By Jessica Pishko
During the last Los Angeles County Civilian Oversight Commission meeting, it was unclear that Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva would actually appear. The faces of the Commissioners were filled with uncertainty, some with amusement. Should they move on to a new topic?
When Sheriff Villanueva did pop onscreen in his tiny box, he did not apologize nor did he seem to realize that he was late. He read a prepared statement, repeating that he should be praised for being the only sheriff to “deal with” the problem of deputy gangs. But when asked by members of the COC whether he would support outlawing them? Villanueva refused to answer; then, when, pressed, gave a hard, “No.”
“Deputy cliques exist in every organization on the face of the earth,” he declared.
Robert Bonner, a member of the COC and former prosecutor, was astonished. Histone turned hostile. But Villanueva would not budge and would not apologize. During public comments – largely consisting of community members who had experienced the deadly violence of deputy gangs – he got up and left without a word.
All of this is not unusual behavior for Villanueva. Elected with the overwhelming support of official Democrat institutions, the sheriff has been rude, crude, and completely inept. He’s alienated all other members of government and appears to have aligned himself with the groups who want to remove District Attorney George Gascon, Governor Gavin Newsom, and other right-leaning sheriffs (which includes other sheriffs of Southern California).
Most recently, he flouted California law and refused to release the names of deputies 
involved in shootings until the Los Angeles Times wrote a long story about the problem. Then, he changed his mind, all without acknowledging that he was wrong.
In many ways, Villanueva perfectly reflects both the ethos of the sheriff and why it’s a problematic office. Elected independently and unaccountable to county government, sheriffs traditionally are more culturally and political conservative that the urban areas they contain. Villanueva has used his brand of populism to wage war on progressive causes in his county, with seemingly complete amnesia that these were the people who got him elected.
Villanueva’s defense of deputy gangs is, at this point, so ridiculous that no one can listen to it with a straight face. He says that he cannot control deputy gangs because his counsel tells him such cliques are protected by the First Amendment. He’s argued that that there are good people “on both sides,” that he cannot demand deputies show their tattoos – some of which include skulls, Nazi symbols, and flames. Bear in the mind that the demand is simple, to disallow deputy gangs within the LASD; no one faces criminal sanctions. (Yet.)
There have been multiple legal opinions written to support such a rule, the most recent by COC member Richard Bonner. Setting aside the complete hypocrisy of a law enforcement office that continues to enforce laws against so-called “street gangs” arguing that gangs amongst law enforcement is fine, there’s ample historical, legal, and data-based evidence to show that LASD gangs make people much less safe and undermine any credibility the office may have. Reporting by Cerise Castle shows that LASD gangs have been responsible for a host of shootings and incidents of excessive force. But her reporting does more than just recite a litany of horrors – it shows through the number of and horribleness of the incidents over decades just how entrenched gangs are in the LASD. There is no public comment, no oversight, no legal opinion that can overcome that history.
The sheriff’s recalcitrance is evidence for the reasons why Los Angeles should eliminate the sheriff’s department. Check the Sheriff has proposed a charter amendment that would make it easier to impeach and remove a sheriff, which I think is helpful, but not enough to prevent future harms. The sheriff’s office needs to be dismantled entirely. It’s clear that it’s just too much power – too much power typically wielded by men with too little experience and too much investment in deputy gang culture.
It would require an amendment to the California constitution, but that is not excessively difficult. With such a change, California counties could decide whether they want county sheriffs (through popular election or a charter amendment) and have options to eliminate the office or reduce its power by redirecting jobs traditionally under the purview of the sheriffs to other departments. The LASD, for example, polices contract cities, hospitals and parks, which could all opt for different public safety plans that do not rely on an emotional and angry man. County jail should be under the purview of health departments, not law enforcement.
Villanueva has cast his lot with the conservative forces at work in California (and the nation), the ones who want to “wake the bear” (figuratively and literally). But, the movement needs to also think about the sheriff’s office as more than the man Villanueva has shown himself to be – we need to also think about how to eliminate an office that has over and over again been prone to abuse, mistrust, and violence.
Jessica Pishko is a lawyer, writer and researchers who focuses on sheriffs.
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
Hey just wanted to flag our readers attention to this piece. Jessica Pishko is a long time reporter, most recently with the Appeal. She will be doing a monthly column for us on sheriffs. Really excited to have her.
Wow that was some poor writing. How about instead of talking about a subject the reader may not know about by vilifying a sheriff I’ve never heard of and slowly making vague innuendos, you write an article on what a ‘deputy gang’ is? Are these deputies that form gangs, or gangs that infiltrate law enforcement? And does this really exist? And what is a ‘gang’ in this context? Is it like street gangs, or something else altogether?
Why would demanding the showing of tattoos be an issue, or even come up? “Honest question”, as ‘they’ say.
Let’s take out the “Nazi symbols” — is there some problem with Sheriff deputies having tattoos with skulls or flames? Seems to me if this were reversed we’d be talking about suppressing self-expression.
And I read it. I hope you’re happy.
California launches civil rights investigation of Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department – link
LA sheriff’s deputies accused of harassing relatives of people killed by deputies – link
Looks like Alan has some reading to do to learn more about Sheriff Villanueva.
Jessica also had an article on Reisig back in 2018…
Is The Yolo County District Attorney Betraying CA Voters? – link
I realize I’m being an arsehole to your new writer, but I’m trying to make a point here. My passion is transportation; if I were to start talking inside-language and transit-nerd talk, you’d have no idea what I was talking about. Your passion is criminal-justice reform. I have no idea the inside-language is, or events known to persons with a passion for this.
I read this article, I have no idea what the issue even is. Would you have any idea if you read a transit blog? So I think you need to ask yourself, are you trying to change hearts and minds and inform? Or are you writing an insider blog criminal-justice-reform nerds? If the articles were more accessible, I might learn something, even be convinced of the need for change on occasion.
My want to click links in order to read more articles on the subject in order to do so, and only after-the-fact . . . not so much . . .