Skip to content

Judicial Watch • Complaint – Conformed Copy

Complaint – Conformed Copy

Complaint – Conformed Copy

Page 1: Complaint – Conformed Copy

Category:

Number of Pages:20

Date Created:May 8, 2012

Date Uploaded to the Library:April 29, 2014

Tags:Driving, doctrine, IMPOUND, Commissioners, driver, license, vehicle, police, Special, angeles, defendants, order, California, defendant, plaintiff, board, Supreme Court


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

2540 Huntington Drive, Suite 201 Marino, 91108  
Tel.: Fax:  (626) 287-4540 (626) 237-2003  
Attorneys for Plaintiff  
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE CALIFORNIA  
COUNTY LOS ANGELES  

10. HAROLD STURGEON, 
Plaintiff, 	THE CITY LOS ANGELES, municipal corporation; RlCHARD DROOY AN, 	his official capacity President the Los
Board Police Commissioners; MACK, his official capacity 
Vice President the Los Angeles Board 	Police Commissioners; ROBERT
SALTZMAN, in.ms official capacity member the Los Angeles Board Police
Conuuissiouers; ALAN SKOBlN, his 	official capacity member the Los  Angeles Board Police Commissioners; and 	DEBRA WONG YANG, her official
capacity member the Board Police Con:unissioners; and CHARLIE BECK, his official capacity Chief Police the Los 	Angeles Police Department, and Defendants. 
BC484190
Case No. 
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJ1JNCTIVE RELIEF 
Assigned to: 
Complaint fot Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 	Pago 
INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, taxpayer and resident the City Los Angeles, seeks enjoin Defendants 
from expending taxpayer funds taxpayer-financed resources implement, enforce, maintain, 
otherwise carry out the provisions Special Order which was issued the Los Angeles Police Department ("LA.PD") April 10, 2012 and which became effective April 22, 2012. Plaintiff also 
seeks declaratory judgment that Special Order preempted article XI, section the California 
Constitution and California Vehicle Code  21, and therefore unlaw:fhl and void. 
JURISDICTION AND VENUE Jurisdiction this case found under California Code Civil Procedure  526(a), 
which provides follows: action obtain judgment, restraining and preventing any illegal expenditure of, waste of, injury to, the estate, funds, other property county, town, city city and county the state, may maintained against any officer thereof, any agent, other person, acting its behalf, either citizen resident therein, corporation, who assessed for and liable pay, or, v-rithin one year before the commencement the action, has paid, tax therein. Blair Pitchess, Cal.3d 258, 267-68, Cal. Rptr. 42, 48-49 (1971), the Supreme 
Court California stated that "(t]he primary purpose this statute [Section 526a], originally enacted 1909, 'enable large body the citizenry challenge goverrunental action which would otherwise unchallenged the courts because ofthe standing requirement' [citations omitted]." Blair, Cal.3d 268, Cal. Rptr. 49, the Supreme Court California also  declared that ''the mere expending [of] the time the paid police officers the city Los Angeles  performing illegal and unauthorized acts constitute[s] unlawful use funds which could enjoined  under section 526a." The Court also declared that "it immaterial that the amount the illegal  expenditures small that the illegal procedures actually permit savings tax funds."  Id.  
Complaint for Peclautory and lnjunctiv!' Relief  Page  

PARTIES Plaintiff Harold Sturgeon resident and taxpayer the City Los Angeles. 
Plaintiff has paid taxes the City Los Angeles the one-year period prior commencement this 
action Defendant City Los Angeles municipal corporation organized and existing under 
the laws the State California. Defendant Richard Drooyan the President the Los Angeles Board Police Commissioners ("Board Commissioners"). Defendant Drooyan being sued his official capacity. Defendant John Mack the Vice President the Board Commissioners. Defendant 
Mack being sued his official capacity. Defendant Robert Saltzman member the Board Commissioners. Defendant Saltzman being sued his official capacity. 
10. Defendant Alan Skobin member the Board Police Conunissioners. Defendant 
Skobin being sued hi.s offidal capacity. 
11. Defendant Debra Wong Yang member the Board Police Commissioners. Defendant Yang being sued her official capacity. 
12. Defendant Charlie Beck the Chief Police the LAPD. Defendant Beck being 
sued his official capacity. 
STATEMENT FACTS 13. The Charter Defendant City Los Angeles establishes the LAPD "enforce the 
penal provisions the Charter, City ordinances and state and federal law" and specifies that "members the department shall have the powers and duties peace officers defined state Jaw." These 
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctivo Roliof Page ,..-----. 
powers and duties include enforcement the California Vehicle Code and enactments respecting the 
regulation and control motor vehicles the City Los Angeles. 
14. Under the Charter Defendant City Los Angeles, the head the LAPD the Board Commissioners, which has "the power make and enforce all rules and regulations necessary for the 
exercise the powers conferred upon the department the Charter." 
15. Also under the Charter Defendant City Los Angeles, the chief administrative officer 
ofthe LAPD the Chief Police, who manages the daily operations the LAPD and implements the policies, policy directions, and goals the Board Commissioners. 
16. about April 10, 2012, Defendant Beck issued Special Order entitled the 
"Community Caretaking Doctrine and Vehicle Impound Procedures -Established." Special Order 
purports regulate the impounding vehicles the City ofLos Angeles "establish(ing) the procedures for impounding vehicles from unlicensed drivers, and drivers with suspended revoked 
licenses the field, the scene oftraffic collisions and driving under the influence (Dill) 
checkpoints." 
17. Special Order had been approved the Board Conunissioners about February 28, 2012 and became effec.tive April 22, 2012. true and correct c.opy Special Order attached 
hereto Exhibit and incorporated herein reference. 
18. infonnation and belief, Defendant City Los Angeles, and through the LAPD and 
Defendants Drooyan, Mack, Saltzman, Skobin, Yang, and Beck, has expended substantial taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources enacting Special Order and will continue expend substantial taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources implement, enforce, maintain, and otherwise carry out 
the provisions Special Order this regard, LAPD officers are instructed general fashion all 
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Page 
,r-- LAPD policies, practices, and procedures, including Special Order and. are required maintain and 
enforce all LAPD policies, practices, and procedures, including Special Order 
19. Prior the issuance Special Order the State California had enacted complex, 

comprehensive statutory scheme governing the impounding vehicles, which has been incorporated into the California Vehicle Code. Relevant provisions the California Vehicle Code governing the 
impounding vehicles include California Vehicle Code 22651, 22