When law enforcement officers intentionally include false information in their official reports, they face serious criminal charges under California Penal Code § 118.1 PC. This statute specifically targets peace officers who knowingly make false statements in police reports regarding criminal matters, representing a significant expansion of traditional perjury laws that require statements to be made under oath.
The significance of PC 118.1 lies in its recognition that police reports carry inherent authority and public trust, even when not sworn under penalty of perjury. Unlike standard perjury statutes, this law criminalizes false reporting by peace officers regardless of whether the report was certified as true or signed under oath, acknowledging the critical role police documentation plays in the justice system.
The Statute reads that:
118.1. (a) Every peace officer who, in their capacity as a peace officer, knowingly and intentionally makes, or causes to be made, any material statement in a peace officer report, or to another peace officer and the statement is included in a peace officer report, regarding the commission or investigation of any crime, knowing the statement to be false, is guilty of filing a false report, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or in the state prison for one, two, or three years.
(b) This section does not apply to a peace officer writing or making a peace officer report, with regard to a false statement that the peace officer included in the report that is attributed to any other person, unless the peace officer writing or making the report knows the statement to be false and is including the statement to present the statement as being true.
California Penal Code § 118.1(a) states that "Every peace officer who, in their capacity as a peace officer, knowingly and intentionally makes, or causes to be made, any material statement in a peace officer report, or to another peace officer and the statement is included in a peace officer report, regarding the commission or investigation of any crime, knowing the statement to be false, is guilty of filing a false report". The offense is punishable by imprisonment in county jail for up to one year or state prison for one, two, or three years.
The statute includes an important exception under subsection (b), which protects officers from liability when they accurately report false statements made by third parties, unless the officer knows the statement to be false and includes it to present it as true. This provision recognizes that officers routinely document witness statements and testimony that may later prove inaccurate.
Law enforcement officers filing fabricated reports may involve situations such as:
Officers facing false reporting allegations may pursue several defense strategies:
Good Faith Error - Defendants can demonstrate that any inaccurate information resulted from honest recollection mistakes rather than deliberate deception. Since the statute requires proof of intentional and knowing conduct, evidence showing genuine belief in the accuracy of reported facts can undermine prosecution claims.
Non-Material Information - Legal counsel may argue that false details concerned inconsequential matters lacking significance to the criminal investigation. Only material falsifications that could reasonably impact case outcomes satisfy the statutory requirements for conviction.
Third-Party Source Protection - California law shields officers who accurately document false statements provided by witnesses or other parties, unless prosecution proves the officer knew of the falsity and deliberately presented it as truthful.
Misdemeanor Classification Results In:
Felony Classification Carries:
PC 118.1 is classified as a "wobbler" offense under California law, meaning prosecutors have discretion to charge it as either a misdemeanor or felony. The charging decision typically depends on several factors including the severity of the false statement, the impact on criminal proceedings, the officer's criminal history, and the circumstances surrounding the offense.
As a misdemeanor, the offense carries penalties of up to one year in county jail or misdemeanor probation. When charged as a felony, it can result in imprisonment in state prison for one, two, or three years, or felony probation. The wobbler classification allows for proportional punishment based on the severity and impact of the false reporting.
The statute applies exclusively to reports filed by peace officers acting in their official capacity. This means the law does not criminalize false statements made by officers in their personal capacity or reports submitted to agencies other than their employing department. For example, if an LAPD officer files a false report with the FBI rather than the LAPD, or makes false statements in a personal capacity, PC 118.1 would not apply.
Example: Marcus serves as a deputy with the Orange County Sheriff's Department. He prepares two separate reports. The first is a personal analysis of neighborhood safety trends that he shares with his local homeowners association meeting. The second involves a criminal investigation report he submits to the DEA task force.
In this scenario, Marcus would likely face no criminal liability under PC 118.1 if either report contained false information. The homeowners association document falls under personal capacity since it's not part of his official duties. The DEA report, while work-related, goes to a federal agency rather than the Orange County Sheriff's Department that employs him.
The false statement must relate to "the commission or investigation of any crime." This requirement excludes false information contained in reports concerning purely civil or administrative matters such as traffic accidents, fires, or natural disasters. The criminal matter element ensures the statute focuses on false reporting that could impact criminal investigations and prosecutions.
A crucial element requires that the false statement concern a "material matter." Under California law, materiality means the false information must relate to something of significance or importance to the case, as opposed to trivial or inconsequential details. Courts evaluate materiality based on whether the false information could reasonably influence the investigation, prosecution, or outcome of a criminal matter.
For instance: if an officer falsely reports eating lunch in their patrol car versus a restaurant when called to a crime scene, this would likely be considered immaterial. However, falsely claiming to have witnessed a suspect with a weapon when the officer actually found it nearby would constitute material false information.
The prosecution must prove the officer "knowingly and intentionally" made the false statement. This mental state requirement protects officers from criminal liability for honest mistakes, faulty recollection, or unintentional errors. Given that police officers often write reports hours or days after events, the law recognizes that memory can fade and honest mistakes occur.
The knowledge standard requires proof that the officer understood the statement was false when making it. This element distinguishes criminal conduct from negligent or mistaken reporting, ensuring only deliberate falsification results in prosecution.
Example: Officer Martinez works for the Sacramento Police Department and responds to a domestic violence incident. The complainant has a bruised left cheek. Martinez completes his report several hours later and cannot clearly recall which side of the face was injured. He documents in his report that he observed bruising on the victim's right cheek.
Martinez bears no criminal responsibility in this case. Despite inaccurately reporting the injury's location, this error resulted from imperfect memory rather than deliberate deception. He did not intentionally provide false information in his documentation.
Courts and prosecutors have identified several common patterns of false reporting under PC 118.1. These include officers falsely claiming suspects possessed drugs when none were found, reporting that suspects resisted arrest when they complied, or stating they observed suspects with weapons when the items were discovered elsewhere. Other examples involve officers fabricating witness statements, exaggerating the severity of incidents, or omitting exculpatory evidence that would favor defendants.
An important protection exists for officers who accurately document false statements made by witnesses or other third parties. Under PC 118.1(b), officers cannot be prosecuted for including false information attributed to others in their reports, unless they know the statement is false and include it to present it as true. This exception recognizes that officers routinely document witness testimony and statements that may later prove inaccurate, and it would be unreasonable to hold officers liable for faithfully recording such information.
The most common defense involves demonstrating the officer made an honest mistake rather than a knowing falsehood. Since the statute requires proof of intentional and knowing conduct, evidence that the officer genuinely believed the information was accurate at the time of reporting can defeat the charges. This defense is particularly relevant given the time delays that often occur between witnessing events and completing reports.
Defendants can argue that any false information concerned immaterial matters that would not reasonably influence the investigation or prosecution. If the false statement relates to trivial details that lack significance to the criminal matter, it may not meet the materiality standard required for conviction.
When officers include false information provided by witnesses, victims, or other third parties, they can invoke the statutory exception that protects good-faith documentation of such statements. This defense applies unless the prosecution can prove the officer knew the third-party statement was false and included it to present it as true.
The criminal penalties for PC 118.1 violations vary significantly based on whether the offense is charged as a misdemeanor or felony. Misdemeanor convictions carry up to one year in county jail and/or misdemeanor probation, while felony convictions can result in one to three years in state prison and/or felony probation. Courts may also impose fines and restitution as part of the sentence.
Beyond criminal penalties, PC 118.1 convictions carry devastating professional consequences for law enforcement officers. Convicted officers typically face immediate termination from their agencies, loss of peace officer certification, and permanent disqualification from law enforcement careers. The conviction creates a permanent criminal record that prevents future employment in law enforcement and may affect other professional licensing opportunities.
Perhaps most significantly, officers convicted of false reporting face placement on "Brady lists" maintained by prosecutors' offices. These lists identify officers whose credibility has been compromised, making their testimony potentially inadmissible or subject to disclosure requirements in criminal cases. Brady listing can effectively end an officer's career even if they avoid termination, as prosecutors may refuse to call them as witnesses or accept cases where they are essential witnesses.
The Brady implications extend beyond the convicted officer to their entire agency, as departments must disclose officer credibility issues to prosecutors who then determine how to handle such information in criminal cases. This creates institutional pressure for agencies to maintain integrity in their reporting processes and take swift action against officers who file false reports.
A guilty verdict under this statute can adversely affect a defendant officer's Second Amendment privileges. California statutes prohibit individuals with felony convictions from purchasing or possessing firearms within the state.
Consequently, when an officer breaches this law and prosecutors pursue felony charges, a subsequent conviction will result in the permanent forfeiture of the defendant's gun ownership and possession rights.
A peace officer found guilty of this offense is eligible for expungement provided they:
Should an individual breach probation conditions, expungement may still be possible. However, this would depend entirely on judicial discretion.
According to Penal Code 1203.4, an expungement frees a person from essentially "all penalties and disabilities" that result from the conviction.
Individuals harmed by false police reports may pursue civil remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a federal cause of action for violations of constitutional rights committed under color of state law. False reporting can support claims for violations of due process, equal protection, and other constitutional rights, particularly when the false information leads to wrongful arrest, prosecution, or conviction.
California state law also provides avenues for civil recovery, including claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and false arrest or imprisonment. Victims may seek compensation for damages including lost wages, legal fees, emotional distress, and damage to reputation. In cases involving particularly egregious conduct, courts may award punitive damages to deter similar future conduct.
In addition to individual officer liability, police departments and municipalities may face institutional liability when false reporting results from inadequate training, supervision, or policies that encourage or tolerate such conduct. Establishing institutional liability typically requires evidence of systemic problems or deliberate indifference to constitutional violations.
Individuals who have been harmed by a false police report have several remedies at their disposal, including:
During a California criminal trial, a defense attorney can aggressively question the officer on the witness stand. The goal is to expose contradictions between what the officer wrote in the report and what they testify to under oath, potentially revealing the fabricated nature of the original documentation.
Victims can lodge formal complaints against the officer with their law enforcement agency. This involves filing a misconduct report with the department's internal affairs division. When criminal charges stem from the false report, a sustained complaint finding may prompt prosecutors to reduce or drop the charges altogether.
A Pitchess motion allows the defense to seek access to the officer's confidential employment files. This legal tool is used to discover whether other individuals have previously accused the same officer of similar dishonest conduct, establishing a pattern of misconduct that can be used in defense.
Victims may file lawsuits targeting the individual officer, police department, and municipality. This legal action is typically viable when the victim can demonstrate that the officer's dishonesty directly resulted in wrongful arrest, prosecution, or incarceration. Most of these civil cases are filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which addresses constitutional violations by government officials.
While PC 118.1 shares similarities with perjury under Penal Code § 118, the key distinction lies in the oath requirement. Traditional perjury requires false statements made under oath or penalty of perjury, while PC 118.1 criminalizes false police reporting regardless of whether the report was sworn or certified. This expanded scope reflects the legislature's recognition that police reports carry inherent authority and reliability expectations even without formal oath requirements.
PC 118.1 operates alongside other California statutes criminalizing false statements to law enforcement, including Penal Code § 148.5 (filing false police reports by civilians) and Vehicle Code § 31 (providing false information to peace officers). These related statutes target different actors and circumstances but share the common goal of protecting the integrity of law enforcement processes and criminal investigations.
The current version of PC 118.1 was enacted through Assembly Bill 750, which took effect January 1, 2022. The legislation strengthened the statute's language and clarified its application, reflecting increased legislative focus on police accountability and transparency following high-profile cases of law enforcement misconduct. The amendments emphasize the materiality requirement and clarify the protection for officers documenting third-party statements.
The statute serves multiple important public policy objectives. First, it protects the integrity of criminal investigations and prosecutions by ensuring police reports contain accurate information. Second, it maintains public trust in law enforcement by holding officers accountable for deliberate falsehoods. Third, it safeguards individual rights by deterring false reporting that could lead to wrongful arrests, prosecutions, or convictions.
The law recognizes that police reports form the foundation of criminal cases and that false information can irreparably damage both individual defendants and the justice system as a whole. By criminalizing false reporting, the statute creates powerful incentives for accurate documentation while providing appropriate protections for good-faith mistakes and third-party information.
California Penal Code § 118.1 represents a critical tool for maintaining integrity in law enforcement reporting and protecting public trust in the criminal justice system. The statute's careful balance of criminalizing intentional false reporting while protecting good-faith mistakes and third-party documentation reflects sophisticated understanding of the challenges facing modern law enforcement.
For law enforcement officers, the statute underscores the paramount importance of accuracy and honesty in official reporting. The severe criminal penalties, career consequences, and Brady listing implications create powerful incentives for truthful documentation. For the public, PC 118.1 provides both criminal and civil remedies for those harmed by false police reports, reinforcing constitutional protections and individual rights.
The law's classification as a wobbler offense allows for proportional punishment based on the severity and impact of false reporting, while the materiality and intent requirements ensure that only the most egregious conduct results in prosecution. As California continues to grapple with issues of police accountability and criminal justice reform, PC 118.1 serves as an essential mechanism for maintaining the accuracy and integrity that public safety depends upon.
The information in this article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you are facing charges under PC 118.1 or have been harmed by false police reporting, consult with a qualified California criminal defense attorney to discuss your specific situation and legal options.
