In Chaker v. Crogan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit declared that section 148.6 of the California is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment. That statute provides that anyone who knowingly makes a false complaint against a peace officer is guilty of a misdemeanor. The 9th Circuit struck down this statute on the ground that it criminalizes false complaints against police officers, while does not provide similar sanctions against cops and / or third-party witnesses who make knowingly false statements in the course of investigaiton of a police misconduct complaint:
"Only knowingly false speech critical of peace officer conduct is subject to prosecution under section 148.6. Knowingly false speech supportive of peace officer conduct is not similarly subject or prosecution. California has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other follow Marquis of Queensburry rules."
The opinion is clear and straightforward. Making knowingly false statements in a course of a police misconduct investigation should be a crime no matter who makes the offending statement.
As a side note, this habeas case could have been derailed by a statute of limitations problem I described earlier in this post regarding U.S. Supreme Court decision in Mayle v. Felix. Fortunately for the petitioner, he had competent counsel (Walter K. Pyle of Berkeley, California and ACLU (as amicus curiae) who was able to file an amended habeas petition that properly related to the original timely petition under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(c)(2) (the original petition did not have the First Amendment claim). The fact that the AG blew the issue did not hurt either.