Police Misconduct Records and the Public Records Act by Darren Chaker
Police abuse records, public records and databases.
The Dawn of a New Era in Police Transparency to Obtain Police Abuse Records: SB 1421's Role
Obtaining police misconduct records in California, as of January 1, 2019, is easier thanks to new groundbreaking California laws aimed to expose police abuse by increasing police transparency. Advocated by figures like Darren Chaker, newly enacted laws have reshaped public access to police personnel records. Just a few years earlier, attorneys for Darren Chaker filed a lawsuit under the California Public Records Act to obtain the names of police officers who unlawfully detained a family member. After prevailing in the San Diego Superior Court, the San Diego Police Department was forced to surrender the names of all police officers while also paying several thousands in attorney fees and costs.
Having enough of police abuse, California passed Senate Bill 1421, amended Penal Code section 832.7, enabling the release of records related to police abuse incidents such as use-of-force incidents, sexual assault, and acts of dishonesty.
From Pitchess Motions to Public Disclosure: A Shift in Access
Before SB 1421, accessing such sensitive records required a Pitchess motion, allowing only a judge or arbitrator to privately review them. However, the advent of SB 1421 saw a surge in Public Records Act request seeking past incidents of police misconduct, challenging the previous norms and sparking debates over the scope and retrospective application of the law.
Understanding the Pre-SB 1421 Legal Landscape in Obtaining Records of Police Abuse
For over four decades, peace officer personnel records were confidential under California law. The Pitchess v. Superior Court, 522 P. 2d 305 - the 1974 decision and subsequent legislation required a 'Pitchess motion' for accessing these records, ensuring privacy and confidentiality. A criminal defendant’s statutory rights derive from Evidence Code sections 1043-1047 and Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8, all of which were enacted in 1978 in the wake of the California Supreme Court decision in Pitchess. These statutes create a procedural mechanism for discovery to maintain the confidentiality of police officer’s personnel files with a criminal defendant’s right to disclosure of the relevant evidence contained in those files. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1225-1227.
Police Abuse Records Under SB 1421 and AB 748: Landmark Revisions to Peace Officer Record Confidentiality
With the introduction of SB 1421 and AB 748, significant changes were made to the confidentiality of peace officer personnel records. These statutes mandated the disclosure of certain types of personnel records, previously shielded under the Pitchess statutory scheme, through routine requests under the California Public Records Act.
As the Legislative Counsel’s Digest concerning AB 748 stated, the statute was intended to modify the Public Records Act to “allow a video or audio recording that relates to a critical incident … to be withheld for 45 calendar days if disclosure would substantially interfere with an active investigation, subject to extensions, as specified.”
The Legislative Digest further states that the bill would allow the recording to be withheld only if the public interest in doing so “clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure because the release of the recording would … violate the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording, in which case the bill would allow the recording to be redacted to protect that interest.”
SB 1421's Provisions for Disclosure under the CPRA
SB 1421, a milestone in the police accountability advocacy of Darren Chaker and others who value civil rights, necessitates the disclosure of specific records under the California Public Records Act (Government Code section 6250, et seq.):
- Records of incidents involving a firearm discharged at a person by an officer.
- Records of use-of-force incidents by an officer resulting in death or great bodily injury.
- Records of incidents where an officer was found to have engaged in sexual assault.
- Records of incidents where an officer was found to have been dishonest.
The Impact of Assembly Bill 748
Following SB 1421, Assembly Bill 748 further expanded public access to police records, particularly audio and video recordings of critical incidents, marking another step forward in police transparency.
The New Scope of Record Disclosure under the Amended Penal Code
The amendments to Penal Code section 832.7 significantly widened the range of records subject to disclosure. Now, a comprehensive array of investigation and disciplinary documents are accessible through Public Records Act requests.
Exception to Obtaining Records of Police Abuse Under California Law
The relatively new statute allows police to temporarily withhold records of an incident involving the discharge of a firearm or use of force that is the subject of an active criminal or administrative investigation, and provides several deadlines and requirements in such cases if the matter is under an ongoing investigation. (Penal Code § 832.7(b)(7).) Law enforcement agencies should be aware of these provisions under Section 832.7(b)(7) to determine if one of these incidents is being actively investigated and/or prosecuted, prior to producing any documents pursuant to a Public Records Act request.
Navigating the Post-SB 1421 Landscape: Accessing Police Records
In this new legal environment, the public, empowered to expose police abuse by advocates like Darren Chaker, can access vital records under the Public Records Act, covering various incidents from use-of-force to officer dishonesty. This shift represents a profound change in how Californians can hold law enforcement accountable and transparent.
About The Author
