Oversight chair accuses LA deputies' union of trying to intimidate commission

Los Angeles County Civilian Oversight Commission Chair Hans Johnson accused the union representing county deputy sheriffs of attempting to "harass and intimidate" the commission after it asked California Attorney General Rob Bonta to investigate the commission's subpoena enforcement lawsuit against the Sheriff's Department.

In a July 1 letter to Bonta, Johnson urged the attorney general to summarily reject the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs' request for an investigation, calling the union's allegations of Brown Act violations and unauthorized litigation "false and unsupported." He argued the union is improperly trying to use the attorney general's office to interfere with a legal dispute already pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The exchange marks the latest escalation in a months-long conflict over the commission's efforts to enforce subpoenas seeking confidential Sheriff's Department records related to three deputy use-of-force incidents. After county counsel declined to pursue enforcement, the commission retained pro bono outside counsel and filed a petition on June 22 asking the court to compel the department to comply. Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (L.A. Super. Ct., filed June 15, 2026).

That same day, ALADS sent its own letter to Bonta requesting an investigation into whether the commission and Johnson violated the Brown Act, improperly retained outside counsel and exceeded their legal authority by filing the lawsuit. The union also asked the attorney general to seek dismissal of the litigation and pursue civil or criminal remedies if violations are found.

Johnson responded that the allegations are "baseless and calculated to intimidate the Commission." He wrote that ALADS "has not presented a shred of evidence" of any Brown Act violations and said the commission was forced to retain independent pro bono counsel because County Counsel had an irreconcilable conflict of interest.

He further argued that the lawsuit was authorized multiple times in public meetings, citing unanimous commission actions on March 20, 2025, Jan. 22, 2026, and April 16, 2026, empowering the chair to pursue enforcement and obtain independent counsel if necessary.

"The assertion by ALADS that there is 'significant doubt' whether the subpoena enforcement action was authorized by the full Commission does not pass the laugh test," Johnson wrote.

ALADS' June 22 letter paints a sharply different picture. The union contends there is "significant doubt" the commission ever publicly voted to authorize either the lawsuit or the retention of outside counsel, raising questions about whether Johnson exceeded his authority and whether commissioners violated California's open meetings law through serial communications or other procedural failures.

Speaking in a phone interview on Wednesday, Johnson said the union's tactics should concern county residents beyond the immediate legal fight.

"If an oversight commission vested with authority under county law and state law is subjected to this kind of harassment and intimidation for doing our job, imagine what ordinary people face in the effort to gain some transparency and accountability from local law enforcement," he said.

Former commission chair Sean Kennedy, now serving as pro bono counsel in the subpoena litigation, said the commission publicly authorized enforcement efforts "three different times over the past year and a half" and argued that meaningful civilian oversight depends on the ability to enforce subpoenas.

Retired federal Judge Robert Bonner, another pro bono attorney representing the commission, said ALADS' allegations are "baseless and without foundation" and argued the timing of the union's letter was deliberate.

"It's no coincidence" ALADS sent its request to Bonta on the same day the commission filed its enforcement action, Bonner said. "They did it, in my opinion, to retaliate against the commission for having the audacity to enforce its subpoenas."

The Sheriff's Department said in an emailed statement on Wednesday that it "embraces oversight, transparency, and accountability" but maintains it must first satisfy legal obligations, including meeting and conferring with labor organizations over the implementation of laws governing confidential personnel records.

The dispute is expected to remain in the spotlight Thursday, when the commission is scheduled to discuss both ALADS' letter and Johnson's response and consider a resolution reaffirming its subpoena enforcement action.