A landmark 2018 state law opened up police misconduct records after decades of secrecy. Now, in the final days of the Legislature’s current session, a state lawmaker is trying to once again close the door on transparency.
The Legislature and California residents should be outraged at this maneuver that would undermine law enforcement accountability. We must not return to the days of secrecy about bad cops.
It’s been seven years since the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1421, authored by state Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, which has enabled news outlets across California to provide in-depth reporting on abusive policing and led to creation of a public database of misconduct maintained by UC Berkeley and Stanford University.
Related Articles
Unabashed California liberal and former US Rep. John Burton dies at 92
Why is the California Teachers Association fighting an antisemitism bill?
Walters: New California law to make housing projects easier can also make them cost more
California’s addiction rehab reformers face headwinds as they await action on bills
Walters: Courts keep striking down California laws infringing on free speech, gun rights
Some of the information in those records has been startling.
For example, we’ve learned of a lack of punishment for San Jose cops who inflicted serious injuries on civilians and of excessive and often reckless use of police dogs in Richmond.
Meanwhile, we learned that more than 80 law enforcement officers working in California were convicted criminals with rap sheets that included everything from animal cruelty to manslaughter.
Now, a state lawmaker is trying to roll back the transparency that led to these important disclosures. Last-minute amendments to Assembly Bill 1178, by Assemblymember Blanco Pacheco, D-Downey, would allow agencies to withhold much more information from the public than current law allows.
The amendments, made Aug. 29, change a bill that was originally designed to protect the records of undercover police. Even that was unnecessary. But the new amendments would allow agencies to keep secret the records of any officers “whose duties demand anonymity.”
But which officers’ “duties demand anonymity,” and what is the standard by which such a demand would be measured?
The bill is silent.
This “anonymity” exception to the transparency requirements of SB 1421 would almost certainly swallow the rule. With the benefit of hindsight, agencies would very likely reverse engineer a need for anonymity for police officers whose duties do not actually demand such secrecy.
In any event, current law has substantial and adequate protection for officer safety. SB 1421 allows redaction of any document “[w]here there is a specific, articulable, and particularized reason to believe that disclosure of the record would pose a significant danger to the physical safety of the peace officer.”
What current law does not do is allow secrecy for vague and subjective claims of officer duties that “demand anonymity.”
SB 1421 did not give police this level of discretion to keep records secret. The Legislature should not allow such secrecy now. California is better for the transparency and accountability SB 1421 provided.
We should not go back to the bad old days.
Regardless of the amendments, the bill is bad. It needs to die.
Charles Ford Champion II is president and CEO of the California News Publishers Association (CNPA).