ProPublica is reporting that a legislative effort to create more transparency among California’s police agencies didn’t make it out of the state’s Senate Appropriations Committee late last month. Senate Bill 1286, primarily authored by Democratic state Sen. Mark Leno would have ...
“ ... offered a much clearer view of how law enforcement agencies handle serious allegations of misconduct; in the case of a controversial police shooting, for example, the public would have been entitled obtain to the entire investigative file compiled by police detectives, though any personal data would have been redacted. The legislation also would have allowed the public to learn if any discipline was imposed on the officers involved in the incident.”
“The bill met resistance from law enforcement organizations from around the state, including the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the Peace Officers Research Association of California. In a report to its members, PORAC said greater transparency would endanger officers, making them targets for people seeking revenge in the aftermath of police shootings and would generate more “mistrust” of officers.”
The San Diego Union-Tribune was a plaintiff in the 2006 court case which effectively sealed the records of police officers in the state. But times have changed—or so they thought:
“The bill would allow local governments to hold these disciplinary hearings publicly. It would give the public access to records of allegations of past misbehavior that was sustained after an internal investigation was conducted. Record requirements would apply to use-of-force incidents, any alleged violations of citizens’s rights or allegations of on-the-job dishonesty. Public agencies would be able to access a broader range of confidential records.”
“Members of the public who file complaints about an officer would finally have the right to learn about the status of their complaint. ...”
“Members of the public who file complaints about an officer would finally have the right to learn about the status of their complaint. ...”
Sigh.
The Peace Officers Research Association of California is (of course) singing the same tune that most of law enforcement appears to be singing around the country: Attempts at holding police accountable for their actions put their lives in danger. Exactly which research PORAC is relying on to back up this claim was not made readily available.
As of now in the state of California, police officers’ disciplinary records are considered to be part of their personnel file, and thus fall under the issue of privacy. There are 23 other states which also completely shield the disciplinary records of police officers under the guise of privacy, as noted by New York radio station WNYC.
The ACLU of Southern California wrote that Sen. Leno’s bill took into account the safety of the state’s officers by “allowing courts to withhold records if there is a risk or danger to an officer or someone else, or if disclosure would be an unwarranted invasion of officers’ privacy.” But that wasn’t good enough for PORAC and others.
Their mantra of cop secrecy is not what will keep them safe or ensure the trust of the public. Honesty and greater transparency will.