In a 42-page ruling that is sure to be controversial, a civil court judge effectively blocked the county watchdog from thoroughly investigating deputy gangs operating within the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department.

The lengthy decision, dated Monday but released a day later, is the latest development in an ongoing lawsuit over whether suspected members of deputy gangs can be forced to answer questions and show their tattoos to county surveillance detectives.

The Assn. for the Los Angeles deputy sheriffs who filed the lawsuit in May, said required

are

members revealing ink or submitting to interviews would violate the 4th Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and the 5th Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination, as well as the state’s employment laws.

Los Angeles County Supreme Court Justice James Chalfant tentatively agreed in part. But it was the labor law arguments he found most compelling, so this week’s preliminary injunction will only stop the Inspector General’s Office’s investigation until the labor issues are resolved.

Given how long the county’s efforts to investigate vicarious gangs have dragged on, the judge said it was not urgent to immediately move forward with the investigation.

The county will suffer little to no harm from a preliminary injunction because the tattoos are permanent and will be available for inspection after a trial on the merits, Chalant added.

Still, civil rights experts worry the decision could have wider implications for efforts to hold law enforcement officers accountable, effectively undermining a 2021 state law aimed at eradicating vicarious gangs.

It could have a chilling effect, said Andrs Kwon, senior policy adviser at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. The law requires all law enforcement agencies to clearly ban vicarious gangs and essentially cooperate with auxiliary gang investigations. It is a clear mandate and ALADS is trying to prevent this law from being implemented.

In Los Angeles, the ruling is a major obstacle to the Office of Inspector General’s investigation.

“I am disappointed that the deputy gangs will continue for now, and I expect the county will appeal,” said Inspector General Max Huntsman.

It’s been a year and a half since California banned the gangs without meaningful investigation by law enforcement, he added. My office will continue to operate until the day the sheriff is no longer above the law.

The Sheriffs Department deferred comment to the district attorney and the district deferred comment to the inspector general. ALADS president Richard Pippin said the union was pleased to see the court have issued an injunction, but declined to comment further before reviewing the document in full.

For the families of those killed by sheriff’s deputies, the ruling came as a disappointment. hard blow. The verdict is frankly not surprising, said Stephanie Luna,

whose cousin was killed by deputies in 2018

. But it’s concerning because it shows no matter what the deputies do, the system will always work to protect them.

For nearly half a century, the sheriff’s department has been plagued by rogue groups of sheriff’s deputies who allegedly trample on certain stations and propagate a culture of violence. A Loyola Marymount University report released in 2021 identified 18 such groups that have existed over the past five decades, commonly known by such names as the Executioners, the Banditos, the Regulators, and the Little Devils.

The special prosecutor is urging the sheriff to ban the “cancer” of deputy gangs

Members of the groups are said to have matching, sequentially numbered tattoos, such as the flaming skeleton with a Nazi-style helmet associated with the Compton station group or the sombrero-wearing skeleton with a bandoleer and pistol associated with the East Los Angeles station group.

Before he was removed from office last year, then-Sheriff Alex Villanueva repeatedly denied the existence of such groups and blocked the Inspector General’s investigative efforts, going so far as to exclude Huntsman from the sheriff’s department’s facilities and databases. department. After Sheriff Robert Luna took over as county chief constable in December, he restored Huntsman’s access and vowed to root out all of the department’s auxiliary gangs.

In May, the Inspector General’s Office sent letters to 35 deputies suspected of being members of the groups commonly known as the Executioners at Compton station, or the Banditos at East LA station.

LA County sheriff sets up new office to ‘wipe out all deputy gangs’

The letters ordered deputies to come in and display their tattoos, list the names of other deputies with similar ink, and submit to questions about whether they had ever been invited to join a group related with their tattoos. The ultimate goal was to compile a list of all alleged gang deputies in the department, Huntsman said at the time.

Initially it was not clear whether refusing to cooperate would have consequences. Luna then sent a department-wide email instructing his staff to comply with the Inspector General’s request or face disciplinary action or dismissal.

In response, ALADS filed a labor complaint, as well as the state court lawsuit that led to this week’s preliminary injunction.

Initially, Chalfant issued a temporary restraining order in late May, preventing the county from forcing deputies to answer questions or show their tattoos. Then, in late June, the judge heard arguments from the county and the union over whether the terms of the restraining order should remain in effect as an injunction or whether the inspector general’s investigation should continue.

Union deputy sues over Sheriff’s Department gang investigation, to show tattoos

In court, the judge repeatedly expressed concern about allegations floating around gangs, some of which he said sounded like criminal behavior. He also questioned whether the 5th Amendment’s protections against self-incrimination would really apply, since it is not illegal to be part of a law enforcement gang, even though it may be grounds for termination.

The union lawyers argued that it would be an unreasonable search in violation of the 4th Amendment to force delegates to show their tattoos even by raising a single pant leg. County attorneys explained that they had limited the scope of the proposed investigation to tattoos on visible areas such as the face, neck and below the knee. They also wondered why showing a leg would be unconstitutionally invasive unless you never wear shorts.

The union lawyers also said that while the new state law requires police departments to cooperate with inspector general investigations, the county must negotiate the parameters and logistics of such an investigation before directing deputies to comply.

County attorneys said there was a fundamental disagreement about whether there is a negotiating obligation at this point in the process, and the judge questioned whether the law actually requires deputies to cooperate with investigations or whether it just requires the sheriff works as the head of the agency.

After last month’s hearing, the judge spent nearly two weeks weighing the downsides of blocking the investigation versus the downsides of potentially violating employment obligations.

The damage to the public from gang activity is significant and weighs heavily when weighing the interests affected by a preliminary injunction, he wrote. LASD deputy gangs also wreak havoc on the county by eroding public confidence in law enforcement, undermining the chain of command, promoting racism, sexism and violence, intimidating other deputies, and posing significant accountability to the county.

But Chalfant said the county is required by law to negotiate with the delegates’ union before making major changes, such as requiring delegates to show their tattoos. And since the tattoos are permanent and county detectives have laid out a cumbersome process that will take some time, Chalfant favored the deputies and their labor concerns.

While the OIG is certainly impatient with the delay, there is no urgent need for an immediate investigation, Chalvant wrote.

The parties must appear in court again in September.

Times reporter James Queally contributed to this report.