michellawyers.commichellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Rep...Web viewmichellawyers.com
MAR 222012 - michellawyers.commichellawyers.com/wp-content/...Request-for-Judicial-Notice.pdf ·...
122
CONFORMED COpy OF ORIGINAL FILED los Angeles SUperior Court MAR 222012 12 13 14 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CENTRAL DISTRICT 15 ANTHONY MARIO ASSENZA, et aI., 16 Plaintiffs and Petitioners, 17 vs. 18 THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et aI., 19 Defendants and Respondents. ) ) CASE NO. BC115813 ) PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL ) NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' ) MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ) RE CONTEMPT ) ) ) Hearing Date: Time: April 23,2012 8:45 a.m. ---------------------------) Dept. No.: 14 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Transcript of MAR 222012 - michellawyers.commichellawyers.com/wp-content/...Request-for-Judicial-Notice.pdf ·...
CONFORMED COpy OF ORIGINAL FILED
los Angeles SUperior Court
MAR 222012
12
13
14
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CENTRAL DISTRICT
15 ANTHONY MARIO ASSENZA, et aI.,
16 Plaintiffs and Petitioners,
17 vs.
18 THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et aI.,
19 Defendants and Respondents.
) )
CASE NO. BC115813
) PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL ) NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' ) MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ) RE CONTEMPT ) ) )
Hearing Date: Time:
April 23,2012 8:45 a.m.
---------------------------) Dept. No.: 14 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
1 TO THIS COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 In support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Order to Show Cause Re Contempt, and pursuant to
3 Evidence Code sections 452 and 453, Plaintiffs request the Court take judicial notice of the
4 following court records:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Judgment of Declaratory Relief (Pursuant to the Stipulation), filed March 14, 1995,
in Lake, et ai., v. City of San Fernando, et ai., Case No. PC008329. A true and
accurate copy is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, filed March 21, 1995, in Assenza, et ai. v. The
City of Los Angeles, et ai., Case No. BCI15813. A true and accurate copy is
attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
Judgment of Declaratory Relief, filed March 30, 1995, in Assenza, et al., v. The
City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No BCI15813. A true and accurate copy is
attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
Order to Show Cause Re Contempt, filed July 29, 1998, in Assenza, et ai., v. The
City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. BC11581. A true and accurate copy is
attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
Third Amended Judgment of Declaratory Relief, filed June 11, 2010, in Assenza, et
ai" v. The City of Los Angeles, et ai., Case No BC115813. A true and accurate
copy is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
Order on Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Judgment, filed July 6,2011, in Assenza, et
ai., v. The City of Los Angeles, et ai., Case No. BC 115813. A true and accurate
copy is attached hereto as Exhibit 6.
Transcript of Hearing of June 9, 2011 Motion to Enforce Judgment, in Assenza, et
ai., v. The City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. BC 115813. A true and accurate
copy is attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
Declaration of Captain William A. Murphy, filed September 7, 2011, in Assenza, et
ai., v. The City of Los Angeles, et ai., Case No. BCI15813. A true and accurate
copy is attached hereto as Exhibit 8.
2 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9.
10.
Transcript of Deposition of Detective Richard Tompkins, Volume 2, taken
February 7,2012, in Davis, et al., v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No.
BS 131915. A true and accurate copy is attached hereto as Exhibit 9.
Transcript of Hearing of June 26, 1998 Order to Show Cause Re Contempt, in
Assenza, et al., v. The City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. BC 115813. A true and
accurate copy is attached hereto as Exhibit 10.
Dated: March 22,2012 MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.c.
ichel a R. Dale
rneys for Plaintiffs
3 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
EXHIBIT 1
1
2
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CA 146
TM~~AT MaMT. IN~T.
ORIGINAL FILED MAR 14"
SUPERIOR COURT
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS AN'CELES
PETER A. LAK~E ROBERT OKLUSKI, ANTHONY IMBRO ONE, CHARLES SINGER, NEIL DUGAN, IANE ADAIR, BRIAN COOLEY, 0. ~ WATKINS, JAMES E. HILDEBRAND, ~OGER BROWN, DONALD A. NIELSEN, CONG~ESS OF RACIAL EQUALITY and rECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, I
v.
P11intiffs/petitioners,
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) i )
CITY OF SAN F.ERNANDO, CITY OF SAN ) FERNANDO POL~CE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF ) DOMINICK J. IVETTI, CITY OF LOS ) ANGELES, CIT~I OF LOS ANGELES, CITY) OF LOS ANGEL~S POLICB DEPARTMENT, ) CHIEF WILLIE,~ILLIAMS' STANLEY K. ) SHEINBAUM, J SSE A. BREWER, ANTHONY) DE LOS REYES, ANN REISS LANE, ) MICHAEL R. Y~AKI and COMMANDER ) FRANK E. PIE~SOL, )
I ) De~endants/Respondents. )
, )
CASE NO. PC 008329
JUDGMENT OF DECLARATORY RELIEF (Pursuant to Stipulation)
Pur;suant to the stipulation for Judgment of Declaratory I
Relief filed lin this matter, and good cause-appearing therefore, I
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CA 1410
parties to
I I
i IT ~S
I
this I
I I
r-,...,-::.c::
ORDERED that the rights and obligations of the
action are declared as follows:
A. I Defendants Affected.
The1defendants described in the complaint as the "Los
Angeles defen~antsll were: the CITY OF LOS ANGELESi the CITY OF LOS
ANGELES POLICj· DEPARTMENT (hereinafter "LAPD"), WILLIE L. WILLIAMS,
CAPTAIN G.E. 'RNELAS and various members of the LAPD's Board of i
Police Commis,ioners. I I
!
B. jIntroduction.
Thi~ action challenging LAPD's procedure, rules and
practices for!iSSUing licenses to carry concealed firearms pursuant I
to Pen. C. Se~tion 12050 ff. was filed September 24, 1992. Some of
the plaintiff~ sought to be issued licenses and they and the other I
plaintiffs sued as taxpayers and citizens. The Los Angel es,
defendants reieived an open extension to answer and entered into
highly complet settlement negotiations which have continued to this I I I time. I
c. i Admission. , i
TheiLos Angeles defendants admit that certain rules, l
policies, pra¢tices and procedures, and certain features of the I
Board Policy $tatement cited in the complaint, were not in I I
compliance with section 12050 ff. Those former rules, policies,
practices and! procedures have been altered. The Policy Statement
itself has be~n repealed and will be replaced by the provisions of
items E and F of this judgment, provided that the Los Angeles
2
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
i ,
defendants re~erve the right to add further specifications to their
rules, regulahiOns and guidelines, so long as such amendments are ,
not inconsistbnt with the provisions of this judgment. I
D. Plaintiff's Licenses.
The
t' allegations of the complaint showed good cause as to
all of the pI intiffs who sought to be issued licenses. During the
negotiation p riod the plaintiffs have had licenses issued to them
and those who~e license have come up for renewal have ~een renewed.
For purposes ~f this judgment the following persons are deemed
plaintiffs: ~ANUEL FERNANDEZ, PETER A. LAKE, ROBERT OKLUSKI,
ANTHONY IMBROrONE, CHARLES SINGER, NEIL DUGAN, DIANE ADAIR, BRIAN I
COOLEY, O. RA~ WATKINS, JAMES E. HILDEBRAND, ROGER BROWN, DONALD A. I
NIELSEN, STEPtEN J. HERZBERG, DOUGLAS RAY HICKMAN, ARTHUR SEYMOUR
GIFFORD, JAME HARFF, JON KODANI, GREG JARRETT and LAWRENCE
JACOBSON. Th se named plaintiffs will receive license, and prior to t
expiration up~n timely reapplication their license will be renewed
for a one yea~ term, but only so long as they continues to have good
cause, good craracter, not to be barred by law from the ownership of i
concealable f~rearms, and to meet each of the other requirements of I
licensure undf3'· Section 12050 ff. I i
E. The policy LAPD has adopted is that good cause exists i
24 if there is cpnvincing evidence of a clear and present danger to ,
25 life or of gr~at bodily to the applicant, his (or her) spouse, or , i
26 dependent. chi'ld, which cannot be adequately dealt with by existing
27
28
CA 141>
! law enforcement resources, and which danger cannot be reasonably
I avoided by atternative measures, and which danger would be
I
3
, 0::11" Z"II" l. ::1::10 1 Z: ::10 TM~~AT M~MT. IN~T.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
lS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
CA 141>
significantly mitigated by the applicant's carrying of a concealed
firearm.
F. I The
provided for hhe following further rules and guidelines are
interpretation and implementation of Item E: i
INTRODUCTORY
The departmsnt recognizes that Pen. C. I
section 12050 requires the issuance of licen~es
to persons of good character who have good cause I
to rarry a concealed firearm for the defense of
therselves or others or in pursuing their
livblihood. These guidelines are designed to
imp~ement that requirement.
I Good cause is more likely to be found if
the! appl icant has a demonstrated record of !
resfonsible handling of firearms as indicated by ,
vol~ntarily having taken firearms training
dl 1 . . t' . h h t' an (or ong-term partlclpa lon in t e S 00 lng
spo~ts. While lack of such a demonstrated I
rec~rd is not a disqualification if the I
app~icant is otherwise qualified to use a I I
fir~arm properly, licenses will not issue if i I
th~re is substantial, articulable reason to
be1iieve that issuance would be contrary to i
pu81ic safety or if the applicant does not have I
godd character. Among other criteria to be I I
4
.2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CA 146
con~idered are: the applicant's record and
hiS~Ory in accidents' with firearms, automobiles
or pther dangerous instrumentalities; and I
ass~ciation with persons having a criminal
rec~rd or who are reliably known to lack good
character. The expression of dangerous or
ir1"sponSible attitudes, or threats, toward or
reqerding the us~ of firearms or other dangerous
insrrumentalities shall be grounds for deni:i or
relocation of a license.
r
I CRITERIA fQR LICENSURE ! i 1. Training. The license, if approved,
Sh~ll not'become effective until the applicant
haJ furnished proof to the department that he or
ShJ has successfully completed the course of I
tr~ining in the carrying and use of firearms
esJablished pursuant to Section 7547.1 of the
ca~ifornia Business and Professions Code or ~orne' I I
otJer appropriate course which included the
fOllowing subjects of training: knowledge of
ca~ifornia laws regarding weapons and deadly I
foice usei safe handling, carriage, use and i st9rage of concealable firearms; and competency
Wi~h the types of firearms to be listed on the !
lidense.
5
2
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CA 146
2. Good Cause. Good cause shall be deemed
to ~xist, and a license will issue in the
abstnce of strong countervailing factors, upon a
Shot' ing of any of the following circumstances:
a) The applicant is able to establish that
the~e is an immediate or continuing threat,
express or implied, to the applicant's, or the i
apPficant's family's, safety and that no other
reakonable means exist which would suffice t~· i I
neutralize that threat. b) The applicant is
emp~Oyed in the field of security, has all I
I
reqpisite licenses, is employed by a security
firr having all requisite licenses, and provides
sat~sfactory proof that his or her work is of I
suc~ a nature that it requires the carrying of a
conbealed weapon. c) The applicant has !
obtiined, or is a person included within the
protections of, a court order which establishes
tha~ the applicant 1s the on-going victim of a
thr~at or physical violence or otherwise meets I
thel criteria set forti"! in Pen. c. section i I I
_120~5.5. d) The applicant establishes that I I
cirtumstances exist requiring him or her to I !
tra~sport in public significant amounts of I
va10able property which it is impractical or I
imp~acticable to entrust to the protection of I
arm~red car services or equivalent services for i
saf~ transportation of valuables.- e) The
I I
6
rAOC: OT
_____ L...- .... -.::._ .....
1
2
3
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2B
CA 146
app~icant establishes that he or she is subject
to r particular and unusual danger of physical
attpck and that no reasonable means are
ava~lable to abate that threat.
I I
3. Favorable Factors. Among facts upon
whi~h the department will, in the exercise of I I
its discretion, rook favorably in considering ').,
ications are whether: a) the applicant has
monstrated record of responsible handling of
arms; b) the applicant has a commitment to
safr and responsible handling of firearms as
shorn by having voluntarily taken firearms
tra~ningi c) the applicant has a record of good
cit~zenship in general as evidenced, for
insFunce, by service to the community through
such activities as creditable service in the
arm~d forces, inCluding the National Guard and
sta~e militia or in the police reserves, or o~
act~ve participation in charitable or public !
ser~ice organizations or activities or in
polli tical affairs; d) the appl icant is
tru~tworthY and responsible as evidenced, for
ins~ance, by employment history, positions held
in riViC, political, religious or secular
ac~ievements or record of personal i
aC90mPlishmeht in othar areas of endeavor; e)
th~t the applicant suffers under ~ disability or
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CA 146
I
I
PhY~iCal handicap, including age or obesity,
whi~h hinders the applicant's ability to retreat
frok an attacker.
I I 4. Unfavorable Factors: Factors which
Wil~ bear
apPFar to
app~icant I !
emoitional I
add)iction
app~icant
accJidents
danf;1erous I
negatively on issuance (unless they
be in the remote past) are: a) the
has a rong-term history of mental or
instability, alcoholism, drug use ar
to controlled substances; b) the
has a history of fault in serious
with firearms, automobiles or other
instrumentalitiesj c) the applicant
has! had a permit to own or carry a concealed
wea~on denied, suspended or revoked for good I
caube by any issuing authority; d} the
appllicant has had a driver's license denied, I
sus~ended or revoked for good cause by any I
issfing authority; e) the applicant has a long-
te9F record of irresponsible and dangerous
beh~vior with automObiles as indicated by !
nU1Frous convictions of serious driving
off~nses; f) the applicant has a long"term i
his/ory of conduct from which it appears that
or ~he is not now of good moral character,
tru~tworthY or responsible. While none of the I
fO~egoing disqualify an applicant =p=e~r-=s=e, a
li1ense will be denied if it appe~rs, in the
8
he
1
2
3
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
111
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
C.l 146
dis~retion of the department, that the applicant !
doeb not now have good character or that
isst~nce of a license to him/her is not
Con ~stent with public safety.
I I 5. Presumption. Absent good cause for
denral, persons having good cause as defined in
par~graPh 2 shalt be issu~d licenses for the
maximum time period allowed by section 12050~·
andi their licenses shall be renewed so long as
the~ continue to have good cause. No license
Sha~l issue if the applicant is prohibited by
la~ from possessing or acquiring firearms, or
con~ealable firearms, or is below the age of 21
yea~s. I I
I I
PROCEDURAL MATTERS i
I 6. Divulgence of Information. All
app!licants shall receive a copy of these I ,
gUirelines along with the application form.
7. Evidence. Declarations under penalty
of berjury suffice as evidence of facts showing I
goo~ cause, provided that the Department is not
I •
re~lred to accept the allegations in a I
dedlaration if it has credible counter-evidence I
I or if inds the declarant not credible. The
I
I applicant will be required to furnish proof of
I I I
9
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CA 14b
I
I hisl'or her medical and psychological fitness in
a m nner to be prescribed by the department.
Thi shall include certification of the
app icant's eyesight to meet the standards
est blished by the California Depart~ent of
Mot r vehicles for issuance of driver's license
(sh wn by pos~ession of a current California
dri er's 1icense)-. As proof of good character I
theiapPlicant shall present at least two
statements from responsible persons attesting
the eto. The applicant may present additional I
evi~ence to prove good character,
tru~tworthiness and responsibility or to
neg~tive the converse. I I
I I I 8. Celerity. License applications shall
be ~pproved or rejected within 50 days of the
app~ication being submitted: provided, that if
thel applicant has not been cleared (shown to be
in b "Not Prohibited" firearms status) I or
rejbcted (shown to os in a "Prohibited" firearms I
sta~us), by the California Department of Justice I
by rne fortieth day, LAPD shall have an
add:i tional ten days for such action, which I
ad~itional period shall begin as of the date by
Whibh LAPD receives word from the California
De~artment of Justice: and further provided that
an jadditional 60 day period is allowed in cases
10
1
2
3
6
'I
8
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CA 146
I
in LhiCh the applicant has appealed a rejection
or /any restriction of the license. Those whoSQ I
ap11ications are rejected will receive a
SPicific written reason for rejection along with
n01ification of their right to seek review from
th1 advisory panel. ,
9. Conditions. Absent some compelling I
re~son, licensees will be allowed to specify~up
to khree firearms of their choice to be listed
on kheir license and the Department will amend
th~ir licenses to sUbstitute or add firearms so
lO~9 as the number does not exceed three and
I eadh firearm meets the other provisions of this
I
patagraph. The department may attach to the I I
lid,ense such conditions as in the reasonable I
! ex~rcise of its discretion it deems appropriate;
I
I prdvided that these conditions shall be noted on
th1 face of the license. Conditions may
indlude, but are not limited to: I I a. The type of weapon (or weapons) to be
I • carirled.
b. The type of ammunition to be permitted.
c. Circumstances in which it mayor may
I not; be carried.
Absent some compelling reason, limitations
a. and b. shall not preclude use of kinds of
11
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
CA 146
fir~arm or ammunition which are generally deemed I
appropriate for issuance to, or use by, plain
Clo~hes law enforcement personnel in the State
of Falifornia.
I i
G. I Advisory Review.
1. i Plaintiffs lead counsel, Don B. Kates, shall appoint a
panel of advi~ors (consisting of an uneven number of persons) to
review contes~ed applications. Kates hereby appoints ~eter Alan
Kasler as thel' panel's first member and David Yokelson as the panel'si
second member; subsequent members will be appointed at a later date I I
(Kates may ad~ or substitute members of the panel as he deems I
necessary to ~arry out it's functions, e.g. in case of the i
resignation, peath or disability of a member of the panel, so long I
as the total humber of panel members remains uneven). In case of i
Kates' resign6tion, death, disability, or other unfitness, a new I
nominee to mi~e such appointments shall be nominated by the
plaintiff selond Amendment Foundation.
2. i LAPD will accompany its notification to appl~cants of I _
it's action dn their application with a statement that a review
panel exists ~nd inform applicants that they may request a review of
their app~ica!tion by the panel if they are dissatisfied with LAPD's
action. If ~he applicant requests such review, LAPD will promptly
I submit to th~ panel's review it's complete file (except that only
sensitive records and information such as criminal records and I I
mental healt~ histories may be withheld unless at least one panel !
member is a peace officer pursuant to Pen.C. Section 830 ft, in I
which case tHe complete file with no exceptions or withholdings will I
12
...
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C.Io 146
71017":13":16664 I j I
! j I
THREAT MGMT. IN5T. FAGE F:l::l
be provided tF those panel members) in all cases in which an
application i~ rejected or granted with substantial limitations and
will attempt ~o respond in a reasonable and timely manner to
questions the/panel may have. The panel will promptly review each I
submitted apPrication and recommend in writing if it believes a
different dec~sion should have been made by LAPD. LAPO will
promptly recohsider the matter and take any further action it deems I
merited.
3. LAPO may be liable for an award of atto~ey's fees in
any legal actfon: a) Which was initiated after the advisory panel
recommended artion favorable to the applicant; b) which
recommendatior LAPD rejected, if c) the outcome in that legal action
substantially parallels the advisory panel's recommendation.
in order
I H. I continued Jurisdiction.
Thel court will retain continued jurisdiction of the action
to mrke any further orders which may be necessary.
! I I. I Defendants shall pay to the plaintiff attorneys fees !
in the amount I of $50,000.00 and said costs and fees shall constitute I
the sale mone~ary obligation of the d~f~ndants in this matter. I I I I
IT FS I
i I
SO ORDERED.
DATED: MAR 14 1995
BR84\lAKE\JUDCME~T
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
13
PROOF OF SERV1CE BY MAIL
I
f. the underSign~d, say: I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action or proceeding. My buslnes' address Is 1800 City Hall East, 200 No. Main Street. Los Angeles. CA. 90012
On _~ __ -+-Marc __ h_9 _____________ , '9 95, I served th@:ovithin
J1JIXlI1EN1' OF DECLARATORY RELIEF (Pursuant to Stipulation)
on the person(s) indie ted below, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully pr paid in the United States mail at Los Angeles. California, addressed as follows:
i
Don B. Kates, Jr 920 Arlene Way Novato, California 94947
o - Federal - I deClaj: Ihall am employed In the offioe of a member of the barof this court at whose directi,n Ihe service was made.
I declare under p~nalty of perjury that the foregoing Is true and correct. !
I March 9 95 Executed on ----;-.: ________________ , , 9---. at Los Angeles. California.
CA 15i (I'I8Y. '2/85)
, I i
EXHIBIT 2
'\ FRt:U~IUCl< N. KERXIN. Senior Assist"nt City 1 BYRON R. 8OEClOIAN. Assist.ant: Cit~' Attorotly
200 North Main Street
F r"L-E D J '180J City Hall East Los Anqele,. Californi~ 90012
" (213) 485-b499 MAR2 1,q9~
10"""'''' ~ s ~ttorn.y. for Detendanta
Ii
7
• ~
10
n
12
u
1-1
IS
11
l' 1.
11
21
2J
22
D
21
2S
21
21
21
ca ...
SCPIRIOR COUIlT 0,. CAU FOItH 1,\
COUItTY or LOS AMOILU
AJtTHON't MARIO USDIA. et a1 ••
Pla1ntlffaiPetl~ionera,
v.
Cl"!'Y OF LOS AllCBLIS t et .1.,
) ) , , , » , , , ) , )
---------------------------,
CASI NO. IC illS. I)
"'1""''11011 we. DIllY or 3VDC1 ... M"
:u. ia behby atlpul.tAd by and betw.n t.be pa~tl_ that
cJecl.aratory jodqaent 2&y be en~ in the ~t1tled .. tter ..
follows:
A. Defendants Affected-
'1'bo ~endanto dascr1bocJ in ~ COIIplaiDt _ tho -to.
Angeles defendant.- were: the CIft OF LOS AllGELUI tile CITY or IDS
MlGBI.£S POLICE DBPAR'l'IIDI'I' (bereiDarter -lAPO"). WILLU L. WILl"AIIS,
of the L&PD'. Board of
Police CoIaIissioners.
1 . ....
B. IDtrgduc~~on.
~ I This action cha:lenqinq LAPO's pr~edure. r~:es and
J practices (or isauinq licenses to carry c~ncealed f~ceacms purS~dnt
" to Per.. C. Section ll050 U. va. fi \8d Sal"t".ber 2., lQQ~. ~r.",p nf
~ the plaintiff. aQU9ht to be la.ued licen ••• and they 4nd the othe~
Ii pl~lntlff •• ued a. taxpayer. (and citl •• n.. The Loa All901 ••
• hi9hly co.plex .. ttl ... nt neqotlatlona wRiCh bave continued to thla
, ti ...
10
II c. AdaIMign.
12 'I'll. Loa Anqel .. d.fendant. .. it that certain rul •• ,
1l polici_, pract.L~ .net pcocedUCfiI, ancl '*l"t..ln C .. tUnt. ut tJ .. IkHard
14 Policy stateJaent cited in the co.pla1nt. vere not 1n oo.p11ane. with
IS
15
!I
22
H
Section 11050 U- Tba.e tor.er rul_, pol lei .. , practIce. and
procedures have been alter.d. !be Poliey Stau..nt 1. tael t he. twMn
reptaled and vill I» n-plAC*! by tblt provl.ion. of 1t_ I and , of
this j~, provided that tbe 1..0. AnfIal .. cSetenctant. r_rve the
rit)bt to add furtber IlpeClflcatlons t.o their rut .. , revulationa and
9Uidelbws, so 10119 _ aucb __ DdlNDta an not lnconai.tent with tbe
prcvisiocs of tbia iuri1Dlnt.
o. Plainti"·. Lic9naea.
ft.. allegations of tbe co.plaint sboved goocl cause as to
25 al~ of tbe p~aint1ft. Vbo souqbt to be iasued 11cenaea. For purposea
27
CA 144
of this jucJgJKu\t tbe rctlloving persoDa are c:t.uaed plaintiffs:
AJI'.I8OlIY IQIUO ASSElIaA. ROBERT JAIIES 1IRYAII'r, WILLIAII ARrIlOR CRAWFORD,
PADL S'l'B\I£:f DIfAIf, 8RIJCE HAROlD BDEUIAII, OLOGY ERLE GIBSOII, TERRY
2
I HOMER HARDEN, RICHARD ALAN HOCHBERG. BURTON CHARLES ' ,\COBSON, THc'tns I
:1 MICHAEL XU:ROSlCY, YAROM LlMOk, MARSHALL CLU"FORrl ~. JOHN lL
3
• 5
I
, • •
10
It
12
13
1-1
IS
16
J1
'1 W
20
21
22
D
Jf
2S
• . 27
• •
,·CA1'" \ "
;~' .. " .;..~ '." ~ .
HARTIN, ROBERT QLLOGG MILLER, MICHAEL SCOT'l' ONTIV&ROS, TED
PASTERNACK, VICTOR DONALD RAPPOPORT, JESSEI DOIfALO RICH, JEROME
MARTIN ROS!NBKRG, JOEL c. San..oSllCAM, NATHAN DAVID SCHLOSSMAN, CARLOS
SEDZLLO, SANFORD SHIRB, UItIIEC3 llIAJtOtf SILVD, R1CHAltO ct.AYTON TEMME,
JOlIN lIARRIS THAtD, DONNA LY..,.& 1'HOIt.U, G.UY PIAN Tl<1M, J(&MT LEE
TORICIPSUD, and DAVID ALAII roataLaON. The •• na,aecl pl,aintltr. vill
receive licenaea, and their l1oea_ will be renewed tor a on. )lear
ter1l, but ocly 80 10ft9 .. tbey oontlnue to bav. qoocl cau •• , qoocl
character, not: ~ be barred by lav fro. tNt ovneranip of oonoe"labl.
tirearaa, and to ... t .ach of tt.. other roqulr...nt.. of 11oon.",re
under section 12050 u.
11. !be policy LUD baa adopUd 111 that 900d ca .. ext.ta
ir there 1& comriDcinq evidence of • ol_r and pnaent danCJer to 11 ,.
or or CJXW8t bodily to the appllc.M, biJI Car her) apou .. , or
dependent: child, vb1cb ca ... be ..s.quately dealt with by ex1at1n9
law enforc_Dt r •• tMlZ'Cea, and vb.1ch danIjIer carmot: be reaaonabl.y
avoided by alt:arDatl". •• au., and vtUcb dI~ VOUld be
si9Jllficantly altlgatect by tile atpl1caat ' • cany1ftCJ of • concealed
tirean. ..
1". Ifba follovintf further rules aDd 9Uidalinos an provided
tor the ~tation and bpl.IRtatJ.on of Xt.. B:
· . . · . .. · . .
3
~;' ~ .
. ~ .. ""
!".
-~ :.
':'i"
1
l
4
S
G
7
• t
10
U
13
11
J.I
15
11
11'
II
l!I
20
%l
D
23
24
lS
2G
:n
%8
• • INTRQOOCTOR'l
The clepartaent recoqni&.. that Pen. c.
section lao~o require. the iaauance ot lic.ns ••
to penoma ot vood character who holv. \100d oaUlut
to earry a concealed flrear. tor ~he defense of
thQ3lllQlv .. or other. or 1n par-au!", tneir
l.lvellhood. Tbeae 9u1d .. l1ne& ant clw".l9nfltd toO
bpl ...... t that l!'equi.hMnt ..
Good C8WM 1& ~re lUClely to .,. found if tb.
appl 'eAn~ hall A dAWh ..... ~ntAd recnrct nt
reaponaible ban4ll.ftq of tlreanua .a i.ndioatod by
vo.lunurily Mvln9 Ubn C1reana traLn1n9 dWd,/or
lonq-tarB part1.c1pat1oa 1r& t;ba shooting aporta.
While lack or 8UCb a ~t:ed reoord i.a not a
cH..IIIqualltlcatiGa it tbe app11c:aDt 1& otbuv1ae
qcalifie4 to U&e • fireana properly, lice .....
"U1 not: It1GQ8 if tbon 18 INbdltantlal,
articulable reason to bel.lewe that laawane. would
be contrary to public dIety or 1f tbe applicant
does not have good cbaractar. ~ other
criteria to be oonaldered ar.: tbe applicant'.
record ancJ b1at:ory in acc1denbB with fireal:ll8,
autoaob.iJ.aa or otbor dangorowI inotrullCmt:.alitios1
and assoclaUon vith persons baving a cr1a1nal.
record or vbo" are reliably kDoIm to lack CJood
character. fte expression of da.Dgerous or
irresponsible attitudes. or threats, toward or
!
3
4
S
6
1
• a
IG
n
11
13
If
IS
16
It
11
It
» %1
u
D
2t
2S
21
2J '. uu,-
'.,' '.
.~~-..
'.
,',
'.
Instru~ent&litia8 shall be qrounds tnr den 31 0r
l8vocation or a license.
CRtTCRIA rGR LICENSURE
1. Training. The l1cen •• , it ~pprovGd,
aball not becc .. effective until the 4pptic.nt
naa furniShed proof to tne d.,.r~n~ that he ~r
abe baa aucoe •• fully c:o.pleted the cour .. ot
tralnirMil in the carry lnQ and \l.. of r 11'1HlrM
•• tablt~ punna.an~ ~o .~~lon ,.,47.1 nt tl'\.
e&lifornia aua1Meo and Prof .. calone COda or ao.e
other appropriate ooune vhicb 1ncludact the
fol1ovln9 aubjecta ot traln1D9& knovledge of
callforaia twa reprdlftfJ v.apoM and deadly
force uae: ... t. Ilandl1nq. carrlaqe. u.. and
noraqtt at CX'DOMlabl .. firearaa, ftOIIIMIUncy vito"
tho typos of f~ to be l1atod on the
2. Aoo4 c:a-. Good CUM abal1 be d •••• 1t
to exiat, a.a4 • l1ce=. will 1 ..... in the abeence
of strong COUDtervalliarJ facton, upon • UovineJ
of any o~ the foUoviDg cin:uastaDoosr a) 'lba
applicant is abl.. to astabl1J1h that tbare is an
J_adlate or c:ont1Da1ncJ tbreat, expres. ar
iJlpUed. to tbe applJcant's, or the applicant's .+ .
: .. ', 5
-;. --I.
.. - . '. ,
" ~
J
" S
6
1
• , .It 11
12
13
14
IS
I_
n .. n
• Z1
D
D
It
:IS
2S
21
21 "
c:a~
',. , " .... "
~ean. exist which would suffice to ne~tr41'=c
:hdt threat. b) The Appli~4nt is e.plOy~l in
:he field ot security, haa all requisite
licensoa, !s eap:oved by a aecurity fira bavir.q
all r~qul.it.. licenA •• , and provid •• ~tl.factory
proof that hi. or her work 1. ot aueh a naturo
that. it requir.a the oar:rylnq ut • 0QtK: •• 1~
weapon. c) Tbe applloaftt baa obtained, or hi •
penon 1ncludecl within the pratect10na ot, •
court order vblob _tabl1 ... that the applioant
1. the on-90i~ vietS. ot a threat or phyalcal
violence or otberv1ae ... t. the criteria .et
forth in Pen. c. ~lon 12025.5. d) '!be
appllcaat _tab11 ...... that circuaatence. ex1at
requ1r1Dq MOUnt. ot valuable property whlob it
18 ~1cal. or bIonctlcable to entruat to the
protection of' anaond ear _rvicaa or equivalent
servlcea for .. fe tr.asportatlon of valuabl ...
e) '!be applicant .. tab1!..,.. that be or 8bt J.a
subject to a particular aDd unusual 4Uger of
pb.ya1cal attack and tbat no reasonable ... .,. ara
available to abate that ~t.
3. Fayorabla hqt:qra. AIIOnCJ facts upon
vhicb the deparbMnt vill, in the exercise of ita
cUSC1'et1on~ look favonbl.y in conslder1nC)
appU~ODS are~: a) the applicant bas a
~llStrated record of responsible band.ling ot
6
.. · 1
" s
~
1
• •
10
It
a
u
14
U
1&
n
II
IS
• 21
U
D
H
Z$
21
2'f
'I;-~' 21
Q ....
, I
• • sate and responsible handllnq ot rire~r.s &&
shown by h.vlR9 voluntarily taken fi~aras
tralnlnq, c) tM .pplicant baa • record ot 900d
cltizen.hlp 1n qefteral •• evld.nced, tnr
inaunce, by .. "lce to the oouunlty thl'OU9h
INCh act.ivlt.l_ •• oreditabl. "lvlc. In the
an.ed forcea, inolUd1n9 the .. tional Uuant and
.tate al1itla or In the polloe N"rv •• , or of
active partic~tlOft in cbarltabl. or publio
ftervlce ~1aatton. or a01:1vl tl •• t)r 1n
pollt:loal .tfalra, d) tbe applicant 1.
t~ aD4 reeponttlbl ... evidencecl, for
1.natance. ~ ... :.ora-nt b1at.o&'y, poaltlona beld
in civic, political, ral191CNa or HCUlar
ill other areaa o.f eDdeavor, ., that tile applicant
8\dtera Ufi'\Ier • disability or pbyalcal bandlcap,
1DclodJDIJ ..,. oc oa-.ity. t*J.cb blndara tile
appl.lcaftt'. abUlt;y to ~ fro. aft attacker •
... 1lDb'mrabl.. FA<:mm1 ractora lllbicb vill
bear negatively on i--.aoce (ant ... t:hey appear
a) tbe appl!.cant
bas a laDg-t.ent Id .. tory o~ ..aul or eIIOtional.
1J:stabU~~, a1cobol.ba. ckug use or lId4iction;
b) 1:be' 8WllcaDt bas a b1at:ory of f'ault in
serious acc1cJeDts with t1rtiaxJas. auto.obiles or
7
~
1
.. 5
8
., • ,
10
U
U
13
14
15
Ui
11
J8
P
21
11
22 "
ZJ '.,
H
2.5
25
%I
2B ,,~~,~;,,;,.
ca.146
.. ~.,. ·i ~. ~~!. .• . ,
• • other dangarous 1natruaen~alitias: c) the
applicant haa had • parw.it to von or carry a
concealed veapott denied" supended or revoked for
;oocS caUH by an, luuln; authority, d) the
applicant bu ba4 a drlver·. license denied,
suapondocl or revotod for Wood cau.. by ~ny
laau1n9 .",thorit.y, e, the apfjJllC4nt ba. 4 lOnQ
tera record of 1I'napona1b18 and c:tal\9t1roua
behavior 'lith htoaobU... •• indicated by
nwMroua COIWlctlO1'ls ot aerioua drlvllWJ offenses,
f) the applicant baa a lonv-uftl history of
concluct: fros vbtell it ...,s.ra that lM or abe 1.
not now or good .. ral ~racbtr. trwatvortby 01:'
respons1ble. Wlile none of the forev01""
disqualify an applicant par H, a liC4lNlevl11 be
denied if it appura. in the dbcntion of the
~nt. that: the applieaDt. doe. not now bave
CJOOd cbarI.ract:er or that 1 ... -"",,* of & license to
hbl,/her la not cocwlabmt with public IIUlrety.
5. PreM.tJ.oo. Absent vocct cause for
denial. p8raoft11 havh.q good caU8e aa c!afinad in
paragraph 2 sball be baued licenaee for the
JlllaXiRma tu. period allowed by section 12050, and
~e1r l.icenses 8ba1.1. be ~ so lOOCJ as they
continue to bav8 -good cawsa. Jio license shall
issue if the applicant is prolUbited by law froa
::
1
.-
5
Ii
7
• t
III
11
U
)1
14
1$
II
n
11
It
20
21
22
ZJ
H
2S
11
2J
2:1
, CAla
• . •
• • •
po~:ae~:siHq or dcquir.i.nq ficedC.I», or ..:onced:ctb:~
:irearas, or tS below the age ot 21 years.
PROCEDURAL MAnERS
6. QiyulqGncp of Jnfgpaltiqn. All
applicant. ahall receive a copy of th •••
9uid.line. alGn9 with the .ppl1u.tl~\ Cur..
7. Iyiclange. Declarat.ion. u.-.der penAlty ot
perjury INftice .. evidence of raeta at\ow1nq (JQOd
CAU_, pnwlc.ted tha~ the o.p.~nt t .. not
requirod to .ccop~ the allewatlona in 4
declarat1U1l i( it bu credible cuu:,t.r-.vldenoe
or f1nda t.be cMclaraDt not orMlble. '"'
appllcaJlt viii be reqIl1Nd to fumlab proof of
bill or bH" ...s1cal and PIJCIbol091cal f1toea 1n a
IIIlJUMr to be pre.crlbed. by ~ ctepar~ftt. 'fbi.
ahall 1.aclucle carti!l.cat:ioD of the applioant.·.
eyesight to ... t the .tandaJ:'da eaUbli8bed by tbe
callfonia ~ of IIOCOr Yehle! .. for
is-lIa.nc:e of driver'. l1c'ea... Aa p~f gf 900d
character tbe applicant ... ·11 preHJlt at l_t
two sabllents fro. rHpOIta1ble penon. attestin9
tboroto. "I'be applicant aay present additional
evidence to prove good c:bu:acter. truatvortb1neaa
and responsibility or to aegatlve the converse.
9
!
1
4
S
II
.,
• •
10
n
U
11
It
U
" If
Ia
II
20
%1
J2
%3
ZI
J5
2S
%l
-, 2S .-
ca '4.
"I I ;,
'I
-8. C~lerity. License .ppli~dtlons sl~:l be
approVad or rej6cted w1~hin ~O days ot toe
application being autaittedl provided, that if
the appli~nt baa not been cle.red (or rejected)
by th. California o.pert .. nt ot Justice by the
fortieth clay. I.APD aball have An (ukUtion.t t.n
day. for auch .etlon ""let. ecldltioMl p.lriod
abell becJla •• or tM date by Vbicb I..APD r..:elv ••
wore! fro. tIM cal.t.foml.. DepartMnt of Ju.tioe,
and fUrther provided that an aclcUtlonal 60 day
period 1. alloeMd 1n ca ... in which the applic:4lnt
ba. appealed. rejection or AnY reatriction of
the llc..... "rboee wboce application. at'.
rejected v!.ll noel.,. a apecltl0 vrltt.n reaaon
for rejection alOO9 with not.1flcation of tbelr
ri.cJbt to seek reYiev froll tbe advisory paMl.
9. Oon4it.lpna. Abaent. aa.e COIIpelling'
reason, licea •••• vill be .110lllNd to apeclty up
to three f1rea~ or tbeir c:boioe to be l1ated on
their license and tbe Departaent vill _D4 tbe1r
licenses to sutMltltute or add tirearaa 80 lGn9 ..
t±. nuaber does not .xc.eel ~ and each flrearll
_ts the other provisions o~ thi. paratjr&pb.
1.'Ile ~t _y attach to t.ba license such
conditions as in t:be reasonable exercise to its
discretion it da_ appropriate: provided that
these condlt:1OD11 shall be noted on the face of
tha license. Conditions .ay inclu:1e, but: i tOe not:
liaited to:
a. The type ot weapon to be ~arriej.
b. the type o~ IUIlIUnit10n to be perni tted.
o. C'1rcu_t.no.. 1n which it •• V or l'I.ay n.:)t
be carriod. Abeent ao.e 00..,.111"'9 reason,
li.llation. a. and b. ahell not precl~d. u-' ot
kinda of tlreara or aaaunltlon ""'ieb ar.
qenerally deened appropriate fo~ i •• uaftC4 to
plaift cloth_ lav enforc.aent pe .... onn.l 'n th.
stat:. of california.
G. A4yLforv by 1_. 1. Plaintiff. I4NKI oounael, Don 8. ttat .. , .ball appoint a
panel. of adViaora to nviev oontutec1 appllcationa. (Kat.. .. y add
or substitute IINtbers of tbe panel aa he 4_ neoeaaary to carry out
it IS ftmetiona ••• CJ. in e8Att of t:be rettl9ftAtlon, cS.ath or cSl_bU lty
a nov noII!1."\Ge to aakG aucb AppOlntllenb .ull be noainated by ~
plaintiff" SecoD'I A_~nt l'ouDdat.lon.)
2. lAPO vi.!l accoapany ita notification to applicant. of
it's action OIl their application with. atat-..t that • review panel
exists. Tt the applicant is 4iaaatisrled and requests .ucb review,
LAPD will prollptl.y aubait to the panel.'. review it'. fil_ in all
cases i., vhich an application 1& rejected or qrant:ed with aubatar.tlal
li&itations ancl will atteapt to r.spooc:l 1n 4 reasonab~e and tl_ly
manner to questions the paoel. _y have. ftw panel will prClllptly
review eacb sut.lttecl application and reecE.end on vritinq i~ it
be1ieves a dlf"ferent: decision should have befm aa& by JAPD. IAPI)
11
will pr:uaptly recomi i.Jer t.he .at.ter and taK~ <\:ly r~rtt:er <let t~"1 1 L
1 deems zaer i teu •
J ). !.APO may be 1 iable (or an aw~rJ of at.t.orney· s :'eas in
• any leqal action: a) which was initiated after the advi~ory ~n.l
s rQCOJllHnded actlon tavorable to the aWl icant: b) which
I rcx:o.mct:td~tlon tAN> rejected. if c) the out-co •• in that ltJ\I.d oSction
1 .ub.~an~i.lly parallels the adviaory panel'. reuo ... nd.tion.
• •
10 The court v111 retain continued jurLa~1gtion ot the action
11 in order to ~ any fUrther orden vbleh uy be MOe."ary.
u
II I. Bada pacty t.o thia action lIball bear it.. uwn CJOst.s end
J-t fees, 1ncludlntJ attorneya f... 1n till. ..tter.
"TEO: February 1. 1995 II
II
Jt
•
2t 1a'I'I:O: February I, 1995
21 --", 'R~ , ,'<'
-;:'.
:,'u'i .. ,:
'" .. ~~ ,'"
_pectful1y aubla1tted,
.DlCD X. IWIII, at ~y A~t:orney
..... rex It ...... u 8eft1or AaalataM. City AttorrAy
8Y'IOIC ll. eoac: ... bal.tant Cit.y Attorney
Attomey
',"'12
. , . , \
EXHIBIT 3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CA 146
_t. ..... ••. -. ....... __ .... _. __ 0 •
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
..
~AR 3 0199£ ~M.~ j.G~
8Y s.. BARRm. OEf'UTY
ANTHONY MARIO ASSENZA, et al., CASE NO. BC 115813
Plaintiffs/Petitioners,
v.
JUDGMENT OF DECLARATORY RELIEF (Pursuant to stipulation)
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,
Defendants/Respondents.
Pursuant to the stipulation for Entry of Judgment filed in
this matter, and good cause appearing therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the rights and obligations of the
parties are declared as follows:
A. Defendants Affected.
Tfte defendants described in the complaint as the "Los
Angeles defend~nts" were: the CITY OF LOS ANGELES; the CITY OF LOS
ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT (hereinafter "LAPD"), WILLIE L. WILLIAMS/ .I
1
/
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CA IH
CAPTAIN G.E. ORNELAS and various members of the LAPD's Board of
Police commissioners.
B. Introduction.
This action challenging LAPD's procedure, rules and
practices for issuing licenses to carry concealed firearms pursuant
to Pen. C. section 12050 iX, was filed September 24, 1992. Some of
the plaintiffs sought to be issued licenses and they and the other
plaintiffs sued as taxpayers and citizens. The Los Angeles
defendants received an open extension to answer and entered into
highly complex settlement negotiations which have continued to this
time.
C. Admission.
The Los Angeles defendants admit that certain rules,
policies, practices and procedures, and certain features of the
Board Policy Statement cited in the complaint, were not in
compliance with section 12050 ff. Those former rules, policies,
practices and procedures have been altered. The Policy Statement
itself has been repealed and will be replaced by the provisions of
items E and F of this judgment, provided that the Los Angeles
defendants reserve the right to add further specifications to their
rules, regulations and guidelines/ so long as such amendments are
not inconsistent with the provisions of this judgment.
D. Plaintiff's Licenses.
The allegations of the complaint showed good cause as to
all of the plaintiffs who sought to be issued licenses. For
2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CA 146
purposes of this judgment the following persons are deemed
plaintiffs: ANTHONY MARIO ASSENZA, ROBERT JAMES BRYANT, WILLIAM
ARTHUR CRAWFORD, PAUL STEVEN DWAN, BRUCE HAROLD EDELMAN, OLOGY ERLE
GIBSON, TERRY HOMER HARDEN, RICHARD ALAN HOCHBERG, BURTON CHARLES
JACOBSON, THOMAS MICHAEL KUTROSKY, YAROM LIMOR, MARSHALL CLIFFORD
MARS, JOHN R. MARTIN, ROBERT KELLOGG MILLER, MICHAEL SCOTT
ONTIVEROS, TED PASTERNACK, VICTOR DONALD RAPPOPORT, JESSEE DONALD
RICH, JEROME MARTIN ROSENBERG, JOEL C. SCHLOSSMAN, NATHAN DAVID
SCHLOSSMAN, CARLOS SEDILLO, SANFORD SHIRE, BERNICE SHARON SILVER,
RICHARD CLAYTON TEMME, JOHN HARRIS THALER, DONNA LYNNE THOMAS, GARY
BRIAN TIGAR, KENT LEE TURNIPSEED, and DAVID ALAN YOCHELSON. These
named plaintiffs will receive licenses, and their licenses will be
renewed for a one year term, but only so long as they continue to
have good cause, good character, not to be barred by law from the
ownership of concealable firearms, and to meet each of the other
requirements of licensure under Section 12050 ff.
E. The policy LAPD has adopted is that good cause exists
if there is convincing evidence of a clear and present danger to
life or of great bodily to the applicant, his (or her) spouse, or
dependent child, which cannot be adequately dealt with by existing
law enforcement resources, and which danger cannot be reasonably
avoided by alternative measures, and which danger would be
significantly mitigated by the applicant's carrying of a concealed
firearm.
F. The following further rules and guidelines are
provided for the interpretation and implementation of Item E:
3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CA 146
INTRODUCTORY
The department recognizes that Pen. C.
Section 12050 requires the issuance of licenses
to persons of good character who have good cause
to carry a concealed firearm f·or the defense of
themselves or others or in pursuing their
livelihood. These guidelines are designed to
implement that requirement.
Good cause is more likely to be found if
the applicant has a demonstrated record of
responsible handling of firearms as indicated by
voluntarily having taken firearms training
and/or long-term participation in the shooting
sports. While lack of such a demonstrated
record is not a disqualification if the
applicant is otherwise qualified to use a
firearm properly, licenses will not issue if
there is substantial, articulable reason to
believe that issuance would be contrary to
public safety or if the applicant does not have
good character. Among other criteria to be
considered are: the applicant's. record and
history in accidents with firearms, automobiles
or other dangerous instrumentalities; and
association with persons having a criminal
record or who are reliably known to lack good
character. The expression of dangerous or
4
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CA 146
irresponsible attitudes, or threats, toward or
regarding the use of firearms or other dangerous
instrumentalities shall be grounds for denial or
revocation of a license.
CRITERIA FOR LICENSURE
1. Training. The license, if approved,
shall not become effective until the applicant
has furnished proof to the department that he or
she has successfully completed the course of
training in the carrying and use of firearms
established pursuant to Section 7547.1 of the
California Business and Professions Code or some
other appropriate course which included the
following subjects of training: knowledge of
California laws regarding weapons and deadly
force use; safe handling, carriage, use and
storage of concealable firearms; competency with
the types of firearms to be listed on the
license.
2. Good Cause. Good cause shall be deemed
to exist, and a license will issue in the
absence of strong countervailing factors, upon a
showing of any of the following circumstances:
a) The applicant is able to establish that
there is an immediate or continuing threat,
express or implied, to the applicant's, or the
5
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CA 146
applicant's family's, safety and that no other
reasonable means exist which would suffice to
neutralize that threat. b) The applicant is
employed in the field of security, has all
requisite licenses, is employed by a security
firm having all requisite licenses, and provides
satisfactory proof that his or her work is of
such a nature that it requires the carrying of a
concealed weapon. c) The applicant has
obtained, or is a person included within the
protections of, a court order which establishes
that the applicant is the on-going victim of a
threat or physical violence or otherwise meets
the criteria set forth in Pen. C. section
12025.5. d) The applicant establishes that
circumstances exist requiring amounts of
valuable property which it is impractical or
impracticable to entrust to the protection of
armored car services or equivalent services for
safe transportation of valuables. e) The
applicant establishes that he or she is subject
to a particular and unusual danger of physical
attack and that no reasonable means are
available to abate that threat.
3. Favorable Factors. Among facts upon
which the department will, in the exercise of
its discretion, look favorably in considering
6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CA 146
applications are whether: a) the applicant has
a demonstrated record of responsible handling of
firearms; b) the applicant has a commitment to
safe and responsible handling of firearms as
shown by having voluntarily taken firearms
training; c) the applicant has a record of good
citizenship in general as evidenced, for
instance, by service to the community through
such activities as creditable service in the
armed forces, including the National Guard and
state militia or in the police reserves, or of
active participation in charitable or public
service organizations or activities or in
political affairs; d) the applicant is
trustworthy and responsible as evidenced, for
instance, by employment history, positions held
in civic, political, religious or secular
achievements or record of personal
accomplishment in other areas of endeavor; e)
that the applicant suffers under a disability or
physical handicap, including age or obesity,
which hinders the applicant's ability to retreat
from an attacker.
4. Unfavorable Factors: Factors which
will bear negatively on issuance (unless they
appear to be in the remote past) are: a) the
applicant has a long-term history of mental or
7
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CA 146
emotional instability, alcoholism, drug use or
addiction; b) the applicant has a history of
fault in serious accidents with firearms,
automobiles or other dangerous
instrumentalities; c) the applicant has had a
permit to won or carry a concealed weapon
denied, suspended or revoked for good cause by
any issuing authority; d) the applicant has had
a driver's license denied, suspended or revoked
for good cause by any issuing authority; e) the
applicant has a long-term record of
irresponsible and dangerous behavior with
automobiles as indicated by numerous convictions
of serious driving offenses; f) the applicant
has a long-term history of conduct from which it
appears that he or she is not now of good moral
character, trustworthy or responsibl~. While
none of the foregoing disqualify an applicant
per se, a license will be denied if it appears,
in the discretion of the department, that the
applicant does not now have good character or
that issuance of a license to him/her is not
consistent with public safety.
5. Presumption. Absent good cause for
denial, persons having good cause as defined in
paragraph 2 shall be issued licenses for the
maximum time period allowed by section 12050,
8
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CA 146
and their licenses shall be renewed so long as
they continue to have good cause. No license
shall issue if the applicant is prohibited by
law from possessing or acquiring firearms, or
concealable firearms, or is below the age of 21
years.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
6. Divulgence of Information. All
applicants shall receive a copy of these
guidelines along with the application form.
7. Evidence. Declarations under penalty
of perjury suffice as evidence of facts showing
good cause, provided that the Department is not
required to accept the allegations in a
declaration if it has credible counter-evidence
or finds the declarant not credible. The
applicant will be required to furnish proof of
his or her medical and psychological fitness in
a manner to be prescribed by the department.
This shall include certification of the
applicant's eyesight to meet the standards
established by the California Department of
Motor Vehicles for issuance of driver's license.
As proof of good character the applicant shall
present at least two statements from responsible
persons attesting thereto. The applicant may
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CA IH
present additional evidence to prove good
character, trustworthiness and responsibility or
to negative the converse.
8. celerity. License applications shall
be approved or rejected within 50 days of the
application being sUbmitted; provided, that if
the applicant has not been cleared (or rejected)
by the California Department of Justice by the
fortieth day, LAPD shall have an additional ten
days for such action which additional period
shall begin as of the date by which LAPD
receives word from the California Department of
Justice; and further provided that an additional
60 day period is allowed in cases in which the
applicant has appealed a rejection or any
restriction of the license. Those whose
applications are rejected will receive a
specific written reason for rejection along with
notification of their right to seek review from
the advisory panel.
9. Conditions. Absent some compelling
reason, licensees will be allowed to specify up
to three firearms of their choice to be listed
on their license and the Department will amend
their licenses to sUbstitute or add firearms so
long as the number does not exceed three and
10
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CA 146
each firearm meets the other provisions of this
paragraph. The department may attach to the
license such conditions as in the reasonable
exercise to its discretion it deems appropriate:
provided that these conditions shall be noted on
the face of the license. Conditions may
include, but are not limited to:
a. The type of weapon to be carried.
b. The type of ammunition to be permitted.
c. Circumstances in which it mayor may
not be carried. Absent some compelling reason,
limitations a. and b. shall not preclude use of
kinds of firearm or ammunition which are
generally deemed appropriate for issuance to
plain clothes law enforcement personnel in the
state of California.
G. Advisory Review.
1. Plaintiffs lead counsel, Don B. Kates, shall appoint a
panel of advisors to review contested applications. (Kates may add
or sUbstitute members of the panel as he deems necessary to carry
out it's functions, e.g. in case of the resignation, death or
disability a new nominee to make such appointments shall be
nominated by the plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation.)
2. LAPD will accompany its notification to applicants of
it's action on their application with a statement that a review
panel exists. If the applicant is dissatisfied and requests such
review, LAPD will promptly submit to the panel's review it's files
11
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C A 14 b
in all cases in which an application is rejected or granted with
substantial limitations and will attempt to respond in a reasonable
and timely manner to questions the panel may have. The panel will
promptly review each submitted application and recommend on writing
if it believes a different decision should have been made by LAPD.
LAPD will promptly reconsider the matter and take any further action
it deems merited.
3. LAPD may be liable for an award of attorney's fees in
any legal action: a) which was initiated after the advisory panel
recommended action favorable to the applicant; b) which
recommendation LAPD rejected, if c) the outcome in that legal action
substantially parallels the advisory panel's recommendation.
H. continued Jurisdiction.
The court will retain continued jurisdiction of the action
in order to make any further orders which may be necessary.
I. Each party to this action shall bear its own costs and
fees, including attorneys fees in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: ; I
BRB4\ASSENZA\JUDGMENT
12
C-1 ( 7" , 1~1 t:-"l.-{ ~
-] / • C-'L-~
("
JUpGE OF THE SUfERIOR COURT
EXHIBIT 4
J l~.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JUt. 281998 ~
FI~-,Eb Gv-LOS ANGELES SI JPERIOR COURT
JUL 29 1998
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
ANTHONY MARIO ASSENZA, ) CASE NO. BC 115813 et al., )
) Plaintiffs/Petitioners, )
) vs. )
) CITY OF LOS ANGELES I et al. I )
) Defendants/Respondents, )
)
----------------------------)
ORDER
"i-PropolO:ed]
)
On July 24, 1998, the Court's Order to Show Cause Re Contempt
carne regularly before this Court. Burton C. Jacobson and William
Arthur Crawford appeared for the plaintiffs and/or applicants,
Byron Boeckman appeared for all defendants. The Court, having
read the briefs of the parties; having heard the arguments of
counsel and being fully advised in the premises makes the
following ORDER:
First: Not later than close of business Friday, 28 August,
1998, Defendants shall have filed and served a uniform
declaration, executed by the each of the individual sworn Los
Angeles Police Department personnel identified by job title below,
-1-
EXHIBIT "2"
t1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and attesting to each of the following: One, his or her receipt,
on or about 23 July, 1998, of the two-page document headed "Los
Angeles Police Department Concealed Weapon Permit Policy" issued
late on 22 July 1998 pursuant to the verbal order of Commander
Bruce E. Hagerty, Acting commanding Officer, Operations
Headquarters Bureau, Parker Center.
A true and correct copy of that document has been marked and
received in evidence as Court's Exhibit "A" to this days's
proceeding. An identical copy shall be attached to each such
declaration.
Second: His or her ready familiarity with and understanding
of the terms of such statement of the Los Angeles Police
Department's Policy.
Third: Acknowledgement by each such declarant that his or
her oath of office requires obedience to such statement of policy.
Fourth: Verification by each such declarant of the present
and future availability to any applicant for a concealed firearms
license of both a copy of such statement of policy and of Los
Angeles Police Department Form 12.49.1, Edition 6/96 application
for concealed weapons license. A true and correct copy of such
document has been marked and received in evidence as Plaintiff's
Exhibit 111" to this day's proceedings.
Fifth: Verification by each such declarant that those sworn
or civilian personnel at each of the Departments 18 regional
stations or divisions has been specifically instructed through
roll call or other formal means as to the specific desk or office
within each of such 18 facilities to which such applications and
statementB of policy have been delivered in accordance with the 22
-2-
B. H, LAW I31JILDIN:i
1 July l~98 verbal order of COMmander Hagerty.
3 EAOh ~uch declar~t1on sball be e~ecuted by each and every
J svorn Command1n9 Officer of maoh'ot the 18 ReQional LoB Angeles
" Polio. o.partlllent stationfJ or Divisions.
6
7
8
COURT
10
11 APPROVED AS TO FORH 't. i ...... '0'.... " :
(eourt ~y accept tax copy siqnature) 12
, ", I
o&t8(1; JUlY~, 1998 13
~·£~-==t B BOECKMAN I 15 Attorney for Defendants '
17
16
20
:u
;l8
-3-
LAPD CONCEALED WEAPON LICENSE POLICY
Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 12050, in the City of Los Angeles, the Chief of Police of the Los Angeles Police Department ("LAFD") may issue a license to a person to carry a pistol, revolver, or other fireann capable of being concealed upon the person upon proof that the person applying for the license is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance of the license, that the person is a resident of the City of Los Angeles, and that the
person has completed a required course of training.
The policy LAPD has adopted is that good cause exists if there is convincing evidence of a clear and present danger to life or of great bodily injury to the applicant, his (or her) spouse, or dependent child, which cannot be adequately dealt with by existing law enforcement resources, and which danger cannot be reasonably avoided by alternative measures, and which danger would be significantly mitigated by the applicant's carrying of a concealed flreann.
The following further rules and guidelines are provided for the interpretation and
implementation of this policy:
IN'TRODUCTOR Y
The department recognizes that Penal Code Section 12050 requires the issuance of I icenses to persons of good character who have good cause to carry a concealed firearm for the defense of themselves or others or in pursuing their livelihood. These guidelines are designed to implement that requirement.
. Good cause is more likely to be found if the applicant has a demonstrated record of responsible handling of firearms as indicated by voluntarily having taken firearms training and/or long-term participation in the shooting sports. While lack of such a demonstrated record is not a disqualification if the applicant is otherwise qualified to use a fireann properly, licenses will not issue if there is substantial, articulable reason to believe that issuance would be contrary to public safety or if the app licant does not have good character. Among other criteria to be considered are: the applicant's record and history in accidents with firearms, automobiles or other dangerous instrumentalities; and association with persons having a criminal record or who are reliably known to lack good character. The expression of dangerous or irresponsible attitudes, or threats, toward or regarding the use of firearms or other dangerous instrumentalities shall be grounds for denial or revocation of a license.
CRlTERlA FOR LICENSURE
Training. A new license applicant must furnish proof to the department that he or she has Sllccessfu Ily completed a course of training in the carrying and use of firearms established pursuant to Section 7585 of the California Business and Professions Code or some other course acceptable to the department which includes the following subjects of training: knowledge of California laws regarding weapons and deadly force use; safe handling, carriage, use and storage of concealable firearms; and competency with the types of firearms to be listed on the license.
LAPD CONCEALED WEAPON LICENSE POLICY
Such course does not need to exceed 16 hours. For license renewal applicants, the course of training may be any course acceptable to the department, shaIl be no less than four hours, and shall include instruction on at least firearm safety and the law regarding the permissible use of a
tireaml.
Good Cause. Good cause shall be deemed to exist, and a license will issue in the absence of strong countervailing factors, upon a showing of any of the following circumstances: a) The appl icant is able to establish that there is an immediate or continuing threat, express or implied, to the applicant's safety, or the applicant's family's safety, and that no other reasonable means exist which would suffice to neutralize that threat. b) The applicant is employed in the field of security, has all requisite licenses, is employed by a security finn having all requisite licenses, and provides satisfactory proof that his or her work is ofsLlch a nature that it requires the carrying of a concealed weapon. c) The applicant has obtained, or is a person included within the protections of, a court order which establishes that the applicant is the on-going victim of a threat or physical violence or othervvise meets the criteria set forth in Penal Code Section 12025.5. d) The applicant establishes that circumstances exist requiring him or her to transport in public significant amounts of valuable property which it is impractical or impracticable to entrust to the protection of armored car services or equivalent services for safe transportation of valuables. e) The applicant establishes that he or she is subject to a particular and unusual danger of physical attack and that no reasonable means are available to abate that threat.
Favorable Factors. Among facts upon which the department will, in the exercise of its discretion, look favorably in considering applications are whether: a) the applicant has a demonstrated record of responsible handling of fireanns; b) the applicant has a commitment to safe and responsible handling of firearms as shown by having voluntarily taken firearms training; c) the applicant has a record of good citizenship in general as evidenced, for instance, by service to the community through such activi ties as creditable service in the armed forces, including the National Guard and state militia or in the police reserves, or of active participation in charitable or public service organizations or activities or in political affairs; d) the applicant is trustworthy and responsible as evidenced, for instance, by employment history, positions held in civic, political, religious or secular achievements or record of personal accomplishment in other areas of endeavor; e) that the applicant suffers under a disability or physical handicap, including age or obesity, which hinders the applicant's ability to retreat from an attacker.
Unfavorable Factors. Factors which will bear negatively on issuance (unless they appear to be in the remote past) are: a) the applicant has a long-term history of mental or emotional instability, alcoholism, drug use or addiction to controlled substances; b) the applicant has a history of fault in serious accidents with firearms, automobiles or other dangerous instnlmentalities; c) the applicant has had a permit to own or carry a concealed weapon denied, suspended or revoked for good cause by any issuing authority; d) the applicant has had a driver'S license denied, suspended or revoked for good cause by any issuing authority; e) the applicant has a long-term record of irresponsible and dangerous behavior with automobiles as indicated by numerous convictions of serious driving offenses; f) the applicant has a long-term history of
LAPD CONCEALED WEAPON LICENSE POLICY
conduct from which it appears that he or she is not now of good moral character, tnlstworthy or responsible. While none of the foregoing disqualify an applicant per se, a license will be denied jf it appears, in the discretion of the department, that the applicant does not now have good character or that issuance of a license to him/her is not consistent with publ ic safety.
FURTHER INFORMATION
Residency. Proof that the applicant is a resident of the City of Los Angeles will be fulfilled upon presentation of a copy of the following two items: a recognized California identification card and at least one recent utility or rent receipt showing the applicant's name and residence address.
Conditions of license. The Department may attach to the license such conditions as in the reasonable exercise of its discretion it deems appropriate. These conditions will be noted on the face of the license.
EXHIBIT 5
• \~ • FILED'" 2 Los A1-JCBL.BS StJ '
PBiUOJ\ COURT 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
JUN 1 1 2010
, FlI( JOHN~O~ BY J. ORE EPury
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10 ANTHONY MARIO ASSENZA, at al., } CASE NO. BC 115813
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Plaintiffs/Petitioners
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,
Defendants/Respondents.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
----------------------------)'
'-' THIRD AMENDED JUDGMENT OF-t:. DECLARATORY RELIEF
c.. c:: <: 0
~
"> 0 Q
18 IT IS ORDERED that the rights and obligations of the parties
19 to this action are declared as follows:
20 A. Defendants Affected.
21 The defendants affected by this judgment herein are: CITY
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
OF LOS ANGELES, the CITY OF LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT
~~ereinafter "LAPD"), LOS ANGELES
~d CHARLIE BECK, CHIEF OF POLICE J
I..
PPLICE DEPARTMENT. I
l. n B. Introduction.
BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS,
OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
This action challenging LAPD's procedure, rules and
-1-THLRD AMENDED JUDGMENT OF DECLARATORY RELLEF
:::0 fTJ () /"11 -~ 0
• • practices for issuing licenses to carry concealed firearms
2 pursuant to Pen. C. Section 12050 ff. was filed September 24,
3 1992. Some of the plaintiffs sought to be issued licenses and
4 they and the other plaintiffs sued as taxpayers and citizens. The
5 Los Angeles defendants received an open extension to answer, and
6 entered into highly complex settlement negotiations which have
7 continued to this time.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C. Admission.
The Los Angeles defendants admit that certain rules,
policies, practices and procedures, and certain features of the
Board Policy Statement cited in the complaint, were not in
compliance with Section 12050 ff. Those former rules, policies,
practices and procedures have been altered. The Policy Statement
itself has been repealed and will be replaced by the provisions
of items E and F of this judgment, provided that the Los Angeles
defendants reserve the right to add further specifications to
their rules, regulations and guidelines, so long as such
amendments are not inconsistent with the provisions of this
judgment.
D. Plaintiffs' Licenses.
The allegations of the complaint showed good cause as to all
of the plaintiffs who sought to be issued licenses. For purposes
qf this judgment the following persons are deemed plaintiffs: !
~THONY MARIO ASSENZA, ROBERT JAMES BRYANT, WILLIAM ARTHUR
d~WFORD, PAUL STEVEN DWAN, BRUCE HAROLD EDELMAN, OLOGY ERLE I 1
qfBSON, TERRY HOMER HARDEN, RICHARD ALAN HOCHBERG, BURTON C.
JACOBSON, THOMAS MICHAEL KUTROSKY, YAROM LIMOR, MARSHALL CLIFFORD
-2-THIRD AMENDIID JUDGMENT OF DECLARATORY RELI:lU,I'
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• • MARS, JOHN R. MARTIN, ROBERT KELLOGG MILLER, MICHAEL SCOTT
ONTIVEROS, TED PASTERNACK, VICTOR DONALD RAPPOPORT, JESSEE DONALD
RICH, JEROME MARTIN ROSENBERG, JOEL C. SCHLOSSMAN, NATHAN DAVID
SCHLOSSMAN, CARLOS SEDILLO, SANFORD SHIRE, BERNICE SHARON SILVER,
RICHARD CLAYTON TEMME, JOHN HARRIS THALER, DONNA LYNNE THOMAS,
GARY BRIAN TIGAR, KENT LEE TURNIPSEED, and DAVID ALAN YOCHELSON.
These named plaintiffs will receive licenses, and their licenses
will be renewed for a one year term, but only 80 long as they
continue to have good cause, good character, not to be barred by
law from the ownership of concealable firearms, and to meet each
of the other requirements of licensure under Section 12050 ff.
E. The policy LAPD has adopted is that good cause exists if
there is convincing evidence of a clear and present danger to
life or of great bodily injury to the applicant, his (or her)
spouse, or dependent child, which cannot be adequately dealt with
by existing law enforcement resources, and which danger cannot be
reasonably avoided by alternative measures, and which danger
would be Significantly mitigated by the applicant's carrying of a
concealed firearm.
F. The following further rules and guidelines are provided
for the interpretation and implementation of Item E:
INTRODUCTORY
b The department recognizes that Pen. C. Section 12050
/ ~equires the issuance of licenses to persons of good character t} ~ho have good cause to carry a concealed firearm for the defense
~f themselves or others or in pursuing their livelihood. These
guidelines are designed to implement that requirement.
-3-THIRD AMENDED JUDGMENT OF DECLARATORY RBLIEF
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• • Good cause is more likely to be found if the applicant has a
demonstrated record of responsible handling of firearms as
indicated by voluntarily having taken firearms training and/or
long-term participation in the shooting sports. While lack of
such a demonstrated record is not a disqualification if the
applicant is otherwise qualified to use a firearm properly,
licenses will not issue if there is substantial, articulable
reason to believe that issuance would be contrary to public
safety or if the applicant does not have good character. Among
other criteria to be considered are: the applicant's record and
history in accidents with firearms, automobiles or other
dangerous instrumentalities; and association with persons having
a criminal record or who are reliably known to lack good
character. The expression of dangerous or irresponsible
attitudes, or threats, toward or regarding the use of firearms or
other dangerous instrumentalities shall be grounds for denial or
revocation of a license.
CRITERIA FOR LICENSURE
1. Training. The license, if approved, shall not become
effective until the applicant has furnished proof to the
department that he or she has successfully completed the course
qf training in the carrying and use of firearms established / n~rsuant to Section 7585 et seq., of the California Business and
~~ofessions Code or some other appropriate course which included
~pe following subjects of training: knowledge of California laws
regarding weapons and deadly force use; safe handling, carriage,
-4-THIRD AMENDKD JUDGMENT OF PKCLARATORY RELIEF
• • use and storage of concealable firearms; competency with the
2 types of firearms to be listed on the license.
3 2. Good Cause. Good cause shall be deemed to exist, and a
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
license will issue in the absence of strong countervailing
factors, upon a showing of any of the following circumstances:
a) The applicant is able to establish that there is an immediate
or continuing threat, express or implied, to the applicant's, or
the applicant's family's, safety and that no other reasonable
means exist which would suffice to neutralize that threat. b) The
applicant is employed in the field of security, has all requisite
licenses, is employed by a security firm having all requisite
licenses, and provides satisfactory proof that his or her work is
of such a nature that it requires the carrying of a concealed
weapon. c) The applicant has obtained, or is a person included
within the protections of, a court order which establishes that
the applicant is the on-going victim of a threat or physical
violence or otherwise meets the criteria set forth in Pen. C.
Section 12025.5. d) The applicant establishes that circumstances
exist requiring him or her to transport in public significant
amounts of valuable property which it is impractical or
impracticable to entrust to the protection of armored car
services or equivalent services for safe transportation of
~fluables. e} The applicant establishes that he or she is subject I
~o a particular and unusual danger of physical attack and that no ~
i~asonable means are available to abate that threat. J ; 6 3. Favorable Factors. Among facts upon which the department
will, in the exercise of its discretion, look favorably in
-5-THIRD AMENDED JUDGMENT OF DECLARATORY RKLIKF
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• • considering applications are whether a) the applicant has a
demonstrated record of responsible handling of firearms; b) the
applicant has a commitment to safe and responsible handling of
firearms as shown by having voluntarily taken firearms training;
c) the applicant has a record of good citizenship in general as
evidenced, for instance, by service to the community through such
activities as creditable service in the armed forces, including
the National Guard and state militia or in the police reserves,
or of active participation in charitable or public service
organizations or activities or in political affairs; d) the
applicant is trustworthy and responsible as evidenced, for
instance, by employment history, positions held that are civic,
or political, or religious, or secular achievements, or record of
personal accomplishment in other areas of endeavor; e) that the
applicant suffers under a disability or physical handicap,
including age or obesity, which hinders the applicant's ability
to retreat from an attacker.
4. Unfavorable Factors. Factors which will bear negatively
on issuance(unless they appear to be in the remote past) are: a)
the applicant has a long-term history of mental or emotional
instability, alcoholism, drug use or addiction; b) the applicant
has a history of fault in serious accidents with firearms,
9Vtomobiles or other dangerous instrumentalities; c) the
~plicant has had a permit to own or carry a concealed weapon q
denied, suspended or revoked for good cause by any issuing ~ • ~\1thority; d) the applicant has had a driver's license denied,
suspended or revoked for good cause by any issuing authority; e)
-6-THIRD AMENDED JUDGMENT OF DECLARATORY RELIEF
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• • the applicant has a long-term record of irresponsible and
dangerous behavior with automobiles as indicated by numerous
convictions of serious driving offenses; f) the applicant has a
long-term history of conduct from which it appears that he or she
is not now of good moral character, trustworthy or responsible.
While none of the foregoing disqualify an applicant per se, a
license will be denied if it appears, in the discretion of the
department, that the applicant does not now have good character
or that issuance of a license to him/her is not consistent with
public safety.
5. Presumption. Absent good cause for denial, persons
having good cause as defined in paragraph 2 shall be issued
licenses for the maximum time period allowed by section 12050,
and their licenses shall be renewed so long as they continue to
have good cause. No license shall issue if the applicant is
prohibited by law from possessing or acquiring firearms, or
concealable firearms, or is below the age of 21 years.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
6. Divulgence of Information. All applicants shall receive
a copy of these guidelines along with the application form.
7. Evidence. Declarations under penalty of perjury suffice
as evidence of facts showing good cause, provided that the
~~partment is not required to accept the allegations in a ,f
4~claration if it has credible counter-evidence or finds the l~
geclarant not credible. The applicant will be required to furnish
JrOOf of his or her medical and psychological fitness in a manner
to be prescribed by the department. This shall include
-7-THJ:RD AMENDED JUDGMENT OF D:a:CLARATORY RELJ:BF
• • certification of the applicant's eyesight to meet the standards
2 established by the California Department of Motor Vehicles for
3 issuance of driver's license. As proof of good character the
4 applicant shall present at least two statements from responsible
5 persons attesting thereto. The applicant may present additional
6 good character, trustworthiness and to negate the converse
7 evidence to prove responsibility or to negate the converse.
8 8. Celerity. License applications shall be approved or
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
rejected within fifty days of the application being submitted;
provided, that if the applicant has not been cleared (or
rejected) of Justice by the fortieth day, LAPD shall have an
additional ten days for such action which additional period shall
begin as of the date by which LAPD receives word from the
California Department of Justice; and further provided that an
additional sixty day period is allowed in cases in which the
applicant has appealed a rejection or any restriction of the
license. Those whose applications are rejected will receive a
specific written reason for rejection along with notification of
their right to seek review from the advisory panel.
9. Conditions. Absent some compelling reason, licensees will
be allowed to specify up to three firearms of their choice to be
listed on their license and the Department will amend their
~~censes to substitute or add firearms so long as the number does I
)
~t exceed three and each firearm meets the other provisions of l\ this paragraph. The department may attach to the license such
i. qpnditions as in the reasonable exercise of its discretion it
deems appropriatej provided that these conditions shall be noted
-8-THIRD AMENDlID JUDGMlI:NT OF DECLARATORY RBLIEP'
• • on the face of the license. Conditions may include, but are not
2 limited to:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a.
b.
c.
The type of weapon to be carried.
The type of ammunition to be permitted.
Circumstances in which it mayor may not be
carried. Absent some compelling reason,
limitations a. and b. shall not preclude use of
kinds of firearm or ammunition which are generally
deemed appropriate for issuance to plain clothes
law enforcement personnel in the State of
California.
G. Advisory Review.
1. Plaintiffs' lead counsel, Don B. Kates, shall
appoint a panel of advisors to review contested applications.
(Kates may add or substitute members of the panel as he deems
necessary to carry out its functions, e.g. in case of the
resignation, death or disability a new nominee to make such
appointments shall be nominated by the plaintiff Second Amendment
Foundation. )
2. LAPD will accompany its notification to applicants
of its action on their application with a statement that a review
panel exists. If the applicant is dissatisfied and requests such
~view, LAPD will promptly submit to the panel's review its files I
~ all cases in which an application is rejected or granted with
~~stantial limitations and will attempt to respond in a 1 ~tasonable and timely manner to questions the panel may have. The
panel will promptly review each submitted application and
-9-THIRD AMENDED JUDGMENT OF DECLARATORY RELIEF
!'
. , • • recommend in writing if it believes a different decision should
2 have been made by LAPD. LAPD will promptly reconsider the matter
3 and take any further action it deems merited.
4 3. LAPD may be liable for an award of attorney's fees
5 in any legal action: a) which was initiated after the advisory
6 panel recommended action favorable to the applicant; b) which
7 recommendation LAPD rejected, if c) the outcome in that legal
8 action substantially parallels the advisory panel's
9 recommendation.
10 H. Continued Jurisdiction.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The court will retain continued jurisdiction of the action
in order to make any further orders which may be necessary.
1. Attorney's Fees and Costs. Each party to this action
shall bear its own costs and fees, including attorneys' fees in
this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED,
DATED:
~(j\\
b t
I "J t .. L} I
i
1-n
-10-THIRD AMENDKD JUOOMKNT OP' DECLARATORY RELIEP'
EXHIBIT 6
Burton C. Jacobson, SBN 27529 Franklin S. Adler, SBN 56417
2 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Beverly Hills Law Building
3 424 South Beverly Drive " Beverly Hills, California 90212-4414
4 Tel: (310)553-8533
5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Petitioners
6 C. D. Michel - SBN 144258 Joshua R. Dale - SBN 209942
7 Tamara M. Rider - SBN 267951 MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.c.
8 ) 80 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 200 Long Beach, CA 90802
9 Telephone: (562) 2) 6-4444 Fax: (562) 216-4445
J I Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Petitioners
12
JlIN '\ 010" FILING W\\~OOW
\~ FILED
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
JUL 6 2011
JOHN h~~?LERK _ ~",c70R(~~Pll":""
13
14
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
15 CENTRAL DISTRICT
16 ANTHONYMARIOASSENZA,etal. ) CASE NO. BCl15813 1Jl~ )
17 Plaintiffs and Petitioners, ) 1PROP08E61 ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' ) MOTION TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT
18 vs. ) )
19 THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al. ) )
20 Defendants and Respondents. )
-------------------------) 21
22 The Motion to Enforce Judgment And For Monetary Sanctions of Plaintiffs Anthony
23 Mario Assenza, et aI., came for hearing on June 9, 20 II in Department 14 of this Court.
24 Attorneys Joshua R. Dale, Tamara M. Rider, and Burton C. Jacobson appeared on behalf of
25 Plaintiffs/Petitioners, and Debra L. Gonzales appeared on behalf of DefendantslRespondents.
26 Having read the motion, the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits filed by the parties,
27 and having heard argument of counsel, the Court makes the following ORDER:
28 / / /
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 ~
'" "\ 26 ~ "\ ~ 27 ""
28
1. Defendants/Respondents must provide Petitioners with all contact information of
each and every conceale? carry weapons (alternatively referred to as "carry a
concealed weapon") (hereinafter "CCW") license applicant who has applied to
Defendants/Respondents for a CCW license since July 29, 1998, the date of Judge
Buckner's Order.
2. Defendants/Respondents must file with the Court sworn and signed declarations
from every Commanding Officer at each of the Los Angeles Police Department's
2 I station houses and precincts. The declaration of each Commanding Officer
must attest to his or her compliance with the Assenza judgment, specifically
indicating what affirmative steps he or she has taken to ensure compliance with
both the Assenza judgment and Judge Buckner's Order.
3. Defendants/Respondents must provide a link on the Los Angeles Police
Department's website, <lapdonline.org>, allowing members of the public who
view the Department's website to easily locate, read, download, and print both the
Department's CCW policy and the California Department ~f Justice CCW
Standard Application.
4. DefendantslRespondents must comply with this Order no later than Wednesday,
September 7, 20 I I, 90 days from the date of this hearing. Parties are ordered to
appear before this Court on __________ , 201 J at ___ _
a.m./p.m. to address these matters stated herein.
ITISFURTHERORDERED __________________________________ __
Dated: ----+-+---+--1<-1-
2 [PROPOSED] ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTTON TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT
~ -.l "-~ "-~ ..
PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
3 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
4 I, Claudia Ayala, am employed in the City of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California. 1 am over the age eighteen (18) years and am not a party to the within action. My
5 business address is 180 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 200, Long Beach, California 90802.
6 On June 9, 2011, I served the foregoing document(s) described as
7 [PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JUDGMENT AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,500.00
on the interested parties in this action by placing [ ] the original [Xl a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows:
City of Los Angeles Los Angeles City Attorney 200 North Main Street 8th Floor Los Angeles, Ca. 90012
-.L
-X
(BY MAIL) As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under the practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Long Beach, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid ifpostal cancellation date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing an affidavit. Executed on June 9, 2011, at Long Beach, California.
(PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope 10 delivered by hand to the offices of the addressee. Executed on June 9, 2011, at Long Beach, California.
(OVERNIGHT MAIL) As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for overnight delivery by UPS/FED-EX. Under the practice it would be deposited with a facility regularly maintained by UPS/FED-EX for receipt on the same day in the ordinary course of business. Such envelope was sealed and placed for collection and delivery by UPSIFED-EX with delivery fees paid or provided for in accordance. Executed on June 9, 2011, at Long Beach, California.
(STA TE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
(FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed i court at whose direction the service was rna
3
of the member of the bar of this
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT
-,---_ ..
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 ~
26 " ~ ..... 27 ,...
I.-'
28
_ .. __ ._------------
. , . ,
"SERVICE LlST"
ANTHONY MARIO ASSENZ{l.·e·, al. v. THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, elof.
. Carmen A. Trlllanich Carlos De La Guerra Debra L. Gonzales CITY OF LOS ANGELES 200 North Main Street City Hall East, Room 800 Los Angeles, Ca. 90012
Burton C. Jacobson AITORNEYS AT LAW Beverly Hills Law Building 424 South Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, California 90212-4414
Attorneys for Defendants/Respondents
Co-Counsel
4 [PROPOSED] ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT'
EXHIBIT 7
(
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3 DEPARTMENT 14 HONORABLE TERRY A. GREEN, JUDGE
4
5 ANTHONY MARIO ASSENZA, ET AL.,
6 PLAINTIFFS/PETITIONERS,
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
VS. CASE NO. BCl15813
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL., CERTIFIED COpy DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS.
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
MOTION TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
APPEARANCES:
FOR PLAINTIFFS/ PETITIONERS:
THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 2011
BY: BURTON C. JACOBSON, ESQUIRE BEVERLY HILLS LAW BUILDING 424 SOUTH BEVERLY DRIVE BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 (310)553-8533
MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: JOSHUA R. DALE, ESQUIRE BY: TAMARA M. RIDER, ESQUIRE 180 EAST OCEAN BOULEVARD SUITE 200 LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90802 (562)216-4444
22 FOR DEFENDANTS/ CARMEN A. TRUTANICH, CITY ATTORNEY RESPONDENTS CHARLIE BECK BY: DEBRA L. GONZALES,
23 AND CITY OF LOS ANGELES: ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 200 NORTH MAIN STREET
24 CITY HALL EAST, ROOM 800 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012
25 (213)978-8380
26
27
28 SUSIE PRICE, #11954 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
(J09: 16 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
( 14 \ '.
09:16 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 --( "', 28
CASE NUMBER:
CASE NAME:
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT 14
OFFICIAL REPORTER:
TIME:
APPEARANCES:
BC115813
ANTHONY MARIO ASSENZA VS.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 2011
HON. TERRY A. GREEN, JUDGE
SUSIE PRICE, CSR 01954
9:16 P-.. M.
(AS HERETOFORE NOTED)
THE COURT: ASSENZA VERSUS CITY OF LOS ANGELES.
MR. DALE: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. JOSHUA DALE ON
BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS/PETITIONERS.
MS. RIDER: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. TAMARA RIDER
CO-COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS/PETITIONERS.
MR. JACOBSON: I DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO CHECK IN
1
WITH THE CLERK, BUT I'M BURT JACOBSON. I'M ALSO COUNSEL ON
THAT MATTER.
MS. GONZALES: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. ASSISTANT
CITY ATTORNEY DEBRA GONZALES FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES,
LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CHIEF CHARLIE BECK. AND
I HAVE DETECTIVE THOMPKINS FROM THE GUN UNIT OF THE LAPD.
THE COURT: WELCOME. HAVE A SEAT.
SO THERE ARE EIGHT PEOPLE OVER THE PERIOD OF
THE LAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS WHO HAVE NOT GOTTEN A CCW
PERMIT WITH THE STATEMENT OF POLICY.
MR. DALE: WELL, YOUR HONOR --
THE COURT: WAIT.
(
2
1 AND THEN THE ISSUE IS DOES THIS SHOW THAT LAPD
2 IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH BUCKNER'S AND MY ORDER ABOUT
3 MAKING IT AVAILABLE TO THE PEOPLE WHO APPLY FOR A CCW IF
4 THEY GET A HARD COpy OF THEIR POLICY.
5 YOU KNOW, THIS WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE A
6 STRICT LIABILITY SECTION, AS THE PEOPLE POINT OUT. LAPD IS
7 A BIG ORGANIZATION. I DIDN'T REALIZE THERE WERE 9800 SWORN
8 PEOPLE. I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT IT WAS THAT BIG BUT IT'S
9 BIG.
10 AND THE FACT THAT THERE ARE EIGHT PEOPLE WHO
11 DIDN'T GET A HARD COPY, AS I RECALL, OF THAT EIGHT, ONE OR
12 TWO WENT TO A DIFFERENT POLICE STATION AND GOT A COPY, ONE
13 WAS DIRECTED TO GET IT OFF THE INTERNET.
14 AND I DON'T MEAN TO MAKE LIGHT OF THIS. IT'S A
09:18 15 COURT ORDER. YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT
16 WHETHER THESE ORDERS ARE BEING IMPLEMENTED, BUT I JUST
17 DON'T KNOW THAT EIGHT DECLARATIONS SHOWS A WILLFUL
18 NONCOMPLIANCE.
19 NOW, THAT SAID, STILL IT IS NONCOMPLIANCE. I
20 MEAN THERE SHOULDN'T BE EIGHT. THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY.
21 BUT, YOU KNOW, ASIDE FROM YOU WANT ME TO
22 ISSUE SANCTIONS AGAINST LAPD, AND I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT AS
23 EVIDENCE OF WILLFUL FAILURE TO ABIDE BY THE ORDER.
24 NOW, YOU'RE GOING TO SAY, HOW MUCH EVIDENCE DO
25 WE NEED? DO WE NEED 16? DO WE NEED TO HAVE, SAY 8 2 OR
26 SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY DO YOU NEED BEFORE IT STARTS
27 SHOWING WILLFUL NONCOMPLIANCE?
28 I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. I
3
I JUST DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER. AND THROUGH READING THIS I WAS
2 TEMPTED TO SAY, WELL, THROW THE BURDEN BACK ON LAPD TO TELL
3 US IF THEY HAVE RECORDS OF HOW OFTEN THEY HAVE COMPLIED
4 WITH THIS TO SEE WHAT THE TALLY IS.
S I MEAN IT COULD BE THAT OVER THE LAST, WHAT,
6 SINCE '98 -- WHEN WAS THE ORDER SIGNED? IT WAS '98? -- A
7 MILLION PEOPLE HAVE COME IN AND ASKED FOR A CCW PERMIT WITH
8 POLICY AND MAYBE THE ANSWER IS THAT ALL BUT' EIGHT GOT ONE.
9 NOW, IF THAT'S THE ANSWER, THEN I'LL SAY, WELL,
10 YOU KNOW, I'LL TELL LAPD, NICE JOB, BUT YOU CAN DO BETTER.
11 IF THEY COME IN AND IT SHOWS THAT THE NUMBER IS FAR FEWER
12 AND THEN YOU CAN SHOW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER ISSUES OF
13 NONCOMPLIANCE, WELL, THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE.
( BUT AS WE SPEAK I DON'T KNOW THAT EIGHT IS
09:20 15 ENOUGH TO SHOW WILLFUL NONCOMPLIANCE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT
16 THE UNIVERSE LOOKS LIKE. EIGHT OUT OF WHAT? EIGHT OUT OF
17 NINE? WERE THERE NINE PEOPLE THAT APPLIED FOR THIS AND
18 EIGHT DIDN'T GET THEIR WRITTEN STATEMENT OR WERE THERE A
19 MILLION PEOPLE WHO APPLIED AND ALL GOT IT EXCEPT FOR THE
20 EIGHT?
21 SEE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE UNIVERSE LOOKS LIKE,
22 SO WHAT DO YOU WANT --
23 MR. DALE: I CAN ADDRESS THAT, YOUR HONOR.
24 FIRST, UNDERSTAND THAT THE EIGHT THAT WE PUT IN
2S THERE AREN'T THE ONLY EIGHT THAT WE KNOW OF.
26 THE COURT: OKAY.
27 MR. DALE: I CAN CERTAINLY, IF WE HAD AN EVIDENTIARY (
28 HEARING ON THIS, BRING ANOTHER FIVE OR SIX PEOPLE WHO
( 09:21
(
4
1 COULD -- BUT UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S NOT LIKE WE HAVE ACCESS
2 TO THE UNIVERSE OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE APPLIED.
3 WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY
4 300 APPLICATIONS PER YEAR, BUT THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT SOUGHT
5 OUT MR. JACOBSON OR SOUGHT US OUT AND SAID, HEY, WE'RE
6 HAVING THIS PROBLEM.
7 SO WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OTHER PEOPLE ARE OUT
8 THERE WHO DON'T GET THE PROPER MATERIALS, EITHER DON'T
9 APPLY AT ALL BECAUSE LIKE IN SOME OF THE DECLARATIONS
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
INDICATE, THEY'RE DISCOURAGED FROM DOING IT IN THE FIRST
PLACE OR THEY APPLY, THEY'RE REJECTED, AND THEY MOVE ON
WITH THEIR LIVES, NOT KNOWING THAT THE LAPD HASN'T SUPPLIED
THEM WITH THE GUIDELINES THAT THEY NEEDED IN ORDER TO SHOW
GOOD CAUSE UNDER --
AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF
THE ASSENT TO JUDGMENT WAS. IT WAS SO THAT PEOPLE WOULD
17 HAVE A TRANSPARENT PROCESS WHERE THEY COULD WALK INTO ANY
18 STATION IN LOS ANGELES AND, I WANT TO APPLY FOR A CCW
19 PERMIT. HERE'S THE APPLICATION, HERE'S OUR POLICY, FILL IT
20 OUT, COME BACK, YOU KNOW, WE'LL LET YOU KNOW. HERE ARE THE
21 STEPS.
22 AND WHAT WE HAVE ARE EIGHT DECLARATIONS. AND
23 IT'S A SAMPLING. IT'S NOT THE WHOLE UNIVERSE OF THE
24 NONCOMPLIANCE THAT'S GOING ON.
25 THE COURT: YOU ASKED FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
26 WHAT DO YOU ENVISION IT BEING? WHAT WOULD HAPPEN AT THIS
27
28
EVIDENTIARY HEARING?
MR. DALE: I COULD BRING AT THIS POINT PROBABLY AT
(~'~09: 22
( 09:22
(
1
2
3
LEAST 16 APPLICANTS OVER THE PAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS.
AND I COULD TELL YOU SOMETHING, IF THE COURT
WANTS TO SEE THE TOTAL, THE TOTAL UNIVERSE OF IT, I AGREE
4 WITH THE COURT THAT, YOU KNOW, THE LAPD SHOULD PROVIDE
5 EVIDENCE AS TO HOW THEY'RE COMPLYING OTHER THAN A
6 DECLARATION SAYING, WE THINK WE'RE COMPLYING OR
7 ALTERNATIVELY GIVE US DISCOVERY INTO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO
5
8 HAVE APPLIED AND WE'LL CONTACT THEM AND FIND OUT WHICH ONES
9 ACTUALLY GOT THE POLICY AND WHO DIDN'T AND THEN WE CAN
10 PRESENT THAT TO THE COURT.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
THE COURT: OKAY. CITY, WHAT DO YOU THINK?
MS. GONZALES: YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT WOULD BE
UNFORTUNATELY A WASTE OF RESOURCES. WE DON'T I'M PRETTY
CERTAIN THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT HAVE TALLIES,
FOR EXAMPLE, OF LET'S SAY 20 PEOPLE CAME INTO VAN NUYS
STATION TODAY --
THE COURT: DO YOU KEEP THAT KIND OF RECORD? I DON'T
18 KNOW.
19 MS. GONZALES: THEY DO NOT. I'M SURE THEY DO NOT.
20 DETECTIVE THOMPKINS: NO, SIR. WE DON'T.
21 MS. GONZALES: BUT WHAT I THINK MOST IMPORTANT IS
22 THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS COMMITTED TO COMPLYING WITH THE
23 ASSENT OF JUDGMENT. THE TWO THINGS THAT THE PETITIONERS
24 COMPLAIN OF ARE NOT GETTING APPLICATIONS FROM THE STATIONS
25 AND NOT GETTING THE POLICY.
26 AS WE POINTED OUT IN OUR DECLARATION, THE CHIEF
27
28
OF POLICE ISSUED AND MADE PART OF THE POLICY MANUAL THAT
THE EMPLOYEES HAVE THAT OBLIGATION. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
6
(}09:23 1 HELPFUL IF EITHER ANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS OR MR. JACOBSON
2 OR MR. MICHEL HAD ALERTED THE DEPARTMENT, SAID, YOU KNOW
3 WHAT? THERE'S A PROBLEM OUT THERE. WE HAD SOMEONE TELL US
4 THAT THEY WENT TO HARBOR DIVISION AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE AN
5 APPLICATION OR THEY WENT TO TOPANGA OR THEY WENT TO
6 WHEREVER.
7 THE CHIEF, I GUARANTEE YOU, WOULD HAVE INSURED
8 THAT A REMINDER WENT OUT.
9 WHEN WE BECAME AWARE OF THESE EIGHT INSTANCES,
10 EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE OVER SEVERAL YEARS, WE SAID, YOU KNOW
11 WHAT, LET'S REMIND OUR OFFICERS THAT THEY HAVE THAT
12 OBLIGATION. AND LET'S MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE THESE
13 POLICIES OUT THERE.
(' 14 AND SO THE GANG AND NARCOTICS DIVISION, WHICH
09:24 15 IS OVER THE GUN UNIT, SAID, LET'S GET IT OUT TO THE
16 DIVISIONS AGAIN. LET'S MAKE SURE THAT THEY ALL HAVE THEM
17 AND THEY, YOU KNOW, ANY TIME ANYBODY COMES IN.
18 BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, BECAUSE I DO THINK THIS
19 IS BENEFICIAL AND SORT OF GOES TO THE SPIRIT OF THE ASSENT
20 OF JUDGMENT, WE'VE ALSO TOLD -- THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO
21 TOLD ITS PERSONNEL, YOU KNOW, WHEN SOMEBODY COMES IN
22 LOOKING FOR AN APPLICATION OR THE POLICY OR IS INTERESTED
23 IN ANY WAY, GIVE THEM THE APPLICATION, GIVE THEM THE
24 POLICY, BUT ALSO SEND THEM OVER TO THE GUN UNIT BECAUSE
25 THEY'RE THE EXPERTS, THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO
26 PROCESS THE APPLICATION, THEY KNOW THE POLICY, THEY CAN
27 HELP THE APPLICANT GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. ( \ 28 THE COURT: YOU MUST HAVE SOME -- YOU MUST HAVE
(")09: 24
( 09:25
(
7
1 RECORDS OF CCW PERMITS ISSUED AND PERMITS DENIED.
2 MS. GONZALES: YES.
3 THE COURT: OKAY. SO HOW BIG IS THAT UNIT? LET'S GO
4 BACK SINCE '98, DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY CCW PERMITS HAVE BEEN
5 ISSUED? DO YOU KNOW THAT?
6 MS. GONZALES: EACH YEAR -- SINCE 1998?
7
8
THE COURT: SINCE BUCKNER SIGNED THE ORDER.
MS. GONZALES: WELL, EVERY -- IS IT TWO YEARS THAT
9 THEY -- EVERY TWO YEARS AN, YOU KNOW, A PERMITTEE CAN
10 SUBMIT A RENEWAL APPLICATION. AND THEN OF COURSE EVERY
11 YEAR THERE MAY BE NEW APPLICANTS. SO YES, WE DO HAVE
12 THOSE.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
PERHAPS DETECTIVE THOMPKINS CAN TELL ME ABOUT
HOW MANY YOU GET PER YEAR WOULD YOU SAY?
DETECTIVE THOMPKINS: RIGHT NOW WE HAVE 23 ACTIVE CCW
HOLDERS IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES.
THE COURT: 23?
DETECTIVE THOMPKINS: THAT'S CORRECT.
THE COURT: THERE ARE 23 PEOPLE IN THE CITY OF
LOS ANGELES WHO HAVE A CCW PERMIT.
21 DETECTIVE THOMPKINS: THAT'S CORRECT.
22 MS. GONZALES: BUT WHAT I WAS SAYING ABOUT
23 THE COURT: I KNOW MORE JUDGES -- THERE ARE 24 JUDGES
24 WHO HAVE CCW PERMITS.
25 MS. GONZALES: SOME OF THEM MAY HAVE IT FROM THE
26
27
28
COUNTY, FROM SHERIFF BACA.
THE COURT: THAT'S TRUE.
MS. GONZALES: BUT WHAT I WAS SAYING IS WE WOULDN'T
8
()09: 25 1 NECESSARILY HAVE RECORDS THAT REFLECT 20 PEOPLE CAME IN
2 TODAY TO TOPANGA STATION AND REQUESTED A CCW APPLICATION
3 AND POLICY.
4 THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE REJECTIONS? 00 YOU KEEP
5 TRACK OF REJECTIONS?
6 MS. GONZALES: THE DEPARTMENT KEEPS RECORDS OF ALL
"7 APPLICATIONS AND THE RESULT OF THAT APPLICATION, WHETHER
8 THEY WERE GRANTED A PERMIT OR THEY WERE DENIED A PERMIT,
9 YES.
10 THE COURT: THAT'S WHAT I THINK WE OUGHT TO HAVE AND
11 WE OUGHT TO HAVE IT GOING BACK SINCE BUCKNER'S ORDER. WE
12 OUGHT TO SEE WHAT THAT, AT LEAST THAT UNIVERSE LOOKS LIKE.
13 SHOULDN'T WE?
14 MS. GONZALES: I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WOULD SHOW
09:26 15 ANYTHING BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, AND IN FACT DETECTIVE THOMPKINS
16 CAN TELL THE COURT, THAT THEY OFTEN, THE GUN UNIT OFTEN
17 GETS TELEPHONE CALLS FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED AND
18 THEY WILL TAKE THEIR INFORMATION AND MAIL OUT A PACKET OR
19 MAYBE INSTEAD THEY'VE GONE TO A DIVISION TO AN AREA AND
20 GOTTEN AN APPLICATION AND WILL CALL THE GUN UNIT WITH
21 QUESTIONS OR SO FORTH.
22 MANY PEOPLE WHO MIGHT ORIGINALLY THINK THAT
23 THEY WANT TO APPLY AND THEN THEY MAY READ THE POLICY OR
24 READ THE APPLICATION AND THEY MAY SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, I'M
25 NOT GOING TO APPLY.
26 SO I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S VERY HELPFUL TO
27 KNOW -- I MEAN THOSE RECORDS ARE CERTAINLY AVAILABLE.
28 THE COURT: I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW
()09: 26
( 09:27
(
1
2
3
BECAUSE, AS I SAID, IF THIS WERE A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE
WHO APPLY, AND APPARENTLY IT'S A VERY SMALL NUMBER WHO IS
GRANTED AT LE:AST \fJE: KNOW WHAT EIGHT DECLARATIONS LOOK
4 LIKE IN CONTEXT OR 16 OR HOWEVER MORE YOU HAVE, EIGHT
9
5 THIRTEEN OR WHATEVER, AT LEAST I WOULD KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD
6 LOOK LIKE.
7 YOU MAKE THE POINT IN YOUR PAPERS THAT EIGHT
8 GOES BACK OVER FOUR YEARS. YOU KNOW, OKAY. IN OTHER WORDS
9 IT'S A PRETTY SMALL NUMBER, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT UNTIL I
10 SEE WHAT THE UNIVERSE LOOKS LIKE.
11
12
13
14
15
WHAT
MS. GONZALES: WHAT I CAN TELL THE COURT, WHICH IS
AND PERHAPS IT WASN'T MADE VERY CLEAR. I TRIED TO
MAKE IT CLEAR IN DETECTIVE THOMPKINS' DECLARATION, IS THAT
WHENEVER AN APPLICATION COMES IN OR A TELEPHONE CALL COMES
IN OR ANY INQUIRY AT ALL COMES INTO THE GUN UNIT, THEY MAKE
16 SURE THAT THE PERSON HAS RECEIVED THE POLICY.
17 THE COURT: DO PEOPLE LOG THIS IN? I GOT A PHONE
18 CALL FROM JOE TODAY AND I DID THE FOLLOWING. IS THERE A
19 LOG?
20 MS. GONZALES: I DON'T KNOW --
21 DETECTIVE THOMPKINS: NO. NO, SIR.
22 MS. GONZALES: -- THAT THEY NECESSARILY DO.
23 BUT THEY WOULD HAVE IT IF THERE WAS AN
24 APPLICATION THAT'S SUBMITTED, THEN THEY'RE GOING TO
25 START -- OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE DOCUMENTATION WITH
26 REGARD TO INTERVIEWING THE PERSON AND SO FORTH.
27 THE COURT: WOULD IT BE BURDENSOME TO HAVE YOUR DESK
28 OFFICER OR SOMEBODY LOG IN PHONE CALLS AND THEN CHECK A
( 09:28
(
1
2
3
BOX, MAILED OUT, HARD COpy MAILED OUT, WOULD THAT BE A
BURDENSOME THING?
MS. GONZALES: WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, YOUR HONOR, ALL
10
4 OF THE DEPARTMENT IS UNDERSTAFFED, ESPECIALLY THE CUN UNIT.
S I WOULD NOT WANT
6 THE COURT: IT WOULDN'T BE THE GUN UNIT. I
7 CONTEMPLATE--
8 MS. GONZALES: OH, YOU MEAN THE STATIONS.
9 THE COURT: YES. THE WATCH COMMANDER WOULD GIVE IT
10 TO SOMEBODY AT THE TELEPHONE OR FRONT DESK. AND IT WOULD
11 BE A CHECK JUST TO KEEP TRACK OF THIS SO WE WILL KNOW
12 THAT -- YOU KNOW, I DON'T DEMAND STRICT LIABILITY. I DON'T
13 DEMAND THAT EVERYBODY BE PERFECT. AND WHILE THIS IS
14
15
16
IMPORTANT, I RESPECT THAT, IT'S NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT
FUNCTION OF LAPD. THEY HAVE OTHER THINGS TO DO TOO.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WE OUGHT TO KNOW WHETHER EIGHT
17 IS A BIG NUMBER OR A SMALL NUMBER. AND IF WE KEPT TRACK,
18 WE WOULD KNOW THAT.
19 SO WOULD IT BE A PROBLEM SAY FOR SIX MONTHS
20 KEEPING TRACK AND THEN JUST, YOU KNOW, CHECKING THE BOX,
21 WRITE IT DOWN, TERRY GREEN CALLED, ASKED FOR APPLICATION,
22 MAILED APPLICATION, MAILED HARD COPY, AND JUST KEEP TRACK
23 OF THAT FOR SIX MONTHS?
24 MS. GONZALES: FOR THE GUN UNIT AND FOR THE STATIONS,
2S CAN YOU --
26 DETECTIVE THOMPKINS: THE STATIONS MIGHT BE HARD. I
27
28
KNOW FOR OUR UNIT WE HAVE THESE PACKETS, WE DO HAND THEM
OUT REGULAR AND VERY EASILY. WE MAIL THEM TO THE
()09: 29
( 09:30
(
1
2
3
LOCATIONS, WE DROP THEM OFF AT PEOPLE'S HOUSES. I CAN
TRACK FROM THE GUN UNIT SIDE, BUT TO HAVE THE DIVISION DO
IT, IT WILL REQUIRE SOME KIND OF SPECIAL ORDER REQUIRING
11
4 THEM TO DO IT AND ALSO A FORM THAT THEY CAN FILL OUT SO WE
5 CAN ACCURATELY TRACK IT.
6 WE WANT THESE TO GO OUT. WE GIVE THEM OUT
7 FREELY. WE VOLUNTEER THIS INFORMATION AS MUCH AS WE CAN.
8 I DO ALL QUAL TRAINING AT THE DIVISIONS. PEOPLE AT MY UNIT
9 DO ALL AT THE STATIONS.
10 CCW ISSUE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A BIG ISSUE WITH THE
11 CITY AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
12 WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE CALLING US.
13 WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE GETTING INFORMATION ON
14
15
16
WHERE WE'RE AT. AND WE DO HAND THESE OUT.
NOW, WHETHER OR NOT THEY COMPLETE IT AND COME
BACK TO US FOR AN INTERVIEW, WHICH IS PART OF THE PROCESS
17 THAT THEY MEET WITH US AND COMPLETE THE APPLICATION. BUT
18 IF THEY DON'T DO THAT, WE SEND THE APPLICATION OUT, WE HAVE
19 NO IDEA WHAT THEY'VE DONE WITH IT OR IF THEY'VE DECIDED NOT
20 TO GO WITH IT OR HOLD IT FOR A COUPLE YEARS.
21 WE CAN DO v.JHATEVER YOU DEMAND, SIR. BUT AS FAR
22 AS THE GUN UNIT, I CAN TRACK IT. AS FAR AS OUTSIDE THE GUN
23 UNIT, I THINK IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE A LITTLE BIT OF WORK ON
24 THE DEPARTMENT TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
2S THE COURT: WHAT DO YOU GUYS SUGGEST?
26 MR. DALE: I THINK IF THE STATIONS WOULD TRACK IT AND
27
28
CAN SHOW THAT THEY'RE CONSISTENTLY DOING IT, THAT COMPLIES.
I DO HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THIS IDEA THAT THEY'VE
12
(~)09: 30 1 SORT OF CHANGED THE POLICY NOW NOW THAT IT GETS MAILED OUT
2 AFTER THE FACT. AND ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT GOT RAISED
3 FROM MY REVIEW OF OFFICER THOMPKINS' DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT
4 IS IT LOOKED LIKE THEY SORT OF HAD TWO COMPETING POLICIES,
5 ONE WAS THE POLICY THAT WAS ADOPTED UNDER ASSENZA WHICH IS
6 SOMEBODY COMES INTO THE STATION -- AND I AGREE WITH YOUR
7 HONOR. THERE MAY BE TIMES WHEN THERE ARE FORMS THAT
8 THEY'VE RUN OUT OF. AND THAT HAPPENS. I UNDERSTAND. I
9 DON'T EXPECT PERFECTION EITHER.
10 BUT THERE SEEMS TO BE A PATTERN AND PRACTICE
11 AND IT MAY BE AN ADOPTED POLICY AT THIS POINT WHERE
12 SOMEBODY COMES IN AND EITHER THE OFFICER DOESN'T KNOW WHAT
13 TO DO, EVEN THOUGH IT'S IN THE MANUAL, OR THE OFFICER SAYS,
( 14 CALL THE GUN UNIT. AND THAT'S NOT REALLY THE POLICY THAT .... ,.
09:31 15 JUDGE BUCKNER ORDERED.
c-
16 HE ORDERED THAT ANYBODY WHO WALKS INTO A
17 STATION GETS A COpy OF THE POLICY AND A COpy OF THE
18 APPLICATION FORM.
19 NOW IF THEY WANT TO CHANGE THE POLICY AND COME
20 TO PETITIONERS AND SAY, THIS IS THE POLICY WE WANT AND THIS
21 IS HOW WE'RE GOING TO ENSURE IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, THEN
22 THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE AND WE CAN CERTAINLY HAVE THAT
23 DISCUSSION.
24 BUT WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT IT WOULD BE
25 DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO COMPLY ON A STATION-WIDE BASIS
26 BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT IT WITH ALL OF
27
28
THEIR OFFICERS OR IT WOULD REQUIRE A SPECIAL ORDER.
THE PROBLEM IS JUDGE BUCKNER'S ORDER
09:32
(
13
1 SPECIFICALLY SAYS THEY HAVE TO COMPLY ON A STATION-WIDE
2 BASIS, AND HE ORDERED THE EIGHTEEN STATION WATCH COMMANDERS
3 TO PROVIDE DECLARATIONS THAT THEY WERE COMPLYING ON A
4 STATION-WIDE BASIS.
5 SO NOW THEY'RE SAYING IT MIGHT BE DIFFICULT.
6 THIS IS WHAT ESSENTIALLY THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING ALL
7 ALONG IS ENSURING THAT THEY'RE HAVING THIS COMPLIANCE ON
8 THE STATION HOUSE LEVEL.
9 THE COURT: JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, WHY IS IT
10 UNACCEPTABLE TO HAVE THEM GET IT OFF THE INTERNET?
11 MR. DALE: IF THE PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY GETTING IT OFF
12 THE INTERNET, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS UNACCEPTABLE. BUT
13 THE ISSUE HERE IS, WE DON'T HAVE ANY INDICATION, OTHER THAN
14 OFFICER THOMPKINS' WORD, THAT PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY GETTING
15 IT OFF THE INTERNET.
16 THE COURT: WELL, IT'S ON THE INTERNET, RIGHT?
17 MR. DALE: WELL, NO. I DON'T -- I'M NOT AWARE AND
18 THEY CERTAINLY HAVEN'T DEMONSTRATED ANY EVIDENCE IN THEIR
19 OPPOSITION PAPERS THAT IT IS FULLY AVAILABLE ON THE
20 INTERNET.
21 THE COURT: WELL, I THOUGHT ONE OF THE PEOPLE, ONE OF
22 YOUR DECLARANTS GOT IT OFF THE INTERNET.
23 MR. DALE: THEY GOT THE DOJ'S APPLICATION FORM OFF
24 THE DOJ'S WEBSITE. THEY DIDN'T GET THE LAPD POLICY.
25 AND THE LAPD POLICY IS KEY HERE BECAUSE THESE
26 PEOPLE ARE GOING TO FILL OUT THE APPLICATION, YOU KNOW, THE
27
28
DOJ APPLICATION. AND THERE ARE GOOD CAUSE REQUIREMENTS
THAT WERE NEGOTIATED OVER A SERIES OF YEARS BETWEEN THE
()09: 33
c. 09:33
c
14
1
2
ASSENZA PLAINTIFFS AND THE LAPD REGARDING WHAT FACTORS THE
LAPD WOULD CONSIDER IN GRANTING THE APPLICATION.
3 AND IF THEY'RE NOT GETTING THE POLICY WITH THE
4 APPLICATION OR IF IT'S GETTING MAILED TO THEM AFTER THEY'RE
5 SUBMITTING THE APPLICATION THEY GOT OFF THE DOJ'S WEBSITE,
6 THEN THEY'RE SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION IN THE BLIND. THEY
7 DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FACTORS ARE AND SO THEy'RE GOING TO GET
8 REJECTED OUT OF HAND AS A RESULT BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T
9 THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE BEING MEASURED AGAINST.
10 AND GETTING BACK TO THAT'S WHY WE WENT THROUGH
11 THIS WHOLE RIGAMAROLE THREE YEARS AFTER THE ASSENZA
12 JUDGMENT GOING IN FRONT OF JUDGE BUCKNER, BECAUSE AGAIN,
13 LAPD SAID THEY WERE COMPLYING BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY
14
15
16
PEOPLE WERE COMING TO US GOING, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO APPLY
FOR THIS. I HAVE TO GO HIRE BURT JACOBSON IN ORDER TO
FIGURE OUT HOW TO APPLY FOR A CCW.
17 AND ASSENZA WAS SUPPOSED TO MAKE THIS A VERY
18 SIMPLE PROCESS, WALK IN, GET AN APPLICATION, GET A POLICY
19 FORM, AND THEN YOU FILL IT OUT AND GO FROM THERE. AND IT
20 WASN'T HAPPENING.
21 AND SO THEY CAN REPRESENT THAT EVERYBODY IS
22 GETTING FORMS, BUT WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO SAY OTHERWISE. AND
23 AT THE END OF THE DAY IF THEY WANT TO CHANGE THE POLICY,
24 WE'LL COME BACK AND NEGOTIATE WITH THEM.
25 BUT WE'VE NEVER HAD THAT DISCUSSION WITH THEM.
26 IF THEIR NEW POLICY IS, WELL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO SUPPLY IT
27
28
AT THE STATION HOUSES; WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE IT GETS
MAILED OUT, THEN WE NEED TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH
15
(~)09: 34 1 THEM AND FIND OUT IF THERE ARE WAYS TO ENSURE THAT THEY'RE
2 COMPLYING WITH BOTH THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF ASSENZA.
3 THE COURT: OKAY, OKAY. SO WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM ME?
4 MR. DALE: I THINK -- I LIKE YOUR HONOR'S IDEA ABOUT
5 ORDERING THEM TO CREATE CHECKLISTS FOR EACH OF THEIR
6 STATION HOUSES.
7 WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO GET COPIES OF ALL THE
8 REJECTED APPLICATIONS AND CONTACT THOSE PEOPLE BECAUSE TO
9 THE EXTENT THIS COURT HAS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THE
10 EIGHT REPRESENTS, YOU KNOW, A MINOR ERROR OR IT REPRESENTS
11 AN ONGOING PATTERN AND PRACTICE, THAT'S GOING TO BE
12 DETERMINATIVE OF WHAT THE LAPD NEEDS TO DO IN ORDER TO SHOW
13 THAT THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE AND WHAT FURTHER STEPS MAY NEED
( ............
14 TO BE TAKEN IN ORDER TO DO THAT.
09:35 15 THE COURT: WHAT ABOUT -- I'M SORRY. YES.
(
16 MR. JACOBSON: ALONG THE LINES THAT IS MENTIONED
17 I'M THE ATTORNEY THAT FILED THE ASSENZA CASE. I KNOW IT
18 FROM -- I KNOW IT VERY WELL, FROM THE GET-GO. AND I KEEP
19 PLOWING THE SAME GROUND.
20 THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE WITH -- THE ASSENZA
21 JUDGMENT CAME INTO EFFECT BECAUSE REJECTION LETTERS WENT
22 OUT SAYING, USE A CELL PHONE. I MEAN INCREDIBLE SOME OF
23 THE REJECTION LETTERS.
24 THE ASSENZA JUDGMENT THEN WENT TO SAY -- THERE
25 WAS A MAIN HEADING AS TO A GENERAL RULE OF GOOD CAUSE, AND
26 THEN IT WENT TO SIX SPECIFIC ITEMS THAT CONSTITUTED GOOD
27 CAUSE. THAT'S WHAT WAS IN THE BUCKNER ORDER AS TO THE
28 GUIDELINES TO BE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EVERY APPLICATION.
16
1 THE ASSENZA JUDGMENT THEN WENT ON TO SAY, IF
2 YOU SUBMIT AN APPLICATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY AND YOU
3 FALL WITHIN ONE OF THOSE SIX HEADINGS, THAT'S CONSIDERED
4 SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE UNLESS THE LAPD HAS, QUOTE -- I WROTE
5 THE LANGUAGE -- "STRONG COUNTERVAILING EVIDENCE." THIS HAS
6 NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH.
7 IT ALSO PROVIDED THAT IF THERE WAS A DENIAL, IT
8 WOULD GO TO A CITIZEN'S PANEL. I HAPPEN TO BE ON THE
9 PANEL. I CAN TELL YOU THAT EVER SINCE CHIEF WILLIE
10 WILLIAMS LEFT OFFICE -- WHEN HE WAS THERE, ABOUT 70 PERCENT
11 OF THE CITIZEN'S PANEL'S RECOMMENDATIONS WERE FOLLOWED.
12 SINCE THEN, ZERO.
13 YOU MENTION THERE'S 20-S0ME-ODD CCW'S. r CAN
14 TELL YOU WHAT MOST OF THEM ARE. THEY ARE EITHER THE
09:36 15 ORIGINAL ASSENZA PLAINTIFFS THAT ARE STILL ALIVE AND AROUND
16 OR THE LATE PLAINTIFFS BECAUSE THERE WAS A COMPANION CASE
17 THAT WENT JUST BEFORE ASSENZA CALLED LAKE VERSUS CITY OF
18 SAN FERNANDO AND ANOTHER ONE CALLED KIHM, K-I-H-M.
19 UNLESS YOU'RE ONE OF THOSE ORIGINAL PLAINTIFFS,
20 YOUR ODDS ARE INFINITESIMAL THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE
21 GRANTED -- I ONLY KNOW OF TWO. ONE FELLOW IS A MACHINE GUN
22 DEALER. OBVIOUSLY THEY DON'T WANT HIM TO NOT BE ABLE TO
23 PROTECT THE MACHINE GUNS. AND ANOTHER FELLOW
24 THE COURT: MACHINE GUN DEALER.
25 MR. JACOBSON: YEAH, MACHINE GUN DEALER, LICENSED
26 MACHINE GUN DEALER, DEALS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT.
27
28
AND ANOTHER FELLOW WAS A LOCKSMITH. WELL, YOU
SAY WHAT'S A LOCKSMITH GOT TO DO WITH IT. WELL, HE HAS THE
(" 09:38
(
1 COMBINATIONS OF ALL THE ATM'S IN TOWN. THEY GAVE HIM
2 PERMITS.
3 THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO WHO ARE NOT ASSENZA
4 PEOPLE THAT I AM PERSONALLY AWARE OF. AND I AM AWARE OF A
5 LOT OF THEM.
6 THE COURT: WELL, WE CAN AT LEAST AGREE THAT YOU
7 SHOULD PRODUCE ALL APPLICATIONS, REJECTS AND ACCEPTED ONES.
8 MS. GONZALES: YOUR HONOR, IF THEY MADE A PUBLIC
9 RECORDS REQUEST, WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE THEM THAT
10 INFORMATION.
11
12
13
14
15
THE COURT: WHY DON'T I JUST SAY IT?
MS. GONZALES: THAT'S FINE, THAT'S FINE. WHAT I'M
SAYING IS THAT THEY'VE NEVER REQUESTED THAT INFORMATION.
IT'S NOT THAT WE ARE HIDING THAT INFORMATION. MR. BURT
THE COURT: OKAY, BUT NOW I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO
16 THAT.
17 NOW, AS TO STATION BY STATION COMPLIANCE
18 WELL, I THINK WHAT WE NEED AT THE VERY LEAST IS A
19 DECLARATION FROM THE WATCH COMMANDER OR STATION COMMANDERS
20 THAT THEY ARE IN COMPLIANCE AND WHAT THEy'RE DOING TO
21 COMPLY AT THE VERY LEAST.
22 I AM A LITTLE RELUCTANT TO ADD TO WHAT PEOPLE
23 ARE DOING AT THE DESK BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE A
24
25
26
27
28
LOT OF MOVING PARTS IN THE POLICE STATION, A LOT OF THINGS
HAPPEN AND A LOT OF THINGS THAT NEED ATTENTION IMMEDIATELY
ARE HAPPENING. AND TO ADD ONE MORE THING OF RECORDKEEPING
CAN BE -- IT CAN BE, A, IT CAN GET IN THE WAY AND IT CAN
ALSO JUST FALL BY THE WAYSIDE AS YOU ARE PRIORITIZING YOUR
(:}09: 39
c 09:39
(
18
TIME. 1
2
3
4
5
6
I KNOW WE GET THINGS OCCASIONALLY FROM AOC THAT
WE HAVE TO KEEP TRACK OF CERTAIN -- THE LAST THING I WANT
TO SEE. IT'S NOT LIKE I'M SITTING AROUND AND, OH, BOY, I
HAVE SOMETHING NOW TO DO. IT JUST GETS IN THE WAY.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE, WHAT I NEED FROM YOU IS ALL
7 APPLICATIONS AND ALL REJECTS AND TO TURN THAT OVER TO THE
8 PETITIONERS.
9 MS. GONZALES: JUST THE DENIALS, APPLICATIONS AND
10 DENIALS?
11 THE COURT: EVERY APP. YOU HAVE SO THEY CAN CONTACT
12 THESE FOLKS. AND I NEED A DECLARATION FROM STATION
13 COMMANDER I DON'T KNOW, WATCH COMMANDER -- STATION
14
15
16
COMMANDER THAT THEY ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS AND WHAT
THEY ARE DOING TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE.
AND LET'S SEE WHERE THAT GOES. LET'S SEE WHERE
17 THAT GOES.
18 PERHAPS AT THE END OF THE DAY WE'LL NEED TO
19 HAVE AN ORDER THAT THEY DO IN FACT KEEP TRACK OF PEOPLE WHO
20 COME IN. I HOPE NOT BECAUSE, AGAIN, I HOPE THEY ARE
21 COMPLYING AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THEM BE DOING THINGS
22 THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, MORE IN TRADITIONAL POLICE WORK.
23 BUT LET'S DO THIS AND SEE WHERE IT TAKES US.
24 AND
25
26
27
28
MS. GONZALES: THAT'S FINE, YOUR HONOR.
I JUST WANTED TO CORRECT ONE THING THAT
PETITIONER'S COUNSEL SAID WHICH IS THAT THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT HAS NOT CHANGED ITS POLICY.
c.
(
19
1 THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS NO QUARREL WHATSOEVER
2 WITH HOW THEY -- THE NOW 21 AREA STATIONS HAVE THE ENTIRE
3 PACKET AVAILABLE, WHICH IS THE DOJ APPLICATION, THE LAPD
4 POLICY, AND THE COVER SHEET WHICH COMES FROM THE GUN UNIT
5 WHICH KIND OF EXPLAINS A LITTLE BIT TO THEM AND GIVES THEM
6 THE GUN UNIT CONTACT NUMBER.
7 AS DETECTIVE THOMPKINS INDICATED, THE
8 DEPARTMENT IS MORE THAN HAPPY TO ASSIST ANY MEMBER OF THE
9 PUBLIC WHO IS INTERESTED IN APPLYING, SO.
10 THE COURT: OKAY. AND HERE'S ONE MORE THING I WILL
11 ASK. I'VE NEVER BEEN ON THE LAPD WEBSITE, I DON'T KNOW
12 WHAT'S THERE, BUT WE OUGHT TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE WEBSITE
13 FOR OBTAINING A CCW, PUT THE POLICY ON THE WEBSITE AND THE
14 FORM ON THE WEBSITE.
09:41 15 MS. GONZALES: I'M GLAD YOU MENTIONED THAT, YOUR
16 HONOR, BECAUSE WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THAT THAT WE HAD
17 BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT -- THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE
18 DOJ FORM THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY LINK TO IT, BUT DEFINITELY
19 PUTTING--
20 THE COURT: PUT IT ON. PUT IT ON TO WHERE THERE MUST
21 BE AN INDEX, ONE FOR CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON, CLICK ON
22 IT, AND THEN HAVE WHERE THEY CAN READ IT AND DOWNLOAD A
23 HARD COpy OF THE POLICY AND READ THE APP. AND DOWNLOAD THE
24 APP.
25 MS. GONZALES: RIGHT, EXACTLY, WHICH IS -- WE HAVE NO
26 PROBLEM WITH THAT WHATSOEVER.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO I WILL ORDER THAT. I WILL 27
28 ORDER THAT YOU TURN OVER THE APPS. AND DENIALS, AND I'LL
20
1 ORDER YOU TO GET DECLARATIONS FROM STATION COMMANDERS WHAT
2 THEY ARE DOING TO COMPLY WITH THE RULE.
3 AND THEN WE'LL SEE WHERE WE ARE. COULD BE
4 EVERYBODY WILL BE SATISFIED, COULD BE. WE'LL SEE.
5 MS. GONZALES: LIKE I SAID, IT'S JUST UNFORTUNATE
6 THAT THE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT CONTACTED BECAUSE WE WOULD BE
7 MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO ENSURE
8 THAT ALL OF THE PERSONNEL OF THE DEPARTMENT DO COMPLY.
9 IT'S NOT THAT HARD, NOT THAT HARD AT ALL.
10 THE COURT: I'M ALWAYS ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO MEET AND
11 CONFER IN PERSON AND TALK TO ONE ANOTHER, BUT, YOU KNOW,
12 THIS IS WHAT I HAVE RIGHT NOW, SO DO YOU OBJECT TO THIS OR
13 WHAT?
14 MR. DALE: NO, NO. I'M IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH HOW
09:42 15 YOUR HONOR WANTS TO HANDLE THIS. I THINK IF WE GET
16 DECLARATIONS BACK THAT SHOW COMPLIANCE AND THEN WE HAVE AN
17 OPPORTUNITY TO CONFIRM THAT BY CONTACTING THE APPLICANTS,
18 THAT WILL SATISFY, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE NEED TO DO AND WE'LL
19 DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE TO MAKE SURE
20 THE COURT: YOU GUYS COULD ALSO, YOU KNOW, GET YOUR
21 NEIGHBOR TO WALK INTO THE VAN NUYS STATION OR SOMETHING AND
22 ASK FOR ONE AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
23 MR. DALE: YEAH. AND THAT'S CERTAINLY AN OPTION TOO,
24 BUT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T EVEN WANT TO GO THERE YET.
25 MS. GONZALES: YOUR HONOR, MAY I JUST GET
26 CLARIFICATION WITH REGARD -- BECAUSE I'M JUST TRYING TO
( THE COURT: RIGHT.
27 REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT LAPD NEEDS TO DO --
28
21
6 09:43 1 MS. GONZALES: -- TO EFFECTUATE THE COURT'S ORDER.
2 AND THAT IS, DOES THE PETITIONER REALLY JUST WANT THE NAMES
3 OF THE APPLICATIONS WITH CONTACT INFO SO THAT THEY CAN
4 CONTACT AND SAY, BY THE WAY, DID YOU HAVE ANY DIFFICULTY
5 GETTING IT, BECAUSE THESE PACKAGES CAN BE QUITE LENGTHY.
6 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT'S FAIR. IS CONTACT
7 INFORMATION ENOUGH?
8 MR. DALE: I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE ALL
9 THE INFORMATION.
10 THE COURT: "ALL" MEANING --
11 MR. DALE: THE ENTIRE APPLICATION FORM AND --
12 THE COURT: LET ME TELL YOU THIS. WE'LL JUST START
13 WITH THE CONTACT INFORMATION, HAVE TWO LISTS, PERMITTEES
14 AND DENIALS, AND CONTACT INFORMATION FOR BOTH THOSE. AND
09:43 15 LET'S SEE WHERE IT GOES.
16 MR. DALE·: I APPRECIATE THAT, YOUR HONOR. I DO
17 ANTICIPATE THAT WE MAY NEED SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AT
18 SOME POINT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT'S BEEN 13 YEARS, SOME OF THESE
19 PEOPLE MAY HAVE MOVED AND WE MAY NEED SOME OF THAT
20 INFORMATION TO TRACK THEM DOWN.
21 THE COURT: OKAY. SO WHAT IS A -- WELL, ACCORDING TO
22 COUNSEL SAYS IT'S EVERY TWO YEARS THEY HAVE TO RE-UP.
23 MS. GONZALES: AND, I'M SORRY. MAYBE I NEED
24 CLARIFICATION ON THE PERIOD OF TIME THAT WE'RE TALKING
25 ABOUT. ARE WE TALKING ABOUT EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO
26 SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION SINCE 1998 TO PRESENT?
27 THE COURT: SINCE BUCKNER'S ORDER, YEAH.
28 MS. GONZALES: OKAY. THAT IS GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE
22
r"';09:44 1 {.".s-,;,;,~
BIT OF TIME BECAUSE I'M ASSUMING SOME OF THOSE WILL BE IN
2 RECORD RETENTION.
3 THE COURT: NEXT QUESTION, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED?
4 DETECTIVE THOMPKINS: I'M NOT SURE. I CAN GET BACK
5 TO CA PROBABLY THIS AFTERNOON.
6 THE COURT: WILL THAT INFORMATION
7 MS. GONZALES: I'M JUST GOING TO ASSUME THAT ANYTHING
8 OVER, WHAT, A COUPLE YEARS?
9 DETECTIVE THOMPKINS: I CAN LET HER KNOW HOW LONG I
10 THINK IT WILL TAKE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT
11 THE COURT: CAN WE SAY 90 DAYS?
12 MS. GONZALES: 90 DAYS SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT.
13 THE COURT: WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM TODAY'S DATE.
(' 14 '-'
MR. DALE: YOUR HONOR, I'LL GO AHEAD AND PREPARE AN
09:44 15 ORDER FOR THE COURT. DOES THE COURT ALSO WANT THE 90 DAYS
16 FOR SUPPLYING THE DECLARATIONS
17 THE COURT: EVERYTHING, ACROSS THE BOARD. GETTING
18 THE WEBSITE UP AND RUNNING, THE DECLARATIONS, AND THE APPS.
19 AND DENIALS.
20 ALL RIGHT. INTERESTING ISSUE.
21 OKAY. THANK YOU.
22
23 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 9:45 A.M.l
24
25
26
27 (
28
(
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3 DEPARTMENT 14 HONORABLE TERRY A. GREEN, JUDGE
4
5 ANTHONY MARIO ASSENZA, ET AL.,
6 PLAINTIFFS/PETITIONERS,
7
8
9
10
VS.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS.
CASE NO. BCl15813
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
11 I, SUSIE PRICE, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER OF THE
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY
13 OF LOS ANGELES, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING PAGES,
14 1 THROUGH 22 INCLUSIVE, COMPRISE A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT
15 TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS HELD IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED
16 MATTER ON JUNE 9, 2011.
17 DATED THIS 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
('. \ ~. __ \ \LtS-v.... '- ~".A . SUSlj-PRICE:CSRtI1954 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
EXHIBIT 8
_ .. ----- --~-- ----------.-.--- ----_._--------- ---_. - _._---_ .. _-- ._--_._-. __ .... _. -- ---- - -----. Ji II ,I II
" I DE CLARA TION OF WILLIAM A. MUHPHY
2 I 3 i T, WILLIAM /\_ MURPHY, declare as follows:
, I I. I am employed as a Captain III with the Los Angeles Police Dcpanmcnl (Dcpanmen!) I
5 'and J am currently the Commanding Officer of Northeast Area_ As the Commanding Officer, I am
6 responsible for the supervision, oversight and direction of Northeast Area's sworn and civilian
7 employees_ r have personal knowledge of all the facts set forth herein and if called upon to testify, I
8 could and would do so competently. As to those matters of which I am informed and believe, I
9 bel ieve them to be true and accurate.
10
12
J 3
2.4
15
16
17
:8
19
20
22
23
24
26
27
28
2. I am informed and believe that there is a Motion to Enforce Judgment currently
pending in Anthony Mario Assenzo, el 01. v. City oILos Angeles, el 01, Case No. Be 115813. With
regard to the Assenza litigation, J received a desk nOle in June 2011 fi-om Captain William Hart,
Commanding Officer of Gang and Narcotics Division, reminding all Commanding Ofj~cers oCthe
Department's Special Order No.5 dated February J 3, 2002. A true and correct copy of Captain
Hart's desk note is attached as Exhibit 1 to Defendants' Notice of Compliance with Court Order.
have read Spec'wl Order No.5 and r understand that it is my responsibility to enSure that all of the
employees under my supervision abide by its mandates as long as it is in effecl. A true and correct
copy of Special Order NO.5 is attached as Exhibit 2 to Defendants' Notice of Compliance with
Court Order. Funhermore, I understand that it is my responsibility as the Commanding Of Ticer of
Northeast :"'rea to ensure that an adequate supply of California Department of Justice Standard
Application for License to Carry a Concealed Weapon, Form BCIA 40J 2 and the Department's
Concealed Weapon License Operational Policy is maintained at Northeast Area station.
3. All sworn and civilian employees under my supervision have been made aware of
Special Order No.5 and have been instructed to comply with its provisions. Furthermore, all sworn
and civilian employees under my supervision have been advised where copies of the Form BCIA
4012 and the Department's Concealed Weapon License Operational Policy are kept in the station.
Additionally, all Northeast Area employees have been instructed that any person who has questions
about the process of applyin g for a concealed \veapon I icense shall be referred to the Department's
---------~---------------- --------_._ .. -_ .. _-_ ... _ .. _--------------- -----------_._--
II
2
3
4
5
6
8
10
12
I Gun Unit. These instructions have been given to all Northeast Area employees through supervisors II I
meetings and roll call training.
r swear under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed this ~day Of_~~C, 201 J at Los Angeles, California.
13 ~
14
16
17
18
is j
20
2 :.
22
23
24 I
25
26 I
27
28
I I-
I
2
EXHIBIT 9
RICHARD TOMPKINS - VOLUME 2
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CENTRAL DISTRICT
DAVID R. DAVIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs and Petitioners,
vs. Case No.: BS13l915
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Volume II (269-486)
Defendants and Respondents.
DEPOSITION OF:
RICHARD TOMPKINS
PERSON MOST QUALIFIED
AT LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT
Tuesday, February 7, 2012; 9:21 a.m.
Reported by:
Rachel L. Quinones CSR No. 13307
HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM
rlfn~nn?7 _h7R":l-L1R.J:;,n_:::torlnf _",£::"1 Q7.JOrlA?A
RICHARD TOMPKINS - VOLUME 2
1
2
3
4
5
Page 270
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CENTRAL DISTRICT
6 DAVID R. DAVIS, et al.,
7 Plaintiffs and Petitioners,
8 vs. Case No.: BS131915
9 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Volume II (269-486)
10 Defendants and Respondents.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 Deposition of RICHARD TOMPKINS, taken on behalf
21 of Plaintiffs, before Rachel L. Quinones, Certified
22 Shorthand Reporter #13307 for the State of California,
23 commencing on Tuesday, February 7, 2012, at 9:21 a.m.,
24 at Michel and Associates, 180 East Ocean Boulevard,
25 Suite 200, Long Beach, California.
HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM
RICHARD TOMPKINS - VOLUME 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
For the Plaintiffs/Petitioners:
MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, PC BY: JOSHUA R. DALE
TAMARA M. RIDER Attorneys at Law
Page 271
180 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 200 Long Beach, California 90802 (562) 216-4444
For the Defendants/Respondents: CITY OF LOS ANGELES, PUBLIC SAFETY GENERAL COUNSEL DIVISION BY: DEBRA L. GONZALES
Assistant City Attorney 800 City Hall East 200 North Main Street Los Angeles, California 90012 (213) 978-8391
HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM
RICHARD TOMPKINS - VOLUME 2
1
2
3
Page 280
talking about the period prior to the motion to enforce
that was filed in 2011?
A The one that was filed in 2010, no, I'm not
4 aware of anything.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Q Okay. NOw, you had previously testified that
you, in conjunction with folks in the gun unit and the
chain of command had taken steps to respond to the
Court's order on the motion to enforce in 2011.
A
Q
Do you recall that testimony?
Yes, I do.
And you recall at some point after June of
12 2011, you guys issued a new version of the policy, the
13 LAPD policy, a new -- I don't want to say it was a
14 change of the policy, but a different version that you
15 previously testif ied to; correct?
16 A
17 Q
18 A
19 Q
The policy didn't change at all.
But a new document was generated?
Yes.
And if I remember your testimony correctly, it
20 was to make it easier for folks to read; correct?
21 A That's correct.
22 Q And then at that time, you testified that
23 additionally, there was a copy of the application and
24 the new document posted on the websi te, and there was
25 also declarations prepared and submitted by the 21
HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM
RICHARD TOMPKINS - VOLUME 2
Page 281
1 station captains.
2 Do you recall that testimony?
3 A Yes.
4 MS. GONZALES: I'm sorry, which time frame are
5 you referring to?
6 MR. DALE: This is after June of 2011, in
7 conjunction with the order on the motion to enforce.
8 BY MR. DALE:
9
10
11
Q
A
Q
And that was correct, right?
That's correct.
At any point after those documents were
12 published on the website, the declarations were
13 executed, I'm talking after that time frame, were you
14 ever told by anybody that there were complaints that the
15 station houses were still not in compliance with the
16 distribution requirements of the LApD policy?
17 A Only from your office, from you.
18 Q And when was the first time you learned of
19 that?
20 A I don't recall the exact, actual date, but it
21 was sometime after our appearance in the courthouse or
22 during our time in the courthouse.
23 Q Are you talking about the June time in the
24 courthouse?
25 A Yes.
HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM
RICHARD TOMPKINS - VOLUME 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Q
Page 282
Okay. I'm talking about after that appearance.
So after that appearance, the gun unit and command
generated a new document with the policy, 21
declarations were executed by station commanders, the
policy and application were published on the website,
after that time period, do you recall ever hearing that
there was a complaint that there was additional
noncompliance in the station?
MS. GONZALES: You're talking about any
10 conversations other than with Counsel?
11 MR. DALE: Other than with Counsel, that's
12 correct.
13 THE WITNESS: No.
14 BY MR. DALE:
15 Q So would it be fair to say that at no point
16 after LAPD published the policy and the application on
17 the website, did your unit conduct an investigation to
18 determine whether or not the station houses were still
19 in compliance with the distribution policy?
20 A Again, I don't recall the date or time. At
21 some point, so yeah, after the courtroom proceedings, I
22 did direct one or two guys from the gun unit to make
23 some phone calls to the division to make sure they had
24 the CCW applications and they were in compliance with
25 the Special Order Number 5 from 2002, which we just
HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM
RICHARD TOMPKINS - VOLUME 2
Page 283
1 resent out again.
2 Q Do you recall if you made that phone call
3 before or after Captain Hart issued his badge memo?
4 A It was after.
5 Q Do you recall how long after Captain Hart
6 issued his badge memo you made those calls?
7 A No, I don't recall.
8 Q Those calls you had people make, were those
9 before or after the department published the application
10 and the policy on the website?
11 A I don't recall.
12 Q Okay. Was there a particular reason you asked
13 those folks to make that phone call to the station
14 houses, to make sure that they had applications and
15 0 the r rna t e ria 1 s ?
16 A It was based on your allegations that it wasn't
17 being done.
18 Q
19 A
20
From the June hearing?
Yes.
MR. DALE: I'm going to go ahead and mark as
21 Exhibit 20 a letter, dated December 21, 2011.
22 (Whereupon, Exhibit 20 was marked for
23 identification by the Court Reporter.)
24 MR. DALE:
25 Q Detective, if you could take a look at this
HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM
RICHARD TOMPKINS - VOLUME 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Page 284
letter and tell me, have you ever seen it before?
A No.
Q Okay. At any time in December, other than by
Counsel, were you ever instructed to investigate to
determine whether or not the station houses were still
in compliance with the distribution requirements of
Assenza?
A I was never instructed to, no.
Q Okay.
MR. DALE: I'm going to mark as Exhibit 21 a
11 letter, dated January 5th, 2012. Again, this is a
12 letter from my office.
13 (Whereupon, Exhibit 21 was marked for
14 identification by the Court Reporter.)
15 BY MR. DALE:
16 Q Detective Tompkins, have you ever seen
17 Exhibit 21 before?
18 A Not that I recall.
19 Q And would it be fair to say that you didn't
20 receive any instruction from anyone to investigate
21 whether the station houses were in noncompliance?
22 A
23 Q
24 A
25 Q
No.
That's no, you didn't receive an instruction?
No.
And were you ever told that there was an
HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM
RICHARD TOMPKINS - VOLUME 2
Page 285
1 allegation made by my office that Captain William Murphy
2 of the Northeast Division had perjured himself on one of
3 the declarations submitted in response to the Court's
4 motion to enforce order?
5 A No.
6 Q So would it be fair to say that you were never
7 asked to investigate whether Captain Murphy had been
8 truthful on that declaration at any point?
9 A No.
10 Q Okay. Would it be fair to say that there have
11 been no investigations of whether station houses are
12 complying with the Assenza distribution policy since the
13 discussion that you and the members of the gun unit and
14 command staff had in response to the June 2011 motion to
15 enforce?
16 A Say that again?
17 Q Yes. Would it be fair to say that since you
18 had the discussion with the command staff and the gun
19 unit about putting out a new document, getting
20 declarations, all occurring sometime around June of
21 2011, since that time, you have not had conducted any
22 further investigations about whether or not the station
23 houses are complying with the distribution requirements
24 of the Assenza policy?
25 A I've not done anything.
HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM
RICHARD TOMPKINS - VOLUME 2
1 Q
Page 286
Are you aware of anybody else in LAPD, besides
2 you, doing anything to investigate?
3 A That, I don't know, I'm not aware of any.
4 Okay.
5
Q
A But the COs are not advised to call me on what
6 they're doing at the different divisions.
7 Q Well, let me ask you this: The Special
8 Order 5, with the decision to redistribute it, that was
9 a decision that carne out of command staff and the gun
10 unit; correct?
11 A Yes.
12 Q The decision to put out a new document with the
13 policy, that carne out of the gun unit and command staff;
14 correct?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Those decisions weren't made by the COs of the
17 station houses; correct?
18 A No.
19 Q That's correct?
20 A That's correct.
21 Q Okay. You had previously testified that you
22 had reviewed some of the applications for the Plaintiffs
23 in this matter, in preparation for this deposition; am I
24 correct?
25 A Yes.
HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM
RICHARD TOMPKINS - VOLUME 2
1 Q Okay.
Page 287
I'm going to go through a list of names
2 here. These are the Plaintiffs in the case. I just
3 want to see if you recall these names. We'll actually
4 have you look at them, I'm not going to make you testify
5 off of memory.
6 Do you recall looking at, in preparation for
7 the deposition, the application of Plaintiff
8 David Davis?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Do you recall, in preparation for the
11 deposition, looking at the application of
12 Jacob Daniel Hill?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Do you recall, in preparation for the
15 investigation -- I'm sorry, withdrawn.
16 Do you recall, in preparation for this
17 deposi tion --
18
19
20
A
Q
It feels like an investigation.
Well then, I'm doing my job.
Do you recall, in preparation for this
21 deposition, reviewing the application of
22 Brian Goldstein?
23 A
24 Q
25
Yes.
Okay. Let me see if I can speed this up.
How about Paul Cohen?
HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM
RICHARD TOMPKINS - VOLUME 2
Page 485
1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA SS.
2 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3
4 I, THE UNDERSIGNED, TCAtW\(\IA.S (RI,vU-ARJ) I AFTER
5 SOLEMNLY STATING, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT THE
6 EVIDENCE GIVEN IN THIS ISSUE OR MATTER SHALL BE THE
7 TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SAY:
8 I HAVE READ THE FOREGOING DEPOSITION AND KNOW
9 THE CONTENTS THEREOF, AND I CERTIFY THAT THE SAME IS
10 TRUE OF MY OWN KNOWLEDGE, EXCEPT AS TO THOSE MATTERS
11 WHICH ARE THEREIN STATED, UPON MY INFORMATION AND
12 BELIEF, AND AS TO THOSE MATTERS, I BELIEVE IT TO BE
13 TRUE.
14 I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE
15 FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
16
17
18 AT
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EXECUTED ON j\'\JtAC.,t\- /0, 2-J? ~ -1.-
HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM
, 2012,
I I 1
I I
..•. ~.~ ..
SIGNATURE OF WITNESS
)'
:r::: R.IC...~ ToI"\CU'ldO solemnly swear that I have read the foregoing pages and that the same is ,,t ! a true and correct transcript of the testimony given by me at the time and place
hereinbefore set forth, with the following corrections:
PAGE: LINE: SHOULD READ: REASON FOR CIfANGE: ,1rl -5 i11-jypc )..:{) Ice.. w/~ i-<JotJ-{\ 3fr7 '7 LA-el5R.lttPll 7C (MY- ~~) tAA~ u..b/J..-rf
'- '-'
(SIGNATURE)
NOT ARIZA TION
I, __________________ , notary public in and for the State of
______ ~~~-----------------------------Counry, do hereby certify that ___________________ personally appeared before me this day of ,2012, at _____ _ a.m.lp.m.
My Commission Expires
(NOTARY PUBLIC)
RICHARD TOMPKINS - VOLUME 2
Page 486
1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA SS.
2 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3
4 I, RACHEL L. QUINONES, A CERTIFIED SHORTHAND
5 REPORTER IN AND FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY
6 CERTIFY:
7 THAT THE WITNESS NAMED IN THE FOREGOING
8 DEPOSITION HAD, BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE
9 DEPOSITION, SOLEMNLY STATED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY
10 THAT THE EVIDENCE GIVEN IN THIS ISSUE OR MATTER
11 SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT
12 THE TRUTH; THAT SAID PROCEEDINGS WERE TAKEN DOWN IN
13 STENOGRAPHIC WRITING BY ME AND THEREAFTER REDUCED TO A
14 TRANSCRIPT UNDER MY DIRECTION.
15 I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A
16 FULL, TRUE, AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF SAID PROCEEDINGS.
17 I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I AM NEITHER COUNSEL
18 FOR NOR RELATED TO ANY PARTY TO SAID ACTION, NOR IN
19 ANYWISE INTERESTED IN THE OUTCOME THEREOF.
20
21
22
23
24
25
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO
SUBSCRIBED MY NAME THIS ~ DAY OF f~k2CUJy(y (
~m}9l ~ ~UQN&
, 2012.
RACHEL L. QUINONES, CSR NO. 13307 EXPIRATION DATE: JANUARY 31, 2013 HENJUM GOUCHER REPORTING SERVICES 1-888-656-DEPO
HG LITIGATION SERVICES HGLITIGATION.COM
('-1"'71)
. J, .J
EXHIBIT 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT 14 CCH HON. ALAN G. BUCKNER, JUDGE
ANTHONY MARIO ASSENZA, ET AL. , ). )
PLAINTIFFS, ) VS. ) NO. BCl15813
) CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL., )
) DEFENDANTS. )
)
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 1998
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: AND THE PETITIONERS
FOR THE DEFENDANT: AND THE RESPONDENTS
BURTON C. JACOBSON, ES9' BY BURTON C. JACOBSON, ESQ. BEVERLY HILLS LAW BUILDING' 424 SOUTH BEVERLY DRIVE BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
-AND- ~
CRAWFORD & CRAWFORD BY MR. WILLIAM ARTHUR CRAWFORD, ESQ. BEVERLY HILLS LAW BUILDING 424 SOUTH BEVERLY DRIVE BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
-AND- . DON B. KATES, ESQ. 300 MONTGOMERY STREET SUITE 538 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
JAMES K. HAHN, CITY ATTORNEY' BY BYRON R. BOECKMAN, ESQ. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 1800 CITY HALL EAST 200 NORTH MAIN STREET LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012
JILL A. STEPHENS, CSR #9535 OFFICIAL REPORTER
, , r
I"~ "
2
1 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 1998
2 A.M. SESSION
3 DEPARTMENT 14 CCH HON. ALAN G. BUCKNER, JUDGE
4
5 APPEARANCES
6 (AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED.)
7 (JILL A. STEPHENS, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
8 MR. JACOBSON: ASSENZA VERSUS CITY OF LOS
9 ANGELES, BC115813. APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, PLEASE.
10 MR. CRAWFORD: WILLIAM CRAWFORD,
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
31
32
C-R-A-W-F-O-R-D, APPEARING FOR PLAINTIFFS.
MR. JACOBSON: BURTON C. JACOBSON,
J-A-C-O-B-S-O-N, BURTON IS WITH A "U", APPEARING FqR
PLAINTIFFS AND PETITIONERS.
MR. KATES: DON KATES, K-A-T-E-S, AGAIN FOR
PLAINTIFFS.
THE COURT: THANK YOU, MR. KATES.
MR. BOECKMAN: YOUR HONOR, BYRON R. BOECKMAN,
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS AND
RESPONDENTS.
THE COURT: PLEASE BE SEATED.
MR. JACOBSON: I'M HERE WITH MY ASSISTANT,
13 JENNIFER HANSEN.
THE COURT: MS. HANSEN, YOU'RE MOST WELCOME.
MS. HANSEN: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: IF AND TO THE EXTENT, GIVEN THE
NATURE OF THE ISSUE PRESENTED IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE
21 WITH US MEMBERS OF THE PRESS, YOU ARE MOST WELCOME.
1 THE COURT: -- AND SOMEBODY HAS PUT ON THE
2 BRAKES.
MR. CRAWFORD:
MR. JACOBSON:
NO.
NO.
43
3
4
5 MR. CRAWFORD: THE BRAKES WERE NOT PUT ON UNTIL
6 THE FOURTH YEAR.
7 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BETTER STILL. NEXT
8 PART OF THE ORIGINAL QUESTION IF I MAY, MR. BOECKMAN?
9 MR. BOECKMAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
10 THE COURT: IT'S NOT THIS STANDARD, IT'S NOT
11 THE DEFINITION OF GOOD CAUSE AS I HAVE READ IT INTO
12 THE RECORD, BUT RATHER THE INTERPRETATION OR
13 APPLICATION OF GOOD CAUSE WHICH IS IN DISPUTE?
14 MR. BOECKMAN: THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
15 THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND. ALL RIGHT. IS THAT
16 POINT DISPUTED?
17 MR. JACOBSON: YES.
18 THE COURT: THE STANDARDS ARE THE SAME, IT'S
19 JUST THAT THE INTERPRETER IS DIFFERENT OR THE
20 INTERPRETATION IS DIFFERENT?
21 MR. JACOBSON: NO, THEY FAILED TO USE IT.
22 BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE EXHIBITS THAT WE SUBMIT IN
23 SUPPORT OF THE CONTEMPT, ATTACHED TO THE APPLICATION
24 IS A STATEMENT OF POLICY WHICH ONLY CONTAINS E AND
25 COMPLETELY ELIMINATES F, WHICH IS ALL OF THE PARTS
26 THAT YOUR HONOR HAS JUST READ; SECURITY GUARD, THIS,
27 THAT AND THE OTHER THING.
28 SO IF MR. CITIZEN, AND THIS IS A PUBLIC
44
1 INTEREST LAWSUIT, WALKS IN AND SAYS, "MAY I HAVE A
2 CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT APPLICATION, PLEASE? AND CAN
3 I HAVE WHATEVER INFORMATION THAT YOU CAN GIVE ME THAT
4 WOULD HELP ME IN PROCEEDING WITH IT?" THEY GET THE
5 WRONG INFORMATION BECAUSE F IS NOT GIVEN TO THEM.
6 AND NOW MR. BOECKMAN SAYS, "BUT WE'RE GOING TO START
7 IN THE MIDDLE OF NEXT MONTH."
8
9
MR. BOECKMAN: THAT'S TRUE, YOUR HONOR.
MR. JACOBSON: SO
10 MR. BOECKMAN: WE HAVE BEEN REMISS,
11 UNFORTUNATELY. PROBABLY I WAS NOT AS FIRM WITH MY
12 CLIENT AS POSSIBLY A LAWYER SHOULD OR COULD BE WITH
13 RESPECT TO HAVING PRINTED THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
14 THIS AGREEMENT FOR DISTRIBUTION WITH EACH AND EVERY
15 APPLICATION--
16 THE COURT: I APPRECIATE YOUR CANDOR.
17 MR. BOECKMAN: -- AND WE HAVE NOT DONE THAT.
18 THE PLAINTIFFS WERE AWARE OF THAT ALL ALONG. WE
19 TALKED ABOUT IT MORE THAN ONCE. AS LATE AS LAST
20 SEPTEMBER WE TALKED ABOUT IT AGAIN, AND I
21 ACKNOWLEDGED THAT WE HOPED TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT IN A
22 RELATIVELY NEAR TERM, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S THE
23 SUBJECT OF CONTEMPT. WE'VE OFFERED TO DO IT HERE BY
24 THE 15TH.
25 THE CONTEMPT POWER IS NECESSARY TO --
26 YOU KNOW, TO ENFORCE THE LAW. WE'RE GOING TO DO IT.
27 WE'RE GOING TO GIVE IT TO EVERYBODY. THAT'S NOT THE
28 ISSUE. WE CONCEDE THAT WE DID NOT, IN FACT, COMPLY
1 WITH OUR OWN STANDARDS WITH RESPECT TO ISSUANCE OF
2 THE COPIES OF THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THIS
3 AGREEMENT TO ALL APPLICANTS WITH RESPECT TO THE
4 ISSUANCE OF CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMITS. WE AGREE THAT
5 WE DID NOT DO THAT.
6 WHAT WE DON'T AGREE WITH IS THAT THE
7 TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT HAVING RUN WITH RESPECT TO THE
8 PLAINTIFFS AS TO AUTOMATIC GRANT AND RENEWAL OF THE
9 LICENSES, SHOULD NOT, IN FACT, MARK THAT POINT IN
10 TIME WHEN WE CAN THEN BEGIN TO EXERCISE DISCRETION.
11 NOW, YOU KNOW -- YOUR HONOR IS FAMILIAR
12 ENOUGH WITH SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS WHEREIN LARGE SUMS
13 OF MONEY ARE PAID IN CASES WHERE THE PARTIES MAY, IN
14 FACT, TOTALLY NOT AGREE WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER OR
15 NOT THEY SHOULD BE PAID.
16 THE COURT: LET'S--
17 MR. BOECKMAN: SOMEONE WINS AND THAT'S
18 THE COURT: LET'S BE CLEAR ON THAT. A
19 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS DEFINED IN LAW AS A CONTRACT
20 FROM WHICH EVERYBODY WALKS AWAY UNHAPPY.
21 MR. BOECKMAN: YES. I THINK THAT'S CLEAR. AND
22 WE WEREN'T HAPPY ABOUT GRANTING THESE PARTICULAR
23 PLAINTIFFS RELIEF, BUT WE DID, AND WE COMPLIED AND
24 THE COURT: THE PLAINTIFFS WERE UNHAPPY BECAUSE
25 THEY DIDN'T GET THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF THEY MIGHT HAVE
26 SOUGHT. THE CHIEF OF POLICE WASN'T HAPPY BECAUSE HE
27 LOST SOME CONTROL OVER THE ISSUANCE OF GUN PERMITS.
28 MR. BOECKMAN: THAT'S A FAIR REPRESENTATION OF
~ . I. f<.
~ '.
1 THE WHOLE THING.
2 THE COURT: I'LL TELL YOU WHAT ELSE IS A FAIR
3 REPRESENTATION: I WAS STRUCK BY YOUR CANDID
4 ADMISSION THAT YOU WEREN'T AS FIRM WITH YOUR CLIENT
5 AS YOU COULD BE. I WORKED FOR A CHIEF OF POLICE,
4fi
6 MR. BOECKMAN, AND I WOULDN'T EVEN DREAM OF BEING FIRM
7 WITH HIM, BECAUSE I WAS SCARED AS HELL OF HIM.
8 MR. BOECKMAN: I HAVE WORKED FOR THIS CHIEF AND
9 THIS BOARD FOR 14 YEARS, I'M NOT AFRAID OF THEM AT
10 ALL BECAUSE I'M RETIRING IN JANUARY.
11 (LAUGHTER)
12 THE COURT: YOUR A BETTER MAN THAN I, SIR. I
13 HAD 20 YEARS TO LOOK AT. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT AS I
14 HEAR THIS, THAT THE CONTEMPT REMEDY HERE SOUGHT IS
15 SIMPLY THE TEXT -- SUBTEXT. THAT THE PLAINTIFFS ARE
16 SAYING TO THE LOS ANGELES DEFENDANTS, LET'S GET THIS
17 BALL ROLLING NOW. IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S A MEANS OF
18 BRINGING THE MATTER TO A HEAD.
19 LET ME ASSURE PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL AND
20 THE PARTIES HERE PRESENT, THAT I AM NO LONGER
21 TERRIFIED OF CHIEFS OF POLICE. I FELT THAT IMPORTANT
22 TO SAY.
23 I DISCLAIM ANY SIMILARITY TO A MAJOR
24 GENERAL GEORGE STEADMAN OF THE CONFEDERATE ARMY WHO
25 MADE THIS SPEECH AT VICKSBURG: "GENTLEMEN, I WANT
26 YOU TO FIGHT VIGOROUSLY AND THEN RUN AWAY. AS I AM A
27 BIT LAME, I AM GOING TO BEGIN RUNNING RIGHT NOW."
28 (LAUGHTER)
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3 DEPARTMENT 14 CCH HON. ALAN G. BUCKNER, JUDGE
4 ANTHONY MARIO ASSENZA, ET AL. ,
5 PLAINTIFFS, VS. NO. BCl15813
6 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.,
7 DEFENDANTS.
8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 SS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
11
12 I, JILL A. STEPHENS, CSR NO. 9535, OFFICIAL
13 COURT REPORTER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
14 CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DO HEREBY
15 CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING PAGES, 1 THROUGH 52,
16 COMPRISE A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE
17 TESTIMONY AND PROCEEDINGS HELD IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED
18 MATTER ON JUNE 26, 1998.
19
20 DATED THIS 2ND DAY OF JULY, 1998.
21
22
23
24
\, \ I ' ,i ') \' \ ( __ (' ~ \. .. ," ,I"
1
\,. I ' l f ,':,
,) I
25 JILL A. STEPHENS, C.S.R. NO. 9535
26 OFFICIAL REPORTER
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
3 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
4 I, Claudia Ayala, am employed in the City of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California. I am over the age eighteen (18) years and am not a party to the within action. My
5 business address is 180 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 200, Long Beach, California 90802.
6 On March 22, 2012, I served the foregoing document(s) described as
7 PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT
8 on the interested parties in this action by placing
9 [ ] the original [X] a true and correct copy
10 thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows:
11 "SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST"
12 lL (BY MAIL) As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and
13 processing correspondence for mailing. Under the practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Long Beach,
14 California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date is more than one day after
15 date of deposit for mailing an affidavit. Executed on March 22, 2012, at Long Beach, California.
16 (PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to delivered by hand to the offices of the
17 addressee. Executed on March 22, 2012, at Long Beach, California.
18 (OVERNIGHT MAIL) As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of
19 collection and processing correspondence for overnight delivery by UPS/FED-EX. Under the practice it would be deposited with a facility regularly maintained by UPS/FED-EX for
20 receipt on the same day in the ordinary course of business. Such envelope was sealed and placed for collection and delivery by UPS/FED-EX with delivery fees paid or provided for
21 in accordance.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Executed on March 22, 2012, at Long Beach, California.
(STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
(FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the 0
court at whose direction the service was mad.
4 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
~rofthis
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"SERVICE LIST"
ANTHONY MARIO ASSENZA, et al. v. THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.
Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney Carlos De La Guerra, Managing City Attorney Debra L. Gonzalez, Assistant City Attorney CITY OF LOS ANGELES 200 North Main Street City Hall East, Room 800 Los Angeles, CA 90012
Burton C. Jacobson A TTORNEYS AT LAW Beverly Hills Law Building 424 South Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, California 90212-4414
5
Attorneys for Defendants/Respondents Charlie Beck and City of Los Angeles
Co-Counsel
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
'< ...
L.A.S.C. - FILINGS #32 111 N. HILL STREET lOS N"lGELES C1~ 9001.2
DATE PAID: 03/22/12 02:32:03 PM F:ECE I F'T #; CCH4f.,5980067"
C:1T/CI~::;E: 8C11581.3 L.Et:I/[)EF#:
PAVt'lENT ; $40 .00 RE CE:[ ''!'ED :
CHECK: 40.00 C~I:3H : CHANGE: C~jRD :
0310
Q ro" =:l r -c ()oo 0 » 00 ::l (jj<.o "" CD 11--" CD §,OO (Q(J)
I1 C co "0 CO ~ 00 0"
() o =:l -co
., () 0 c ::I.
30.) "0 __
~1'0
.J:>. o o o
N o -'" 1'0
~ (") ::I: m r-ReI ~ en en 0 (")
» ---! m In '"tI
P
{:::)il.J8iZt;::~ ::,:5 (~!,i= ,/ i=~:t j~:; ~- i~, >.~. ,l!, ll·
ATTORNEY FILE # 1 0 5 6 214
RETURN TODAY __ Mark X for special assignment(s). RUSH CHARGES APPLY
PLAINTIFF: A35€(\"VA cl t& /' VS.
DEFENDANT: e ~ ~ L. A . APPROVED DIRECT BILLING:
CARRIER NAME:
ADDRESS:
CITY, STATE, & ZIP:
INSTRUCTIONS:
DEPT.
IMPORTANT
FILE
SERVE
DELIVER
COPY
OTHER
D RESIDENCE
D BUSINESS
V
V
FILE BY
ADJUSTER:
INSURED:
CLAIM NUMBER:
DATE OF LOSS:
WT HAIR
2nd SUBMIT
DATE __ _ RUNNER ___ _
, IATTOR£H~~L I INC 0 R~~ RAT E D
Long Beach 562-595-1337 Torrance 310-316-1256 Fax 562-595-6294
PROCESS
DELIVERY
RETURN
ADVFEE
ADV CHG
TIME
GIS
TOTAL SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT #
