Opinion ID: 1235711
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The allegations of the complaint.

Text: Plaintiff Hayden White, a professor of history at the University of California at Los Angeles and a resident taxpayer of the City of Los Angeles, instituted this taxpayer's suit against defendant Edward M. Davis, Chief of Police of the City of Los Angeles, seeking to enjoin the alleged illegal expenditure of public funds in connection with the police department's conduct of covert intelligence gathering activities at UCLA. The complaint alleges that with the authorization of Chief Davis, members of the Los Angeles Police Department, serving as secret informers and undercover agents, have registered as students at UCLA, have attended classes held at the university and have submitted reports to the police department of discussions occurring in such classes. The complaint also alleges that the undercover police agents have joined university-recognized organizations, have attended public and private meetings of such organizations and have made reports on discussions at such meetings. The reports of these undercover agents are allegedly maintained by the police department in files, commonly designated as `police dossiers'. Finally, the complaint alleges that the reports and dossiers compiled by the police pursuant to these covert surveillance activities pertain to no illegal activity or acts. Asserting that the expenditure of public funds for such operation is illegal because such activity inhibits the exercise of freedom of speech and assembly, and abridges the right of due process of law and of privacy in violation of the federal and state Constitutions, the complaint sought to enjoin the police department from expending funds for such activities in the future. Defendant demurred to the complaint, contending that the above allegations failed to state a cause of action in view of past judicial decisions approving the use of undercover agents in police investigations. Defendant also relied heavily on an earlier federal district court decision which had dismissed a similar complaint directed at identical police surveillance operations at UCLA. As we have stated, the superior court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and thereafter entered judgment in favor of defendant, dismissing the action.