## Facts

- The Los Angeles Police Department ran an undercover “intelligence gathering” program on the UCLA campus.
- Officers posed as students, enrolled in classes, and attended meetings of university student organizations.
- Officers covertly recorded or reported on classroom discussions and organizational meetings.
- LAPD compiled dossiers and “intelligence reports” on professors and students.
- The complaint alleged the reports concerned “no illegal activity or acts.”
- A UCLA professor and Los Angeles taxpayer sued the police chief in his official capacity to enjoin spending public funds on the program, alleging violations of free speech, free association/assembly, due process, and the California constitutional right of privacy.
- The trial court sustained a general demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the action.

## Issues

1. Whether allegations of covert police monitoring and dossier-building in university classes and student organizations, unrelated to suspected illegality, state a claim for violation of freedom of speech and association/assembly.
2. Whether the same allegations state a claim for violation of the California constitutional right of privacy.
3. Whether the trial court erred by sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment of dismissal and held the demurrer should not have been sustained.
- Accepting the complaint’s allegations as true, the court held the pleadings stated prima facie violations of freedom of speech and assembly/association and of the California constitutional right of privacy.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings, leaving the government to justify the program on a factual record.

## Legal Principles

- Government conduct that indirectly inhibits protected expression or association can violate the First Amendment due to its chilling effect, even without a direct ban on speech.
- Academic settings receive strong constitutional protection for speech and association; covert monitoring of classroom and campus-group activity can pose a substantial risk of chilling protected activity.
- When governmental action seriously threatens First Amendment freedoms, the government bears the burden to show a compelling state interest and that the objectives cannot be achieved by less restrictive means.
- Systematic collection and retention of information about individuals’ lawful activities, untethered to suspected wrongdoing, may constitute an invasion of privacy under the California Constitution’s explicit privacy guarantee.
- On demurrer, courts assume the truth of well-pleaded factual allegations; speculative justifications cannot defeat a facially sufficient constitutional claim at the pleading stage.

## Conclusion

The court held that a taxpayer complaint challenging covert, suspicionless police surveillance and dossier-building on a university campus adequately alleged First Amendment chilling effects and a violation of California’s constitutional right to privacy, requiring reversal of the dismissal and allowing the case to proceed.


White v. Davis, 533 P.2d 222 (Cal. 1975)