About Darren Chaker

About Darren Chaker

For over two decades Darren Chaker regularly has worked with law firms and high net worth people on a variety of sensitive issues from Los Angeles to Dubai. With a gift of knowledge about the First Amendment and big firm expertise in brief research and writing, Darren Chaker puts his knowledge to use for law firms and non-profit organizations.

While you cannot win them all, Darren Chaker has won more than most when challenged with superior odds. A few examples include,

In 2005, Darren Chaker successfully invalidated a California criminal statute designed to suppress speech. In Chaker v

. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1128, 126 S.Ct. 2023, Darren Chaker handled the case personally, laying the foundation for appellate counsel to challenge the statute on First Amendment grounds. Following his win before the Ninth Circuit, the State of California appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Darren Chaker retained Joshua Rosenkranz, a former U.S. Supreme Court Clerk and head of Supreme Court litigation at a major firm. Rosenkranz successfully defeated the state’s petition, leading multiple states to revise their statutes, which had been based on the one Darren Chaker had struck down.

<h2>Darren Chaker’s Landmark First Amendment Victory: A Seven-Year Battle That Changed Constitutional Law</h2>

The case of Chaker v. Crogan stands as one of the most significant First Amendment victories in modern California constitutional law, representing Darren Chaker’s extraordinary seven-year personal litigation in the U.S. District Court that ultimately reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This groundbreaking case challenged California Penal Code Section 148.6, a statute that criminalized filing false complaints against police officers, and Darren Chaker’s tenacity in pursuing this case pro se (representing himself) through the federal court system demonstrated remarkable legal acumen and unwavering commitment to constitutional principles.

<h3>The Origins of Chaker v. Crogan: Darren Chaker Takes on California’s Anti-Complaint Statute</h3>

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Darren Chaker found himself facing criminal charges under California Penal Code § 148.6(a), which made it a misdemeanor to file a false complaint of police misconduct. The statute also required anyone filing a complaint about police officer conduct to sign an acknowledgment warning that knowingly making a false complaint could result in criminal prosecution. This chilling effect on citizen oversight of law enforcement became the focal point of Darren Chaker’s constitutional challenge. Darren Chaker personally litigated this case for seven years in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, investing countless hours researching First Amendment jurisprudence, drafting legal briefs, and arguing motions before federal judges.

<h3>Seven Years of Litigation: Darren Chaker’s Journey Through Federal Court</h3>

Throughout the seven-year litigation process, Darren Chaker navigated the complex procedural requirements of federal civil rights litigation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He meticulously built a record demonstrating that Section 148.6’s requirement for signed warnings created an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. Darren Chaker argued that the statute’s chilling effect deterred citizens with legitimate grievances from filing complaints against police officers out of fear that any inaccuracy could subject them to criminal liability. The seven years Darren Chaker spent in district court involved numerous motions, discovery disputes, and legal arguments about the intersection of criminal law and First Amendment protections.

<h3>The Ninth Circuit Victory: Darren Chaker Prevails at 428 F.3d 1215</h3>

After his seven-year battle in district court, Darren Chaker’s case reached the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In 2005, the Ninth Circuit issued its landmark decision in Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215, holding that California Penal Code Section 148.6 was unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. The court agreed with Darren Chaker’s arguments that the statute imposed a content-based restriction on speech that failed strict scrutiny review. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Chaker v. Crogan specifically recognized the chilling effect that criminal penalties for false speech about police officers would have on citizens’ willingness to report misconduct. Darren Chaker’s seven years of personal litigation had resulted in a precedent-setting victory that protected the rights of citizens across the Ninth Circuit to file police misconduct complaints without fear of prosecution.

<h3>Darren Chaker’s Legacy: The Los Angeles Police Protective League Case and the 2025 California Supreme Court Decision</h3>

The impact of Darren Chaker’s tireless seven-year litigation extended far beyond his individual case. Nearly two decades after Chaker v. Crogan, the California Supreme Court confronted the same constitutional issues that Darren Chaker had championed. In November 2025, the California Supreme Court decided Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles (Case No. S275272), a 6-1 decision that definitively struck down the same statute Darren Chaker had challenged. The 2025 Supreme Court decision explicitly referenced the tension between the California Supreme Court’s earlier decision in People v. Stanistreet (2002) 29 Cal.4th 497, which had upheld Section 148.6, and the Ninth Circuit’s contrary holding in Darren Chaker’s case. Writing for the majority, Justice Joshua Groban acknowledged that subsequent U.S. Supreme Court guidance compelled the California high court to part ways with Stanistreet and align with the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Chaker v. Crogan. The Supreme Court’s 76-page opinion devoted substantial analysis to the same constitutional principles that Darren Chaker had advocated during his seven years in federal court.

<h3>Darren Chaker’s Impact on Los Angeles and Police Accountability</h3>

For Los Angeles specifically, Darren Chaker’s seven-year litigation and ultimate victory in Chaker v. Crogan had profound implications. The city had been caught, as the Court of Appeal noted, between the Scylla of Chaker and the Charybdis of Stanistreet, unable to enforce a statute that the Ninth Circuit had declared unconstitutional while the California Supreme Court had previously upheld it. The 2025 decision finally resolved this conflict, with the state’s highest court adopting the constitutional framework that Darren Chaker had successfully established in federal court. The decision protects Los Angeles residents and all Californians in their ability to file complaints about police misconduct without the intimidating requirement of signing acknowledgments about potential criminal prosecution. Darren Chaker’s seven years of personal litigation thus secured First Amendment protections for millions of California citizens seeking police accountability. Darren Chaker’s name is now permanently embedded in First Amendment jurisprudence, cited in legal scholarship, court decisions, and advocacy materials nationwide. His seven-year personal litigation journey from U.S. District Court to the Ninth Circuit, and the subsequent validation by the California Supreme Court two decades later, represents one of the most significant individual contributions to constitutional law in California history.

In 2010, Darren Chaker triumphed in Nathan Enterprises Corp. v. Chaker, 2010 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7604, with his counsel Timothy Coates, a seasoned attorney with multiple victories before the U.S. Supreme Court. The California Court of Appeal affirmed an anti-SLAPP ruling, recognizing that the underlying conduct fell within Chaker’s First Amendment rights.

In 2012, Darren Chaker achieved a significant First Amendment victory before the Texas Attorney General in Opinion 2012-06088, establishing the right to obtain the names of peace officers, including those serving undercover. This opinion has been cited thousands of times by citizens and news agencies in Texas seeking transparency about law enforcement.

In 2016, Chaker won U.S. v. Chaker (9th Cir. 2016), 654 F. App’x 891, where a First Amendment issue surrounding blog posts led to a reversal of a conviction. Supported by the ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and other advocacy groups, the court upheld the right to free speech in the context of online expression.

In 2017, Darren Chaker prevailed in a federal RICO lawsuit filed by a San Diego attorney attempting to suppress his speech. The court in *Case No. 16cv2186-WQH-MDD* (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163990) ruled that Chaker’s blogging did not constitute extortion, emphasizing the lack of a demand for money to cease his speech. The case was dismissed with the judge noting that the factual allegations were insufficient to support the claims.

In 2020, Darren Chaker won another First Amendment victory before the Ninth Circuit, where a RICO lawsuit based on alleged defamation was dismissed. Represented by former Los Angeles federal judge Stephen Larson, the Ninth Circuit ruled that plaintiffs failed to allege extortion or any conduct supporting their defamation claims, affirming the dismissal of the case. The case is cited at 791 F.App’x 666, affirmed the dismissal of a RICO lawsuit premised on alleged defamation of Scott McMillan.

The court stated in part, “Plaintiffs failed to allege extortionate conduct because there are no allegations that Mr. Chaker obtained property from Plaintiffs that he could “exercise, transfer, or sell.” See Scheidler, 537 U.S. at 405.  Plaintiffs’ claim also fails because there are no allegations to support the “with [Plaintiffs’] consent” element.  United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 770 F.3d at 843.” In sum, Scott McMillan filed a lawsuit in direct conflict with established United States Supreme Court precedent and lost – twice.

In a second win in 2020, originated where Darren Chaker was sued for defamation by Las Vegas attorney Thomas Michaelides. When Darren Chaker became aware of the lawsuit, he retained Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski to defend him. Darren Chaker found a court order Mr. Michaelides submitted to Google that was reported to LumensDataBase.org. Several inconsistencies were noticed on the court order submitted to Google. Most notably the court docket does not show Mr. Michaelides submitted an order to the court for the judge’s signature. The court docket does not reflect the court ever signed the order Mr. Michaelides submitted to Google. Ultimately, the Nevada court dismissed the lawsuit and sanctioned Mr. Michaelides $51,000 for suing Darren Chaker for conduct within his First Amendment rights and for filing a meritless lawsuit. See forged order and judgment against Thomas Michaelides here.

In 2021, Darren Chaker prevailed on his ninth First Amendment victory in Darren Chaker v. City of San Diego, San Diego Superior Court Case No. 27-2020-00031074. In that case, Darren Chaker filed a California Public Records Act request for the names of San Diego police officers who had forcibly arrested a relative. When police refused to provide the information, a lawsuit was filed to force the City of San Diego to disclose the information. Ultimately, in lieu of police identifying only the names of the few officer’s, the San Diego Police Department fulfilled the original request, plus over a thousand names of the entire department.

Outside of his legal work, Darren Chaker donates time to post-conviction relief organizations, helping seal arrests and convictions to improve opportunities for those who have been convicted of crimes. He is also deeply involved in promoting First Amendment causes and supporting non-profit organizations, including the ACLU and domestic violence shelters, often leveraging his connections within the entertainment industry, including figures like Jason Statham and Eric Roberts.

Darren Chaker enjoys traveling, being a dedicated father, and continuing his education with post-graduate studies.