California Attorney General Doubles Down On Threatening Journalists For Possessing Convicted Cops List

from the I-guess-the-Constitution-only-protects-bad-cops dept

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has decided there’s too much First Amendment in his state. First, he ignored clarification provided directly to him by the author of the state’s new public records law to declare past police misconduct records off limits. Claiming the question of retroactivity was still open, Becerra denied public records requests seeking documents created prior to January 1, 2019.

His next potshot at the First Amendment occurred shortly thereafter. Journalists from UC Berkeley received a list of convicted California police officers in response to a records request. The list covered 10 years of convictions and contained 12,000 names. At this point, the journalists have not published the full list. But they have been vetting the list to prep for publication.

That’s where AG Becerra stepped in. He told the journalists it was illegal for them to possess “confidential information” they obtained lawfully through a public records request. He’s wrong, of course. It is not illegal to possess documents received via public records requests even if the government entity has mistakenly sent you the wrong documents.

As for the “confidential” claim, any convictions would already be public records, seeing as prosecutions are handled by the state’s court system. What the list does is provide one-stop shopping for bad cops, which is what law enforcement agencies are doing when they run applicants against this list.

So far, only three officers’ names have been published. AG Becerra is trying to ensure those three names are the only ones the public will ever see. If the First Amendment needs to be damaged to protect bad cops, that’s a sacrifice he’s willing to make.

In a statement provided to Freedom of the Press Foundation on Wednesday, a spokesman for the California Department of Justice doubled down on the contention that the journalists are breaking the law:

“The UC Berkeley Investigative Reporting Program is not an entity permitted to possess or use this confidential data. The UC Berkeley Investigative Reporting Program chose to publish the confidential information of Californians despite being alerted by the Department of Justice that doing so was prohibited by law.”

The AG’s office is still threatening the reporters with criminal charges simply for possessing the list. But even if the journalists publish the list in full, it’s unlikely any court will support Becerra’s decision to pretend the First Amendment doesn’t exist. Both the act of requesting public records and the publication of obtained records are protected speech. AG Becerra has nothing to work with here, but he’s publicly demonstrating his willingness to do whatever it takes to protect the state’s bad cops.

Worse, he’s doubled down. When AG Becerra was asked for clarification by the Freedom of the Press Foundation, he had this to say:

“We always strive to balance the public’s right to know, the need to be transparent and an individual’s right to privacy. In this case, information from a database that’s required by law to be confidential was released erroneously, jeopardizing personal data of individuals across our state. No one wants to shield criminal behavior; we’re subject to the rule of law.”

If Becerra has a problem with “jeopardizing personal data,” the only action he should be taking is against the government entity that (supposedly) breached the law by releasing it to reporters. Becerra’s nod to “rule of law” is especially rich. The Constitution is part of the “law” Becerra professes allegiance to. But it’s clear he’d rather cover up for his cop buddies than respect the parts of the law that restrain his ability to punish people for protected speech.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “California Attorney General Doubles Down On Threatening Journalists For Possessing Convicted Cops List”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
31 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Those journalists don’t know their place.

They absolutely do know their place. Their place is in reporting information the public needs to know. The press has always been the watchdog keeping an eye on government and others in power. This is enshrined in the constitution.

And yes, we all need to know about the bad cops. Keeping this information in the dark will only perpetuate the problem.

Anonymous Coward says:

"It is not illegal"

It is not illegal to possess documents received via public records requests even if the government entity has mistakenly sent you the wrong documents.

That link would have been better if it went to a story proving your point, rather than one simply saying the same thing (actually, it says it’s "likely" inconsistent with court precedent). In other words, a legal citation where a court supported this view. I believe you, but I’d like to see how strongly courts agreed in the past, and how similar the situations are.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: "It is not illegal"

That link would have been better if it went to a story proving your point, rather than one simply saying the same thing (actually, it says it’s "likely" inconsistent with court precedent).

Literally the same sentence that says "likely inconsistent" includes the most relevant court precedent "the famed pentagon papers case" (AKA New York Times Co. vs United States). This has a fairly good overview of the legal landscape if you want more detail.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: "It is not illegal"

Thanks! I thought the sentence refered to the Espionage Act prosecution of Ellsberg, but it really meant the NYT publication case which is indeed a strong precedent. Publishing information provided by the government (though inadvertently) has got to be on better legal ground than publishing information someone released without permission. I see no subsequent jurisprudence weakening that.

Tanner Andrews (profile) says:

Re: "It is not illegal"

> It is not illegal to possess documents received via public records requests even if the government entity has mistakenly sent you the wrong documents.
That link would have been better if it went to a story proving your point

Here is one, with the same facts. Not so much a “story” proving the point, just some important case law of which you may not be aware. [link] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/491/524/#tab-opinion-1958043 (Florida Star v. BJF, 491 U.S. 524)

Paul Brinker (profile) says:

He Knows

This Judge knows the damage that takes place when you prove state witnesses unreliable. A single bad drug lab agent was able to invalidate years worth of convictions. Just wait till you prove a traffic cop lies, or people in jail find proof that the cops that put them away are all liars.

The number of cases about to be re-opened would be a triple whammy to the state. An impossible number of criminal cases and civil fines would be forced back to court, followed by lawsuits from all the jails as populations drop below 95%. Finally, all the reparations for jailing innocent people who now get their life back and can claim money from wrongful conviction suits.

California might become an actully nice state to live in for once.

Bamboo Harvester (profile) says:

Just noise...

"…chose to publish the confidential information of Californians despite being alerted by the Department of Justice that doing so was prohibited by law.”

What law? He doesn’t bother to cite it, even though he MUST "know" which law(s) prohibit such release.

Also, I suspect the list is only "semi" public record – when they release more names, look up the case number in the court records. Most of them are probably "sealed" to protect the guilty.

Anonymous Coward says:

The real reason why he is trying to hide records

The AG knows exactly how horrible the police have been to the people of CA and knows that if these accurate records got out, numerous lawsuits would quickly bankrupt the state. They have violated so many rights and covered it up over and over that everyone is culpable. There needs to be light brought to bear on the bad cop problem in this country and if CA has to be first, so be it.

Matthew Cline (profile) says:

There IS a law on the books

California Code, Penal Code – PEN § 11143:

Any person, except those specifically referred to in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code , who, knowing he is not authorized by law to receive a record or information obtained from a record, knowingly buys, receives, or possesses the record or information is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Since the reporters haven’t been arrested yet I’m guessing that the Attorney General knows that the law would be overturned on appeal and would rather keep it on the books so it can be used to threaten other people at a later date. Either that or he wants to avoid the Streisand Effect of actually arresting them.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: There IS a law on the books

Yeah, if a law like that could survive legal challenge and be used to stop leaks of sensitive/damning information I have no doubt the USG would have put it on the books decades ago, so I strongly suspect that you’re right, he’s not trying to charge them under it because he wants to keep it as a threat to use on others and not get it struck down.

Qwertygiy says:

Re: There IS a law on the books

"knowing he is not authorized by law to receive"

I would say that even if this law did stand up to a legal challenge, this clause would make it inapplicable here. The journalists weren’t bribing doctors into giving away HIPPA-protected patient records, or publishing confidential NSA wiretaps, or buying a stolen Krabby Patty formula. They submitted an FOIA request for an official government document. That’s as "authorized by law" as it gets.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: There IS a law on the books

Right. But notice that first sentence says "except those specifically referred to in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code…"

Section 1070: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/evidence-code/evid-sect-1070.html

VERY FIRST SECTION: " A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed"

So, yeah, I’d say that the reporters here are "excepted" out of 11143 (which is still unconstitutional).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I suspect it could damage their case in any potential court proceeding that could come out of this, but otherwise I fully agree with you.
They need to start asking the hard questions:

  • Why do you try to hide this from the public? – Is it to keep up the facade that the police and the justice system is flawless? (I don’t think anyone actually believes that).
  • Why not make a concentrated effort to root out these people, who have broken their wows and the enormous trust that has been given to them? – They betray not just the public, but their colleagues and the justice system as a whole. They are the primary reason for the loss of trust to law enforcement… lying and keeping secrets will just make that worse.
  • Which is more productive: Admitting your flaws and try to improve, or stubbornly refuse that you have any and keep adding new flaws until the whole thing falls apart?
  • Are law-enforcement officers, people? Are people flawless? Do you think the public will ever be gullible enough to think that people in law-enforcement are flawless?
Lisa says:

Hello every one.I saw comments from people who already got their loans from pure heart loans and then I decided to apply under there recommendations and just few hours ago I confirmed in my own personal bank account a total amount of $40,000 which I requested for. this is real a great news i am advising every one who needs real loan to apply true their via mail (Johnsonloanfirm32@gmail. com) I am happy now that I have gotten the loan I requested for.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...