California Supreme Court Strikes Down Penal Code Section 148.6 Provisions Penalizing False Misconduct Complaints Against Peace Officers As Unconstitutional

• Published date: 25 November 2025
• Subject Matter: Government, Public Sector, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Real Estate and Construction, Constitutional & Administrative Law, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Real Estate
• Law Firm: Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
• Author: Ms Mona G. Ebrahimi, Jeffrey A. Mitchell and Alexander Hastings

For nearly 20 years, California law has criminalized the act of knowingly filing a false complaint against a peace officer and required that agencies provide a written notice advising complainants that making a false complaint may result in criminal prosecution. Specifically, the statute requires law enforcement agencies to print the following text in all capital letters and boldface type above the signature line of a complaint form:

IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO MAKE A COMPLAINT THAT YOU KNOW TO BE FALSE. IF YOU MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST AN OFFICER KNOWING THAT IT IS FALSE, YOU CAN BE PROSECUTED ON A MISDEMEANOR CHARGE.

The California Supreme Court recently published a landmark decision in Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles (Nov. 10, 2025) __ Cal.5th __ [2025 Cal. LEXIS 7261] (LAPPL) addressing the constitutionality of requiring a complainant to read this admonishment and sign an acknowledgement that the act of knowingly filing a false complaint alleging misconduct by a peace officer constitutes a misdemeanor criminal offense. The Supreme Court found that these requirements, in concert, are an impermissible restriction on the free speech rights of complainants reporting police misconduct.

As of this decision, the criminal penalty for filing a false complaint of misconduct against a peace officer has been struck down, law enforcement agencies may not include the above language on complaint forms, nor may complainants be required to sign an acknowledgement under penalty of criminal prosecution.

Discussion

The California Supreme Court previously decided on this issue in the landmark 2002 case, People v. Stanistreet (29 Cal.4th 497) (Stanistreet). In Stanistreet, the Supreme Court ruled that Penal Code section 148.6(a)'s requirements do not violate the First Amendment. However, since 2002, federal district courts have routinely held that section 148.6(a) does, in fact, violate the First Amendment as a content based restriction. (See, e.g., Chaker v. Crogan (9th Cir. 2005) 428 F.3d 1215; Hamilton v. City of San Bernardino (C.D. Cal. 2004) 325 F.Supp.2d 1087; Eakins v. Nevada (D. Nev. 2002) 219 F.Supp.2d 1113 [striking down a similar Nevada state statute].)

In light of these decisions, in 2011 the City of Los Angeles entered into a consent decree that barred the City from requiring individuals complaining of police misconduct to acknowledge and sign the section 148.6(a) advisory. Even though the consent decree expired in 2013, the City...