Los Angeles County’s Civilian Oversight Commission sued the Sheriff’s Department seeking an order to release records tied to two beatings and a controversial on-duty shooting, arguing the department’s refusal conflicts with state law, Measure R, and AB 847.
For nearly two years. people who say their lives were upended by Los Angeles County deputies have waited for records they believe would clarify what happened after the cameras went dark. Now the Civilian Oversight Commission is asking a judge to force the Sheriff’s Department to hand over documents tied to Joseph Perez’s beating. Andres Guardado’s shooting death. and Emmett Brock’s beating.
The lawsuit was filed Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The commission says it has repeatedly hit a wall while trying to obtain access to the records. It issued three subpoenas in February 2025. seeking unredacted materials tied to the cases. but the Sheriff’s Department has declined to fully comply.
The stakes are stark: the commission is not arguing about whether incidents occurred. It is asking for the documents that would show what officers recorded, what was redacted, and what oversight is allowed to review.
In a written message provided to the paper. the Sheriff’s Department said releasing what it considers confidential records—and how those records would be handled—“impacts our employees.” The department added that “the better course is to complete the meet and confer process and ensure that all concerns are addressed.”.
The commission’s legal filing asks the court to step in. “The Commission respectfully requests that the Court issue an order to show cause why the LASD should not be ordered to comply with the Subpoenas,” the oversight body wrote in a court document filed Monday.
At the center of the dispute is how far the oversight commission can go to obtain confidential law enforcement materials—and what the county says must happen first.
County officials have said they are legally required to “meet and confer” with Sheriff’s Department unions before turning over records. The commission argues that position. which it says was first made by the office of county counsel. cannot stand after recent changes in California law and county authority.
Those changes have reshaped the legal landscape in the middle of the commission’s fight. In 2020, county voters approved Measure R, which granted the oversight commission subpoena powers. In fall 2025, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 847. amending the penal code to allow oversight commissions to receive confidential sheriff’s department documents and review them in closed session. The law went into effect earlier this year.
The fight is also bolstered by a separate court ruling. In March, a state appellate court ruled that an oversight body in Sonoma County is legally authorized to subpoena the county Sheriff’s Office and directed it to comply with the body’s subpoenas for whistleblower inquiry records.
In Los Angeles County, the commission says March’s ruling, AB 847, and Measure R together confirm its subpoena authority. The Sheriff’s Department has continued to deny the commission’s requests, citing advice from the office of county counsel.
Late Tuesday, County Counsel Dawyn Harrison said in an emailed statement that the commission’s lawsuit “is not legally valid” because it “was neither initiated, filed through, or approved by this office, nor was it authorized by the Board of Supervisors.”
The oversight body responded that advisory commissions created by the Board are not free to act independently. In the county counsel view, that limitation is part of why the lawsuit is improper.
Denying subpoenas for records related to law enforcement actions, however, goes against state law, court rulings and the wishes of county voters, according to Hans Johnson, the chair of the Civilian Oversight Commission.
“What doesn’t county counsel want the people of Los Angeles County to see?” he said in an interview. “I am going to ask that question repeatedly. because the law is clear and the people have been clear about this issue that we deserve to know. and we’ve enacted the policies that protect the public’s right to know.”.
The commission’s subpoenas concern three separate incidents it says remain unresolved in terms of access to unredacted records.
In 2020, Joseph Perez was beaten and bloodied by sheriff’s deputies in the San Gabriel Valley. That same year, 18-year-old Andres Guardado was shot in the back and killed by sheriff’s deputies. In 2023. Emmett Brock. a transgender man. was beaten by a Norwalk deputy who later pleaded guilty to a federal civil rights violation for use of excessive force.
Last year, the commission subpoenaed the Sheriff’s Department for unredacted records associated with each of the cases. Perez, Brock and the loved ones of all three people—Guardado’s family included—are still waiting for the documents to be released.
Perez’s mother, Vanessa, has pushed publicly for transparency about her son’s case. On Monday, her written declaration was filed as part of the new suit against the Sheriff’s Department.
Last year, Perez said he supports releasing all records related to his beating.
“They almost killed me. They didn’t really care if I was dead or not,” he told The Times. “I’m hoping to get some evidence to come to light to show more that I was in the right.”
The lawsuit now puts the county’s conflicting claims in front of a judge: one side says confidential documents must be treated as such, while preserving the ability of oversight commissions to review them; the other side argues the commission has the legal authority to compel compliance.
For families and advocates who have been waiting through multiple court battles and legislative changes. the question is less abstract than it sounds. It is about whether the public—and those directly affected—will ever see the full paper trail tied to alleged violence by deputies and a shooting death that ended a life.
Los Angeles County Civilian Oversight Commission LASD Sheriff’s Department Measure R AB 847 Joseph Perez Andres Guardado Emmett Brock federal civil rights violation excessive force court lawsuit transparency