"For Mensinger to make these allegations is reckless and inappropriate," the police association's lawyers fired back in their Dec. 17 response. "Plaintiffs have made the mistake of shooting before aiming."
Mensinger accuses all three defendants as being responsible for the electronic tracking, but the union argues it shouldn't be held accountable if the law firm and Lanzillo were involved in any misconduct because they were acting independently.
"The association had no knowledge or involvement with the GPS tracking device," police association President Det. Sgt. Ed Everett said. "Nor did we hire or direct anyone to get 'dirt' on anyone."
The association has been defending itself separately from Lanzillo and Lackie, Dammeier, McGill & Ethir.
Though they made no admissions, lawyers for the law firm and Lanzillo argued in court papers that placing a tracking device on Mensinger's truck wouldn't be an invasion of privacy — calling the lawsuit "political ranting."
"The location of Mr. Mensinger's vehicle while driving on public streets, or while parked in his driveway, is a fact plainly visible to any member of the public," their response states. "Plaintiffs have also failed to allege how Mr. Mensigner was harmed by discovering more than one year later that his movements on public thoroughfares were known by others."
Vince Finaldi, a lawyer for the councilmen, said the defendants' arguments have deteriorated.
"Their attempts to justify their actions have gotten so absurd that I'm not going to even dignify them with a response," he said.
Placing an electronic tracking device on a car without the owner's consent is a misdemeanor unless the installation is made for approved law enforcement purposes, according to California penal code.