Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver

California's premier full-service law firm with an emphasis on the representation of peace officers in disciplinary, criminal, labor, workers' compensation, personal injury and other civil matters.

  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer

Defining “Hate”: AB 655 and Police Reform

June 14, 2021 by Hien Nguyen

By: Brian P. Ross

AB 655, otherwise known as the California Law Enforcement Accountability Reform, or CLEAR Act, is currently wending its way through the California State Legislature. The Act is an attempt to prohibit peace officers in the State from being members of hate groups or from making public expressions of hate. To no one’s surprise, in today’s current political environment, this proposed legislation has provoked widespread comment and analysis, some helpful and some hyperbolic. After all, how can anyone possibly oppose prohibiting members of hate groups from becoming peace officers?

But regardless of whether you agree with the aims of the legislation or not, police unions and their members must be prepared to ensure that their freedoms and rights are protected. Even if the aim of the legislation is noble, the devil is—as always—in the details; and it is those details that may harm officers across the State even if they aren’t secret members of the KKK.

Setting aside for a moment the First Amendment concerns, which are substantial, the first problem with this law is the wording itself and, in particular, its vagueness. What exactly is a “hate group” anyways? It is first important to note that the law has been amended significantly after it was first proposed and received substantial pushback. Before, the law defined a “hate group” in part as an organization that supports or advocates for the “denial of constitutional rights” of “any group of persons based upon race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.” Not surprisingly, this definition raised serious concerns about its breadth, as it could arguably apply to membership in organized religion or even the Republican Party. The definition was thereafter substantially narrowed such that now, a hate group is one that supports, advocates for, threatens, or practices “genocide of, or violence towards” any of the above groups.

Problem solved? Unfortunately, perhaps not. One of the fundamental principles of law is that punitive statutes cannot be so vague that someone subject to its strictures would not know what is required or prohibited by the law. As the California Supreme Court stated over sixty years ago in Morrison v. State Board of Education:

Civil as well as criminal statutes must be sufficiently clear as to give a fair warning of the conduct prohibited, and they must provide a standard or guide against which conduct can be uniformly judged by courts and administrative agencies. [Citations.] The knowledge that he has erred is of little value to the teacher when gained only upon the imposition of a disciplinary penalty that jeopardizes or eliminates his livelihood.

The Supreme Court later noted in Cranston v. City of Richmond that imposing discipline based on vague rules of conduct may violate due process and that the requirement for explicit standards is important to avoid arbitrary enforcement of those rules and regulations.

AB 655 suffers from significant vagueness such that imposing discipline based on the statute could be a violation of due process. For example, look at the definition of “genocide.” We usually have a pretty concrete idea of what that word means. But AB 655, as currently referenced, defines “genocide” in part as “causing… mental harm to members” of a group “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.” This is pretty far afield from how most of us see “genocide.” But even beyond that, the definition is remarkably vague: what is mental harm? How do we define it? How would we establish an intent to destroy in part a group?

Similar problems plague how to define someone as being a “member” of a hate group. AB 655 defines “[m]embership in a hate group” as

being, or holding oneself out as, an official member of a group, and can be indicated by actions or evidence including, without limitation, submitting an application for membership in a group, being listed on an official group membership roster, or publicly wearing or otherwise displaying any tattoo, uniform, insignia, flag, or logo that is reserved for members of the group.

Would liking a Facebook post from a possible hate group qualify? Or attending a rally in which members of a hate group also attend?

These concerns are entirely separate from the more controversial and thorny issue of whether a police officer should have a First Amendment right to membership in a possible hate group. But they are significant concerns that must be addressed. And what about efforts by law enforcement agencies to expand the scope of existing “conduct unbecoming” rules and regulations to justify terminating officers for political and group affiliations that were not unlawful or previously known to the employing law enforcement agency? Many agencies are proposing policies which present similar and, in some cases, more serious legal challenges than AB 655. Until these concerns are addressed, officers in this state will be put under further pressure, being now forced to evaluate their political and group affiliations to ensure compliance with a vague law or overbroad employer policies that may not even pass Constitutional muster.

Brian P. Ross is a senior associate in the Litigation and Collective Bargaining practice groups at Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC. Brian’s focus is on general litigation, writs of mandate, and general labor and employment legal issues, with focuses on the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Acts, and various pension laws affecting public employees.

Disclaimer: Case law and analysis can change over time. The information in this article is accurate as of the date the article was written and should not constitute legal advice. Always consult with an attorney.

Filed Under: Bulletins Tagged With: AB 655, brian ross, Police Reform

Consultation Form

Offices across California to serve you.
Contact us now to schedule a consultation.
Contact form not loading? Click here!
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC publishes this website as a service to our clients and other friends for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice or opinions, and the transmission of information through this website is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between sender and receiver. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

© 2023 Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC. All Rights Reserved. | Disclaimer

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
Do not sell my personal information.
Cookie settingsACCEPTREJECT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT
  • Contact Us

  • News Alerts

Official logo for Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver Logo
  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    ▼
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      ▼
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    ▼
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    ▼
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
Hotline phone numbers. Northern California: 925-609-1699. Southern California: 310-393-1486.