Legislature Moving on Legislation that Would Restore Civilian Oversight of Police in Wake of California Supreme Court Decision

Share:
Last year in Davis, the issue of civilian oversight was one of the hot issues stemming from several high profile incidents in Davis last year regarding not only complaints of police conduct, but the difficulty of navigating through the complaint system.

With the Davis City Council adoption of an ombudsman and the subsequent hiring of Bob Aaronson to fill that position, the issue has disappeared from the radar of most Davisites.

During the contentious February 21, 2007 meeting from last year, one of the prime objections made by City Attorney Harriet Steiner had to do with questions of the legality of public access to misconduct records from the police.

The California Supreme Court has since ruled in Copley Press v. Superior Court, that the public does not have access to the disclosure of records relating to a peace officer’s appeal of a disciplinary action under the California Public Records Act. This act effectively stripped civilian review boards of their ability to review officer’s personnel records in their investigations and led to the halting of public police disciplinary proceedings after the Supreme Court ruling.

This ruling was further bolstered in February when an Alameda County Jude ruled that the Berkeley Police Review Commission’s public hearings violated state confidentiality law.

According to a recent Los Angeles Times Article:

“California law is among the most restrictive in the country concerning the release of information about police misconduct. Florida, Georgia, Ohio, South Carolina and Texas have had “sunshine” laws for many years without adverse consequences to police officers. These laws require public records to be open. California law, by contrast, keeps the media and the public in the dark.”

However, supporters of civilian review, have not completely lost this battle–at least not quite yet. There are a number of laws making their way through the legislature including SB 1019 sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero of Los Angeles and AB 1648 authored by Assemblyman Mark Leno of San Francisco.

The Senate Bill has already passed committee and according to Senator Mike Machado’s office will come to the floor in the next two weeks. The Assembly Bill has not yet passed the committee, but is expected to shortly.

These bills would do three things.

First, they would overturn the Supreme Court decision and restore the limited public access to police complaint records that existed prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Second, they would allow for greater public access to information about those cases that are sustained including the ruling, charges brought for, and any displinary action. In addition they would authorize a police chief to release internal documentation supporting the department’s findings when an outside agencies rules that an officer’s conduct is in violation of the law or police policy.

Finally, these records would be made accessible under the California Public Records Act, so any individual could make a request.

Neither of Davis’ legislators have taken a stance on this legislation.

There is a long list of supporters including National Black Police Association, LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, LA Police Chief William Bratton, ACLU, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, NACOLE (National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement), the Democratic Party of Alameda County, San Francisco County, the Los Angeles Times, Orange County Register, among others.

It was only in the wake of what happened in Los Angeles two weeks ago that Villaraigosa and Bratton are fully supportive of SB 1019.

The incident in Los Angeles gives this bill a new shot of momentum as under the current law, as the Los Angeles Times reports, the police chief would be prohibited from disclosing the names of the officers involved in the incident, moreover whether the officers had any prior sustained force complaints. There has to be some sort of transparency that enables police officers and frankly any public official to be held accountable for their actions and the public to be able to determine whether or not they have.

Moreover, and this also can vindicate officers in addition to indict them, the public would not have access to facts developed in the disciplinary investigation including witness testimony. It could be that the officers are vindicated by these findings, but the public would not be able to find out about them–they would have suspicions based on what they have seen and heard in the media.

I think Bernard Parks, the former LAPD Chief made this point exceptionally well in a letter to Senator Romero quoted in the LA Times article:

“Ultimately … the public should have a right to know about how their government works and functions. Secrecy around citizen complaints and police misconduct will only result in greater mistrust of the police, poor police-community relations and ultimately less responsive and accountable police agencies. SB 1019 presents a step in the right direction toward addressing the problems caused by the Copley Press decision.”

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

32 thoughts on “Legislature Moving on Legislation that Would Restore Civilian Oversight of Police in Wake of California Supreme Court Decision”

  1. Anonymous

    I’ve heard that most complaints about Police in Davis is that the person was treated in a rude manner. Is this something that warrants public disclosure? If so, wouldn’t a public hearing on the matter discourage a good natured apology from the officer with an equally agreeable response from the person stopped?

    I think that public disclosure of illegal activity by police officers (excessive use of force, etc.) should be as public as other people who break the law. But most personnel matters should be kept confidential.

  2. Anonymous

    I’ve heard that most complaints about Police in Davis is that the person was treated in a rude manner. Is this something that warrants public disclosure? If so, wouldn’t a public hearing on the matter discourage a good natured apology from the officer with an equally agreeable response from the person stopped?

    I think that public disclosure of illegal activity by police officers (excessive use of force, etc.) should be as public as other people who break the law. But most personnel matters should be kept confidential.

  3. Anonymous

    I’ve heard that most complaints about Police in Davis is that the person was treated in a rude manner. Is this something that warrants public disclosure? If so, wouldn’t a public hearing on the matter discourage a good natured apology from the officer with an equally agreeable response from the person stopped?

    I think that public disclosure of illegal activity by police officers (excessive use of force, etc.) should be as public as other people who break the law. But most personnel matters should be kept confidential.

  4. Anonymous

    I’ve heard that most complaints about Police in Davis is that the person was treated in a rude manner. Is this something that warrants public disclosure? If so, wouldn’t a public hearing on the matter discourage a good natured apology from the officer with an equally agreeable response from the person stopped?

    I think that public disclosure of illegal activity by police officers (excessive use of force, etc.) should be as public as other people who break the law. But most personnel matters should be kept confidential.

  5. Vincente

    You’ve heard that because that is what the Ombudsman reported. However in the last few years there have been numerous complaints lodged against the Davis Police Department on things ranging from racial profiling, to illegal stops to harassment, to violations of constitutional rights. In fact, there are around 9 lawsuits pending in federal court against the Davis Police Department and guess what NONE of them have anything to being treated rudely.

    “I think that public disclosure of illegal activity by police officers (excessive use of force, etc.) should be as public as other people who break the law. But most personnel matters should be kept confidential.”

    I agree with you there. The problem right now is that those are not public and often those kinds of complaints do not end up even in their service files, and so police officers with horrible records end up getting promoted.

  6. Vincente

    You’ve heard that because that is what the Ombudsman reported. However in the last few years there have been numerous complaints lodged against the Davis Police Department on things ranging from racial profiling, to illegal stops to harassment, to violations of constitutional rights. In fact, there are around 9 lawsuits pending in federal court against the Davis Police Department and guess what NONE of them have anything to being treated rudely.

    “I think that public disclosure of illegal activity by police officers (excessive use of force, etc.) should be as public as other people who break the law. But most personnel matters should be kept confidential.”

    I agree with you there. The problem right now is that those are not public and often those kinds of complaints do not end up even in their service files, and so police officers with horrible records end up getting promoted.

  7. Vincente

    You’ve heard that because that is what the Ombudsman reported. However in the last few years there have been numerous complaints lodged against the Davis Police Department on things ranging from racial profiling, to illegal stops to harassment, to violations of constitutional rights. In fact, there are around 9 lawsuits pending in federal court against the Davis Police Department and guess what NONE of them have anything to being treated rudely.

    “I think that public disclosure of illegal activity by police officers (excessive use of force, etc.) should be as public as other people who break the law. But most personnel matters should be kept confidential.”

    I agree with you there. The problem right now is that those are not public and often those kinds of complaints do not end up even in their service files, and so police officers with horrible records end up getting promoted.

  8. Vincente

    You’ve heard that because that is what the Ombudsman reported. However in the last few years there have been numerous complaints lodged against the Davis Police Department on things ranging from racial profiling, to illegal stops to harassment, to violations of constitutional rights. In fact, there are around 9 lawsuits pending in federal court against the Davis Police Department and guess what NONE of them have anything to being treated rudely.

    “I think that public disclosure of illegal activity by police officers (excessive use of force, etc.) should be as public as other people who break the law. But most personnel matters should be kept confidential.”

    I agree with you there. The problem right now is that those are not public and often those kinds of complaints do not end up even in their service files, and so police officers with horrible records end up getting promoted.

  9. Rich Rifkin

    “I think that public disclosure of illegal activity by police officers (excessive use of force, etc.) should be as public as other people who break the law. But most personnel matters should be kept confidential.”

    My view is that even in seemingly minor matters — say being ‘rude’ to a member of the public — the police officer’s personnel record should be made public. However, mere allegations ought not be considered part of the public record. Allegations need to be investigated, both by Internal Affairs and by an independent party, such as the ombudsman. If the evidence suggests that the allegation is true, it ought to then go on an officer’s record. If false or highly doubtful, then it doesn’t belong in the public record. (It may belong in a private file, in order to see if there is a pattern of allegations against a particular officer.)

    The reason police personnel records should be made public is because I believe they will encourage better behavior by the cops. And they will give confidence to the public. A person who has been provably mistreated by a police officer will know that the officer’s behavior will be exposed to the sunshine, not buried in a file no one can see.

    Claiming privacy in personnel matters reminds me of what often occurs in civil claims. That is, in lawsuits against public agencies — or private agencies, for that matter — often there is a requirement that neither party discloses the terms of the settlement. The result is that the public is left out in the cold, not knowing whom to hold accountable. (This happened in Davis when WHOA settled with the Duffy’s and Rodney Robinson and Gerald Glazer pocketted the cash.)

    As much as I favor making public personnel records (and labor negotiations) when their is a public interest at stake, I would like to see a law that banned enforced silence by parties in a lawsuit, if there is any kind of public interest at stake in the settlement.

  10. Rich Rifkin

    “I think that public disclosure of illegal activity by police officers (excessive use of force, etc.) should be as public as other people who break the law. But most personnel matters should be kept confidential.”

    My view is that even in seemingly minor matters — say being ‘rude’ to a member of the public — the police officer’s personnel record should be made public. However, mere allegations ought not be considered part of the public record. Allegations need to be investigated, both by Internal Affairs and by an independent party, such as the ombudsman. If the evidence suggests that the allegation is true, it ought to then go on an officer’s record. If false or highly doubtful, then it doesn’t belong in the public record. (It may belong in a private file, in order to see if there is a pattern of allegations against a particular officer.)

    The reason police personnel records should be made public is because I believe they will encourage better behavior by the cops. And they will give confidence to the public. A person who has been provably mistreated by a police officer will know that the officer’s behavior will be exposed to the sunshine, not buried in a file no one can see.

    Claiming privacy in personnel matters reminds me of what often occurs in civil claims. That is, in lawsuits against public agencies — or private agencies, for that matter — often there is a requirement that neither party discloses the terms of the settlement. The result is that the public is left out in the cold, not knowing whom to hold accountable. (This happened in Davis when WHOA settled with the Duffy’s and Rodney Robinson and Gerald Glazer pocketted the cash.)

    As much as I favor making public personnel records (and labor negotiations) when their is a public interest at stake, I would like to see a law that banned enforced silence by parties in a lawsuit, if there is any kind of public interest at stake in the settlement.

  11. Rich Rifkin

    “I think that public disclosure of illegal activity by police officers (excessive use of force, etc.) should be as public as other people who break the law. But most personnel matters should be kept confidential.”

    My view is that even in seemingly minor matters — say being ‘rude’ to a member of the public — the police officer’s personnel record should be made public. However, mere allegations ought not be considered part of the public record. Allegations need to be investigated, both by Internal Affairs and by an independent party, such as the ombudsman. If the evidence suggests that the allegation is true, it ought to then go on an officer’s record. If false or highly doubtful, then it doesn’t belong in the public record. (It may belong in a private file, in order to see if there is a pattern of allegations against a particular officer.)

    The reason police personnel records should be made public is because I believe they will encourage better behavior by the cops. And they will give confidence to the public. A person who has been provably mistreated by a police officer will know that the officer’s behavior will be exposed to the sunshine, not buried in a file no one can see.

    Claiming privacy in personnel matters reminds me of what often occurs in civil claims. That is, in lawsuits against public agencies — or private agencies, for that matter — often there is a requirement that neither party discloses the terms of the settlement. The result is that the public is left out in the cold, not knowing whom to hold accountable. (This happened in Davis when WHOA settled with the Duffy’s and Rodney Robinson and Gerald Glazer pocketted the cash.)

    As much as I favor making public personnel records (and labor negotiations) when their is a public interest at stake, I would like to see a law that banned enforced silence by parties in a lawsuit, if there is any kind of public interest at stake in the settlement.

  12. Rich Rifkin

    “I think that public disclosure of illegal activity by police officers (excessive use of force, etc.) should be as public as other people who break the law. But most personnel matters should be kept confidential.”

    My view is that even in seemingly minor matters — say being ‘rude’ to a member of the public — the police officer’s personnel record should be made public. However, mere allegations ought not be considered part of the public record. Allegations need to be investigated, both by Internal Affairs and by an independent party, such as the ombudsman. If the evidence suggests that the allegation is true, it ought to then go on an officer’s record. If false or highly doubtful, then it doesn’t belong in the public record. (It may belong in a private file, in order to see if there is a pattern of allegations against a particular officer.)

    The reason police personnel records should be made public is because I believe they will encourage better behavior by the cops. And they will give confidence to the public. A person who has been provably mistreated by a police officer will know that the officer’s behavior will be exposed to the sunshine, not buried in a file no one can see.

    Claiming privacy in personnel matters reminds me of what often occurs in civil claims. That is, in lawsuits against public agencies — or private agencies, for that matter — often there is a requirement that neither party discloses the terms of the settlement. The result is that the public is left out in the cold, not knowing whom to hold accountable. (This happened in Davis when WHOA settled with the Duffy’s and Rodney Robinson and Gerald Glazer pocketted the cash.)

    As much as I favor making public personnel records (and labor negotiations) when their is a public interest at stake, I would like to see a law that banned enforced silence by parties in a lawsuit, if there is any kind of public interest at stake in the settlement.

  13. davisite

    “….(This happened in Davis when WHOA settled with the Duffy’s and Rodney Robinson and Gerald Glazer pocketted the cash.)”

    A simplistic and provocative claim seeing as how the law banned public disclosure of the details of this settlement..

  14. davisite

    “….(This happened in Davis when WHOA settled with the Duffy’s and Rodney Robinson and Gerald Glazer pocketted the cash.)”

    A simplistic and provocative claim seeing as how the law banned public disclosure of the details of this settlement..

  15. davisite

    “….(This happened in Davis when WHOA settled with the Duffy’s and Rodney Robinson and Gerald Glazer pocketted the cash.)”

    A simplistic and provocative claim seeing as how the law banned public disclosure of the details of this settlement..

  16. davisite

    “….(This happened in Davis when WHOA settled with the Duffy’s and Rodney Robinson and Gerald Glazer pocketted the cash.)”

    A simplistic and provocative claim seeing as how the law banned public disclosure of the details of this settlement..

  17. Rich Rifkin

    I was not aware that it was a law that banned the disclosure. I thought those were the terms that Glazer demanded of the Duffys, so that no one else would find out that he and Robinson were pocketting the cash. In fact, I am quite sure you have that wrong.

    The lawsuit was between two private parties, the Duffy Brothers and WHOA. However, WHOA was acting in a public capacity and hence there was a public interest at stake, (whether the Wildhorse subdivision, which I personally voted against, would be built).

    But even if you were right about the law here, Davisite, that is exactly what I would like to see changed — to disallow these forced silences, when the public interest is at stake.

    (Of course, when two private parties settle a lawsuit, and there is no serious public interest, they should have every right to agree to not talk about the nature of their settlement, if they so choose.)

  18. Rich Rifkin

    I was not aware that it was a law that banned the disclosure. I thought those were the terms that Glazer demanded of the Duffys, so that no one else would find out that he and Robinson were pocketting the cash. In fact, I am quite sure you have that wrong.

    The lawsuit was between two private parties, the Duffy Brothers and WHOA. However, WHOA was acting in a public capacity and hence there was a public interest at stake, (whether the Wildhorse subdivision, which I personally voted against, would be built).

    But even if you were right about the law here, Davisite, that is exactly what I would like to see changed — to disallow these forced silences, when the public interest is at stake.

    (Of course, when two private parties settle a lawsuit, and there is no serious public interest, they should have every right to agree to not talk about the nature of their settlement, if they so choose.)

  19. Rich Rifkin

    I was not aware that it was a law that banned the disclosure. I thought those were the terms that Glazer demanded of the Duffys, so that no one else would find out that he and Robinson were pocketting the cash. In fact, I am quite sure you have that wrong.

    The lawsuit was between two private parties, the Duffy Brothers and WHOA. However, WHOA was acting in a public capacity and hence there was a public interest at stake, (whether the Wildhorse subdivision, which I personally voted against, would be built).

    But even if you were right about the law here, Davisite, that is exactly what I would like to see changed — to disallow these forced silences, when the public interest is at stake.

    (Of course, when two private parties settle a lawsuit, and there is no serious public interest, they should have every right to agree to not talk about the nature of their settlement, if they so choose.)

  20. Rich Rifkin

    I was not aware that it was a law that banned the disclosure. I thought those were the terms that Glazer demanded of the Duffys, so that no one else would find out that he and Robinson were pocketting the cash. In fact, I am quite sure you have that wrong.

    The lawsuit was between two private parties, the Duffy Brothers and WHOA. However, WHOA was acting in a public capacity and hence there was a public interest at stake, (whether the Wildhorse subdivision, which I personally voted against, would be built).

    But even if you were right about the law here, Davisite, that is exactly what I would like to see changed — to disallow these forced silences, when the public interest is at stake.

    (Of course, when two private parties settle a lawsuit, and there is no serious public interest, they should have every right to agree to not talk about the nature of their settlement, if they so choose.)

  21. Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald

    I find it very interesting that I, Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald, agree with Rich Rifkin on this point too.

    As a matter of fact, when I Chaired the HRC we discussed making the records public if and after IA and an independent body such as an ombudsman, oversight committee, or an auditor has found the officer guilty.

    I completely favor the confidentiality of personnel records. I fight for workers rights in the every day work that I do, so disclosure of personnel records is not something that I would usually support. However, when a person has sworn to uphold the law and then is found to have violated that public trust the public has a right to know. Doctors have their licenses revoked, attorneys can be disbarred, and officers should face the same scrutiny too.

    When we suggested the idea it was shot down by the council majority and then of course the vilification of the HRC – in particular this former Chairwoman – began…

    It’s funny how people who are perceived to be such polar opposites (Rich Rifkin and Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald) can find themselves agreeing on an issue that divided the community so much. I believe that the vilification displayed by the newspaper and the council majority did not give people the opportunity to ask questions and hear the discussion going on with the HRC at the time.

    Thank you for sharing your views Rich.

  22. Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald

    I find it very interesting that I, Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald, agree with Rich Rifkin on this point too.

    As a matter of fact, when I Chaired the HRC we discussed making the records public if and after IA and an independent body such as an ombudsman, oversight committee, or an auditor has found the officer guilty.

    I completely favor the confidentiality of personnel records. I fight for workers rights in the every day work that I do, so disclosure of personnel records is not something that I would usually support. However, when a person has sworn to uphold the law and then is found to have violated that public trust the public has a right to know. Doctors have their licenses revoked, attorneys can be disbarred, and officers should face the same scrutiny too.

    When we suggested the idea it was shot down by the council majority and then of course the vilification of the HRC – in particular this former Chairwoman – began…

    It’s funny how people who are perceived to be such polar opposites (Rich Rifkin and Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald) can find themselves agreeing on an issue that divided the community so much. I believe that the vilification displayed by the newspaper and the council majority did not give people the opportunity to ask questions and hear the discussion going on with the HRC at the time.

    Thank you for sharing your views Rich.

  23. Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald

    I find it very interesting that I, Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald, agree with Rich Rifkin on this point too.

    As a matter of fact, when I Chaired the HRC we discussed making the records public if and after IA and an independent body such as an ombudsman, oversight committee, or an auditor has found the officer guilty.

    I completely favor the confidentiality of personnel records. I fight for workers rights in the every day work that I do, so disclosure of personnel records is not something that I would usually support. However, when a person has sworn to uphold the law and then is found to have violated that public trust the public has a right to know. Doctors have their licenses revoked, attorneys can be disbarred, and officers should face the same scrutiny too.

    When we suggested the idea it was shot down by the council majority and then of course the vilification of the HRC – in particular this former Chairwoman – began…

    It’s funny how people who are perceived to be such polar opposites (Rich Rifkin and Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald) can find themselves agreeing on an issue that divided the community so much. I believe that the vilification displayed by the newspaper and the council majority did not give people the opportunity to ask questions and hear the discussion going on with the HRC at the time.

    Thank you for sharing your views Rich.

  24. Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald

    I find it very interesting that I, Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald, agree with Rich Rifkin on this point too.

    As a matter of fact, when I Chaired the HRC we discussed making the records public if and after IA and an independent body such as an ombudsman, oversight committee, or an auditor has found the officer guilty.

    I completely favor the confidentiality of personnel records. I fight for workers rights in the every day work that I do, so disclosure of personnel records is not something that I would usually support. However, when a person has sworn to uphold the law and then is found to have violated that public trust the public has a right to know. Doctors have their licenses revoked, attorneys can be disbarred, and officers should face the same scrutiny too.

    When we suggested the idea it was shot down by the council majority and then of course the vilification of the HRC – in particular this former Chairwoman – began…

    It’s funny how people who are perceived to be such polar opposites (Rich Rifkin and Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald) can find themselves agreeing on an issue that divided the community so much. I believe that the vilification displayed by the newspaper and the council majority did not give people the opportunity to ask questions and hear the discussion going on with the HRC at the time.

    Thank you for sharing your views Rich.

  25. Doug Paul Davis

    ACLU/ SC Puts out this piece:

    Police Secrecy Hides Truth of May 1 Melee
    article image

    It was an ugly scene straight out of L.A.’s history books: Police bullying protestors and the media with batons and plastic bullets after a largely peaceful march on May 1.

    The ACLU/SC condemned the action and called for a full investigation. But a state Supreme Court decision puts that investigation in jeopardy.

    Join us to send a letter asking lawmakers to get police reform back on track in California.

    Last month Action Team members wrote letters and made phone calls urging key legislators to support SB 1019, which would reverse Copley Press v. Superior Court. Thanks to your efforts, the bill passed a crucial committee vote and is headed for a full vote.

    Under Copley, state law may bar the release of any investigations, testimony, or expert opinions that are used to determine officer discipline after events like those in Los Angeles on May 1. Cities won’t be able to release the names of officers who were disciplined or tell the public whether those involved had prior incidents involving excessive force.

    The ACLU/SC believes police owe the public a full explanation about what happened May 1. And we need to get police reform back on track. Join us again to ask your state senator to vote Yes on SB 1019.

    Click here to send a message to Machado:

    Machado

  26. Doug Paul Davis

    ACLU/ SC Puts out this piece:

    Police Secrecy Hides Truth of May 1 Melee
    article image

    It was an ugly scene straight out of L.A.’s history books: Police bullying protestors and the media with batons and plastic bullets after a largely peaceful march on May 1.

    The ACLU/SC condemned the action and called for a full investigation. But a state Supreme Court decision puts that investigation in jeopardy.

    Join us to send a letter asking lawmakers to get police reform back on track in California.

    Last month Action Team members wrote letters and made phone calls urging key legislators to support SB 1019, which would reverse Copley Press v. Superior Court. Thanks to your efforts, the bill passed a crucial committee vote and is headed for a full vote.

    Under Copley, state law may bar the release of any investigations, testimony, or expert opinions that are used to determine officer discipline after events like those in Los Angeles on May 1. Cities won’t be able to release the names of officers who were disciplined or tell the public whether those involved had prior incidents involving excessive force.

    The ACLU/SC believes police owe the public a full explanation about what happened May 1. And we need to get police reform back on track. Join us again to ask your state senator to vote Yes on SB 1019.

    Click here to send a message to Machado:

    Machado

  27. Doug Paul Davis

    ACLU/ SC Puts out this piece:

    Police Secrecy Hides Truth of May 1 Melee
    article image

    It was an ugly scene straight out of L.A.’s history books: Police bullying protestors and the media with batons and plastic bullets after a largely peaceful march on May 1.

    The ACLU/SC condemned the action and called for a full investigation. But a state Supreme Court decision puts that investigation in jeopardy.

    Join us to send a letter asking lawmakers to get police reform back on track in California.

    Last month Action Team members wrote letters and made phone calls urging key legislators to support SB 1019, which would reverse Copley Press v. Superior Court. Thanks to your efforts, the bill passed a crucial committee vote and is headed for a full vote.

    Under Copley, state law may bar the release of any investigations, testimony, or expert opinions that are used to determine officer discipline after events like those in Los Angeles on May 1. Cities won’t be able to release the names of officers who were disciplined or tell the public whether those involved had prior incidents involving excessive force.

    The ACLU/SC believes police owe the public a full explanation about what happened May 1. And we need to get police reform back on track. Join us again to ask your state senator to vote Yes on SB 1019.

    Click here to send a message to Machado:

    Machado

  28. Doug Paul Davis

    ACLU/ SC Puts out this piece:

    Police Secrecy Hides Truth of May 1 Melee
    article image

    It was an ugly scene straight out of L.A.’s history books: Police bullying protestors and the media with batons and plastic bullets after a largely peaceful march on May 1.

    The ACLU/SC condemned the action and called for a full investigation. But a state Supreme Court decision puts that investigation in jeopardy.

    Join us to send a letter asking lawmakers to get police reform back on track in California.

    Last month Action Team members wrote letters and made phone calls urging key legislators to support SB 1019, which would reverse Copley Press v. Superior Court. Thanks to your efforts, the bill passed a crucial committee vote and is headed for a full vote.

    Under Copley, state law may bar the release of any investigations, testimony, or expert opinions that are used to determine officer discipline after events like those in Los Angeles on May 1. Cities won’t be able to release the names of officers who were disciplined or tell the public whether those involved had prior incidents involving excessive force.

    The ACLU/SC believes police owe the public a full explanation about what happened May 1. And we need to get police reform back on track. Join us again to ask your state senator to vote Yes on SB 1019.

    Click here to send a message to Machado:

    Machado

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for