California Supreme Court Rejects Sheriffs' Union's Attempt To Block New Open Records Law

from the take-your-fear-of-accountability-somewhere-else dept

There have been some pretty garbage responses to California's amendment of its open records laws, which rolls back the extreme level of opacity shielding police misconduct records. The City of Inglewood gave its police force a zero-accountability parting gift by granting it permission to destroy hundreds of officer-involved shooting files just prior to the new law taking effect.

Over in San Bernardino County, law enforcement -- or at least their union reps -- responded to the new law by petitioning the state Supreme Court for an injunction. The Sheriff's Employees' Benefit Association wanted the law blocked until it could be determined whether or not the law was retroactive. The union claimed making pre-2019 records available to the public would "violate [its] members' rights."

This ran contrary to the assessment of the actual Sheriff and the county's legal counsel, both of whom felt the law applied to old misconduct files.

“In anticipation of SB 1421 taking effect, the Sheriffs Department has been diligently reviewing the changes to the law and carefully considering how to implement these changes,” Blakemore wrote. “Based on this review, and on the advice of counsel, the Department intends to apply these changes retroactively.”

The union can't be thrilled about the new layer of accountability it will be facing going forward. But it seemed particularly aggrieved the new records law would affect old records it assumed would never be turned over to the public. The law doesn't state it only applies to records going forward, so it's reasonable to assume what was once considered non-public is now publicly-accessible.

The union has already heard back from the state's highest court and it's not getting the answer it wanted.

The California Supreme Court on Wednesday denied a sheriff union’s request to block a new state law that provides public access to past police-misconduct and use-of-force records.

The San Bernardino County sheriff’s deputies’ union sought an emergency intervention from the California Supreme Court to block the new law before the New Year.

This won't stop the legal challenges to the law -- not as long as it's not crystal clear whether retroactivity applies. But this at least allows the law to move forward, ensuring that any records generated past the point of enactment are truly public records. Anything prior to January 2019 is going to be hit-and-miss, as it appears state law enforcement agencies don't have a unified take on the law. This will probably be resolved sooner than later, as requests for these previously-secret records are already flowing in.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Pixelation, 8 Jan 2019 @ 10:34pm

    Good for the goose...

    There are members of the police force that really don't like when the flashlight is shining in the other direction.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2019 @ 10:01am

      Re: Good for the goose...

      I came here from the Sri Lankan post and had to check which comment thread I was in.

      Nice to see US police accountability moving in the positive direction instead of arresting people for faux-bribing faux-police.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 8 Jan 2019 @ 11:46pm

    'I (pinky promise) not to look if you don't.'

    I'd say I would be fine with them putting past records out of reach so long as the same limits was applied to them when it came to those they interacted with(so pull someone over for anything, not allowed to check any records on that person that isn't current like 'has a license', no ability to so much as mention past arrests/convictions in court), but beyond not trusting them to honor that limit I suspect that they would still come out far ahead even then.

    They're trying to make sure that anything they did before the law was passed is essentially wiped from the record, an attempt that has thankfully so far failed, and hopefully it's cleared up quickly that that's simply not going to fly.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    anti police unions ltd, 9 Jan 2019 @ 12:23am

    really stupid americans

    dumb stupid americans hide their illegal activitys even cunts that are made rich because of connections to cunts

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 9 Jan 2019 @ 5:07am

    One would love a journalist to as the unions head why they are against it.
    They claim it is only a few bad apples, wouldn't these records help prove that?
    Wouldn't it help to keep bad apples from being shifted to other barrels who might not be able to discover how bad the apple is?
    Why are they defending the few bad apples??
    Do they like bad apples?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2019 @ 7:26am

      Re:

      Because it's the Thin Blue Line Gang. The so-called Good Apples cover for the bad Apples which really in effect makes them ALL Bad Apples.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2019 @ 6:35am

    if there was nothing to hide, there would be nothing to fear! it will be interesting to learn how many records are destroyed 'by mistake' and what happens to who because of it and then to learn how many law suits are filed because of new evidence that suddenly becomes available!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2019 @ 7:57am

    Not retroactive

    Having to release old records wouldn't make the law "retroactive". Nobody's going to be fined or go to jail, under this law, because they didn't release 2016 records in 2016. That would be unconstitutional. A law saying they have to release 2016 records in 2019 wouldn't be, unless perhaps they had some legal guarantee of privacy in that data.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2019 @ 8:27am

    oops!

    ...and let the "dog ate all of our records" period begin...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ed (profile), 9 Jan 2019 @ 8:55am

    The only thing more untrustworthy than the police is the police union.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2019 @ 1:24pm

    Inglewood city cops have the right to all their rapes, child rapes, bribery, theft, stealing of evidence and murders to "be forgotten".......

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Close
Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.