Sheriff’s watchdog group needs new lawyers to do its job, civil grand jury says

The civilian commission overseeing the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department needs to ditch the county counsel because that office is stifling the commission’s role as a watchdog, according to the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury.

The Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission, which is represented by the Office of the County Counsel, has repeatedly clashed with the office because its lawyers are also recommending the Sheriff’s Department ignore the commission’s subpoenas. In light of the clashes, the civil grand jury supported the commission’s push to look for outside representation to enforce its role.

“Recent trends in oversight now call into question whether they can equally and fully represent the ‘public interest,’” the grand jury’s June report states. “County counsel is conflicted in equally representing the [Board of Supervisors], LASD, and the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission.”

The oversight commission has sued the Sheriff’s Department to enforce a subpoena seeking three confidential use-of-force reports, and hired two former commission chairs — attorneys Robert Bonner and Sean Kennedy — to represent it in court, pro bono.

Bonner and Kennedy left the commission last year.

According to the suit, L.A. County’s attorneys have repeatedly blocked the commission’s efforts at oversight, instructing the Sheriff’s Department not to hand over confidential documents sought by the commission.

“From the moment that the Civilian Oversight Commission showed we were serious about doing our job under the law and following up on our subpoenas to actually see them enforced, county counsel has stepped up its efforts to undercut, suppress, intimidate and retaliate against the lawful execution of oversight,” said Hans Johnson, chair of the commission.

The commission was established in 2016 by the county Board of Supervisors after a jail abuse scandal that sent multiple sheriff’s deputies to prison, and was meant to provide civilian oversight of the department.

The grand jury’s support for the commission’s approach underscores its mission, Johnson said.

“We have a very gutsy finding by the civil grand jury that reinforces the work of the Civilian Oversight Commission and backs the findings that we’ve been raising about the conflicted nature of the county counsel,” Johnson said.

In a statement, the Office of County Counsel said that legal representation for all county entities is provided “exclusively” by its office under the county charter, and that it would take an amendment for the commission to hire outside attorneys.

“It is the Office of County Counsel’s job to help all commissions and departments navigate federal, state, and local regulations to ensure their actions are consistent and in alignment with policy and legal direction from the Board of Supervisors,” the statement read. “County Counsel’s advising of County officers and sub-entities, such as the [Civilian Oversight Commission], does not create an attorney-client relationship ‘separate and distinct’ from … the Board so it is not possible for a conflict of interest to exist.”

When provided with the county’s explanation, Johnson was incredulous.

“That is laughable and does not pass the smell test from anyone,” he said.

The legal fight has centered on three incidents, including a fatal shooting in which the Sheriff’s Department has refused to provide unredacted records to the commission.

During a Jan. 22 meeting of the commission, Sheriff Robert Luna confirmed the department was withholding the reports on the advice of counsel, citing a letter from county attorneys that the commission was required to “meet and confer” with the sheriff’s union before the documents are released.

“That’s what we’re following now,” Luna told the commission at the time. “We have to follow the legal process.”

Under the requirement of “meet and confer,” the commission would have to meet attorneys and leaders from the Sheriff’s Department’s labor unions to negotiate whether and how investigative and personnel reports would be released.

The commission has argued it should be allowed to review the records under closed session, without having to meet with labor unions, to maintain their confidentiality, and said recent court decisions and laws give them the authority to do so.

Measure R, approved by Los Angeles County voters in 2020, provided the commission with subpoena powers, and in 2025 Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 847 into law, allowing oversight bodies to receive confidential law enforcement personnel records in closed session.

An appellate court ruling this year involving a Sonoma County civilian oversight body also found in favor of the watchdog groups, ruling they had the authority to subpoena the law enforcement departments they’re tasked with monitoring.

Nevertheless, in L.A. County, the Sheriff’s Department has continued to defy the subpoena, relying on the advice of county attorneys, Johnson said. The county counsel’s office has not changed its position amid the litigation or in light of the grand jury’s recommendation.

Members of the office said the county, including its commissions, is still obligated to meet with labor unions.

“This is not up to the County’s discretion,” the office said in a statement.

After the commission filed suit, County Counsel Dawyn Harrison told The Times in a statement that the lawsuit was “not legally valid” because it wasn’t filed or approved by county attorneys.

The suit is still in litigation.