BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1019
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 19, 2007
Counsel: Gabriel Caswell
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Jose Solorio, Chair
SB 1019 (Romero) - As Amended: June 20, 2007
SUMMARY : Abrogates the California Supreme Court holding in
Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court and restores public access
to meetings and hearings regarding peace officer discipline that
were open to the public prior to Copley , subject to a number of
additional restrictions. Specifically, this bill :
1)Permits local governments to elect through ordinance,
resolution or regulation to operate public hearings, release
information regarding citizen complaints, disciplinary
actions, and other personnel decisions, in the manner the
local government operated prior to Copley .
2)States that the chief officer of the employing agency may
withhold from public disclosure information otherwise rendered
non-confidential pursuant to this law if the chief officer
expressly finds and publicly discloses facts that:
a) Establishes there is a threat to officer safety which
overrides the right of the public access to the
information.
b) Shows that a threat to officer safety or operational
security supports nondisclosure of the information.
c) Determines that a substantial probability exists that
the officer safety or operational security will be
jeopardized if the information is not withheld.
d) Establishes that the proposed withholding is narrowly
tailored.
e) Finds that no less restrictive means exist to protect
officer safety or operational security.
3)Provides that if the chief officer withholds the information
SB 1019
Page 2
pursuant to any of the aforementioned conditions, the
commission or entity charged with reviewing the peace officer
discipline investigation may review the chief' officer's
certification in closed session to determine whether or not to
override the certification.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Finds and declares in enacting the California Public Records
Act, the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to
privacy, finds and declares that access to information
concerning the conduct of the people's business is a
fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.
(Government Code Section 6250.)
2)Specifies peace officer or custodial officer personnel records
and records maintained by any state or local agency pursuant
to Penal Code Section 832.5, or information obtained from
these records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in
any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery pursuant
to specified sections of the Evidence Code (related to
discovery of officer personnel records and excessive force by
police officers). This section shall not apply to
investigations or proceedings concerning the conduct of peace
officers or custodial officers, or an agency or department
that employs those officers, conducted by a grand jury, a
district attorney's office, or the Attorney General's office.
[Penal Code Section 832.7(a).] The exceptions to this rule
are as follows:
a) Requires a department or agency release to the
complaining party a copy of his or her own statements at
the time the complaint is filed. [Penal Code Section
832.7(b).]
b) Allows a department or agency that employs peace or
custodial officers to disseminate data regarding the
number, type, or disposition of complaints (sustained, not
sustained, exonerated, or unfounded) made against its
officers if that information is in a form which does not
identify the individuals involved. [Penal Code Section
832.7(c).]
c) Permits a department or agency that employs peace or
custodial officers to release factual information
SB 1019
Page 3
concerning a disciplinary investigation if the officer who
is the subject of the disciplinary investigation, or the
officer's agent or representative, publicly makes a
statement he or she knows to be false concerning the
investigation or the imposition of disciplinary action.
Information may not be disclosed by the peace or custodial
officer's employer unless the false statement was published
by an established medium of communication, such as
television, radio, or a newspaper. Disclosure of factual
information by the employing agency pursuant to this
subdivision is limited to facts contained in the officer's
personnel file concerning the disciplinary investigation or
imposition of disciplinary action that specifically refute
the false statements made public by the peace or custodial
officer or his or her agent or representative. [Penal Code
Section 832.7(d).]
3)Requires departments or agencies to provide written
notification to the complaining parties of the dispositions of
the complaints within 30 days of any disposition. The
notification shall not be conclusive or binding or admissible
as evidence in any separate or subsequent action or
proceeding. [Penal Code Section 832.7(c).]
4)Specifies that nothing in this section shall affect the
discovery or disclosure of information contained in a peace or
custodial officer's personnel file pursuant to specified
provisions of the Evidence Code governing disclosure of
records in criminal and civil litigation. [Penal Code Section
832.7(d).]
5)Provides that the People of California have the right of
access to information concerning the conduct of the people's
business and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the
writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to
public scrutiny. However, this right does not supersede or
modify the right of privacy or affect the construction of any
statute, court rule, or other authority to the extent that it
protects that right to privacy, including any statutory
procedures governing discovery or disclosure of information
concerning the official performance or professional
qualifications of a peace officer. (California Constitution,
Article I, Section 3.)
6)Provides each department or agency in California that employs
SB 1019
Page 4
peace officers shall establish a procedure to investigate
complaints by members of the public against the personnel of
these departments or agencies, and shall make a written
description of the procedure available to the public. [Penal
Code Section 832.5(a)(1).]
7)Provides each department or agency that employs custodial
officers may establish a procedure to investigate complaints
by members of the public against those custodial officers
employed by these departments or agencies provided, however,
that any procedure so established shall comply with the
provisions of law which set forth confidential discovery of
personnel records. [Penal Code Section 832.5(a)(2).]
8)Mandates complaints and any reports or findings relating to
these complaints shall be retained for a period of at least
five years. All complaints retained pursuant to this
subdivision may be maintained either in the peace or custodial
officer's general personnel file or in a separate file
designated by the department or agency as provided by
department or agency policy in accordance with all applicable
requirements of law. However, prior to any official
determination regarding promotion, transfer, or disciplinary
action by an officer's employing department or agency, the
complaints shall be removed from the officer's general
personnel file and placed in separate file designated by the
department or agency in accordance with all applicable
requirements of law. [Penal Code Section 832.5(b).]
9)Specifies complaints by members of the public that are
determined by the peace or custodial officer's employing
agency to be frivolous, unfounded or exonerated, or any
portion of a complaint determined to be frivolous, unfounded,
or exonerated, shall not be maintained in that officer's
general personnel file. However, these complaints shall be
retained in other, separate files that shall be deemed
personnel records for purposes of the California Public
Records Act. [Penal Code Section 832.5(c).]
a) Clarifies that management of the peace or custodial
officer's employing agency shall have access to the files
described in this subdivision. [Penal Code Section
832.5(c)(1).]
b) Requires that management of the peace or custodial
SB 1019
Page 5
officer's employing agency shall not use the complaints
contained in these separate files for punitive or
promotional purposes except as specified under the
Government Code. [Penal Code Section 832.5(c)(2).]
c) Provides management of the peace or custodial officer's
employing agency may identify any officer who is subject to
the complaints maintained in these files which require
counseling or additional training. However, if a complaint
is removed from the officer's personnel file, any reference
in the personnel file to the complaint or to a separate
file shall be deleted. [Penal Code Section 832.5(c)(3).]
d) Defines "general personnel file" as the file maintained
by the agency containing the primary records specific to
each peace or custodial officer's employment, including
evaluations, assignments, status changes, and imposed
discipline. [Penal Code Section 832.5(d)(1).]
e) Defines "unfounded" as the investigation clearly
established that the allegation is not true. [Penal Code
Section 832.5(d)(2).]
f) Defines "exonerated" as the investigation clearly
established that the actions of the peace or custodial
officer that formed the basis for the complaint are not
violations of law or department policy. [Penal Code
Section 832.5(d)(3).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "The Copley
Press decision has effectively shut down virtually every forum
in which the public previously had access to police misconduct
and disciplinary information, resulting in unchecked secrecy
around peace officer misconduct. Absent legislative action
there is virtually no opportunity for the public to access any
information associated with confirmed serious misconduct of
peace officers.
"While SB 1019 is about disclosure and local control, this bill
does not force any city or county to release peace officer
misconduct information. This bill simply allows local
SB 1019
Page 6
jurisdictions the option to follow the practices they followed
prior to the Copley Press decision. In addition, SB 1019
provides a new protection for peace officers in the event a
local government participates in releasing misconduct
information. Specifically, the Chief Officer, on a
case-by-case basis, may certify in writing that the release of
information in a certain instance may jeopardize officer
safety or operational security and, therefore, that threat
overrides the right of public access to information.
"Developing a relationship of trust between a police force and
the community it protects is sometimes a difficult process.
Secrecy around citizen complaints regarding police misconduct
ultimately only results in greater mistrust of the police,
poor police-community relations, and ultimately less
responsive and accountable police agencies."
2)Background : As stated in the background provided by the
author, "On August 29, 2006, the California Supreme Court in
Copley Press held that records of an administrative appeal of
sustained misconduct charges - held by an independent civil
service commission - are confidential and may not be disclosed
to the public. This decision prevents the public from
learning the extent to which police and correctional officers
have been disciplined as a result of sustained misconduct. It
also prevents the public from finding out from commission
hearings when departments' official policies authorize
practices and procedures that have led to questionable
results. This lack of information prevents the public from
holding departments accountable for their policies and for the
behavior of their officers and throws a cloak of secrecy over
the practices of police departments across the state.
"Prior to the Copley Press decision Penal Code Section 832.7
prevented public access to complaint records held by the
'employing agency'. This meant that internal affairs records
were confidential, while records of administrative appeals to
outside bodies such as a civil service commission were open to
the public. Also, in some jurisdictions, independent civilian
review boards functioned by publicly hearing complaints
separate and apart from the police departments.
"In the Copley Press decision the court held that the San Diego
Civil Service Commission records on police officer
administrative appeals were confidential. In reaching this
SB 1019
Page 7
conclusion, the court held that the Civil Service Commission
performed a similar function to the police department in the
disciplinary process so, for purposes of the case, the
commission was functioning as the employing agency. The court
essentially undid the legislatively enacted distinction
between employing agencies and independent agencies, cloaking
the records and findings of both in confidentiality.
"This decision has effectively shut off all avenues for the
public to learn about police misconduct perpetrated by
individual police and correctional officers and questionable
conduct authorized by department police. It has eliminated,
for example, the ability of the media or other outside agency
to determine whether there are patterns of leniency towards
particular officers, whether particular officers engage in
repeat or serious misconduct, or whether a department hires
officers that have previously been disciplined for misconduct
by another agency. A few agencies that have been effected
are:
a) "San Francisco Police Department : For years, San
Francisco Police Commission records have been open to the
public, allowing the public to learn about serious
misconduct cases ranging from excessive force to
dishonesty. Following Copley Press , all hearings have been
closed and related records - even the identity of the
subject officers - are no longer released.
b) "Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) : For decades, the
LAPD held public hearings in serious misconduct cases and
the Police Commission regularly released information on use
of force incidents, including officer-involved shootings.
Such information was included in both the Christopher
Commission report and the Report of the Rampart Independent
Review Panel, and helped play a critical role in bringing
about much needed changes in the LAPD. Now, on advice of
the Los Angeles City Attorney, the Commission no longer
releases identifying information in officer involved
shootings or other uses of force and all disciplinary
information is closed to the public.
c) " Oakland Citizens Police Review Board (CPRB) : Since the
early 1980's, the CPRB has investigated cases of police
misconduct and held open hearings, separate and apart from
the Police Department's internal affairs unit, to provide
SB 1019
Page 8
an independent and public forum for examining police
misconduct. After over 20 years, the CPRB hearings and
records have been closed down, as have the records of other
oversight agencies.
d) " State Personnel Board (SPB) : The SPB used to treat
peace officers like all other state employees, releasing
relevant information related to complaints, misconduct and
discipline and having public discipline hearings. Now, the
SPB keeps all peace officer records confidential, even the
officer's name. The SPB handles the discipline of CHP
officers, correctional officers and all other state
employed peace officers.
"Under current law, police and correctional officers are given
special rights beyond those of other public employees. The
public has a right of access to misconduct and disciplinary
information for all other public employees, lawyers, and
doctors. Police wield an incredible amount of power and hold
a tremendous amount of responsibility in our society.
Arguably, records about police misconduct should be more
accessible, not less!
"SB 1019 declares that it is the intent of the Legislature to
restore public access to peace officer records, and to restore
public access to meetings and hearings that were open to the
public prior to Copley Press . This is done by:
a) "Allowing cities, counties, local government entities
and state agencies to follow the practices followed prior
to the Copley Press decision. The practices to be followed
may not provide for greater release of information than was
allowed prior to the Copley decision.
b) "Creates added peace officer protection by allowing the
Chief Officer to certify in writing that the release of
information in a certain case may jeopardize officer safety
or operational security and that threat overrides the right
of public access to the information.
"These changes to Section 832.7 of the Penal Code put
California back to where it was before the Copley Press
decision, which is local choice. Just as it was before the
decision, local jurisdictions can decide whether to release
peace officer discipline records. SB 1019 gives the locals
SB 1019
Page 9
the legal authority to release this information if they
choose to and as long as it doesn't go beyond what was
released before the Copley Press decision."
2)Copley Press v. Superior Court :
a) Facts : A newspaper in San Diego sought records through
public records request from a public commission. The
records sought were related to the facts and circumstances
and what discipline was ordered of an officer for failure
to arrest a suspect in a domestic violence incident despite
having probable cause to do so, failure to prepare a
written report documenting the incident, and dishonesty in
falsely indicating in the patrol log that the victim bore
no signs of injury and that the suspect was "gone on
arrival."
b) Issue : The Court was considering whether or not the
California Public Records Act (CPRA) requires disclosure of
records of a county civil service commission relating to a
peace officer's disciplinary matter.
c) Ruling : The Court concluded that Penal Code, as
written, exempts peace officer personnel records from
disclosure requirements under the CPRA.
d) Majority Opinion (Justice Chin) : The Court concluded
that the commission's files were confidential files of the
employing agency within the meaning of Penal Code. The
Court also ruled that the press has no constitutional right
of access to peace officer personnel records because
California Constitution specifically exempts such records
and because there is no First Amendment right to particular
government information.
e) Dissenting Opinion (Justice Werdegar) : The majority
misconstrues the intent of the Penal Code, thereby
overvaluing the peace officer's interest in privacy and
undervalues the public's interest in disclosure, and
ultimately fails to implement the Legislature's careful
balance of the competing concerns in this area.
4)Bradshaw Decision: Overturned by Copley : The Second District
Court of Appeal had previously ruled in 1990 that Penal Code
Section 832.7 did not prohibit public disclosure of the
SB 1019
Page 10
findings of a police department's board of rights disciplinary
hearing recommending suspension of an officer. The officer,
having been previously advised that "shake downs" by persons
impersonating police officers or police officers acting
improperly had been taking place, detained two uniformed
deputy sheriffs as suspects, forcing them to lie face down on
the pavement until their identities were verified. The
statute, which provides that peace officer personnel records
are "confidential" and not to be disclosed in any criminal or
civil proceeding except by appropriate judicial discovery,
specifically refers only to restrictions in civil or criminal
proceedings and, thus, does not prohibit a public agency from
disclosing the information to the public. [ Bradshaw v. City
of Los Angeles (1990, 2nd Dist) 221 Cal App 3d 908.]
As a result of the Supreme Court ruling in Copley , the Bradshaw
precedent under which the State has been operating since 1990
bas abrogated. The Supreme Court in Copley expressly
disapproved of Bradshaw .
5)The Legislature has the Inherent Authority to Overturn the
Court's Ruling in Copley :
a) Separation of Powers : The legislative branch of
government has the authority to draft constitutional laws.
The judicial branch has the authority, through hearing an
actual case or controversy, to strike down unconstitutional
laws enacted by the legislative branch.
b) Copley Decision Rests Upon Statutory Interpretation and
Not Constitutional Grounds : The majority opinion in Copley
was based primarily upon interpretation of existing
statutory law by interpreting an apparent contradiction
between the rights of the public to access public records
under the CPRA and the prohibitions upon the release of
information related to peace officers under the Penal Code.
While the Court did rule that there is First Amendment or
constitutional requirement mandating disclosure, it did not
rule that disclosure of the records would be
unconstitutional. As the law stands today, the only way
these records may be authorized for public disclosure would
be a statutory amendment.
6)Differences Between SB 1019 (Romero) and AB 1648 (Leno): This
Committee heard AB 1648, authored by Assembly Member Mark
SB 1019
Page 11
Leno. AB 1648 likewise sought to abrogate the Copley decision
and permit greater access to disciplinary hearings and
personnel records of officers in cases of sustained
misconduct. However, the differences between AB 1648 and this
bill are substantial. Some of the most significant
differences are outlined herein:
a) This Bill Does Not Expressly Exempt Review Boards'
Records from Public Disclosure Restrictions : AB 1648
included civilian review boards, personnel boards, police
commissions, and civil service commissions among the
entities which are exempt from a prohibition upon the
disclosure of information from peace officer or custodial
officer personnel records. This bill permits local
jurisdictions to operate in the same manner they operated
prior to the Copley decision, with the same restrictions
upon disclosure which existed under the Bradshaw decision.
b) This bill Does Not Specify a Particular Exception for
Every Case In Which Discipline Was Imposed Upon an Officer :
AB 1648 specified an exception to the non-disclosure
requirement when discipline has been imposed in the form of
a suspension, demotion, removal, or other separation of the
peace officer from service with the department. This bill
permits local jurisdictions to follow the rules in which
they were operating with no particular mandates on what is
permitted disclosure.
c) This Bill Does Not Require the Disclosure of the Name of
the Officer, Facts Surrounding the Incident, Charges,
Factual Findings, and Discipline Imposed : AB 1648
specified that upon imposition of suspension, demotion,
removal or separation from service from the department,
following a complaint, disciplinary matter, or internal
investigation, the following information should be
released: (i) the name and badge number of the subject
officer; (ii) the name and current address of the
complainant; (iii) a summary of the factual allegations
contained in the complaint or other charging document; (iv)
the charges brought against the officer; (v) the factual
findings with respect to the conduct at issue; and, (vi)
the release the discipline imposed or corrective action
taken. This bill does not mandate the release of any
information; this bill merely permits local jurisdictions
to elect to proceed in the manner they operated prior to
SB 1019
Page 12
the Copley decision.
d) This Bill Affords the Chief of Police an Opportunity to
Certify Information as Confidential Which Would Otherwise
be Subject to Disclosure : AB 1648 permitted the police to
disclose information which would otherwise be confidential
as to correct any perceived misunderstandings from
otherwise disclosed information. This bill provides a
proactive protection to the chief of the law enforcement
agency. Specifically, this bill permits a chief to make a
finding that if the information is likely to endanger an
officer or disrupt an investigation, the chief may either
declare the information confidential or may narrowly tailor
the information. This provision is subject to the
confidential review of the review board or police
commission.
7)Absent Abrogation of Copley the Only Method of Obtainment of
Records of Police Misconduct is Through the Discovery Process
by Criminal Defendants and Civil Litigants : The policy
decision before the Committee is whether the public's right to
know the circumstances of police misconduct is outweighed by
peace officers' rights to privacy. Additionally, the decision
must be made whether peace officers have a greater interest in
the privacy than other public officials. The Copley decision
effectively limits access to information related to
allegations of peace officer misconduct to litigation
discovery procedures. Criminal litigants are not permitted to
disclose the information, which is privileged for use in
defense of the criminal case only. The Copley decision
removes public access to these records.
8)No Privacy Interests Exist for Other Public Employees and
Officers in Cases of Sustained Misconduct : For other public
employees, the public may learn about sustained misconduct
charges and discipline and also in cases where charges have
not been sustained but there is simply "reasonable cause" to
believe the complaint is true. Doctors, lawyers, public
employees and officials' records are public and accessible.
Allegations do not need to be "found to be true" and
discipline does not have to be issued for public access to be
granted, rather: "Where complaints of a public employee's
wrongdoing and resulting disciplinary investigation reveal
allegations of a substantial nature, as distinct from baseless
or trivial, and there is reasonable cause to believe the
SB 1019
Page 13
complaint is well founded, public employee privacy must give
way to the public's right to know." [ Bakersfield County
School District v. Superior Court (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th,
1041.]
9)Brief Overview of "Pitchess" Law : In 1978, the California
Legislature codified the privileges and discovery procedures
comprising so-called " Pitchess motions" by enacting Penal Code
Sections 832.7 and 832.8 and Evidence Code Sections 1043
through 1045. In Pitchess , the court held that a criminal
defendant's fundamental right to a fair trial entitles a
defendant who is asserting self-defense to a charge of battery
on the police officer who arrested him to discovery of police
personnel records. The Penal Code provisions define
"personnel records" (Penal Code Section 832.8) and provide
that such records are confidential and subject to discovery
only pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Evidence
Code. Evidence Code Sections 1043 and 1045 detail the
discovery procedures. Evidence Code Section 1043 requires a
written motion to the court upon written notice to the
government agency which has custody of the records sought,
supported by an affidavit showing good cause for the discovery
including the materiality of the discovery sought to the
subject matter involved in the pending litigation. Once good
cause for discovery has been established, Evidence Code
Section 1045 requires the court to examine the information in
camera to determine its relevance to the case at issue; as
part of this in camera process, the court must exclude from
disclosure certain categories of information, including
complaints more than five years old, the conclusions of any
officer investigating a complaint, and facts that are so
remote as to make disclosure of little or no practical
benefit. Evidence Code Section 1045 also establishes general
criteria to guide the court's determination and ensure that
the privacy interests of the officers subject to the motion
are protected. Thus, the statutory scheme carefully balances
two directly conflicting interests: the peace officer's just
claim to confidentiality and the criminal defendant's equally
compelling interest in all information pertinent to his or her
defense. [ Alt v. Superior Court (1999, 3rd Dist) 74 Cal App
4th 950.]
10)Other Decisional Law :
a) By its adoption of Penal Code Section 832.5, mandating
SB 1019
Page 14
that law enforcement agencies establish a procedure to
investigate citizens' complaints against police officers,
the Legislature indicated its desire that complaints such
as that filed by defendant with the chief of police are to
be encouraged. [ Pena v. Municipal Court for Tulare-Pixley
Judicial Dist. (1979, 5th Dist) 96 Cal App 3d 77.]
b) In an action by a police officers' association against a
city, the trial court properly ruled that police commission
office of citizen complaints rules allowing the complainant
and his/her representative to be present during the
fact-finding hearing on the complaint did not violate
provisions of Penal Code Section 832.5 et seq., providing
for the confidentiality of records relating to
investigations of citizens' complaints. The hearing is
part of the fact-finding process and is not, in and of
itself, a record within the meaning of Penal Code Section
832.7. Neither do the rules allowing access to evidence
before and during the hearing conflict with the
confidentiality provisions of Penal Code Section 832.5.
Nothing in the rules purports to grant the complainant
access to such evidence on conclusion of the hearing. [ San
Francisco Police Officers' Assn. v. Superior Court (1988,
1st Dist) 202 Cal App 3d 183.]
c) The intent behind Penal Code Section 832.5 is to
encourage complaints against officers. [ People v Craig
(1993, App Dep't Super Ct) 21 Cal App 4th Supp 1.]
d) The Legislature's use of the term "any civil action" in
Penal Code Section 832.7 (providing that peace officer
personnel records are confidential and not subject to
discovery except by the procedures contained in the
Evidence Code) is intended to apply to any situation,
including personal injury actions, where a party seeks to
discover information contained in a peace officer's
personnel file. [ County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court
(1990, 2nd Dist) 219 Cal App 3d 1605.]
e) The purpose of Penal Code Section 832.7 (confidentiality
of peace officer records), and Evidence Code Section 1043
(discovery or disclosure of peace officer's personnel
records) is to give the peace officer and his or her
employing agency the right to refuse to disclose any
information concerning the officer or investigations of the
SB 1019
Page 15
officer in both criminal and civil proceedings. [ Michael
v. Gates (1995, 2nd Dist) 38 Cal App 4th 737.]
f) The purpose of the statutory scheme governing police
personnel records is to balance the conflicting interests
of a peace officer's claim to confidentiality and a
litigant's equally compelling interest to all information
pertinent to pending litigation. [ Rosales v. City of Los
Angeles (2000, 2nd Dist) 82 Cal App 4th 419.]
g) In a wrongful death action arising out of a police
killing of plaintiffs' decedent during his arrest, the
trial court erred in ordering two police officers to answer
questions on deposition as to whether they had received
reprimands regarding their police work. Pursuant to Penal
Code Sections 832.7 and 832.8, personnel records and
complaints about police officers are privileged against
discovery except by means of a proceeding under Evidence
Code Sections 1043 and 1045. That procedure was followed;
and after an in camera inspection of the officers' records,
the trial court granted partial disclosure of the
information there contained. Plaintiffs then noticed the
officers' depositions and questioned the officers whether
they had received reprimands regarding their police work
and the officers would not respond on grounds of privilege.
A litigant may not obtain indirectly what is directly
privileged and immune from discovery. The statutes which
protect personnel records and information from such records
also protect the identical information about personnel
history which is within the officers' personal
recollections. Also, the trial court had already culled
the records and determined what should be made available
and what should be protected. No appeal from that ruling
was taken by way of a petition for prerogative writ relief
or otherwise. In the interests of fairness and judicial
economy that ruling should be treated as a final
determination regarding the proper extent of disclosure of
the officers' personnel histories, absent any showing of
changed circumstances. [ City of San Diego v. Superior
Court (1981, 4th Dist) 136 Cal App 3d 236.]
11)Argument in Support :
a) Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villarigosa and LAPD Chief
William Bratton jointly write, "Here in Los Angeles, the
SB 1019
Page 16
Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) had a long history of
Boards Rights hearings that were open to the public prior
to the Copley decision. We believe that open Board of
Rights hearing add transparency to the process by which
complaints against police officers are adjudicated. This
transparency serves both the public's interest in
understanding the intricacies of a particular event and the
police officers' interest in publicly absolving themselves
in cases where they were acting in accordance with LAPD
procedures.
"We support your legislation, as it would allow Los Angeles
to go back to the practice of open Board of Rights
hearings, as was the practice prior to the Copley decision.
Thank you for your leadership on this very important
issue. We look forward to working with you to ensure that
the City of Los Angeles can reopen the LAPD's Board of
Rights hearings to the public."
b) Oakland Mayor Ronald Dellums writes, "Although I respect
reasonable protections and privacy for police officers, the
Copley decision extends well beyond reason and creates a
cloud of secrecy that will only deteriorate public trust
and confidence in the police and negatively impact
police-community relations. The ability of members of the
public, community organizations, and the press to have
access to information about police complaints is of
particular importance to me and many others in my
community.
"Like any urban city, the City of Oakland is faced with crime
and violence in our community. As the City of Oakland
begins to implement a plan for Community Peace, we will
look to the police to work in partnership with the
community to develop long term solutions. The Copley
decision will not help to move our community forward but
will increase mistrust of our law enforcement officers and
for this reason, I offer my strong support for SB 1019."
c) San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi writes, "This
important piece of legislation would overturn a misguided
California Supreme Court case in Copley Press that has had
the effect of closing down public access to information
about police complaints in jurisdictions throughout the
state.
SB 1019
Page 17
"The ability of members of the public, community
organizations, and the press have to access to information
about police complaints is of particular importance to our
office, which provides direct representation to individuals
to persons charges with criminal offenses. Issues
concerning credibility of police officers are often raised
in criminal cases, and have an important place in ensuring
both fairness and accountability in our criminal justice
system. In my experience, improving police accountability
also enhances the quality of services provided by police.
"Most other states provide greater access to records about
sustained police complaints that California and even in
California, members of the public can access information
about sustained complaints about other public employees,
doctors, and lawyers. We should have the same right of
access with regard to police complaints.
"Secrecy around citizen complaints about police misconduct
and discipline will only result in greater mistrust of the
police and poor police-community relations. Thank you for
carrying SB 1019."
d) Sheriff Michael Hennessey of San Francisco writes, "I
believe it is in the interest of law enforcement agencies
and the citizens they serve that there be greater
information available regarding the conduct of law
enforcement officers and the actions taken by agencies to
ensure the discipline within the ranks.
"The Copley decision has added a layer of secrecy about the
conduct of officers and is not beneficial in the effort of
law enforcement to gain and maintain the confidence of the
public in its ability to take corrective action when
officer misconduct occurs.
"I believe that SB 1019 will help law enforcement by
allowing it to inform the public that internal discipline
within its public safety agencies is a serious matter and
appropriate steps are being taken to maintain that
discipline."
e) Chief Ronald Davis of the East Palo Alto Police
Department writes, "As a police chief, I respect and
SB 1019
Page 18
embrace reasonable protections and privacy for police
officers. As we face increasing crime and violence in our
communities, we need to work in partnership with the
community to develop long-term solutions. This cannot
occur if the community, especially communities of color,
believes the police operate in secrecy and with impunity.
The police must be open, accessible, and accountable to the
communities they serve."
f) La Raza Centro Legal, Inc. writes, "I am pleased to
inform you of my support for your SB 1019 which will
overturn the recent California Supreme Court decision in
Copley Press v. Superior Court . This decision has
effectively` shut down virtually every forum in which the
public previously had access to the police discipline
process. The resulting secrecy around police complaints
will undermine police community relations and reduce
accountability of the police to the communities they serve.
"The importance of transparency and the problem with secrecy
is best illustrated by the controversy over the shooting of
13-year-old Devin Brown by an officer with the Los Angeles
Police Department. There, the Police Commission found the
shooting out of policy, but the Board of Rights for the
Police Department - previously open to the public but now
closed due to Copley Press - found the police action within
policy. The secrecy around the proceeding resulted in
community protect. Police Chief William Bratton wanted to
have a public process and release information, but was
prohibited from doing so as a result of Copley Press .
"The Copley Press decision has created unchecked secrecy in
the peace officer discipline process. Absent legislative
action there is virtually no opportunity for the public to
access any information associated with confirmed serious
misconduct of peace officers.
"Ultimately, this debate is about whether or not the public
should have a right to know about how their government
works and functions. Secrecy around citizen complaints
about police misconduct will only result in greater
mistrust of police, poor police-community relations, and
ultimately less responsive and accountable police agencies.
SB 1019 presents a step in the right direction towards
SB 1019
Page 19
addressing the problems caused by Copley Press ."
12)Argument in Opposition:
a) The California Correctional Peace Officers Association
writes, "In our view, the existing statutory scheme, as
interpreted by the California Supreme Court in the Copley
case, appropriately balances the public needs to have
access to peace officer records with the needs to protect
California's peace officer workforce. We concur with many
other peace officer groups that SB 1019 would subject peace
officers to additional personal safety risks."
b) The Riverside Sheriffs' Association writes, "The purpose
of your bill is to abrogate the California Supreme Court's
decision in Copley Press v. Superior Court . We believe
your bill is not only unwise and dangerous precedent, it
undermines decades of well settled case law on this subject
and confiscates a police officer's right to confidentiality
and privacy."
c) The California Statewide Law Enforcement Association
(CSLEA) writes, "CSLEA believes that existing state law, as
reinforced by the Copley decision, recognizes that peace
officers have a legitimate privacy interest in their
personnel records and disciplinary proceedings. To the
extent good cause exists, there are existing procedural
mechanisms to compel disclosure of such records or
disciplinary proceedings. We see no reason for
jeopardizing the safety of peace officers and ultimately
the public by making these records more accessible."
d) The California Narcotics Officers Association,
California Peace Officers' Association and the California
Police Chiefs Association write jointly, "The policy of
protecting the confidentiality of employee personnel maters
is an important one and applies to all public employees.
All three organizations believe that those underlying
policy considerations are even more important in the
context of peace officers. The reality of today's Internet
is that virtually no one - despite laws to the contrary -
can be assured that their most private information cannot
be accessed. The disclosure of peace officer personnel
information could have the unintended consequence of
exposing the officer to harm - harm visited upon the
SB 1019
Page 20
officer by persons totally unrelated to the facts of the
disciplinary case at hand. If there is any doubt of this,
one need only look to the various Internet services capable
of finding a person's home address based on the simple
entry of a name and state of residence."
e) The California Association of Highway Patrolmen and the
Peace Officers Research Association of California jointly
write, "SB 1019 erodes what has taken decades to build,
which is confidentiality of peace officer records. The
Copley decision firmly upheld the provisions of Penal Code
Section 832.7 PC to confirm that disciplinary hearings
shall be closed to the public. It does no good to open up
a peace officer to this public scrutiny or debasement,
especially when the peace officer will return to work.
This only serves to diminish public confidence in that
peace officer's ability to work in their community."
13)Related Legislation: AB 1648 (Leno) stated legislative
intent to abrogate the Copley Press decision and specified
procedures for public hearings and disclosure of police
disciplinary records. SB 1648 was held in this Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Newspaper Publishers Association (Sponsor)
American Civil Liberties Union
American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
American Civil Liberties Union, Santa Clara Valley Chapter
American Friends Service Committee
Americans for Safe Access
Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality
Asian Law Alliance
Asian Law Caucus
Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California
Bar Association of San Francisco
Bernard C. Parks, Los Angeles City Council
Bill Rosenthal, Los Angeles City Council
Blanca Alvarado, Santa Clara County Supervisor
California State Personnel Board
California Women's Agenda
Californians Aware
Central American Resource Center
SB 1019
Page 21
Central California Criminal Justice Committee
Central Labor Council of Alameda County
Chief Ray Samuels, Newark Police Department
Chief Ronald Davis, East Palo Alto Police Department
Chief William Bratton, Los Angeles Police Department
Chinese for Affirmative Action
City and County of San Francisco
City of Berkeley
City of Los Angeles
City of Oakland
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Community Call to Action and Accountability
Community United Against Violence
Council on American-Islamic Relations
County of Santa Clara
Ed P. Reyes, Los Angeles City Council
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Equality California
Families to Amend California's Three Strikes
First Amendment Coalition
Garment Worker Center
Homeboy Industries
Homies Unidos
Hunger Action Los Angeles
Idriss Stelley Foundation
International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 10
Islamic Shura Council
Jan Perry, Los Angeles City Council
Jeff Adachi, San Francisco Public Defender
Klamath Civil and Human Rights Project
Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance
La Raza Centro Legal, Inc.
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights
Libertarian Party of California
Los Amigos of Orange County
Los Angeles Coalition to End Hunger and Homelessness
Mayor Antonio R. Villarigosa, City of Los Angeles
Mayor Ronald V. Dellums, City of Oakland Mayor
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement
National Black Police Association
National Korean American Service and Education Consortium
North Bay Labor Council
Oakland Citizens' Police Review Board
People United for a Better Oakland
SB 1019
Page 22
Petra DeJesus, San Francisco Police Commission
Progressive Jewish Alliance
Public Interest Law Firm
Richmond District Neighborhood Center
Sheriff Michael Hennessey, City of San Francisco Sheriff's
Department
Society of Professional Journalists, Greater Los Angeles Chapter
South Asian Network
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
Transgender Law Center
36 private individuals
Opposition
Anaheim Police Officers Political Action Committee
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
California District Attorneys Association
California Fraternal Order of Police
California Narcotics Officers' Association
California Peace Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California School Employees Association
California State Employees Association
California State Firefighters' Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
California Statewide Law Enforcement Association
Coalition of County Unions
Labor Coalition
Long Beach Police Officers Association
Los Angeles County Federation of Labor
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Los Angeles Probation Officers' Union
Orange County Chiefs' & Sheriff's Association
Orange County Employees Association
Organization of SMUD Employees
Peace Officers Research Association
Professional Peace Officers Association
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs Association
SB 1019
Page 23
San Bernardino County Safety Employees' Benefit Association
San Bernardino Public Employees Association
San Diego County Court Employees Association
San Francisco Police Officers Association
San Luis Obispo County Employees Association
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
Santa Rosa City Employees Association
Southern California Alliance of Law Enforcement
Ventura County Deputy Sheriffs' Association
Analysis Prepared by : Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744