The sight of a journalist struck by a rubber bullet is disturbing, and it ought to give us pause. But in the case of Australian reporter Lauren Tomasi, who was hit while covering a protest in Los Angeles, it is important to separate the emotional impact of the footage from the legal and practical reality of what occurred. Tomasi’s injury, while unfortunate, was not the result of an outrageous act by law enforcement. It was the predictable outcome of a decision to remain in front of a police line after a lawful dispersal order had been issued.
When police declare an assembly unlawful under California Penal Code sections 407 and 409, they are empowered to order all persons present to disperse. There is no statutory exemption for members of the press. The law makes no distinction between a protester with a sign and a journalist with a microphone. Both are required to comply. If they refuse, they may be subject to removal, citation, or use of force consistent with department policy and constitutional standards.
Some argue that journalists should be allowed to remain in order to observe and report. And to be clear, courts have recognized the public value of newsgathering, even in moments of civil unrest. The Ninth Circuit, in the Index Newspapers case, held that law enforcement must not target journalists for removal simply because of their status as members of the press. However, this ruling did not give reporters the right to ignore police commands indefinitely. It emphasized that any accommodation must be reasonable and subject to the overriding concerns of safety and operational necessity.
Reasonableness is the key. Reporters do not possess a special legal status that entitles them to disregard lawful police orders. Their presence at the front lines of an escalating protest may complicate law enforcement efforts, draw the attention of agitators, and place themselves and others at greater risk. Once police have issued a dispersal order, the prudent course is to comply. The time to challenge the order is in court, not by remaining in a position that law enforcement has designated as dangerous or unlawful.
The fact that Ms. Tomasi was struck with a non-lethal round in a non-vital area during a crowd dispersal operation is not evidence of malice or misconduct. It is, rather, an unfortunate but foreseeable consequence of ignoring a lawful directive in a tense and chaotic environment. Law enforcement officers are trained to distinguish between press and protesters when possible, but they are not required to hold fire on individuals who voluntarily remain in harm’s way after repeated warnings.
This is not an argument against press freedom. It is an argument for press responsibility. Journalists have a vital role in holding government accountable. That role is not diminished when they follow the same laws as everyone else. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, not immunity from lawful orders. It is possible to report the news without obstructing police operations or creating additional safety risks.
The presence of reporters at a protest should never be used as a shield to defy law enforcement. Journalists are not above the law. Their work is essential, but their judgment must be sound. Remaining after a dispersal order has been given is a choice. When that choice results in injury, we should look not only at the actions of the police, but also at the decisions that preceded the incident.
Press freedom and public safety are not mutually exclusive. Both can be upheld—when all participants, including the press, recognize that their rights come with responsibilities.
Notes
On June 10th, police declared another unlawful assembly and gave the crowd orders to disperse. This time they explicitly warned the press to stay out.
The complaint does mention sections 407 and 409, but says that they are trumped by Penal Code section 13652. This section explicitly permits the use of less than lethal weapons to bring an “objectively dangerous and unlawful situation under control.” That provision of the Penal Code puts the press in the uncomfortable situation of having to claim that the protests were either lawful or not dangerous.
On June6, federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents raided multiple locations across Los Angeles. They obtained judicial approval for the raids by obtaining search warrants. They detained 44-45 people who had immigrated to the United States illegally. ICE agents raided the Fashion District, Home Depot parking lots, a doughnut shop, and other sites. At the Home Depot in Westlake, protesters gathered and blocked exits. The protesters even threw concrete blocks. Authorities declared an unlawful assembly and used less-lethal munitions to clear the area.
There has been follow-on enforcement after June 6. DHS has signaled that ICE operations will continue for at least 30 days. These raids are part of an effort by federal immigration authorities to ramp up arrests of illegal migrants.
On June 7-8, President Trump activated the California National Guard under federal control and ordered troops to Los Angeles. Defense secretary Pete Hegseth has warned that active-duty Marines may be mobilized if unrest continues.
Reaction from Local Government
Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass issued a statement on June 6:
Bass said that neither she nor LAPD had been informed ahead of time of the ICE actions. On June 7, she said,
[M]any in our community are feeling fear following recent federal immigration enforcement actions across Los Angeles County. Reports of unrest outside the city, including in Paramount, are deeply concerning. […] Everyone has the right to peacefully protest, but let me be clear: violence and destruction are unacceptable, and those responsible will be held accountable.
She told a local news station that she was “outraged” that ICE “sows a sense of terror throughout the community… ICE was literally chasing people down the street.” She continued, “it’s just unacceptable.” She told the reporter that this was one of her “worst nightmares.” She said, “we will not stand for this.”
Don’t give Trump what he wants. Stay calm. Stay peaceful.
— Governor Gavin Newsom (@CAgovernor) June 8, 2025
Gavin Newsom described the coordinated federal sweeps across California—labeled “chaotic” and driven by an “arbitrary arrest quota”—as both “reckless” and “cruel,” warning they were undermining public trust, tearing families apart, and hurting the state’s economy. He also sent a fundraising email accusing the federal government of wanting a spectacle and violence. He said the president was “deranged.”
11 Los Angeles City Councilmembers released a joint statement saying “we will not abide by fear tactics to support extreme political agendas…” County supervisors called the raids “chilling” and “acts of cruelty and bigotry.” California senator Alex Padilla said: “The Ice raids across Los Angeles today are a continuation of a disturbing pattern of extreme and cruel immigration enforcement operations across the country.
Protests and Riots
Angelenos responded to the raids with protests and riots. The initial raids—carried out at sites including a Home Depot, a garment warehouse in the Fashion District, and other locations—prompted spontaneous demonstrations in which protesters blocked agents, hurled concrete chunks, rocks, and Molotov cocktails, and set vehicles aflame. Federal agents responded with tear gas, flash‑bang grenades, pepper spray, rubber bullets, and less‑lethal munitions, with local law enforcement later declaring multiple unlawful assemblies, and arresting dozens of individuals.
A masked individual on a dirt bike circled a burning car while waving the Mexican flag.
In Paramount, protesters erected barricades from shopping carts and bins, set fire to a vehicle, and threw Molotov cocktails at law enforcement. Protesters also threw rocks at ICE agents and vehicles. Crowds reportedly hurled concrete chunks, bricks, rocks, and bottles at ICE agents and police, and in one high-tension clash a rock shattered an ICE vehicle windshield, injuring an agent.
In downtown Los Angeles, rioters defaced a federal courthouse with graffiti and obstructed traffic by blocking entrances to a detention facility, prompting law enforcement to declare an unlawful assembly and make numerous arrests. Finally, aerial footage and NBC News confirm that at least two individuals were arrested for throwing a Molotov cocktail and assaulting deputies, causing injuries to three officers.
Authorities described up to 1,000 individuals as “rioters” involved in violent activity such as vandalism, assaults on ICE personnel, and property destruction.
The Orwellian Response by Local Media
Clearly, people are rioting in Los Angeles. But just in case, someone wants to quibble, a riot is “a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd.” When used as a verb, it means to “take part in a violent public disturbance.” Legal definition agree with common usage. California Penal Code 404, defines rioting as “any use of force or violence, disturbing the public peace, or any threat to use force or violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution, by two or more persons acting together, and without authority of law.” Applying these definitions to the facts is easy to do. It would be inaccurate to say that the protests in Los Angeles are nonviolent.
Unfortunately, describing reality with such a politically loaded word is itself a politically difficult for the press, particularly the liberal local press in Los Angeles. Various media outlets have employed euphemistic terminology to describe the events in Los Angeles following the ICE raids, often softening or reframing the severity of the unrest.
The Trump administration is sending 2,000 National Guard troops to L.A. after two days of isolated clashes between federal immigration agents and protesters. Many questions remain unanswered, but here is what we know: https://t.co/tF3vGhqeUz
The Los Angeles Times, for example, primarily refers to the events as “clashes” and “[p]rotests against ICE raids” and notes that “National Guard troops arrived in L.A. on Sunday morning … after confrontations between protesters and immigration agents” NPR chose to describe recent events as “clashes with police.” Reuters ran the headline “Riot police, anti-ICE protesters square off in Los Angeles after raids.” The first photograph shows police detaining a “protester,” instead of one of the many photographs of rioting. The Los Angeles Daily News said that the National Guard arrived not to stop the riots but to “quell immigration protests.” There were there “on orders from President Donald Trump to stamp out protests.” Wikipeda’s article on the subject is called, “June 2025 Los Angeles Protests.”
The local CBS station’s headline is “National Guard troops arrive in Los Angeles as immigration enforcement tension escalate.” It’s hard to imagine how throwing a burning bottle of gasoline at law enforcement is just “tensions” and not “rioting.” The ABC affiliate describes “protests” and “clashes” but does not use the word “riots.” The NBC affiliate did not use the word “riot” either, but printed a quote where an HSI official uses the word, which appears to be the most courageous press description of actual reality in this entire list.
Perhaps the most egregious example is LAist, a local NPR station, whose headline is “ICE raids grow tense nationwide as protesters confront immigration agents.” After a request for donations, the article continues this deceptive tone. ICE has “contended with angry crowds protesting their actions.” “This most recent spate of encounters has become heated.” The first quote is from a politician blaming ICE agents. “It got out of control because of the way they showed up.” The article continues by blaming ICE agents for wearing masks and then quotes civil rights organization who defend doxing the agents. The article ends with a mention of George Floyd. The article makes no mention of any violent acts by protesters, injuries suffered by law enforcement, the fact that the raids were completely legal and done pursuant to democratically adopted laws, and does not use the word “riot” at all.
Insanity. So ridiculous it seems like something a scriptwriter would reject for being too on the nose. “Just have them circle around a burning car in a dirt bike holding the Mexican flag.” pic.twitter.com/BxyDeWW9PU
There are several plausible reasons why local media outlets might avoid using the word “riot,” even when it clearly applies to recent events in Los Angeles.
First, sympathy for the protesters or their cause likely plays a significant role. Many local journalists and media organizations operate in urban environments where there is broad political and cultural support for immigrant communities and sanctuary policies. Labeling actions as a “protest” rather than a “riot” implicitly preserves the moral legitimacy of the protesters and underscores their grievances rather than their tactics.
Second, this coverage reveals an underlying antipathy toward immigration enforcement itself. Characterizing these events as “protests” or “confrontations” allows media outlets to keep the focus on the federal government’s actions—which are seen by many in Los Angeles as heavy-handed or unjust—rather than on the disorderly response to those actions. In this framework, softer language shifts the blame narrative toward enforcement agencies and away from the demonstrators.
Third, in Los Angeles, the term “riot” evokes powerful historical memories, particularly of the 1992 unrest following the Rodney King verdict. Media outlets may be cautious about using the word because of its racial and political connotations, preferring less incendiary descriptions unless violence becomes extreme and sustained.
LA Times ~ probably:
Selfless Compton man takes to motorcycle and brightly colored flag to warn motorists of car on fire in intersection as police forced to stay back due to heat and smoke 🤡 pic.twitter.com/G4hfl4UfBW
In moments of crisis, the first duty of a journalist is to tell the truth. When violence erupts in our streets, calling it anything less than what it is—a riot—is not only a failure of candor but a disservice to the community that journalism is meant to serve.
Recent events in Los Angeles have made this clear. In the aftermath of federal immigration raids, we have witnessed acts of violence: vehicles set ablaze, projectiles hurled at law enforcement, Molotov cocktails thrown, businesses vandalized, and public order disrupted. These are not mere “protests” or “confrontations”; they meet the longstanding, well-understood definition of rioting. To describe them otherwise—whether from misplaced sympathy for a cause or from fear of political backlash—is to willfully obscure reality.
This failure is not harmless. By minimizing or playing down violent acts, journalists blur the line between lawful protest—a vital expression of democracy—and criminal conduct that endangers lives and property. In doing so, they erode public trust not just in the press but in civic institutions that depend on accurate information to function. Law-abiding citizens who depend on the media for an honest accounting are left misinformed. Public officials who must make decisions based on facts are given a distorted picture of the situation. Worst of all, victims of violence are effectively erased from the narrative, their injuries and losses rendered invisible under euphemism and understatement.
Moreover, obscuring the nature of the unrest fuels polarization. Those who see the reality of the violence firsthand—and who find the press unwilling to acknowledge it—conclude, not unreasonably, that the media are partisan actors rather than neutral conveyors of truth. They grow cynical and distrustful, believing that journalists are more concerned with protecting political narratives than with reporting facts.
I want to go back in time and slap whoever decided “balance” was an integral element of good journalism. I remember hearing that a lot at J-school. Journalism is not a scale you have to keep even so you don’t join the partisan rabble. Journalism is about accuracy and truth.
There is no shame in acknowledging that a cause one may sympathize with has been marred by violence. In fact, doing so strengthens the moral authority of peaceful protesters who abide by the law and seek change through legitimate means. Honest reporting distinguishes between the peaceful and the violent, protecting the former from being tarred with the sins of the latter.
Words matter. Precision matters. Honesty matters most of all. In times of social tension, a community does not need comforting half-truths or selective reporting; it needs a clear-eyed account of what is happening. Journalists who shirk this responsibility not only betray their vocation but endanger the very public they are sworn to inform.
In 2021, the State of California initiated the California County Resentencing Pilot Program, an effort to incorporate prosecutorial discretion into resentencing decisions for individuals serving lengthy prison terms. Funded with an $18 million appropriation from the state budget, the program operated in nine counties, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Riverside, and Santa Clara.
The program’s stated purpose was to create a mechanism through which district attorneys, in collaboration with public defenders and community-based organizations, could proactively review sentences and recommend early release where appropriate. It reflected a growing belief among reform advocates that achieving a more equitable criminal justice system requires revisiting past sentencing decisions, particularly for individuals who had demonstrated rehabilitation, had aged significantly while incarcerated, or whose sentences might no longer align with current standards of justice.
The implementation of the program, however, proved costly. An independent evaluation conducted by the RAND Corporation revealed that the six counties most actively participating spent nearly $28 million over the three-year pilot period, more than twice the $12.5 million they were originally allocated. The majority of these expenditures were devoted to staffing, including prosecutors, public defenders, investigators, and non-profit personnel, all of whom were necessary to carry out the labor-intensive process of case review, petition preparation, and court advocacy.
The program did not had a tiny impact on the 100,000 or so state prisoners. Across the counties, 1,146 cases were reviewed, resulting in 227 resentencings and ultimately 174 individuals being released from custody: about 1/10 of one percent of state prisoners. This number is miniscule despite the stated purpose of the law: to reduce prison overcrowding. By comparison, the Board of Parole Hearings released about 3,600 individuals during the same time period. The 174 CCRPP releases equate to a public expenditure of approximately $160,919 per released individual. And these statistics do not account for the multiple other ways that prisoners may obtain early release. These include five different types of credit award programs from CDCR. Nor do they include the parole board, which has a budget of about $75m and employs over 300 people. And there is no mention of why the governor’s clemency office could not have done this work without any new program at all.
The huge cost and tiny impact of this program invites reflection on the broader question of resource allocation in criminal justice policy. Public spending in this arena necessarily involves trade-offs. Funds allocated to resentencing programs are funds not available for crime prevention, victim services, rehabilitation programs, or other public priorities. Advocates for the program may argue that the cost is justified by the moral imperative to correct overly punitive sentences and to recognize rehabilitation. Critics, however, may question whether a cost of $160,919 per release reflects an efficient use of scarce public resources.
As California continues to pursue sentencing reform, the experience of the County Resentencing Pilot Program suggests the importance of carefully evaluating not only the goals but also the implementation costs of such initiatives. California’s trial courts are facing a $97m deficit. Whether this program represented a sound investment in justice or an inefficient allocation of funds remains a question worthy of serious discussion.
As a prosecutor, I’ve seen my share of hardened criminals, but the case of Cesar Hernandez stands out—not just because of the brutality of his crime, but because of the staggering failure that allowed him to walk free.
Let’s start at the beginning.
December 2, 2024: The Escape
Cesar Hernandez was no ordinary inmate. He was serving a 25-to-life sentence for first-degree murder—a sentence that represents society’s decision to remove a dangerous man from our streets. But on a routine transport to the Delano courthouse, Hernandez slipped away. CDCR staff lost sight of him as he jumped out of a transport van near 10th Avenue and Kensington Street. He vanished into the community wearing nothing but his orange jumpsuit and white thermals.
This wasn’t a nonviolent offender or a low-risk escapee. This was a convicted killer. And somehow, he disappeared without a trace.
April 9, 2025: Violence Follows Him
After four months at large, Hernandez turned up south of the border. In Tijuana, Mexican and U.S. authorities attempted to apprehend him. But he didn’t go quietly. A shootout erupted. And in the chaos, a brave Mexican police commander—Abigail Esparza Reyes—was killed in the line of duty. Meanwhile, Hernandez slipped away yet again.
We owe it to Commander Reyes to recognize the gravity of this failure. Her death is a direct consequence of our inability to keep a convicted killer behind bars.
In the aftermath of that deadly shootout, law enforcement doubled down. U.S. Marshals, Mexican authorities, and local agencies ramped up their efforts. They’re working tirelessly, and I’m grateful for their dedication. But they shouldn’t have to be in this position in the first place.
A reward now stands at $35,000 for information leading to Hernandez’s capture.
The mayor said, “Our fire department is responding to more and more medical calls where they are performing health care services, medical services, out in the field. […] All we are saying is for the sustainability of our department we need to be able to bill insurance when it is available to collect or recover the cost of providing medical care out in the field.” Approximately two-thirds of the department’s calls involve medical care, or more than 68,000 requests in 2024. The fees are expected to raise $4 million dollars for the San Jose Fire Department.
California’s legislature first allowed cities to charge “First Responder Fees” in the 1990s. More than 20 California cities are charging the fees, including Napa, Alameda, Vallejo, and San Francisco, which charges $567. In 2014, the Burbank Fire Department started charging $100 when fire personnel respond to emergency medical calls that don’t include transporting someone to the hospital. A trip to the hospital costs between $1,100 and $1,500. The fee “was derived by calculating personnel costs for a typical response, which generally lasts 20 minutes and includes a fire captain, engineer, two firefighters and two paramedics.” Burbank residents can avoid the fee by paying an extra $48 on top of the taxes they pay to fund the fire department.
“First Responder Fees” Are an Abdication of Government’s Responsibility to Provide Fundamental Services
Mariel Garza argued persuasively in the Los Angeles Times that these fees are “a backward response to changing duties of urban fire departments.” Using her common sense, Garza pointed out that charging a fee for calling 911 would lead to less people calling 911, even though this is a service that people are already paying for with their taxes.
Garza’s argument is supported by real-world examples. Linda Grow’s elderly father fell, cracked four ribs, and collapsed his lung. She called 911 to get help for him. Then she got a bill from the Vallejo Fire Department for $1,880. “I want to warn you all it is not a free call and they do not tell you — you just … get this great big bill in the mail at a real bad time … it was free before our city council voted it in. I thought the firemen came out to help if you fell.”
Hundreds of years ago, fire departments were mostly private. Homeowners would pay a fee to an insurance company, and in return, the company would send firefighters only if the house had a “fire mark” indicating it was insured by them. If you didn’t pay the fee, too bad, your house would burn down. This led to the absurd situation where rival fire companies would race to fires to get the insurance payout, sometimes even fighting each other for the money rather than putting out the fire. And poorer neighborhoods were left with no protection. This situation lead to public outrage, and led to advocacy for better fire services by many people, including Benjamin Franklin. Cities began organizing municipal fire departments at the end of the 19th Century. They recognized that fire protection benefited the whole community.
“First Responder” fees are a return to the “pay for protection” model that public departments were supposed to replace. They create a two-tier system: one for those who can afford to absorb the cost and another for those who hesitate to call for help out of fear of the bill. They revive, in modern form, the exact conditions that public fire departments were created to end — a world where lifesaving services are transactional, conditional, and selective.
The public already pays for fire and emergency services through taxes. Adding additional fees at the moment of crisis is a form of double billing that shifts public safety from a guaranteed public good to an optional, purchasable service. It undermines the very idea of emergency response as a shared social obligation and moves us backward to the days when help came only if you could pay.
These Fees Would Be Unnecessary if Firefighters Weren’t Massively Overpaid
The first fire departments were staffed by volunteers. In many California cities, firefighter compensation has spiraled far beyond what most taxpayers earn. It’s common for rank-and-file firefighters to earn over $200,000 a year when you include base pay, overtime, and benefits. Many retire in their 50s with six-figure pensions, guaranteed for life and often adjusted upward for inflation. Excessive overtime is routine, not because of emergency need, but because of structural staffing policies and union contracts that incentivize costly scheduling.
To put Captain Duenas’s mammoth paycheck in context, the average annual salary for an elementary school teacher in San Jose is approximately $83,416. Dividing Captain Duenas’s earnings by this average salary suggests that the city could employ about 8.4 elementary school teachers for the same amount. That is enough to teach 240 children for a year. $703,815 is also enough to buy 28,152 new books at $25 each, enough to fill an entire public school library. If the average annual maintenance cost per acre of a public park is $5,000, Captain Duenas’s salary could maintain approximately 140 acres of public parkland for a year. It’s also enough to repair 2,346 potholes assuming a range of $100 to $500 per pothole.
These costs aren’t the unavoidable price of public safety. They are the result of decades of political deals, union leverage, and a system that pays public employees more than the taxpayers who fund them. Now, when budgets strain under those inflated payrolls, departments propose slapping a fee on people at their most vulnerable moments — after an accident, injury, or medical emergency — to cover costs that are bloated by public employee compensation.
The Daily Mail has the story of George Gascon’s attempt to use the notoriety generated by a Netflix documentary about the Menendez brothers to bolster his failing reelection campaign. Specifically, the attorney for the brothers claims to have found a letter corroborating the Menendez is claim that they were sexually abused by their father.
It’s worth stopping and noting here that being the victim of sexual abuse does not allow you to murder your abuser in cold blood. But that hasn’t stopped Gascón and others from claiming that this letter exonerates the Mendez brothers.
That claim is ludicrous to anyone who even takes a slightest look at the facts of the case. First of all the letter is not reliable evidence. The letter now mysteriously appears after years of having been overlooked, and only the Defense lawyer can authenticate it. Second, the recipient of the letter already testified in court, and it’s not clear how this would add to the testimony in any way. Third, the judge in the case many years ago correctly ruled that allegations of sexual abuse by the murder victims in this case were not relevant, since they did not give any support to the far-fetched claim at the brothers acted in self-defense. That’s because, as I mentioned above, you can only kill someone in self-defense if you yourself are in danger of imminent great bodily injury or death. You cannot kill someone in self-defense if you are in imminent danger being sexually abused.
Gascon is looking at releasing the brothers, apparently unaware of the fact that they stood to inherit $14 million upon the murder of their parents and went about spending almost $1,000,000 of it as fast as they could after the murder. Even the newest detective on the beat could put two and two together on those facts. And I believe the George Gascon, in his heart of hearts, also believes that the Menendez brothers are guilty, and simply doesn’t care. He would do anything to continue to keep the job that he has done so poorly at.
Gascon cannily set the hearing on the petition for after the election, probably hoping to please both sides.
The Los Angeles Times has a long article on LASD’s investigation into stolen deputy personnel files and document leaks. The Times obtained LASD’s report into crimes by its oversight. Readers will quickly recognize that the paper wants to tell readers what the report says without letting readers believe any of it is true. Still, some fascinating details are hidden in the article if you read carefully.
New Details Into Potential Crimes by Oversight Agencies
The LA Times obtained an 80-page report of the LASD investigation into stolen deputy personnel files. The report is part of a larger, 300-page case file. The Times reviewed the report and discussed it but did not provide a copy of the report for readers to draw their own conclusions.
The article begins with LASD‘s investigation into the theft of confidential personnel documents.
The criminal investigation began soon after Villanueva took office, when his transition team noticed “abnormalities” while reviewing personnel records, according to the report. In early 2019, the sheriff’s chief of staff asked internal criminal investigators to look into it, and in 2021 the department sent the case file to state prosecutors.
The investigation has two prongs. The first prong of the investigation focused on Office of the Inspector General chief Max Huntsman, and his effort to obtain deputy personnel files, including the file of then-Sheriff Alex Villanueva. Peace office personnel files are protected by law and by LASD policy. But LASD has an informal agreement to share personnel files with OIG for limited purposes. OIG cannot use the files for any purpose they like: the files must be used only to further their oversight role. LASD suspected that OIG was abusing their access to personnel files.
In 2018, LASD cut off OIG access to the personnel files of 54 deputies who were being investigated by LASD’s Internal Affairs Bureau. Huntsman requested that LASD restore access to these files to OIG. Huntsman later emailed an LASD oversight official – distinct from OIG – and told her that the Sheriff had instructed her to release all files. This turned out not to be entirely true.
By apparent coincidence, the LASD oversight official was Diana Teran, who was recently charged with several felonies related to document theft by the attorney general. Teran corrected Huntsman and said she had not been authorized to release all the files, just a smaller group of them. Later, a different LASD official gave OIG all the files. The LASD investigation says that this official was “duped” by Huntsman’s OIG into giving OIG the documents.
Huntsman disputed the accusation that OIG obtained the files by fraud. He said that they obtained the files to track any changes made to them by incoming LA County Sheriff Alex Villanueva.
“Our reason for getting those files was, in part, to be sure the Sheriff’s Dept. complied with the law,” Huntsman told The Times this month. “We were concerned that there might be an attempt to alter government records, and we wanted to obtain a copy so that we would be able to provide proof to anybody later.”
It is not clear if OIG was permitted by law to do this. The article is silent on this point. A cursory look at OIG’s mission suggests it is outside the scope of their oversight and therefore illegal. What is clear is that Huntsman was “concerned” by Villanueva’s election. He was also against Villanueva’s decision to rehire a deputy that Villanueva believed had been fired unjustly. Huntsman, through OIG, had written a report opposing the rehiring.
The second prong of the investigation focused on suspicions “that oversight officials, as well as the former LASD constitutional policing advisor, Diana Teran, stole records of Villanueva and his top associates.”
Oversight officials were apparently unaware that LASD had been tracking their access to confidential personnel files.
In 2018, department officials created a secret audit tool that would allow them to track who accessed personnel files — including outside oversight officials.
Over the next 11 months, the sheriff’s report says, that auditing tool showed that Office of Inspector General officials downloaded an “extraordinary number” of items — 1,500 — from the department’s database of personnel files.
LASD officials were particularly concerned about the files being accessed by OIG Attorney Bita Shasty. She accessed personnel files of people Villanueva intended to promote, even though none of them were under investigation. This is a violation of OIG’s agreement with LASD and a violation of the California Government Code.
LASD officials also believe that the contents of these files were leaked to the press by OIG in an effort to foil the deputies’ promotions and harm Villanueva politically. The Los Angeles Times is itself a long-time beneficiary of leaks believed to originate with LASD oversight agencies like OIG.
Villanueva described the investigation like this:
“People got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, […] It turns out I was one of 22 employees, where their files were illegally accessed and downloaded. When you illegally access them, that’s a misdemeanor crime. When you download them, and remove them, then it becomes a felony. This happened 2,400 times. […] These files, as they were downloaded, they started appearing in the media. Gee, I wonder how.”
Oversight officials concede that they downloaded confidential personnel files but say they were entitled to the files, did not misuse them, and did not leak them.
The Implications
The article ends with a provocative bit of information. OIG head Max Huntsman said “he has never officially been informed by the department or the attorney general’s office that he’s no longer a criminal suspect.” Many rumors suggest that the charges against Teran are a prelude to charges against Huntsman. Rumors are circulating that an indictment against more oversight officials (beyond Teran) is in the works.
At the very least, despite the LA Times’ obfuscation efforts, it appears that LASD has evidence that OIG officials were overstepping their access privileges and committing crimes in the process.
As of April 2, 2025, the Court of Appeal has taken up a pretrial writ and appears skeptical of the charging decision.
A Los Angeles judge released an arrest warrant affidavit shedding light on why the California Department of Justice filed a case against Diana Teran, a top deputy of LADA George Gascon. The affidavit revealed that the AG began looking into allegations that another Gascon appointee had drunkenly threatened to blacklist an officer who pulled him over. This investigation led to evidence that Teran had illegally stolen police personnel data to put it on the same blacklist.
It All Started With A Drunken Chief Deputy District Attorney
In February 2022, Joseph Iniguez was pulled over for a DUI traffic stop. He is the Chief Deputy to the Los Angeles County District Attorney, progressive prosecutor George Gascon. Iniguez, who was drunk, got out of the passenger seat of the car to argue with the police. When this did not result in him being let go, he began to threaten the officers, urging them to run his license plate, which would reveal his position as a high-ranking prosecutor.
He also threatened to put the officers on LADA’s Brady list. This is a list of officers that cannot be trusted to testify in court. In other words, Iniguez threatened to end the officer’s career by blacklisting him. Officers who cannot testify cannot be used to investigate cases. Placement on the Brady list can even result in termination. Iniguez’s threat was credible: he is the prosecutor that oversaw that list at the time he was pulled over. Iniguez was arrested, allowed to sober up, and released. He was never charged with a crime.
The AG’s investigation revealed that another Gascon political appointee named Diana Teran “accessed over 1,600 statutorily-protected peace officer personnel files as well as internal emails and documents concerning internal affairs investigations and confidential civil service proceedings” while overseeing LASD. There’s nothing wrong with doing that while in an oversight role. The problem is that Teran left LASD in 2018. What caught the AG’s eye was evidence that she illegally took those files to LADA in 2021.
After joining LADA in January 2021, TERAN repeatedly used data from those LASD personnel files and internal emails and documents in a surreptitious attempt to add peace officer names into LADA’s Brady and ORWITS databases.
(Affidavit at pp. 2:28-33.)
That is exactly what Iniguez was threatening to do during his drunken DUI stop. Adding those officers to the list would end their careers. And she was stealing their data to do it, which the AG says is a felony.
George Gascon’s Ethics and Integrity Chief is a Criminal Defendant
Attorney General Rob Bonta filed felony charges against Ethics and Integrity Assistant District Attorney Diana Teran on April 24, 2024. After what he called “an extensive investigation,” the California Department of Justice charged Teran with violating Penal Code section 502 subdivision (c)(2), alleging repeated and unauthorized use of data from police personnel files.
“No one is above the law,” he said. “Public officials are called to serve the people and the State of California with integrity and honesty. At the California Department of Justice, we will continue to fight for the people of California and hold those who break the law accountable.”
Even though Teran had accessed 1,600 records, Bonta focused on 11. He accused Diana Teran of downloading the records of 11 Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies while working as a Constitutional Policing Advisor at the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. Bonta accused her of impermissibly using those records after joining the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.
On April 27, 2024, Diana Teran turned herself in to the police. She was booked, took a mugshot, and was released after posting a $50,000 bond.
Last month, the Los Angeles Public Press brought a successful motion to unseal the arrest warrant affidavit in the case against Teran. Their motion was joined by Teran’s defense attorney, James Spertus. Judge Mary Lou Villar granted the motion and unsealed the affidavit on June 25th.
The LA Public Press article, written by Emily Elena Dugdale, was overtly critical of Bonta and the AG’s office. The article quotes Susan E. Seager, a law professor, who said, “What this unsealing reveals is that Rob Bonta doesn’t understand public court documents.” She claimed that two of the 11 deputies placed their disciplinary records in the public domain prior to the crimes. She concluded, “What a joke.”
Seager did not explain whether she believed this would be a defense in the case against Teran, nor did Teran’s lawyer, James Spertus, who is quoted at length in the article. Professor Seager also did not address the charges relating to the other nine deputies.
What’s Next?
There may be more to come. The affiant, Special Agent Tony Baca, said “I have not included each and every fact known to me concerning this investigation.” He implied that there was evidence omitted from the affidavit. “Unless specifically indicated otherwise, all conversations and statements described in this affidavit are related in substance and in part only.”
Baca described the investigation as “ongoing.” He mentioned three witnesses who may be cooperating. And crucially, he mentioned that the grand jury is permitted to use materials from his investigation.
Rumors and speculation are flying around the LADA’s office. Prosecutors speculate that Teran raised suspicions when she suggested, out of the blue, that her employees investigate certain deputies that had not been on their radar. LADA had no reason to know anything about these deputies that might put them on the Brady list. It wouldn’t take long for prosecutors to realize that Teran may be using information she had obtained illegally during her former oversight role.
An investigatory grand jury has been convened on the case. That means that the Attorney General’s office is using the grand jury’s powers to continue its investigation. The involvement of the grand jury suggests that an indictment may be coming, either against Teran or against other potential defendants.
Teran is set to be arraigned on the complaint in July. Proceedings in front of the grand jury are secret. There is no way to know if a superceding indictment will come down against Teran, or against anyone else, much less when indictments may be unsealed.
Notes
Teran is also implicated in a whistleblower lawsuit that accuses her of delaying prosecutorial decisions against deputies in high-profile incidents, potentially to influence electoral outcomes.
Proud to support @GeorgeGascon for Los Angeles County District Attorney! He is a powerful and courageous reformer who will infuse our criminal justice system with more compassion, humanity, and safety! pic.twitter.com/D8mTmC2EqS
John Lewin, cold case prosecutor and LADA critic, sent the following email to LADA management this morning. It is also posted on his public Facebook.
Your Latest Promotions
George:
As a career prosecutor with 30 years of experience who has tried an innumerable number of incredibly complex and high profile cases over my distinguished career, I wanted to make sure that you were aware of the response within the office to several of your recent promotions/transfers.
I send this knowing that you seem to rarely show up to do your actual job and appear to have a little or no interest in how your decisions impact your responsibilities in your position of what is supposed to be the chief law-enforcement officer of Los Angeles County.
As has been your modus operandi, you have made a mockery of the promotion process by promoting inexperienced sycophants over accomplished and well deserving actual prosecutors. Although this is your legal prerogative as District Attorney (for the few months that you remain in the position), the stench of incompetence, and even the appearance of outright corruption that it leaves in its wake, is beyond disturbing to contemplate.
First, you promoted several individuals who were young Grade 2s, when you came into office, whose sole qualifications for their Grade 4s appear to be that they are close friends/classmates of your equally incompetent current Chief Deputy, Joseph Iniguez (a promotion itself that has been met with justifiably relentless criticism and outright ridicule because it was so completely undeserving and so obviously politically motivated).
This promotion list and the latest administrative transfers/promotions, also demonstrate your commitment to promoting a number of ex-public defenders who have no experience and who have demonstrated a consistent level of incompetence in their new positions as “prosecutors” that has been almost breathtaking to behold.
You promoted John Perroni to Grade 4, a career public defender who his supervisor in JSID testified under oath could not competently handle his duties in JSID and needed to go to prelims or misdemeanors to learn the basics of the job.
Even worse, career public defender and recently hired DDA Greg Apt was just promoted to become the Assistant Head Deputy of JSID. This promotion occurred even though that same supervisor, the well-respected ex-Asst. Head Deputy of JSID (who you retaliatorily transferred out of the unit, who is married to a current public defender, and who along with her husband, is extremely personally close to Apt) reluctantly testified under oath that Apt too was unqualified to even be in JSID (much less lead it), and now you have made him second in command there. Is this really a defensible promotion?
Before you promoted Apt, did you consider the appearance of impropriety and favoritism from the fact that Apt just gave $1000 to your reelection campaign? I believe it’s your largest donation from any DDA in the office! When you couple that contribution with the $19,000 given to your original campaign for DA in 2020 by your inexperienced and highly under-qualified current Chief Deputy, Joseph Iniguez, it leads to the inescapable conclusion that if you give George Gascon 💰💰, you will get rewarded! Maybe that’s why ethical DAs like Jackie Lacey refused to accept campaign contributions from their employees!
This is pay to play at its finest!!
When you couple Apt’s promotion with the prior conduct and or disgusting and disparaging comments directed at police officers by ex-public defenders Blacknell and Teran (who you have also undeservedly promoted to two of the highest positions in the office), how can any law enforcement officer feel like they will have a fair evaluation of any allegation when these are two of the small number of people making the charging evaluations in these complicated cases?
Finally, I’ve been told that you don’t appreciate my emails (I guess that’s why you’ve never responded to any of them), but rest assured, I will continue to point out your disgraceful, incompetent and corrupt conduct whenever I see fit in whatever way I choose to do so! And, if you think that you can silence me by more acts of retaliation, if you haven’t figured it out by now, that is an approach that has never and will never work!!
-John Lewin
The Response
Lewin got a response from retired DDA Craig Rouvs:
It is unclear whether Lewin’s “nameless troops” will have to look very far to find something dumb that Rouvs said.
“Vagrant” is not a word that is used much today. Merriam-Webster defines it as, “one who has no established residence and wanders idly from place to place without lawful or visible means of support.” Wikipedia notes that vagrants “usually live in poverty and support themselves by begging, scavenging, petty theft, temporary work, or social security.” Historically, vagrancy was illegal. It was punished with forced labor, military service, or imprisonment. This long-standing approach was ended in the 1960s, not by police chiefs or mayors, and not by congressmen or senators, but by unelected judges. We don’t use the word “vagrant” anymore, but the definition fits “unhoused person” almost perfectly.
The judicial branch’s decision to take over homeless policy happened quietly but had a lasting negative effect. Between 1960 and 1980 justices and judges struck down laws aimed at criminalizing vagrancy. In the years since, as everyone knows, the problem exploded. New York is an obvious example:
Local governments have an interest in regulating or even prohibiting homelessness, especially the adverse health and safety effects that it caused on others. They can choose to use “carrots,” such as free housing, to get people off the streets. Or they can use “sticks,” such as vagrancy laws, to discourage the problem. Or at least they used to be able to, until the judicial branch decided to limit local choice.
Once the judicial branch had waded into this area, it showed no inclination to wade out. The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Johnson, et al., v City of Grants Pass (9th Cir. 2023) __ F.4th __, 2023 WL 4350948 is a perfect example. Grant’s Pass is a small town in Oregon. In response to it’s homeless problem it passed city ordinances banning camping in public parks and sleeping in public. Repeat violators could be prosecuted for trespass. (Id. at p. 4.) Homeless advocates sued and the Ninth Circuit decided that the Eighth Amended prohibited “the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter.” (Martin v. City of Boise (9th Cir. 2018) 902 F.3d 1031, 1048.) Did the founders, who were enthusiastically criminalizing vagrancy, intend for this result? I think the answer is so obvious that it doesn’t even need to be discussed.
Several justices, however, discussed the point in dissent.
[W]ith no mooring in the text of the Constitution, our history and traditions, or the precedent of the Supreme Court, the court has taken our national founding document and used it to enact judge-made rules governing who can sit and sleep where, rules whose ill effects are felt not merely by the States, and not merely by our cities, but block by block, building by building, doorway by doorway. Local leaders—and the people who elect them— must be allowed the latitude to address on the ground the distinctly local features of the present crisis of homelessness and lack of affordable housing. Not every challenge we face is constitutional in character. Not every problem in our country has a legal answer that judges can provide. This is one of those situations.
To understand why this matters we have to understand the current homeless crisis. The only solution our local leaders have left is to build housing and try to move people into it. Building housing is incredibly expensive. Some would say it is prohibitively expensive. There are 75,518 homeless people in Los Angeles County. It costs roughly $600,000 to build housing for one homeless person in Los Angeles. A little back-of-the-envelope math gives us the total cost to build housing for every homeless person in Los Angeles. It’s $45,310,800,000. That’s 45 billion dollars. The entire Los Angeles City budget is 11 billion dollars. If LA spent that entire budget on homelessness, and spent nothing on police, fire, parks, etc., it would take four years to save the money to build those units. But Mayor Karen Bass is only proposing to spend 1.3 billion. At that rate, it would take 34 years to save the money to build those units. Only by then, the problem would presumably only be worse. The point is: there is no way for political leaders to build their way out of the homelessness problem.
Without the ability to build enough units to house all the homeless, local leaders used to be able to discourage people from choosing to live on the street without working. These anti-vagrancy laws are off the table now, thanks to the judicial branch. Why they chose to insert themselves into these political decisions (hubris? well-intentioned overreach?) is irrelevant. The choice is no longer with us, but with judges, and that isn’t a good thing for people who want to decide these questions for themselves. If you are an idealistic young person that wants to end homelessness, voting is not enough, nor is going into politics. The only real way to work on this problem now is to become a federal judge, because these judges are really running the homelessness problem now.
Notes
Here’s the Twitter post that started me down this road:
are you new here? LA and many other cities have been sued repeatedly for civil rights violations, finding those laws unconstitutional.
DA in CA 