Los Angeles, March 4, 2016
- The Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS) is joining dozens of other law enforcement agencies statewide in vigorously opposing
Senate Bill 1286
, an unneeded piece of legislation that strips privacy from peace officers and does nothing to advance trust in law enforcement.
SB 1286 would change long-established and highly effective state law that has provided privacy for peace officers' personnel files, restricting disclosure to criminal prosecutions where the peace officer is a witness and appropriate showings have been made to a Judge. Proponents want to dismantle this system, making unsubstantiated claims that to do so would improve transparency and accountability and enhance public trust of law enforcement.
The ACLU and State Senator Mark Leno are pushing legislation that would greatly expand the exceptions that apply to investigations or proceedings conducted by civilian review agencies, inspectors general, personnel boards, police and civil service commissions, city councils, boards of supervisors and other agencies. It would make police officer personnel records and records relating to sustained complaints against them available to the public.
"SB 1286 singles out peace officers in a prejudicial and discriminatory manner and sets a dangerous precedent for all public employees in California. The bill is unnecessary because existing law provides for accessing police personnel files in appropriate cases,- with safeguards in place that protect officers' privacy. This bill would only serve to facilitate fishing expeditions by criminal defendants and their attorneys, devastate officer morale while eroding trust in law enforcement. State law protects all public employees by ensuring the disciplinary process is not a public spectacle," said ALADS President George Hofstetter.
"If allowing the wholesale invasion of police personnel files would lead to increased trust or accountability in law enforcement, surely the proponents could cite an example. They note that twenty three states allow the type of access they seek to impose in California---yet there isn't a single study which shows the level of trust in peace officers or accountability of law enforcement is any greater than in California. In fact, several of those twenty three states have experienced loud and sustained turmoil following deadly use of force in local communities in those states," added Hofstetter.
California's existing Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBAR) is designed to protect officers from unreasonable investigation and persecution and was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown in 1977. The law provides that peace officer personnel records, and records pertaining to complaints against them, are confidential and disclosable only through discovery. Exceptions to this policy allow records to be disclosed for investigations or proceedings concerning peace officer conduct by a grand jury, DA's office or AG's office.
The potential for abuse is enormous. The bill would encourage complaints against officers; threaten the safety of those whose personnel records are laid bare; and allow vocal anti-police activists to cherry-pick which misleading information they reveal to the public to further their own purposes. Allowing the wholesale invasion of police personnel files in order to make them available for activists to then use a select number of cases to continue their anti-police agenda does not serve to advance public trust.
In promoting this agenda, SB 1286's proponents would upend a carefully crafted mechanism that existing law allows for access to peace officer's personnel files. Known as a "Pitchess motion", it requires a judge to determine whether personnel records are relevant to a pending case and thus should be disclosed. The Legislature set up the current system specifically to limit fishing expeditions into officers' personnel files by criminal defendants.
"POBAR has stood the test of time and has not prevented law enforcement leaders from holding accountable officers who have committed wrongdoing on or off the job," Hofstetter said. "SB 1286 undermines decades of well-settled case law and deprives officers of their rights to confidentiality and privacy."
"It's clear that this legislation was crafted by anti-law enforcement forces to allow continual second-guessing of the disciplinary process," Hofstetter said. "Police officers have tough jobs and take enough risks as it is. Their private information should not be added to the list of threats they face."
Media Contacts:
