Chaker V Crogan Uniontribune Article

Behind nullified law, a man's fight | The San Diego Union-Tribune

Weather | Traffic | Surf | Maps | Webcam Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2009

Choose Category

Sunday »Next Story» News Local News Insight

Behind nullified law, a man's fight

Business Sports Sunday Currents Arts

By Greg Moran

Travel

STAFF WRITER

Homes Homescape Books Passages

The Last Week Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

Weekly Sections Books

He feels vindicated by reversal of state statute shielding officers

|

UT-Books

Family Food Health Home Homescape Dialog InStyle Night & Day Sunday Arts Travel Quest Wheels Subscribe to the UT

November 13, 2005

For most people, a misdemeanor arrest nearly a decade ago wouldn't be that big of a deal. For Darren Chaker, his 1996 arrest in El Cajon was much more than that. Eventually, he made a federal case out of it. And, in a ruling that has sent a minor tremor through police officer groups and civil libertarians, he won.

NELVIN CEPEDA / Union-Tribune Darren Chaker was convicted in 1999 of knowingly filing a false complaint against El Cajon police officers. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the conviction Nov. 3.

A three-judge panel of the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Nov. 3 that a state law making it a crime to knowingly make a false complaint against a police officer was unconstitutional. The panel said the law was flawed because it unfairly punished the content of speech. Specifically, the court found that the law targets only those who knowingly make a false complaint about a police officer while leaving unpunished someone who knowingly makes a false report praising an officer. The justices said a law that punishes only people who engage in knowingly false speech that is critical of police officers – and does not sanction people who make knowningly false

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051113/news_1m13chaker.html (1 of 4) [2/3/2009 6:30:59 PM]

Behind nullified law, a man's fight | The San Diego Union-Tribune

comments supportive of police – "turns the First Amendment on its head." After years of trying to get his conviction overturned, Chaker said he feels vindicated and is pleased that the ruling could benefit others. "I was so determined to vindicate myself, because I felt the conviction was improper," he said. But the case is probably not over. San Diego Deputy District Attorney Kelly Rand said her office might ask a larger panel of the circuit court to review the ruling by the three judges. If that fails, the case could go the U. S. Supreme Court. "This case is not over yet," she said. The state law at issue was enacted in 1995 in the wake of what legislators said were a flood of complaints against police after the Rodney King beating in 1991. Rand noted that the law was unanimously upheld in 2002 by the state Supreme Court, ruling in a case from Oxnard in Ventura County. She said it does not infringe on free speech because people with complaints against police can still protest on the street, in forums, or in writings. Advertisement Instead, she said, the law specifically targets those who knowingly file a false official complaint with the department. Police agencies are required to investigate such allegations, which takes up time and resources.

"If you file a formal complaint against the police that requires an investigation," she said, "and you know from the beginning it is false, then there is no utility to that complaint other than to waste public tax dollars." That is not how Chaker sees it. He said that because he made a complaint about how he was arrested by El Cajon police in April 1996, he was subsequently branded a criminal. Chaker, of Beverly Hills, represented himself throughout most of the legal battle, which took him to state and federal courts several times. But he enlisted the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union for the appeal in front of the 9th Circuit panel. Chaker is no stranger to courtrooms. He has filed numerous suits over the years, and in 1996 was declared a "vexatious litigant" in San Diego County. That is a finding made by courts against people who repeatedly file lawsuits that are deemed to http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051113/news_1m13chaker.html (2 of 4) [2/3/2009 6:30:59 PM]

Behind nullified law, a man's fight | The San Diego Union-Tribune

be lacking in merit or otherwise unfounded. The designation means no further suits from such a person can be filed without the permission of the court. Chaker said his lawsuit-filing days are behind him. He was able to pursue this case because it was an appeal from a criminal conviction and not subject to the vexatious-litigant rules. The case began when Chaker was arrested on a misdemeanor theft-of-services charge in April 1996, for getting his car from a repair shop without paying for it. Those charges were eventually dismissed by the court. Chaker filed a complaint with El Cajon police, saying his wrist was twisted and he was struck twice in the ribs when he was arrested. El Cajon police investigated and found the complaint unwarranted. Then, 11 months after the disputed arrest, prosecutors charged Chaker with knowingly filing a false complaint. After one jury deadlocked, a second convicted him in February 1999. He was sentenced to two days in jail, 15 days of public service and three years on probation. To this day Chaker stands by his complaint. "He twisted my wrist," he said. "In my mind, no, I did not make a false complaint because he used excessive force." The officers involved in the case could not be reached for comment. After the conviction, he appealed and lost, then filed a series of habeas corpus petitions in the state Supreme Court. None was granted. He also filed a petition in federal court in San Diego, and lost there, also. Around that time he enlisted the support of the ACLU, which argued the bulk of the appeal. Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU in Los Angeles, said the ruling affirms the principle that "citizens should not be stifled." False complaints can be handled through perjury prosecutions, he said, and not by punishing speech. "The public should not be gagged from bringing legitimate concerns about police officers," he said. "A core purpose of the First Amendment is to encourage close scrutiny of the workings of government." Greg Moran: (619) 542-4586; [email protected]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051113/news_1m13chaker.html (3 of 4) [2/3/2009 6:30:59 PM]

Behind nullified law, a man's fight | The San Diego Union-Tribune

»Next Story»

Contact SignOnSanDiego.com | Online Media Kit | Print Media Kit | Frequently Asked Questions | Make us your homepage Contact the Union-Tribune | About the Union-Tribune | Site Index | Privacy Policy | Your California Privacy Rights © Copyright 2005 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. • A Copley Newspaper Site

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051113/news_1m13chaker.html (4 of 4) [2/3/2009 6:30:59 PM]