The San Diego Police Officers' Association, along with most of the San Diego and Imperial County law enforcement associations, sued San Diego County District Attorney Paul Pfingst, City Attorney Casey Gwinn, and Police Chief David Bejarano challenging the constitutionality of Penal Code Section 12021. This statute prohibits anyone convicted of simple battery (Penal Code Section 242) from possessing a firearm for ten years. Anybody convicted of assault under color of authority (Penal Code Section 249) does not lose the right to carry a firearm. The POA challenged the statute contending the law violated the California and United States Constitutional right to equal protection. The POA Legal Committee authorized the suit after a member was convicted of battery after getting into a shoving match with a neighbor. If the statute had not been challenged, Chief Bejarano would have been forced to terminate the officer since the officer would not be able to possess a firearm.
After the lawsuit was filed in San Diego Superior Court, the matter was assigned to Judge J. Michael Bollman. The District Attorney, City Attorney and the Chief of Police took the unusual position of taking no position on the merits of the litigation. The POA was then in the unusual position of going to court without opposition from any defendant.
On September 22, 1999, Judge Bollman signed a permanent injunction prohibiting the District Attorney and City Attorney from prosecuting any peace officer for possession of a firearm after a conviction for simple battery (Penal Code Section 242). Additionally, the City of San Diego and Chief Bejarano are prohibited from enforcing Penal Code Section 12021 against any police officer employed by the San Diego Police Department. The injunctions do not apply to non-police officers that are convicted of battery.
This case is a major victory for law enforcement in San Diego County. Most officers are probably aware that many attempts have been made by various law enforcement groups to change the statute at the legislative level without success.
Ironically, the POA would normally not provide legal representation for criminal acts committed off-duty and not within the course and scope of employment. The POA Legal Committee believed that the member in question was only prosecuted because of his police officer status. The victim signed a "no prosecution" letter and made it clear that he did not want the case prosecuted. The POA Legal Committee determined that the membership as a whole would benefit from providing POA legal assistance.