Gifford v. City of Los Angeles

• Decision Date: 03 April 2001
• Docket Number: No. B142639.,B142639.
• Citation: Gifford v. City of Los Angeles, 88 Cal.App.4th 801, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 164 (Cal. App. 2001)
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: Arthur S. GIFFORD, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Appellant.

106 Cal.Rptr.2d 164

88 Cal.App.4th 801

Arthur S. GIFFORD, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Appellant.

No. B142639.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5.

April 3, 2001.

James K. Hahn, City Attorney, Cecil W. Marr, Senior Assistant City Attorney, and James Axtell, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Appellant.

Lawrence P. House for Plaintiff and Respondent.

ARMSTRONG, J.

In 1998 the City of Los Angeles, through the Los Angeles Police Department, refused respondentArthur Gifford's application for a concealed firearm license.(Pen.Code, § 12050.)Gifford filed a petition for writ of mandate(Code Civ. Proc., § 1085), alleging that the Police Department was obligated to give him the license pursuant to a stipulated judgment in earlier litigation, Lake v. City of Los Angeles, et al.(Case No. PC-008-329).In response, the Police Department argued that the Lake judgment did not relieve Gifford of the statutory obligation to show good cause for a license, and that he had not done so.The trial court agreed with Gifford and entered a judgment granting the petition and commanding the Police Department to issue a license to Gifford.We agree with the Police Department and reverse.

The Lake Litigation

Gifford was one of several named plaintiffs in the Lake litigation.The City of Los Angeles and its agency, the Los Angeles Police Department, were among the defendants.The lawsuit challenged the Police Department's procedures, rules and practices for issuing licenses to carry concealed firearms pursuant to Penal Code¹ section 12050.That statute provides that "The sheriff of a county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying satisfies any one of the conditions specified in subparagraph (D) and has completed a course of training as described in subparagraph (E), may issue to that person a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person."(§ 12050, subd. (a)(1)(A).)

The Lake litigation was resolved by stipulated judgment, filed on March 14, 1995.In the judgment, the Police Department admitted that certain of its rules, policies and procedures were not in compliance with section 12050, represented that those rules, policies and procedures had been altered, and stated that under the new policy "good cause exists if there is convincing evidence of a clear and present danger to life or of great bodily [harm] to the applicant, his (or her) spouse, or dependent child, which cannot be adequately dealt with by existing law enforcement resources, and which danger cannot be reasonably avoided by alternative measures, and which danger would be significantly mitigated by the applicant's carrying of a concealed firearm."The Police Department stated that it "recognizes that [section 12050] requires the issuance of licenses to persons of good character who have good cause to carry a concealed firearm for the defense of themselves or others or in pursuing their livelihood."

The judgment also established a citizens' Advisory Review panel to review contested applications and criteria for licensure, and, under the heading "Presumption," states that "[a]bsent good cause for denial, persons having good cause as defined ... shall be issued licenses for the maximum time period allowed by section 12050, and their licenses shall be renewed so long as they continue to have good cause."

As to the Advisory Panel, the judgment requires the Police Department to notify applicants of the right to request a review, to promptly submit its file to the panel if a review is requested, and to "promptly reconsider the matter and take any further action it deems merited" if the panel recommends that the Police Department change its decision.

Finally, the stipulated judgment included a section dealing with the Lakeplaintiffs.It provided that "[t]he allegations of the complaint showed good cause as to all of the plaintiffs who sought to be issued licenses," and that "These named plaintiffs will receive license[s], and prior to expiration upon timely reapplication their license will be renewed for a one year term, but only so long as they continue to have good cause, good character, not to be barred by law from the ownership of concealable firearms, and to meet each of the other requirements of licensure under section 12050...."

Relevant Facts and Procedures²

Licenses under section 12050 are issued for a one year period.Gifford was issued such a license pursuant to the stipulated judgment.³He applied for and received licenses in 1996 and 1997.In 1998, Gifford again submitted an application for a license.The application required him to "Set forth a statement of facts from which the Chief of Police could establish that your needs are within the criteria used for the issuance of a concealed weapons permit, and why in your opinion there are no other means whereby your personal safety can be assured."Gifford wrote "All conditions under which this CCW [California Concealed Weapon] was originally issued remain the same."

The Police Department informed Gifford that he needed documentation newer than that supplied in 1993—apparently, his original, pre-Lake, application—to support his need.By letter, Gifford informed the Police Department that he would not supply additional documentation, asserting that under the Lake judgment his statement that his circumstances were unchanged was sufficient unless the City could show that the statement was untrue.The Police Department denied the license request, citing Gifford's failure to provide sufficient documentation and the lack of convincing evidence of a clear and present danger to life or great bodily injury to Gifford or a member of his immediate family.

Gifford requested a hearing from the Advisory Review panel.In January, that body recommended that Gifford's permit be re-issued, giving as its reason "Good cause still exists; receives personal threats.No negative incidents with permit."The Police Department subsequently informed Gifford that it had conducted another review and again decided to deny the request for a license, again noting the lack of evidence of danger to Gifford or a member of his family.

Gifford's petition, signed by him under penalty of perjury, also states that he is an investigative journalist, that as such he is required to travel to dangerous parts of the city at dangerous hours, and that his investigations into the Federal government's actions against the Branch Davidian church had resulted in numerous threats to his life.These facts formed no part of his license application.

Discussion

Penal Code section 12050 gives "extremely broad discretion" to the sheriff concerning the issuance of concealed weapons licenses (Nichols v. County of Santa Clara(1990)223 Cal.App.3d 1236, 1241, 273 Cal.Rptr. 84) and "explicitly grants discretion to the issuing officer to issue or not issue a license to...