Sac'to Bill Would Significantly Expand Public's Ability To Access Records of Complaints Against Police Officers

LBReport.com

News

LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.

(Feb. 20, 2016) -- State Senator Mark Leno (D., San Francisco) has introduced a bill that would pierce the confidentiality of personnel records in complaints against police officers and require that when cities and other public agencies conduct hearings on complaints against those officers, they do so in proceedings open to the public with some or all of the documents available for public inspection.

SB 1286, which Sen. Leno calls the "Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act," would significantly expand the public's ability to access records of complaints against police officers.

[Scroll down for further.]

Under the bill, cities or other public agencies would have to notify a complaining party of what charges, if any, the agency framed in response to the complaining party's complaint; how the agency reached its decision on the charges; its factual findings for its decision on the charges and discipline imposed or corrective action taken.

Investigations or proceedings by civilian review agencies, personnel boards, police commissions, civil service commissions, city councils, boards of supervisors would become records subject to disclosure under the CA Public Records Act subject to the Act's confidentiality provisions for certain documents.

Peace officer/custodial officer personnel records or records relating to complaints against them would become available for public inspection, including the framing allegation or complaint, the agency's full investigation file, any evidence gathered, and any findings or recommended findings, discipline, or corrective action taken. Information could be redacted to remove personal data/information (home address, telephone number, or identities of family members, etc.), to preserve the anonymity of complainants and witnesses, or to protect confidential medical, financial, or other information under current exemptions to disclosure in the Public Records Act including when there's a specific, particularized reason to believe disclosure would pose a significant danger to the physical safety of the officer or to others.

To view the full text of the bill, click here.

In a release, Sen. Leno stated "California is behind the times when it comes to providing transparency in law enforcement records. The The public has a right to know when officers apply deadly force and when serious cases of misconduct have been confirmed. Failing to disclose such important information can fuel mistrust within our communities and threaten public safety."

The ACLU of California's Director of police practices, Peter Bibring, quoted in the release stated: "Police can't earn the public's trust when there is a wall of secrecy shielding how departments address misconduct and when they allow officers to use deadly force. Providing greater transparency in state law is crucial to holding police accountable to the communities they serve, which is an important first step in improving public trust -- particularly with communities of color."

Jim Ewest, General Counsel for CA Newspaper Publishers Ass'n, stated in the release: "This bill will allow Californians to see how law enforcement agencies handle confirmed cases of misconduct and help eliminate the public's doubts and suspicions that have recently plagued the state's law enforcement agencies."

Sen. Leno's release said that while California statutes and case law currently prevent the disclosure of most peace officer records, states such as Texas, Kentucky, Utah, and several others, make information available to the public when an allegation of misconduct has been confirmed, and at least 10 other states, including Florida, Ohio and Washington, also make these records public regardless of whether the incident has been confirmed.