Every Day, prosecutors across Los Angeles County depend on law enforcement officers to prove cases against community members. Precinct reports, officer observations, and police testimony are commonly considered by judges and juries as the strongest pieces of evidence against the accused. But, not only should an officer's word be subject to the same level of scrutiny as that of the general public, growing reports of law enforcement misconduct highlight the danger of formulaically depending on officers to secure a conviction. District Attorney Jackie Lacey can stop this insidious practice of prosecuting cases that hinge upon the testimony of law enforcement officers with demonstrated histories of dishonesty, violence, and racism.

L.A. County has historically been a place where officers can act with impunity in the streets, and then lie in the courtrooms. A few years ago, the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs — a powerful union that donates the maximum amount to D.A. Lacey each time she runs for office — sued former Sheriff Jim McDonnell to stop him from sharing a list of 300 deputies with documented histories of dishonesty and other misconduct. As the California Supreme Court continues to review this case, newly-elected Sheriff Alex Villanueva has re-hired deputies previously fired for using unreasonable force and making false statements. Thus, it is no surprise that residents have little faith in those who have sworn to serve and protect. Last year, D.A. Lacey responded to outrage over her reliance on dishonest and abusive officers by instituting a disclosure policy mandating that defendants be informed of misconduct in an officer's past. But notification of wrongdoing is not enough. As District Attorney, Lacey has the power to block the influence of these officers. She can start by refusing to base prosecutions on officers who cannot be trusted.

Activist Patrisse Cullors recently shined a light on this important issue, calling on D.A. Lacey to stop building cases on unreliable law enforcement officers. Every prosecutor has a duty to seek justice. This mandate requires evaluating the credibility of all witnesses, including law enforcement. If D.A. Lacey hopes to ever become the public servant that Angelenos deserve, she must confront her office's focus on obtaining convictions at all costs and join the growing number of top prosecutors across the country using "Do Not Call" lists for untrustworthy officers.

The destructive practice of relying on racist, violent, and dishonest officers to prosecute L.A. residents must stop immediately. Tainted prosecutions lead to false convictions and make our communities less safe. Relying on the word of an officer who cannot be trusted harms both the victim and the accused, destabilizing families, and compromising the integrity of our criminal justice system. As law enforcement unions work tirelessly to cover up documented instances of lying, violence, and abuse, the time has come for D.A. Lacey to take an affirmative stance against this injustice.

We urge D.A. Lacey to immediately develop and implement a "Do Not Call" list, requiring all prosecutors in her office to decline cases that rely on statements from officers with histories of misconduct, dishonesty, racism, or bias. Her office should also reject all new cases and search warrant requests from officers on this list. Any case that involves officers named on the "Do Not Call" list will be undermined by their own misconduct, and as a result should be heavily scrutinized and subject to dismissal. Discriminatory and dishonest law enforcement practices are crippling L.A. County. Now is the time for change.

We can't wait any longer for justice.

Signed,

ACLU SoCal
Beit T'Shuvah
Bend the Arc Jewish Action
Black Lives Matter-LA
Color of Change
Community Coalition
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
Courage Campaign
Californians United for a Responsible Budget (CURB)
Democratic Socialist of America-LA Prison Abolition Committee
Dignity and Power Now
East Area Progressive Democrats
Hang out and Do Good (HODG)
Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC)
Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace (ICUJP)
Justice LA
Justice Not Jails, Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity
LA Forward
LA Voice
Smart Justice California
White People for Black Lives (WP4BL)

Learn more about the campaign to stop unreliable cops from testifying by creating a Do Not Call list.

Since 2001, the Riverside County probation department has been needlessly funneling young people struggling with grades, behavior, trauma, and mental health into the criminal justice system.

This direct line to the criminal system is the product of a partnership between local school districts and the county probation department called the Youth Accountability Team (YAT). Instead of counselors or other school and community-based supports stepping in to support and help these kids, school staff would effectively turn students over to the criminal justice system. Black and Latinx youth in particular are more likely to be referred to the criminal system through this misguided program.

Thankfully, after more than a decade of placing children on probation, this is all changing. Today, we filed a landmark settlement with the federal district court that, when approved, will end the relationship between the probation department and school districts in Riverside.

The settlement follows a lawsuit filed last year by the ACLU Foundation and the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, together with the National Center for Youth Law and the law firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, and Hampton on behalf of Sigma Beta Xi, a nonprofit servicing at-risk youth. Through the YAT program, young people without legal representation entered a term of probation believing that they were avoiding more serious consequences in juvenile court, when that was often not the case. Many of these children experienced probation supervision even though they had not committed a crime. To make matters worse, the YAT program — originally intended to help divert kids from the criminal system — utilized outdated, unhelpful approaches, and violated their rights. The probation department subjected students to onerous terms like drug testing, surprise searches of their home and person, and a lengthy list of rules and restrictions.

Many young people who participate in Sigma Beta Xi’s programs report that they expected their participation in YAT would help them access mentoring, but what they experienced was further criminalization that made it even harder to succeed in school. As one of their youth leaders who was a plaintiff on the case shared, "I know, like all kids, I make mistakes, but that doesn't mean I should be treated like a hardened criminal in school. I felt like I was thrown into a system I knew nothing about, with no guidance or support for me or my family."

As in many areas of juvenile justice, research on adolescent development shows that traditional models of juvenile probation are ineffective and even harmful to young people. Adults who have spent time with young people likely recognize what the research tells us: that youths have a hard time remembering and complying with a long list of rules, that long term consequences are often overshadowed by short term influences and incentives, and that they have a keen sense for fairness. These traits are a part of adolescent maturation and a product of healthy brain development. They also mean that young people are set up to fail when a probation department assigns them lengthy lists of rules and restrictions with zero-tolerance consequences.

Now, through the settlement, the county will no longer accept referrals for things that are not and should not be treated as crimes, such as school discipline problems and status offenses like truancy. Instead, these will be addressed through schools and community resources. The county is committing to reinvest millions of dollars in community organizations that can better address the challenges young people face.

When young people accused of a crime do have contact with the probation department, they will now face a system that respects their rights and aims to meet them where they are, providing positive support to get them back on the right track. Young people who are recommended for diversion will have an appointed defense lawyer from referral until they exit the program. The probation department will improve transparency and communication with families, and remove rules and restrictions that violated the constitutional rights of young people. Across the board, the department will now focus on providing support and incentives to help young people make the right decisions instead of focusing on compliance and escalating consequences. The probation department is also changing its policies and practices by working with experts to provide training to all officers on this new approach. To ensure the program's success and foster accountability, they will track data to evaluate its progress and impact on young people of color.

The lawsuit we filed a year ago aimed to end a program that was wrong on the law, wrong on policy, and wrong for young people. This week's settlement will not only end these practices, but provide a transformative, youth-centered framework for Riverside County to become a model in juvenile justice — not only in California, but nationwide.