The citizen commission that oversees the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department needs to fire the district attorney because that office interferes with the commission's role as a watchdog, according to the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury.
The Sheriff's Civilian Oversight Commission, represented by the District Counsel's Office, has repeatedly clashed with the office because its attorneys have also advised the Sheriff's Department to ignore the commission's announcements. Due to this conflict, the public judges supported the commission's proposal to look for external representatives to fulfill their role.
“The latest oversight mechanisms now call into question whether they can adequately and fully represent the 'public interest,'” said the June grand jury report. “The district attorney is conflicted about equal representation [Board of Supervisors]the LASD, and the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission.”
The oversight commission sued the Sheriff's Department to enforce a subpoena requiring three confidential use-of-force reports, and hired two former commission chairmen — attorneys Robert Bonner and Sean Kennedy — to represent it in court, pro bono.
Bonner and Kennedy left the commission last year.
According to the lawsuit, LA County attorneys have repeatedly blocked the commission's oversight efforts, ordering the Sheriff's Department not to hand over confidential documents sought by the commission.
“Since the time the Citizens' Oversight Commission showed that we are determined to do our job under the law and follow up on our requests to act, the district attorney has intensified his efforts to reduce, suppress, intimidate and retaliate with the legality of supervision,” said Hans Johnson, the chairman of the commission.
The commission was created in 2016 by the County Board of Supervisors after a jail abuse scandal that sent several sheriff's deputies to jail, and was intended to provide oversight of the department.
The grand jury's support for the commission underscores its mission, Johnson said.
“We are pleased with the finding of a civil grand jury that strengthens the work of the Civilian Oversight Commission and supports the findings we have been making regarding the district attorney's conflict,” Johnson said.
In a statement, the Office of County Counsel said legal representation of all county entities is provided “solely” by its office under the county charter, and would require an amendment for the commission to hire outside attorneys.
“It is the duty of the Office of District Counsel to assist all commissions and departments to review state, federal, and local laws to ensure that their actions are consistent and consistent with policy and legislative direction from the Board of Directors,” the statement read. “The advice of the District Counselor to the District officers and sub-organizations, such as [Civilian Oversight Commission]they do not create an attorney-client relationship 'separate and distinct' from … the Board and therefore there is no possibility of a conflict of interest.”
When given the description of the district, Johnson was incredulous.
“That's ridiculous and it doesn't pass the smell test for anyone,” he said.
The legal battle centers on three incidents, including a fatal shooting in which the Sheriff's Department refused to provide redacted records to the commission.
At the commission's Jan. 22 meeting, Sheriff Robert Luna confirmed that the department was withholding the reports on the advice of an attorney, citing a letter from the county's attorneys that said the commission should have “met and negotiated” with the sheriff's union before the documents were released.
“That's what we're after now,” Luna told the commission at the time. “We have to follow the legal process.”
Under the “meet and provide” requirement, the commission will have to meet with attorneys and leaders from the Sheriff's Department's labor unions to discuss how and when investigative and labor reports will be released.
The commission stated that it should be allowed to review records under closed hours, without meeting with labor unions, to maintain confidentiality, saying that court decisions and recent laws give them the authority to do so.
Measure R, approved by Los Angeles County voters in 2020, gave the commission subpoena power, and in 2025 Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 847 into law, allowing oversight bodies to access confidential law enforcement personnel records during closed hours.
An appeals court decision this year involving the Sonoma County probation agency also ruled in favor of the watchdogs, ruling that they have the authority to subpoena the law enforcement agencies they are tasked with monitoring.
However, in LA County, the Sheriff's Department continued to oppose the request, relying on the advice of county attorneys, Johnson said. The district counsel's office has not changed its position during the trial or as a result of the grand jury's recommendation.
Board members said the county, including its commissions, is still obligated to meet with labor unions.
“This is not at the province's discretion,” the office said in a statement.
After the commission filed the lawsuit, District Attorney Dawyn Harrison told The Times in a statement that the lawsuit “was not legal” because it was not filed or approved by the district attorneys.
The case is still in court.
