As we are all aware, the City of Los Angeles recently honored the memory of Officer Tommy Edward Scott with a memorial and street dedication ceremony.  Although no one can minimize the efforts Los Angeles Airport Police Officers Association played in making this ceremony possible, a couple people have tried.  

               Recently, LAAPOA was forced to take legal action against the City of Los Angeles, former Director James Butts, and Chief of Police George Centeno.  Two weeks before the ceremony was to take place, the aforementioned individuals issued a directive addressed to LAAPOA President Marshall McClain forbidding all LAAPOA members from having any communication of any kind with city officials about the planning of the event.  The directive made no distinction between off-duty contact or on-duty contact, and allowed for no exceptions.  After several years of lobbying, planning and scheduling, LAAPOA was essentially cut out from the loop.  This was especially disastrous as several last minute preparations were still required.  

               Left with no recourse, LAAPOA instituted legal proceedings against the aforementioned individuals, claiming that the directive issued to all LAAPOA members was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.  LAAPOA claimed that the directive violated their rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  In response, the defendants attempted to have the case thrown out of court stating that their actions were proper and legitimate.  

               Recently, the federal court issued an opinion denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss while at the same time all but concluding that the First Amendment rights of all LAAPOA members were violated.  The Court stated that the directive issued by the defendants appears to be overbroad and that “the expansive language of the restriction in the Memorandum prevents LAAPOA members from voicing concerns to City officials that the memorial was being planned inefficiently or unsafely or that the City was wastefully spending funds in coordinating the event.”  

               In addition, the Court found that although “[d]efendants undoubtedly have an interest in efficiently planning the memorial in a manner that would promote public safety and avoid risks of liability to the City, Plaintiffs also have a strong and viable interest in being able to communicate their concerns and interests regarding a street dedication being planned to commemorate the life of one of their members who was killed in the line of duty.  Although all of the facts surrounding the planning of the memorial are not presently before the Court on this Motion to Dismiss, because the Memorandum broadly prohibits communications of LAAPOA members with City officials regarding the planning of the event, it appears as though the Memorandum's restriction strikes an improper balance, favoring Defendants' interests too heavily over Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights.”  On that basis, the Court issued a striking blow to the defendants’ case and denied its motion to dismiss.  

               After the Court’s opinion was issued, LAAPOA has been actively engaged in conversations with the City to resolve the lawsuit.  LAAPOA’s goal throughout this process has been to educate the City in dealing with the rights of LAAPOA members and to effectively protect and enforce those rights.  When important rights are violated, such as one’s First Amendment rights, it is comforting to know that the LAAPOA Board of Directors is quick to act.