Los Angeles Special Orders 40 Civil Trial to Commence Next June

A civil jury trial over the validity and enforceability of the Los Angeles Police Department's Special Order 40 against the City of Los Angeles has been set to start next June at the city's downtown county courthouse.

The suit had been filed on behalf of a private citizen taxpayer residing in the City of Angels by the San Marino office of the nationwide political litigation organization known as Judicial Watch. They are challenging the legal status of the LAPD rule which forbids city peace officers from determining the immigration status of anyone being questioned.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu ruled at an August 20 attorney conference that the civil trial will begin in his courtroom on June 30, 2008. The lawsuit had originally been filed by Judicial Watch in May, 2006.

The case was initiated by the government watchdog attorney firm on behalf of Harold P. Sturgeon, as a resident and taxpayer of Los Angeles, to challenge the legal status of the order and seeks an injunction to forbid any future city collected tax money be spent on enforcing that rule which they claim violates federal law who has jurisdiction on all immigration matters.

Named as defendants in the lawsuit besides the city were LAPD Chief William J. Bratton, John Mack in his capacity as president of the Board of Police Commissioners and the four other members of the police board.

The complaint alleges that back in 1979 then Police Chief Daryl F. Gates issued Special Order 40 so LAPD officers could 'not initiate police action with the objective of discovering the alien status of a person,' nor would any officer arrest an in individual solely based on determining if they had illegally entered the country.

The rule was originally designed to encourage undocumented city residents to cooperate with police officers conducting investigations. But many pro-legal groups have used the order in the years since to create an image of Los Angeles being a 'sanctuary city,' which allows those from another country living here illegally to stay in the shadows without worrying about being deported.

The plaintiff in the suit seeks to stop the city from spending any taxpayer funds in enforcing that edict since he claims the law, which is alleged to be tantamount in allowing a sanctuary policy forbidding the questioning the status against illegal immigrants residing in the city, contravenes federal law including the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution because immigration policy has been previously litigated to be solely decided by the authority and power of the federal government.