Case: State of California v. County of Kern

This case involved a state-led lawsuit against a county sheriff’s office accused of unconstitutional policing. On December 22, 2020, the Attorney General of California filed this lawsuit against the County of Kern and the Kern County Sheriff’s Office (“KCSO”) in the Kern County Superior Court of California, alleging that the KCSO engaged in a pattern or practice of violating state and federal law. The California Constitution and state law empowered the Attorney General to file a civil action to ensure that state and local law enforcement agencies uniformly and adequately enforce the law. The case was assigned to Judge Thomas S. Clark.  

The Attorney General began a civil investigation into the KCSO’s actions in 2016. Attorneys from the California Department of Justice investigated allegations involving police practices and accountability. As a result of the investigation, the state concluded that the inadequate policies, practices, and procedures employed by the KCSO resulted in a deprivation of the constitutional rights of Californians. The investigation found evidence of excessive use of force, unreasonable stops, searches, arrests, and seizures, and failure to exercise appropriate management and supervision of law enforcement officers in violation of the United States Constitution and California state constitutions. The investigation also uncovered evidence of illegal use of deadly force against individuals with mental health disabilities, failure to provide access to resources for individuals with limited English proficiency, failure to provide equal employment opportunities, failure to maintain a meaningful program for citizen complaints, and lack of a comprehensive community policing program. 

The state requested injunctive relief requiring the KCSO to implement the agreed-upon reforms set forth in a stipulated judgment that was filed concurrently with the complaint. The state asserted that the people of California had already experienced irreparable harm. It also requested that the court exercise continuing jurisdiction over the action to ensure that the KCSO maintained compliance with the stipulated order. 

In the stipulated judgment, the KCSO agreed to continue revising its use of force policies to uphold the rights protected by the California Constitution and the United States Constitution. This included ensuring policies complied with the California Penal Code by limiting officer use of lethal force and requiring the use of de-escalation techniques, crisis-intervention tactics, and other alternatives to the use of force. The stipulated judgment set guidelines for KCSO’s use of canines, force reporting policy, supervisory investigations into reportable uses of force, use of force training, and use of force analysis. 

KCSO was also instructed to reiterate, train, and emphasize that all stops, seizures, and searches must comply with both the United States and California constitutions. To that effect, KCSO was required to implement training for bias-free policing and to ensure documentation and supervisor review of stops, searches, and seizures. 

The stipulated judgment also required that the KCSO preferentially rely on the Mobile Evaluation Team (“MET”) when addressing mental health crises or dealing with individuals who have a mental health disability. The MET was required to be trained in de-escalation techniques to aid individuals suffering from mental health emergencies. The KCSO was additionally directed to provide Crisis Intervention Team training to various staff members.

In regard to its language access deficiencies, the KCSO agreed that it would work to develop and implement a language access policy that was consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Similarly, the KCSO agreed to review and revise its recruitment and hiring program to ensure that it successfully attracted and hired a diverse group of employees. The KCSO also committed to develop and implement a transparent promotional plan free of unlawful discrimination.

KCSO additionally agreed to enhance, promote, and strengthen its ties to the community by engaging with citizens through meetings and a biennial survey. Finally, the KCSO promised to account for personnel misconduct by ensuring that all allegations are received, documented, and impartially investigated. 

In order to monitor compliance with and implementation of the order, the parties agreed to appoint a third-party monitor. The monitor was required to conduct compliance reviews and audits as necessary to determine whether the defendant effectively implemented the stipulated judgment. The stipulated judgment also instructed the monitor to issue yearly reports detailing the KCSO’s progress in implementing and complying with the agreement. The stipulated judgment gave the court jurisdiction over the agreement for a term of five years, subject to adjustment as agreed to by the parties.

On April 12, 2022, the monitor filed their first annual report pursuant to the agreement. The monitoring report stated that the monitor and the defendant had worked together to establish a process for measuring compliance with the stipulated judgment. The report also stated that the defendant had been cooperative and had made progress instituting the reforms required by the stipulated judgment.

The monitor’s second annual report was filed on March 23, 2023. According to this report, the KCSO achieved progress in almost every area of the stipulated judgment. However, the report also acknowledged that the KCSO was struggling to timely comply with all aspects of the stipulated judgment due primarily to staffing issues and data system limitations. The report offered some potential solutions.

In January 2024, the monitor published its third annual report. The report stated that the KCSO had achieved compliance with many areas of the stipulated judgment and was progressing towards compliance in the remaining areas. In particular, the monitor applauded the KCSO’s community engagement efforts.

The stipulated judgment was ongoing as of February 2025.