Office maintains no malpractice occurred because those who released the photos are not lawyers and there was no attorney-client relationship.
Recent Comments