California | Courts
Why It Matters
The dispute highlights the ongoing tension between local law enforcement agencies and civilian oversight bodies seeking transparency into use-of-force incidents. The outcome could set a precedent for how county counsel offices handle conflicts when representing both elected officials and sheriff departments.
What Happened
Superior Court Judge Jerrold Abeles issued a tentative ruling on Aug. 24 criticizing the Los Angeles County Counsel’s office for what he described as an “obvious conflict of interest,” according to reporting from latimes.com. The judge ordered a hearing for Sept. 17 to determine whether independent counsel should be appointed.
The legal challenge stems from a lawsuit filed in June by the L.A. County Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission against the Sheriff’s Department. The commission is seeking unredacted personnel records related to three specific use-of-force incidents. County voters approved a measure granting the commission subpoena powers six years ago, and a new state law effective Jan. 1 allows oversight bodies to review confidential personnel records in closed session.
The Sheriff’s Department declined to release the records, citing confidentiality protections and pending “meet and confer” processes with labor unions. Judge Abeles also denied motions to intervene by the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Assn.
Mira Hashmall, outside counsel for L.A. County, filed a response stating no conflict exists. “L.A. County Counsel’s client is the Board of Supervisors, and the Civilian Oversight Commission… is not authorized to act independently of the Board,” Hashmall told the Los Angeles Times.
By the Numbers
Aug. 24 — Date of Judge Abeles’ five-page tentative ruling
Sept. 17 — Date set for the order to show cause hearing
Three — Number of use-of-force incidents involved in the records dispute
February 2025 — Month the Civilian Oversight Commission issued three subpoenas
18 — Age of Andres Guardado at the time of his death
30 — Number of stitches Joseph Perez required for facial injuries
23 — Age of Emmett Brock at the time of the incident
The Incidents in Question
The records dispute centers on three cases. One involves the 2020 fatal shooting of 18-year-old Andres Guardado by a deputy; no charges were filed in that case. Another involves the 2020 beating of Joseph Perez, who required 30 stitches and staples for his injuries; deputies claimed self-defense in that incident.
The third case involves the 2023 beating of 23-year-old Emmett Brock by a Norwalk deputy following a traffic stop. The deputy involved in the Brock case pleaded guilty to a federal civil rights violation for excessive force.
Hans Johnson, commenting on the judge’s criticism, told the Los Angeles Times, “It is striking that the judge says you need to come answer in court for this deplorable conduct.”
Zoom Out
This case reflects a broader national pattern of scrutiny regarding police accountability and access to disciplinary records. In March, a California appellate court ordered the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office to comply with an oversight entity subpoena, signaling judicial support for transparency measures in other jurisdictions.
The conflict underscores the legal complexities introduced by recent state legislation designed to balance officer privacy rights with public oversight mandates. Similar disputes have arisen across multiple states as civilian review boards attempt to enforce newly expanded investigative powers.
What’s Next
Judge Abeles will hold a hearing on Sept. 17 to decide whether County Counsel has a conflict of interest that requires the appointment of independent legal representation. The ruling could impact how future oversight investigations are handled in Los Angeles and potentially influence similar cases statewide.