1
2
3
4
5
6
7

CANNATA O’TOOLE FICKES & OLSON LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 PINE STREET, SUITE 350, SAN FRANCISCO CA, 94111
TEL: 415.409.8900 – FAX: 415.409.8904

8
9
10
11
12

KARL OLSON (SBN 104760)
AARON R. FIELD (SBN 310648)
CANNATA O’TOOLE FICKES & OLSON LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 350
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone:
(415) 409-8900
Facsimile:
(415) 409-8904
Email:
kolson@cofolaw.com
afield@cofolaw.com
Attorneys for Petitioners
THE SACRAMENTO BEE and LOS ANGELES TIMES
JEFFREY GLASSER (SBN 252596)
LOS ANGELES TIMES
2300 E Imperial Hwy
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone:
(213) 237-5000
Email:
jeff.glasser@latimes.com
Attorneys for Petitioner
LOS ANGELES TIMES

13
14
15
16
17

JUAN CORNEJO (SBN 161569)
THE SACRAMENTO BEE
2100 Q Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
Telephone: (916) 3211848
Email:
jcornejo@mcclatchy.com

18

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

19

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

20
21

THE SACRAMENTO BEE and LOS
ANGELES TIMES,

22
Petitioners,
23
24

v.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT,

Case No. _______________
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY
RELIEF AND WRIT OF MANDATE
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
RECORDS ACT (GOV. CODE § 6258)
______________________________________

25
Respondent.
26
27
28
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1

I.
INTRODUCTION

2
3
4

1.

This Petition for Writ of Mandate seeks access to records of vital importance to

enable the public in California to monitor the performance of peace officers’ duties. As the
California Legislature declared in enacting Senate Bill 1421 in 2018, “The public has a right to

5
6
7

know all about serious police misconduct, as well as about officer-involved shootings and other
serious uses of force. Concealing crucial public safety matters such as officer violations of
civilians’ rights, or inquiries into deadly use of force incidents, undercuts the public’s faith in the

CANNATA O’TOOLE FICKES & OLSON LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 PINE STREET, SUITE 350, SAN FRANCISCO CA, 94111
TEL: 415.409.8900 – FAX: 415.409.8904

8
9

legitimacy of law enforcement, makes it harder for tens of thousands of hardworking peace
officers to do their jobs, and endangers public safety.” The public interest in monitoring police

10
11
12
13
14

conduct is especially strong in Sacramento County (as in the rest of California), where officerinvolved shootings which claimed the lives of Stephon Clark, Mikel McIntyre and Darell
Richards have ignited public protests and criticism of police. For these reasons and those set
forth below, this Petition should be granted.
II.
PARTIES

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2.

circulation, Sacramento’s largest. It is a division of McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. and is published
in Sacramento County.
3.

Petitioner Los Angeles Times (“the Times”) is a daily newspaper of general

circulation, California’s largest, published by Los Angeles Times Communications LLC in Los
Angeles County. Petitioners the Bee and the Times are hereafter collectively referred to as
“petitioners.”
4.

Respondent Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department (hereafter “Respondent” or

“the Sheriff’s Department”) is a local agency as defined by Government Code section 6252(a). It
is located in the city and the county of Sacramento, and it maintains the records requested by
petitioners in Sacramento County.
III.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND

27
28

Petitioner The Sacramento Bee (“the Bee”) is a daily newspaper of general

5.

On or about January 7, 2019, Molly Sullivan, a reporter for the Bee, made a Public
1
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7

CANNATA O’TOOLE FICKES & OLSON LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 PINE STREET, SUITE 350, SAN FRANCISCO CA, 94111
TEL: 415.409.8900 – FAX: 415.409.8904

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Records Act request to respondent, Request # 19-47, pursuant to Government Code section 6250
and Article I, Section 3(b) of the California Constitution, seeking, among other things, (1) records
from January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2019 of sustained findings that a peace officer employed by
the Sheriff’s Department committed sexual assault or dishonesty-related misconduct, or was
subject to a sustained investigation; and (2) letters of discipline from January 1, 2014 through 1,
2019, for current and former sworn officers employed by Respondent related to reports,
investigations, or findings from any incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a
peace officer, and incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer against a person resulted
in death or great bodily injury. The full text of this request is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
6.

Respondent quickly denied the Bee’s request in its entirety. In a letter dated

January 10, 2019, which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, Respondent, through Tanya Birch, an
assistant to Deputy County Counsel Peter Zilaff, stated that Respondent has records responsive to
the Bee’s request, but is withholding those records until there is what it called “clear legal
authority to release such records” because “Senate Bill 1421, codified as Penal Code section
832.7,was not expressly made retroactive.”
7.

On or about January 1, 2019, Times reporters Ben Poston and Maya Lau made a

Public Records Act request to the Sheriff’s Department seeking records similar to those sought in
the Bee’s Public Records Act request. The Times’ request, which is attached hereto as Exhibit C,
sought, among other things, letters of discipline from January 1, 2014 through January 1, 2019 for
current and former sworn officers employed by Respondent related to reports, investigations, or
findings from any incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer; any
incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted
in death or great bodily injury; any incident in which a sustained finding was made that an officer
engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; and any incident in which a sustained
finding was made of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer related to the reporting,
investigation or prosecution of a crime.
8.

Respondent responded to the Times’ request on the same day it responded to the

28
2
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1
2
3
4

Bee’s request, January 10, 2019, with the same refusal to disclose records. Respondent’s January
10, 2019 response, which is attached hereto as Exhibit D, stated that it has records responsive to
the Times’s request, but is withholding them until there is what it called “clear legal authority” to
release such records.”

5

IV.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

6

(Violation of the California Public Records Act, Gov. Code § 6250 et seq.)

7
9.

Petitioners reallege Paragraphs 1 through 8 above as though fully set forth herein.

10.

The Public Records Act, Government Code section 6250 et seq., provides that

CANNATA O’TOOLE FICKES & OLSON LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 PINE STREET, SUITE 350, SAN FRANCISCO CA, 94111
TEL: 415.409.8900 – FAX: 415.409.8904

8
9
10
11
12

“access to information concerning the conduct of the public’s business is a fundamental and
necessary right of every person in this state.” The records requested in the Bee’s and Times’
Public Records Act requests, Exhibit A and Exhibit C hereto, concern the conduct of the
public’s business and are vital to enable the public, and in particular the residents of Sacramento

13
14

County, to assess the performance of, and possible misconduct by, peace officers. As the
Legislature declared in enacting Senate Bill 1421, “The public has a right to know all about

15
16
17

serious police misconduct, as well as about officer-involved shootings and other serious uses of
force. Concealing crucial public safety matters such as officer violations of civilians’ rights, or
inquiries into deadly use of force incidents, undercuts the public’s faith in the legitimacy of law

18
19

enforcement, makes it harder for tens of thousands of hardworking peace officers to do their jobs,
and endangers public safety.” The text of Senate Bill 1421 (chapter 988) is attached hereto as

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Exhibit E.
11.

The records sought by the Bee and the Times in their Public Records Act requests,

Exhibit A and Exhibit C hereto, are explicitly made disclosable by Senate Bill 1421. SB 1421
simply places peace officers on a similar plane as other public employees in California. The
public for decades has obtained access to records of complaints and discipline against public
employees when there is reasonable cause to believe complaints are well-founded. (See, e.g.,
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 1650 v. Regents of the
University of California (1978) 80 Cal. App. 3d 913, 918; Bakersfield City School District v.
3
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7

CANNATA O’TOOLE FICKES & OLSON LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 PINE STREET, SUITE 350, SAN FRANCISCO CA, 94111
TEL: 415.409.8900 – FAX: 415.409.8904

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Superior Court (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1041.) As the Bakersfield City School District court
held, “a review of the cases . . . leads to the premise that there is a strong public policy for
disclosure of true charges. The cases do not stand for the premise that either a finding of the truth
of the complaints contained in the personnel records or the imposition of employee discipline is a
prerequisite to disclosure.” (Id. at p. 1046.) The public under SB 1421 has similarly gained
access to specified records of peace officers reflecting misconduct or certain incidents involving
lethal force, the types of records sought by petitioners here.
12.

Respondent has taken the position that Senate Bill 1421 does not apply to the

records requested “so only records of covered events occurring on or after January 1, 2019 will be
disclosed.” (See Exhibit B; Exhibit D.) Respondent is mistaken. Indeed, even an opponent of
Senate Bill 1421, the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
(“LACPPOA”), admitted, “Moreover, our reading of Senate Bill 1421 is that making the records
of an officer’s lawful and in policy conduct is retroactive in its impact. In other words,
notwithstanding that the officer’s conduct was entirely in policy, his or her records are available
for public inspection irrespective of whether or not they occurred prior to the effective date of SB
1421.” The LACPPOA’s comments are contained on page 16 of the Senate Committee on Public
Safety’s April 17, 2018 Analysis of SB 1421, which is attached hereto as Exhibit E, and are
therefore cognizable legislative history showing legislative intent that SB 1421 applies to the
records requested herein and other records subject to disclosure pursuant to the bill.
13.

Petitioners have no plain, speedy and adequate remedy to obtain the records they

seek other than this Petition. The Sheriff’s Department has made it clear that it will not produce
the records requested without a court order, and therefore petitioners will be unable to inform
their readers about whether such incidents as the Richards, McIntyre and Clark shootings
(covered by the Bee in Exhibit F and Exhibit G hereto) resulted from sustained findings of
police misconduct. The public will also be deprived of information about many officer-involved
shootings in Los Angeles and elsewhere in the state which have been covered by the Times in,
among other articles, Exhibit H hereto, and which are matters of great public interest.
V.
4
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1
2

WHEREFORE, petitioners pray as follows:

3

1.

That this Court grant this Petition for Writ of Mandate and order disclosure of all

4

of the records requested by the Bee and the Times in their Public Records Act requests, Exhibit A

5

and Exhibit C hereto;

6

CANNATA O’TOOLE FICKES & OLSON LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 PINE STREET, SUITE 350, SAN FRANCISCO CA, 94111
TEL: 415.409.8900 – FAX: 415.409.8904

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2.

That this Court grant declaratory relief holding that the Public Records Act and

7

Senate Bill 1421 apply to and mandate disclosure of all of the records requested in by the Bee and

8

the Times in their Public Records Act requests, Exhibit A and Exhibit C hereto, and that

9

respondent has violated the Public Records Act by failing to disclose said records to the Bee and

10
11

the Times;
3.

Alternatively, even if this Court disagrees with petitioners that records in existence

12

prior to January 1, 2019 are disclosable, the Court should declare and mandate that records of

13

findings of misconduct sustained after January 1, 2019 but involving incidents prior to January 1,

14

2019, such as the Clark and Richards shootings, must be disclosed;

15
16
17

4.

Alternatively, that the Court conduct an in camera review, if it deems it necessary,

of some or all of the records requested pursuant to Government Code section 6259(a);
5.

Alternatively, if the Court does not immediately order disclosure of the records

18

requested by the Bee and the Times in their Public Records Act requests, Exhibit A and Exhibit

19

C hereto, that it order Respondent to show cause why the records requested should not be

20

disclosed, and prepare a log of withheld documents, and thereafter order the records requested be

21

disclosed;

22

6.

That petitioners be awarded attorney’s fees and costs against the Sheriff’s

23

Department and/or any individual or entity who may attempt to block disclosure of the records

24

requested, pursuant to Government Code section 6259(d) and/or Code of Civil Procedure section

25

1021.5; and

26

7.

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

27
28
5
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 1
2
3
4

Dated: January 25, 2019

CANNATA O’TOOLE FICKES & OLSON LLP
________________________________
KARL OLSON
Attorneys for Petitioners
THE SACRAMENTO BEE and LOS ANGELES TIMES

5
6
7

CANNATA O’TOOLE FICKES & OLSON LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
100 PINE STREET, SUITE 350, SAN FRANCISCO CA, 94111
TEL: 415.409.8900 – FAX: 415.409.8904

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

 

CANNATA FICKES OLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

100 PINE STREET, SUITE 350, SAN

FRANCISCO CA, 94111
415.409.3904

TEL: 415.409.8900 FAXVERIFICATION

I, Lauren Gustus, declarc as follows:

1. I am the Executive Editor of The Sacramento Bee, one of the petitioners in this

action, and I am authorized to make this veri?cation on its behalf.

2. I have read the foregoing Petition for Writ of Mandate. The same is true of my

own knowledge, except as to matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I

believe them to be true.

3. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed in _San Luis Obispo, California, on January 25, 2019.

LAUREN GUSTUS 

7
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Scanned by CamScanner

CANNATA OLSON LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
[00 PINE STREET, SUITE 350, SAN FRANCISCO CA, 94111

TEL: 415.409.8900 FAX: 415.409.8904





VERIFICATION

1, Jack Leonard, declare as follows:

1. I am a Deputy Metro Editor of The Los Angeles Times, one of the petitioners in
this action, and I am authorized to make this veri?cation on its behalf.

2. I have read the foregoing Petition for Writ of Mandate. The same is true of my
own knowledge, except as to matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I
believe them to be true.

3. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed in Los Angeles, California, on January 2, 2019.
. Mfg-'3



JACK LEONARD 

q_

 

8
PETITION FOR OF MANDATE

 

EXHIBIT A

Request #19-47

CLOSED

Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Section 6250 et seq. of the Government Code and the
Catifornia state Constitution, as amended by Proposition 59, and all other applicable laws, including
Penai Code Section 832.?( The Sacramento Bee is asking for records in the possession oi your

agency.
a Please provide materials in an electronic. searchable format when possible,

- Please consider each record an individual and severable request for purposes of release,
exemption or invoking a time extension.

6 If a portion of requested materials are not immediately available, to the extent possible,
please release immediately those records that are available.

Specifically, we would iike to review:

1. Records from Jan. 1, 2014 to Jan. 1, 2019 of sustained ?ndings that a peace officer
employed by your agency committed sexual assault or dishonesty?rotated misconduct, or
was subject to a sustained investigation (as defined by Cat. PEN code 832.803} for:

a ?Sexual Assault? as defined by Cal. PEN. Code 
- Misconduct as defined by Cal. PEN. Code 

. PEN. Code 832.7 

. PEN. Code 832.7 

. PEN. Code 832.? 

a The response should reasonably include alt applicable records specified by statute,
including but not limited to: all investigative reports; photographic, audio and video evidence;
transcripts and recordings of interviews; all materials compiled and presented for review to
the district attorney or to any person or body charged with determining whether to file
criminal charges against an officer in connection with an incident, or whether the of?cer?s
action was consistent with law and agency policy for purposes of discipline or administrative
action, or what discipline to impose or corrective action to take; documents setting forth

findings or recommended findings; and copies of disciplinary records relating to the incident,
including any letters oi intent to impose discipline, any documents reflecting modifications of
discipline due to the Skelly or grievance process, and letters indicating ?nal imposition of
discipline or other documentation reflecting implementation of corrective action.

2. Letters of discipline from Jan. 1, 2014, through Jan. 1, 2019, for current and former sworn
officers emplOyed by your agency relating to reports, investigations, or ?ndings from:

1. Any incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or
custodial officer;

2. Any incident in which the use of force by a peace of?cer or custodial officer against a
person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury;

3. Any incident in which a sustained ?nding was made by any iaw enforcement agency
or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual
assault involving a member of the public;

4. Any incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency
or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly
reiating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directiy relating to
the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial
officer, inciuding, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements,
filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence.

By Letters of Discipline, please include any documents sent to peace officers that notify them of the
discipline being imposed against them. The documents may also include the severity of the
discipline; the policies and procedures violated; the basic facts of the case, the officer's work history
and whether the officer contested the discipline.

Please respond to this request As you probably know, the following legal rules apply to
this request:

Prompt Disclosure: Government Code Section 6253 

Records not exempt from disclosure are to be made available.? No provision of the CPRA,
including the response periods noted below, ?shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or
obstruct the inspection or copying of public records.?

Deadlines: Government Code Section 6253 

You are required and in no case more than 10 calendar days from the date of this
request, to determine, and inform us in writing, whether you are going to decline all or part of the
request, and the law(s) that you are relying on, unless within that period you notify us in writing that
you intend to take up to an additional 14 days to make the determination because of your need:

a to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments
that are separate from the office processing the request;

a to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and
distinct records that are demanded in a single request;

is for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency
having substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more
components of the agency having substantial subject matter interest therein; or

a to compile data, to write programming language or a computer program! or to construe: a
computer report to extract data.

Your notice must set forth ?the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is
expected to be dispatched." if you determine that any of the records I have requested are
disciosabie, your written notice must ?state the estimated date and time when the records will he
made available."

Aid from agency: Section 1) and (2)

You are required to Assist the member of the public to identity records and information that are
responsive to the request or to the purpose of the request, it stated, and (2) Describe the information
technology and physical location in which the records exist?

Constitutional Ruie of Interpretation: Article 1, Section 3 

The California Constitution requires that the Public Records Act ?shall be broadly construed it it
furthers the people?s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of assess.? This rule
must be heeded in interpreting any exemptions from disciosure you believe to be applicants.

To the extent that a portion of the information we have requested is exempt by express provisions of
law, the public records act additionally requires segregation and deletion of that material in order that
the remainder of the information may be provided in satisfaction of our request.

If you determine that an express provision of law exists to exempt from disclosure all or a portion of
the information we have requested, please respond to us in writing, via email, citing the specific
portion of the law that allows for the exemption. In addition. the act requires government agencies to
?provide suggestions for overcoming any practice! basis for denying access to the records or
information sought."

Read less

Received
January 2919 via web

Departments
?nerift?s Department

Requester

Moiiy Sullivan

msuilivan@sacbee.com

2100 Street. Sacramento CA 95816
916~321~11i6

"The Sacramento Bee

EXHIBIT 

 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

DEPARTMENT

 

 

SCOTT R. JONES
Sheriff

January 10, 2019

SacBee

Attn: Molly Sullivan

2100 Street

Sacramento, CA 95816
Sent Via: 

Re: Response to CPRA Request Concerning Sexual Assault, Use-of?Force, and Dishonesty

Dear Ms. Sullivan,

Request 1: ?Records from Jan. 1, 2014 to Jan. 1, 2019 of sustained ?ndings that a peace of?cer employed
by your agency conunitted sexual assault or dishonesty-related misconduct, or was subject to a sustained
investigation (as de?ned by Cal. PEN code 832.8(b) for:

I

?Sexual Assault? as de?ned by Cal. PEN. Code 

Misconduct as de?ned by Cal. PEN. Code 

PEN. Code 832.7 

PEN. Code 832.7 

PEN. Code 832.7 

The response should reasonably include all applicable records speci?ed by statute,, including but
not limited to: all investigative reports; photographic, audio and video evidence; transcripts and
recordings of interviews; all materials compiled and presented for review to the district attorney
or to any person or body charged with determining whether to ?le criminal charges against an
of?cer in connection with an incident, or whether the of?cer?s action was consistent with law and
agency policy for purposes of discipline or administrative action, or what discipline to impose or
corrective action to take; documents setting forth ?ndings or recommended ?ndings; and copies
of disciplinary records relating to the incident, including any letters of intent to impose discipline,
any documents re?ecting modi?cations of discipline due to the Skelly or grievance process, and
letters indicating ?nal imposition or discipline or other documentation re?ecting implementation
of corrective action;?

Request 2: ?Letters of discipline from Jan. 1, 2014, through Jan. 1, 2019, for current and former
sworn of?cers employed by your agency relating to reports, investigations, or ?ndings from:

1. Any incident involving the discharge of a ?rearm at a person by a peace of?cer or custodial
of?cer; 

2. Any incident in which the use of force by a peace of?cer or custodial of?cer against a person
resulted in death, or in great bodily injury;

3. Any incident in which a sustained ?nding was made by any law enforcement agency or
oversight agency that a peace of?cer or custodial of?cer engaged in sexual assault involving
a member of the public

REFER ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO: SACRAMENTO DEPARTMENT 0 PD. BOX 988 SACRAMENTO. CA 95812-0988

4. Any incident in which a sustained ?nding was made by any law enforcement agency or
oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace of?cer or custodial of?cer directly relating to the
reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or
investigation of misconduct by, another peace of?cer or custodial of?cer, including, but not
limited to, any sustained ?nding of perjury, false statements, ?ling false reports, destruction,
falsifying, or concealing of evidence;?

Response: The Sacramento Sheriff?s Department has documents responsive to this
request, but is withholding those records. Peace of?cer personnel records are protected by
law and may only be legally disclosed pursuant to sections 1043 and 1046 of the
Evidence Code.

Senate Bill 1421, codi?ed as Penal Code section 832.7, was not expressly made
retroactive. Any law not expressly made retroactive is prospective on the effective date
stated in the law (or upon signature by the governor in the case of emergency legislation).
In this case, the law became effective on January 1, 2019, so only records of covered
events occurring on or after January 1, 2019 will be disclosed.

The issue of retroactivity is currently being litigated and the Sheriff?s Department will be
monitoring judicial determination of Penal Code section 832.7 as amended. Without clear

legal authority to release such records, it remains illegal for us to do so, and subjects the
Sheriff? 3 Department and the County to considerable potential liability.

If you have any questions, please inquire to Legal Affairs.
Thank you for your inquiry.

Very Truly Yours,

SCOTT JONES, SHERIFF

SRO I Tanya Birch

Assistant to Deputy County Counsel Peter Zilaff

Legal Advisor to the Sheriff

TB - 

REFER ALL CORRESPONDENCE T0: SACRAMENTO DEPARTMENT P.0. BOX 988 SACRAMENTO. CA 95812-0988

EXHIBIT 

3105 Angela: (Sims

Jan.1,2019
To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Section 6250 et seq. of the Government
Code and the California state Constitution, as amended by Proposition 59, and all other
applicable laws, including Penal Code Section we are asking for records in the
possession of your agency. Specifically, we would like to review:

- Letters of discipline from Jan. 1, 2014, through Jan. 1, 2019, for current and former
sworn officers employed by your agency relating to reports, investigations, or
findings from:

Any incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace
officer or custodial officer;

0 Any incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer
against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury;

0 Any incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law
enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial
officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public;

0 Any incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law
enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer
or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or
prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or
investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer,
including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false
statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of

evidence.

By Letters of Discipline, we are referring to any documents sent to peace officers that

time when the records will be made available.?

Constitutional Rule of Interpretation: Article I, Section 3 

The California Constitution requires that the Public Records Act ?shall be broadly
construed if it furthers the people?s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the
right of access." This rule must be heeded in interpreting any exemptions from disclosure

you believe to be applicable.

To the extent that a portion of the information we have requested is exempt by express
provisions of law, the public records act additionally requires segregation and deletion of
that material in order that the remainder of the information may be provided in satisfaction

of our request.

If you determine that an express provision of law exists to exempt from disclosure all or a
portion of the information we have requested, please respond to us in writing, via email,
citing the specific portion of the law that allows for the exemption. In addition, the act
requires government agencies to ?provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis

for denying access to the records or information sought.?
Please don?t hesitate to contact us if you have any questions about our request. Ben

Poston can be reached at (213) 237?2205 or and Maya Lau can
be reached at 213-221-5754 or  _l_agiggia?imscom

Sincerely,

Ben Poston and Maya Lau Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

EXHIBIT 

 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

DEPARTMENT

 

 

SCOTT R. JONES
Sheri?"

January 10,2019

LA Times

Attn: Ben Poston and Maya Lau
2300 E. Imperial Highway

El Segundo, CA 90245

Sent Via: ben.poston@latimes.eom

Re: Response to CPRA Request Concerning Letters of Discipline

Dear Mr. Poston and Ms. Lau,

Request 1: ?Letters of discipline from Jan. 1, 2014, through Jan. 1, 2019, for current and former sworn
of?cers employed by your agency relating to reports, investigations or ?ndings from:

Any incident involving the discharge of a ?rearm at a person by a peace of?cer or custodial
of?cer; -

Any incident in which the use of force by a peace of?cer or custodial of?cer against a person
resulted in death, or in great bodily injury;

Any incident in which a sustained ?nding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight
agency that a peace of?cer or custodial of?cer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of
the public;

Any incident in which a sustained ?nding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight
agency of dishonesty by a peace of?cer or custodial of?cer directly relating to the reporting, 
investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of
misconduct by, another peace of?cer or custodial of?cer, including, but not limited to, any
sustained ?nding of perjury, false statements, ?ling false reports, destruction, falsifying, or
concealing of evidence;?

Response: The Sacramento Sheriff Department has documents responsive to this
request, but is withholding those records. Peace of?cer personnel records are protected by
law and may only be legally disclosed pursuant to sections 1043 and 1046 of the
Evidence Code.

Senate Bill 1421, codi?ed as Penal Code section 832.7, was not expressly made
retroactive. Any law not expressly made retroactive is prospective on the effective date
stated in the law (or upon signature by the governor in the case of emergency legislation).

REFER ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO: SACRAMENTO DEPARTMENT a PO. BOX 988 SACRAMENTO. CA 95812-0988

In this case, the law became effective on January 1, 2019, so only records of covered
events occurring on or after January 1, 2019 will be disclosed.

The issue of retroactivity is currently being litigated and the Sheriff? Department will be
monitoring judicial detennination of Penal Code section 832.7 as amended. Without clear

legal authority to release such records, it remains illegal for us to do so, and subjects the
Sheriff?s Department and the County to considerable potential liability.

If you have any questions, please inquire to Legal Affairs.
Thank you for your inquiry.

Very Truly Yours,

SCOTT JONES, SHERIFF

SRO I Tanya Birch

Assistant to Deputy County Counsel Peter Zilaff

Legal Advisor to the Sheriff

TB - 

REFER ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO: SACRAMENTO DEPARTMENT 0 PO. BOX 988 SACRAMENTO, CA 95812-0988

EXHIBIT 

Home

Bill Information

California Law

Publications

Other Resources

SB-1421 Peace officers: release of records.

My Subscriptions

My Favorites

(2017-2018)

Date Published: 10/01/2018 09:00 PM

Senate Bill No. 1421

CHAPTER 988

An act to amend Sections 832.7 and 832.8 of the Penal Code, relating to peace officer records.
[

Approved by Governor September 30, 2018. Filed with Secretary of State
September 30, 2018. ]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 1421, Skinner. Peace officers: release of records.
The California Public Records Act requires a state or local agency, as defined, to make public records available for
inspection, subject to certain exceptions. Existing law requires any peace officer or custodial officer personnel
records, as defined, and any records maintained by any state or local agency relating to complaints against
peace officers and custodial officers, or any information obtained from these records, to be confidential and
prohibits the disclosure of those records in any criminal or civil proceeding, except by discovery. Existing law
describes exceptions to this requirement for investigations or proceedings concerning the conduct of peace
officers or custodial officers, and for an agency or department that employs those officers, conducted by a grand
jury, a district attorney’s office, or the Attorney General’s office.
This bill would require, notwithstanding any other law, certain peace officer or custodial officer personnel records
and records relating to specified incidents, complaints, and investigations involving peace officers and custodial
officers to be made available for public inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act. The bill would
define the scope of disclosable records. The bill would require records disclosed pursuant to this provision to be
redacted only to remove personal data or information, such as a home address, telephone number, or identities
of family members, other than the names and work-related information of peace officers and custodial officers,
to preserve the anonymity of complainants and witnesses, or to protect confidential medical, financial, or other
information in which disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy that clearly outweighs
the strong public interest in records about misconduct by peace officers and custodial officers, or where there is
a specific, particularized reason to believe that disclosure would pose a significant danger to the physical safety
of the peace officer, custodial officer, or others. Additionally the bill would authorize redaction where, on the
facts of the particular case, the public interest served by nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest
served by disclosure. The bill would allow the delay of disclosure, as specified, for records relating to an open
investigation or court proceeding, subject to certain limitations.
The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of
public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends
or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the
enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.
This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

 The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs
mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Vote: majority

Appropriation: no

Fiscal Committee: yes

Local Program: yes

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Peace officers help to provide one of our state’s most fundamental government services. To empower peace
officers to fulfill their mission, the people of California vest them with extraordinary authority — the powers to
detain, search, arrest, and use deadly force. Our society depends on peace officers’ faithful exercise of that
authority. Misuse of that authority can lead to grave constitutional violations, harms to liberty and the inherent
sanctity of human life, as well as significant public unrest.
(b) The public has a right to know all about serious police misconduct, as well as about officer-involved shootings
and other serious uses of force. Concealing crucial public safety matters such as officer violations of civilians’
rights, or inquiries into deadly use of force incidents, undercuts the public’s faith in the legitimacy of law
enforcement, makes it harder for tens of thousands of hardworking peace officers to do their jobs, and
endangers public safety.

SEC. 2. Section 832.7 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
832.7. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers and
records maintained by any state or local agency pursuant to 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 Sections 1043 and 1046 of the Evidence Code. 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.
(b) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), subdivision (f) of Section 6254 of the Government Code, or any other
law, the following peace officer or custodial officer personnel records and records maintained by any state or
local agency shall not be confidential and shall be made available for public inspection pursuant to the California
Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government
Code):
(A) A record relating to the report, investigation, or findings of any of the following:
(i) An incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer.
(ii) An incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death,
or in great bodily injury.
(B) (i) Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency
or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the
public.
(ii) As used in this subparagraph, “sexual assault” means the commission or attempted initiation of a sexual act
with a member of the public by means of force, threat, coercion, extortion, offer of leniency or other official
favor, or under the color of authority. For purposes of this definition, the propositioning for or commission of any
sexual act while on duty is considered a sexual assault.
(iii) As used in this subparagraph, “member of the public” means any person not employed by the officer’s
employing agency and includes any participant in a cadet, explorer, or other youth program affiliated with the
agency.
(C) Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or
oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting,
investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by,
another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false
statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence.

 (2) Records that shall be released pursuant to this subdivision include all investigative reports; photographic,
audio, and video evidence; transcripts or recordings of interviews; autopsy reports; all materials compiled and
presented for review to the district attorney or to any person or body charged with determining whether to file
criminal charges against an officer in connection with an incident, or whether the officer’s action was consistent
with law and agency policy for purposes of discipline or administrative action, or what discipline to impose or
corrective action to take; documents setting forth findings or recommended findings; and copies of disciplinary
records relating to the incident, including any letters of intent to impose discipline, any documents reflecting
modifications of discipline due to the Skelly or grievance process, and letters indicating final imposition of
discipline or other documentation reflecting implementation of corrective action.
(3) A record from a separate and prior investigation or assessment of a separate incident shall not be released
unless it is independently subject to disclosure pursuant to this subdivision.
(4) If an investigation or incident involves multiple officers, information about allegations of misconduct by, or
the analysis or disposition of an investigation of, an officer shall not be released pursuant to subparagraph (B) or
(C) of paragraph (1), unless it relates to a sustained finding against that officer. However, factual information
about that action of an officer during an incident, or the statements of an officer about an incident, shall be
released if they are relevant to a sustained finding against another officer that is subject to release pursuant to
subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1).
(5) An agency shall redact a record disclosed pursuant to this section only for any of the following purposes:
(A) To remove personal data or information, such as a home address, telephone number, or identities of family
members, other than the names and work-related information of peace and custodial officers.
(B) To preserve the anonymity of complainants and witnesses.
(C) To protect confidential medical, financial, or other information of which disclosure is specifically prohibited by
federal law or would cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy that clearly outweighs the strong public
interest in records about misconduct and serious use of force by peace officers and custodial officers.
(D) Where there is a specific, articulable, and particularized reason to believe that disclosure of the record would
pose a significant danger to the physical safety of the peace officer, custodial officer, or another person.
(6) Notwithstanding paragraph (5), an agency may redact a record disclosed pursuant to this section, including
personal identifying information, where, on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not
disclosing the information clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the information.
(7) An agency may withhold a record of an incident described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) that is the
subject of an active criminal or administrative investigation, in accordance with any of the following:
(A) (i) During an active criminal investigation, disclosure may be delayed for up to 60 days from the date the use
of force occurred or until the district attorney determines whether to file criminal charges related to the use of
force, whichever occurs sooner. If an agency delays disclosure pursuant to this clause, the agency shall provide,
in writing, the specific basis for the agency’s determination that the interest in delaying disclosure clearly
outweighs the public interest in disclosure. This writing shall include the estimated date for disclosure of the
withheld information.
(ii) After 60 days from the use of force, the agency may continue to delay the disclosure of records or
information if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a criminal enforcement proceeding
against an officer who used the force. If an agency delays disclosure pursuant to this clause, the agency shall, at
180-day intervals as necessary, provide, in writing, the specific basis for the agency’s determination that
disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a criminal enforcement proceeding. The writing shall
include the estimated date for the disclosure of the withheld information. Information withheld by the agency
shall be disclosed when the specific basis for withholding is resolved, when the investigation or proceeding is no
longer active, or by no later than 18 months after the date of the incident, whichever occurs sooner.
(iii) After 60 days from the use of force, the agency may continue to delay the disclosure of records or
information if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a criminal enforcement proceeding
against someone other than the officer who used the force. If an agency delays disclosure under this clause, the
agency shall, at 180-day intervals, provide, in writing, the specific basis why disclosure could reasonably be
expected to interfere with a criminal enforcement proceeding, and shall provide an estimated date for the
disclosure of the withheld information. Information withheld by the agency shall be disclosed when the specific

 basis for withholding is resolved, when the investigation or proceeding is no longer active, or by no later than 18
months after the date of the incident, whichever occurs sooner, unless extraordinary circumstances warrant
continued delay due to the ongoing criminal investigation or proceeding. In that case, the agency must show by
clear and convincing evidence that the interest in preventing prejudice to the active and ongoing criminal
investigation or proceeding outweighs the public interest in prompt disclosure of records about use of serious
force by peace officers and custodial officers. The agency shall release all information subject to disclosure that
does not cause substantial prejudice, including any documents that have otherwise become available.
(iv) In an action to compel disclosure brought pursuant to Section 6258 of the Government Code, an agency
may justify delay by filing an application to seal the basis for withholding, in accordance with Rule 2.550 of the
California Rules of Court, or any successor rule thereto, if disclosure of the written basis itself would impact a
privilege or compromise a pending investigation.
(B) If criminal charges are filed related to the incident in which force was used, the agency may delay the
disclosure of records or information until a verdict on those charges is returned at trial or, if a plea of guilty or no
contest is entered, the time to withdraw the plea pursuant to Section 1018.
(C) During an administrative investigation into an incident described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), the
agency may delay the disclosure of records or information until the investigating agency determines whether the
use of force violated a law or agency policy, but no longer than 180 days after the date of the employing
agency’s discovery of the use of force, or allegation of use of force, by a person authorized to initiate an
investigation, or 30 days after the close of any criminal investigation related to the peace officer or custodial
officer’s use of force, whichever is later.
(8) A record of a civilian complaint, or the investigations, findings, or dispositions of that complaint, shall not be
released pursuant to this section if the complaint is frivolous, as defined in Section 128.5 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, or if the complaint is unfounded.
(c) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), a department or agency shall release to the complaining party a
copy of his or her own statements at the time the complaint is filed.
(d) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), a department or agency that employs peace or custodial officers
may 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.
(e) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), a department or agency that employs peace or custodial officers
may release factual information 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.
(f) (1) The department or agency shall provide written notification to the complaining party of the disposition of
the complaint within 30 days of the disposition.
(2) The notification described in this subdivision shall not be conclusive or binding or admissible as evidence in
any separate or subsequent action or proceeding brought before an arbitrator, court, or judge of this state or the
United States.
(g) This section does not affect the discovery or disclosure of information contained in a peace or custodial
officer’s personnel file pursuant to Section 1043 of the Evidence Code.
(h) This section does not supersede or affect the criminal discovery process outlined in Chapter 10 (commencing
with Section 1054) of Title 6 of Part 2, or the admissibility of personnel records pursuant to subdivision (a),
which codifies the court decision in Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.
(i) Nothing in this chapter is intended to limit the public’s right of access as provided for in Long Beach Police
Officers Association v. City of Long Beach (2014) 59 Cal.4th 59.

 SEC. 3. Section 832.8 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
832.8. As used in Section 832.7, the following words or phrases have the following meanings:
(a) “Personnel records” means any file maintained under that individual’s name by his or her employing agency
and containing records relating to any of the following:
(1) Personal data, including marital status, family members, educational and employment history, home
addresses, or similar information.
(2) Medical history.
(3) Election of employee benefits.
(4) Employee advancement, appraisal, or discipline.
(5) Complaints, or investigations of complaints, concerning an event or transaction in which he or she
participated, or which he or she perceived, and pertaining to the manner in which he or she performed his or her
duties.
(6) Any other information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
(b) “Sustained” means a final determination by an investigating agency, commission, board, hearing officer, or
arbitrator, as applicable, following an investigation and opportunity for an administrative appeal pursuant to
Sections 3304 and 3304.5 of the Government Code, that the actions of the peace officer or custodial officer were
found to violate law or department policy.
(c) “Unfounded” means that an investigation clearly establishes that the allegation is not true.

SEC. 4. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 2 of this act, which amends Section 832.7 of the Penal
Code, furthers, within the meaning of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California
Constitution, the purposes of that constitutional section as it relates to the right of public access to the meetings
of local public bodies or the writings of local public officials and local agencies. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of
subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the Legislature makes the following
findings:
The public has a strong, compelling interest in law enforcement transparency because it is essential to having a
just and democratic society.

SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district under this act would
result from a legislative mandate that is within the scope of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of
Article I of the California Constitution.

 SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Nancy Skinner, Chair
2017 - 2018 Regular
Bill No:
Author:
Version:
Urgency:
Consultant:

SB 1421
Skinner
April 2, 2018
No
GC

Hearing Date: April 17, 2018

Fiscal:

Yes

Subject: Peace Officers: Release of Records
HISTORY
Source:

Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
American Civil Liberties Union of California
Anti Police – Terror Project
Black Lives Matter – California
California Faculty Association
California News Publishers Association
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice
PICO California
PolicyLink
Youth Justice Coalition

Prior Legislation:

Support:

SB 1286 (Leno). 2016, failed passage in Senate Appropriations
SB 1019 (Romero), 2008, failed passage in Assembly Pub. Safety
AB 1648 (Leno), 2007, failed passage in Assembly Pub. Safety

Advancement Project; AF3IRM Los Angeles; AFSCME Local 329; Alliance San
Diego; American Friends Service Committee; Anaheim Community Coalition;
Anti-Recidivism Coalition; Arab American Civic Council; Asian Americans
Advancing Justice; Asian Law Alliance; Bend the Arc: Jewish Action; The Black
Jewish Justice Alliance; Cage-Free Repair; California Alliance for Youth and
Community Justice; California Broadcasters Association; California Church
IMPACT; California Federation of Teachers, AFT, AFL-CIO; California
Immigrant Policy Center; California Immigrant Youth Justice Alliance; California
Latinas for Reproductive Justice; California Nurses Association; California Public
Defenders Association; Californians Aware; Californians for Justice; Californians
United for Responsible Budget; Catholic Worker Community; CDTech; Center
for Juvenile and Criminal Justice; Chican@s Unidos; Children’s Defense Fund;
Chispa; Church in Ocean Park; Climate Action Campaign; Coalition for Justice
and Accountability; Committee for Racial Justice (CRJ); Community Coalition;
Conference of California Bar Associations; Council on American-Islamic
Relations, California; Courage Campaign; Critical Resistance; CTT; Davis People
Power; Dignity and Power No; Drain the NRA; Earl B. Gilliam Bar Association;
East Bay Community Law Center; The Education Trust-West; Ella Baker Center
for Human Rights; Equal Justice Society; Equity for Santa Barbara; Fannie Lou
Hamer Institute; First Amendment Coalition; Friends Committee on Legislation
of California; Greater Long Beach; Homeboy Industries; Immigrant Legal

 SB 1421 (Skinner)

Page 2 of 16

Resource Center; Indivisible CA: StateStrong; InnerCity Struggle; Interfaith
Worker Justice San Diego; IUCC Advocates for Peace and Justice; Jack and Jill
America of America, Incorporated, San Diego Chapter; Journey House;
Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance; LA Voice; LAANE; Law Enforcement
Accountability Network (LEAN); Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, San
Francisco Bay Area; Legal Services for Prisoners with Children; March and Rally
Los Angeles; Media Alliance; Mexican Legal Defense and Education Fund
(MALDEF); Mid-City CAN; Motivating Individual Leadership for Public
Advancement; National Juvenile Justice Network; National Lawyers Guild, Los
Angeles; National Lawyers Guild, San Francisco Bay Area; A New Path; A New
Way of Life Re-entry Project (ANWOL); Oak View ComUNIDAD; Oakland
Privacy; Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development;
Orange County Equality Coalition; Partnership for the Advancement of New
Americans; Press4Word; Prevention Institute; Public Health Justice Collective; R
Street Institute; Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press; Resilience Orange
County; Richard Barrera, Trustee, Board of Education; San Diego Unified School
District; Riverside Coalition for Police Accountability; Riverside Temple Beth El;
Root and Rebound; San Diego Organizing Project; San Francisco District
Attorney’s Office; San Francisco Public Defender; San Gabriel Valley Immigrant
Youth Coalition; Santa Ana Building Healthy Communities; Service Employees
International Union (SEIU) Local 1000; Showing Up for Racial Justice, Long
Beach; Showing Up for Racial Justice, Marin; Showing Up for Racial Justice,
Rural-NorCal; Showing Up for Racial Justice, Sacramento; Showing Up for
Racial Justice, Santa Barbara; Silicon Valley De-Bug; Social Justice Learning
Institute; Stop LAPD Spying Coalition; Street Level Health Project; Think
Dignity; Transgender Law Center; UAW 2865, UC Student-Workers Union;
Union of the Alameda County Public Defender’s Office; UNITE HERE Local 11;
Urban Peace Institute; Urban Peace Movement; Village Connect; The W.
Haywood Burns Institute; White People for Black Lives/AWARE LA; Women
For: Orange County; Women Foundation of California; Young Women’s
Freedom Center; Youth Alive; 8 private individuals
Opposition:

Association of Deputy District Attorneys; Association for Los Angeles Deputy
Sheriffs; California Association of Highway Patrolmen (CAHP); California
District Attorneys Association; California Narcotic Officers’ Association;
California State Sheriffs’ Association; Los Angeles County Professional Peace
Officers Association; Los Angeles Deputy Probation Officers, AFSCME Local
685; Los Angeles Police Protective League; Peace Officers Research Association
of California (PORAC); San Bernardino Sheriff-Coroner’s Office

PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to permit inspection of specified peace and custodial officer records
pursuant to the California Public Records Act. Records related to reports, investigations, or
findings may be subject to disclosure if they involve the following: (1) incidents involving the
discharge of a firearm or electronic control weapons by an officer; (2) incidents involving
strikes of impact weapons or projectiles to the head or neck area; (3) incidents of deadly force
or serious bodily injury by an officer; (4) incidents of sustained sexual assault by an officer;
or (5) incidents relating to sustained findings of dishonesty by a peace officer.

 SB 1421 (Skinner)

Page 3 of 16

Existing law 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. (Gov. Code § 6250.)
Current law requires that in any case in which discovery or disclosure is sought of peace officer
or custodial officer personnel records or records of citizen complaints against peace officers or
custodial officers or information from those records, the party seeking the discovery or
disclosure shall file a written motion with the appropriate court or administrative body upon
written notice to the governmental agency which has custody and control of the records, as
specified. Upon receipt of the notice, the governmental agency served must immediately notify
the individual whose records are sought.
The motion must include all of the following:
•

Identification of the proceeding in which discovery or disclosure is sought, the party
seeking discovery or disclosure, the peace officer or custodial officer whose records are
sought, the governmental agency which has custody and control of the records, and the
time and place at which the motion for discovery or disclosure must be heard.

•

A description of the type of records or information sought.

•

Affidavits showing good cause for the discovery or disclosure sought, setting forth the
materiality thereof to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation and stating
upon reasonable belief that the governmental agency identified has the records or
information from the records.

No hearing upon a motion for discovery or disclosure shall be held without full compliance with
the notice provisions, except upon a showing by the moving party of good cause for
noncompliance, or upon a waiver of the hearing by the governmental agency identified as having
the records. (Evid. Code § 1043.)
Existing law states that nothing in this article can be construed to affect the right of access to
records of complaints, or investigations of complaints, or discipline imposed as a result of those
investigations, concerning an event or transaction in which the peace officer or custodial officer,
as defined in Section 831.5 of the Penal Code, participated, or which he or she perceived, and
pertaining to the manner in which he or she performed his or her duties, provided that
information is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation.
In determining relevance, the court examines the information in chambers in conformity with
Section 915, and must exclude from disclosure:
•

Information consisting of complaints concerning conduct occurring more than five years
before the event or transaction that is the subject of the litigation in aid of which
discovery or disclosure is sought.

•

In any criminal proceeding, the conclusions of any officer investigating a complaint filed
pursuant to Section 832.5 of the Penal Code.

 SB 1421 (Skinner)
•

Page 4 of 16

Facts sought to be disclosed that are so remote as to make disclosure of little or no
practical benefit. (Evid. Code § 1045, subds. (a) and (b).)

Existing law states that when determining relevance where the issue in litigation concerns the
policies or pattern of conduct of the employing agency, the court must consider whether the
information sought may be obtained from other records maintained by the employing agency in
the regular course of agency business which would not necessitate the disclosure of individual
personnel records. (Evid. Code § 1045, subd. (c).)
Existing law states that upon motion seasonably made by the governmental agency which has
custody or control of the records to be examined or by the officer whose records are sought, and
upon good cause showing the necessity thereof, the court may make any order which justice
requires to protect the officer or agency from unnecessary annoyance, embarrassment or
oppression. (Evid. Code § 1045 subd. (d).)
Existing law states that the court must, in any case or proceeding permitting the disclosure or
discovery of any peace or custodial officer records requested pursuant to Section 1043, order that
the records disclosed or discovered may not be used for any purpose other than a court
proceeding pursuant to applicable law. (Evid. Code § 1045 subd. (e).)
Existing law requires that in any case, otherwise authorized by law, in which the party seeking
disclosure is alleging excessive force by a peace officer or custodial officer, as defined in Section
831.5 of the Penal Code, in connection with the arrest of that party, or for conduct alleged to
have occurred within a jail facility, the motion shall include a copy of the police report setting
forth the circumstances under which the party was stopped and arrested, or a copy of the crime
report setting forth the circumstances under which the conduct is alleged to have occurred within
a jail facility. (Evid. Code § 1046.)
Existing law provides that any agency in California that employs peace officers shall establish a
procedure to investigate complaints by members of the public against the personnel of these
agencies, and must make a written description of the procedure available to the public. (Pen.
Code § 832.5, subd. (a)(1).)
Existing law provides that complaints and any reports or findings relating to these complaints
must be retained for a period of at least five years. All complaints retained pursuant to this
subdivision may be maintained either in the officer's general personnel file or in a separate file
designated by the agency, as specified. However, prior to any official determination regarding
promotion, transfer, or disciplinary action by an officer's employing agency, the complaints
determined to be frivolous shall be removed from the officer's general personnel file and placed
in separate file designated by the department or agency, as specified. (Pen. Code § 832.5, subd.
(b).)
Existing law provides that complaints by members of the public that are determined by the
officer's employing agency to be frivolous, as defined, or unfounded or exonerated, or any
portion of a complaint that is 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 and Section 1043 of the Evidence Code (which governs discovery and disclosure of
police personnel records in legal proceedings). (Pen. Code § 832.5, subd. (c).)

 SB 1421 (Skinner)

Page 5 of 16

Existing law provides that peace or custodial officer personnel records and records maintained by
any state or local agency pursuant to 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 Sections 1043 and 1046 of the Evidence Code. 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. (Pen. Code § 832.7, subd. (a).)
Existing law states that a department or agency must release to the complaining party a copy of
his or her own statements at the time the complaint is filed. (Pen. Code § 832.7, subd. (b).)
Existing law provides that a department or agency that employs peace or custodial officers may
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 § 832.7, subd. (c).)
Existing law provides that a department or agency that employs peace or custodial officers may
release factual information 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. The department or agency shall provide written notification to the complaining
party of the disposition of the complaint within 30 days of the disposition. (Pen. Code § 832.7,
subds. (d) and (e).)
Existing law provides that, as used in Section 832.7, “personnel records” means any file
maintained under that individual’s name by his or her employing agency and containing records
relating to any of the following:
•

Personal data, including marital status, family members, educational and employment
history, home addresses, or similar information.

•

Medical history.

•

Election of employee benefits.

•

Employee advancement, appraisal, or discipline.

•

Complaints, or investigations of complaints, concerning an event or transaction in which
he or she participated, or which he or she perceived, and pertaining to the manner in
which he or she performed his or her duties.

•

Any other information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion
of personal privacy. (Pen. Code § 832.8.)

 SB 1421 (Skinner)

Page 6 of 16

Existing law states that an administrative appeal instituted by a public safety officer under this
chapter is to be conducted in conformance with rules and procedures adopted by the local public
agency. (Gov. Code §, 3304.5.)
Existing law creates the California Public Records Act, and states that 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. (Gov. Code §§ 6250 and 6251.)
Existing law provides that public records are open to inspection at all times during the office
hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record,
except as hereafter provided. Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for
inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by
law. (Gov. Code § 6253, subd. (a).)
Existing law provides that any public agency must justify withholding any record by
demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this chapter or
that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record
clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record. (Gov. Code §, 6255,
subd. (a).)
Existing law provides that records exempted or prohibited from disclosure pursuant to federal or
state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege, are
exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act. (Gov. Code §, 6250, et seq.)
This bill provides the public access, through the CPRA, to records related to:
•

Reports, investigation, or findings of:
o Incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by an officer.
o Incidents involving the discharge of an electronic control weapon at a person by an
officer.
o Incidents involving a strike with an impact weapon or projectile to the head or neck
of a person by an officer.
o Incidents involving use of force by an officer which results in death or serious bodily
injury.

•

Any record relating to an incident where there was a sustained finding that an officer
engaged in sexual assault of a member of the public.

•

Any record relating to an incident where there was a sustained finding that an officer was
dishonest relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or relating to the
misconduct of another peace officer, including but not limited to perjury, false statements,
filing false reports, destruction/falsifying/or concealing evidence, or any other dishonesty that
undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system.

This bill provides that the records released are to be limited to the framing allegations or
complaint and any facts or evidence collected or considered. All reports of the investigation or

 SB 1421 (Skinner)

Page 7 of 16

analysis of the evidence or the conduct, and any findings, recommended findings, discipline, or
corrective action taken shall also be disclosed if requested pursuant to the CPRA.
This bill states that records from prior investigations or assessments of separate incidents are not
disclosable unless they are independently subject to disclosure under the provisions of this Act.
This bill provides that when investigations or incidents involve multiple officers, information
requiring sustained findings for release must be found against independently about each officer.
However, factual information about actions of an officer during an incident, or the statements of
an officer about an incident, shall be released if they are relevant to a sustained finding against
another officer that is subject to release.
This bill provides for redaction of records under the following circumstances:
•
•
•

•

To remove personal data or information, such as a home address, telephone number, or
identities of family members, other than the names and work-related information of
officers.
To preserve the anonymity of complainants and witnesses.
To protect confidential medical, financial, or other information of which disclosure is
specifically prohibited by federal law or would cause an unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy that clearly outweighs the strong public interest in records about
misconduct by peace officers and custodial officers.
Where there is a specific, articulable, and particularized reason to believe that disclosure
of the record would pose a significant danger to the physical safety of the officer or
another person.

This bill permits a law enforcement agency to withhold a record that is disclosable during an
investigation into the use of force by a peace officer until the investigating agency determines
whether the use of force violated the law or agency policy. Additionally the agency may
withhold a record until the district attorney determines whether to file criminal charges for the
use of force. However, in no case may an agency withhold that record for longer than 180-days
from the date of the use of force.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
SB 1421, benefits law enforcement and the communities they serve by helping
build trust. Giving the public, journalists, and elected officials access to
information about actions by law enforcement will promote better policies and
procedures that protect everyone. We want to make sure that good officers and the
public have the information they need to address and prevent abuses and to weed
out the bad actors. SB 1421 will help identify and prevent unjustified use of force,
make officer misconduct an even rarer occurrence, and build trust in law
enforcement.

 SB 1421 (Skinner)

Page 8 of 16

2. Overview of California Law Related to Police Personnel Records
In 1974, in Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 531 the California Supreme Court
allowed a criminal defendant access to certain kinds of information in citizen complaints against
law enforcement officers. After Pitchess was decided, several law enforcement agencies
launched record-destroying campaigns. As a result, the California legislature required law
enforcement agencies to maintain such records for five years. In a natural response, law
enforcement agencies began pushing for confidentiality measures, which are currently still in
effect.
Prior to 2006, California Penal Code Section 832.7 prevented public access to citizen complaints
held by a police officer’s “employing agency.” In practical terms, citizen complaints against a
law enforcement officer that were held by that officer’s employing law enforcement agency were
confidential; however, certain specific records still remained open to the public, including both
(1) administrative appeals to outside bodies, such as a civil service commission, and (2) in
jurisdictions with independent civilian review boards, hearings on those complaints, which were
considered separate and apart from police department hearings.
Before 2006, as a result of those specific and limited exemptions, law enforcement oversight
agencies, including the San Francisco Police Commission, Oakland Citizen Police Review
Board, Los Angeles Police Commission, and Los Angeles Sheriff’s Office of Independent
Review provided communities with some degree of transparency after officer-involved shootings
and law enforcement scandals, including the Rampart investigation.
On August 29, 2006, the California Supreme Court re-interpreted California Penal Code Section
832.7 to hold that the record of a police officer’s administrative disciplinary appeal from a
sustained finding of misconduct was confidential and could not be disclosed to the public. The
court held that San Diego Civil Service Commission records on administrative appeals by police
officers were confidential because the Civil Service Commission performed a function similar to
the police department disciplinary process and therefore functioned as the employing agency. As
a result, the decision now (1) prevents the public from learning the extent to which police
officers have been disciplined as a result of misconduct, and (2) closes to the public all
independent oversight investigations, hearings and reports.
After 2006, California has become one of the most secretive states in the nation in terms of
openness when it comes to officer misconduct and uses of force. Moreover, interpretation of our
statutes have carved out a unique confidentiality exception for law enforcement that does not
exist for public employees, doctors and lawyers, whose records on misconduct and resulting
discipline are public records.
3. Effect of This Bill
SB 1421 opens police officer personnel records in very limited cases, allowing local law
enforcement agencies and law enforcement oversight agencies to provide greater transparency
around only the most serious police complaints. Additionally, SB 1421 endeavors to protect the
privacy of personal information of officers and members of the public who have interacted with
officers. This independent oversight strikes a balance: in the most minor of disciplinary cases,
including technical rule violations, officers will still be eligible to receive private reprimands and
retraining, shielded from public view. Additionally, in more serious cases, SB 1421 makes clear
the actions of officers who are eventually cleared of misconduct through the more public,

 SB 1421 (Skinner)

Page 9 of 16

transparent process. SB 1421 also allows law enforcement agencies to withhold information
where there is a risk or danger to an officer or someone else, or where disclosure would cause an
unwarranted invasion of an officer’s privacy.
SB 1421 is consistent with the goals of enhancing police-community relations and furthers
procedural justice efforts set out in the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Action
Item 1.5.1: "In order to achieve external legitimacy, law enforcement agencies should involve
the community in the process of developing and evaluating policies and procedures.”1
Permits Limited Public Access to Peace and Custodial Officer Personnel Records
Peace officer personnel records are currently protected under Penal Code 832.7. This legislation
provides limited, through the CPRA, to records related to:
•

Records relating to reports, investigation, or findings of:
o Incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by an officer.
o Incidents involving the discharge of an electronic control weapon at a person by an
officer.
o Incidents involving a strike with an impact weapon or projectile to the head or neck
of a person by an officer.
o Incidents involving use of force by an officer which results in death or serious bodily
injury.

•

Any record relating to an incident where there was a sustained finding that an officer
engaged in sexual assault of a member of the public.

•

Any record relating to an incident where there was a sustained finding that an officer was
dishonest relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or relating to the
misconduct of another peace officer, including but not limited to perjury, false statements,
filing false reports, destruction/falsifying/or concealing evidence, or any other dishonesty that
undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system.

Restrictions on Disclosure
The records released are to be limited to the framing allegations or complaint and any facts or
evidence collected or considered. All reports of the investigation or analysis of the evidence or
the conduct, and any findings, recommended findings, discipline, or corrective action taken shall
also be disclosed if requested pursuant to the CPRA.
Records from prior investigations or assessments of separate incidents are not disclosable unless
they are independently subject to disclosure under the provisions of this Act.

1

In December 2014, President Barack Obama established the Task Force on 21st Century Policing. The Task Force identified
best practices and offered 58 recommendations on how policing practices can promote effective crime reduction while building
public trust. The Task Force recommendations are centered on six main objectives: Building Trust and Legitimacy, Policy and
Oversight, Technology and Social Media, Community Policing and Crime Reduction, Officer Training and Education, and
Officer Safety and Wellness. The Task Force’s final report is available at:
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/taskforce_finalreport.pdf.

 SB 1421 (Skinner)

Page 10 of 16

When investigations or incidents involve multiple officers, information requiring sustained
findings for release must be found against independently about each officer. However, factual
information about actions of an officer during an incident, or the statements of an officer about
an incident, shall be released if they are relevant to a sustained finding against another officer
that is subject to release.

The bill provides for redaction of records under the following circumstances:
• To remove personal data or information, such as a home address, telephone number, or
identities of family members, other than the names and work-related information of
officers.
• To preserve the anonymity of complainants and witnesses.
• To protect confidential medical, financial, or other information of which disclosure is
specifically prohibited by federal law or would cause an unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy that clearly outweighs the strong public interest in records about
misconduct by peace officers and custodial officers.
• Where there is a specific, articulable, and particularized reason to believe that disclosure
of the record would pose a significant danger to the physical safety of the officer or
another person.
The bill permits a law enforcement agency to withhold a record that is disclosable during an
investigation into the use of force by a peace officer until the investigating agency determines
whether the use of force violated the law or agency policy. Additionally the agency may
withhold a record until the district attorney determines whether to file criminal charges for the
use of force. However, in no case may an agency withhold that record for longer than 180-days
from the date of the use of force.
4. Secrecy of Police Personnel Records Under Current California Law
The California Public Records Act, provides generally that “every person has a right to inspect
any public record,” except as specified in that act. As described above, there is another set of
statutes that make peace officer personnel records confidential and establish a procedure for
obtaining these records, or information from them. The complex interaction between these
interrelated statutory schemes has given rise to a number of decisions interpreting various
specific provisions.
In August of 2006, the California Supreme Court held in that the right of access to public records
under the California Public Records Act did not allow the San Diego Union Tribune to be given
access to the hearing or records of an administrative appeal of a disciplinary action taken against
a San Diego deputy sheriff. (Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court, 39 Cal. 4th 1272 (2006).) The
decision by the court, provided that a public administrative body responsible for hearing a peace
officer’s appeal of a disciplinary matter is an “employing agency” relative to that officer, and
therefore exempt from disclosing certain records of its proceedings in the matter under the
California Public Records Act. (Id.)
In January 2003, the San Diego Union-Tribune newspaper, learned that the Commission
had scheduled a closed hearing in case No. 2003-0003, in which a deputy sheriff of San
Diego County (sometimes hereafter referred to as County) was appealing from a
termination notice. The newspaper requested access to the hearing, but the Commission

 SB 1421 (Skinner)

Page 11 of 16

denied the request. After the appeal’s completion, the newspaper filed several CPRA
requests with the Commission asking for disclosure of any documents filed with,
submitted to, or created by the Commission concerning the appeal (including its findings
or decision) and any tape recordings of the hearing. The Commission withheld most of its
records, including the deputy's name, asserting disclosure exemptions under Government
Code section 6254, subdivisions (c) and (k). (Id. at 1279.)
The newspaper then filed a petition for a writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and
injunctive relief. The trial court denied the publisher’s disclosure request under the California
Public Records Act. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed. The California Supreme
Court then reversed and remanded the matter to the Court of Appeal.
In reversing and remanding the matter, the California Supreme Court held that “Section 832.7 is
not limited to criminal and civil proceedings.” (Id. at 1284.)
Petitioner’s first argument—that section 832.7, subdivision (a), applies only to criminal
and civil proceedings—is premised on the phrase in the statute providing that the
specified information is “confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil
proceeding except by discovery pursuant to Sections 1043 and 1046 of the Evidence
Code.” In Bradshaw v. City of Los Angeles (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 908, 916 [270 Cal.
Rptr. 711] (Bradshaw), the court opined that the word “confidential” in this phrase “is in
its context susceptible to two reasonable interpretations.” On the one hand, because the
word “is followed by the word ‘and,’ ” it could signify “a separate, independent concept
[that] makes the [specified] records privileged material.” (Ibid.) “On the other hand,” the
word could also be viewed as merely “descriptive and prefatory to the specific legislative
dictate [that immediately] follows,” in which case it could mean that the specified records
“are confidential only in” the context of a “‘criminal or civil proceeding.’” (Ibid.) The
Bradshaw court adopted the latter interpretation, concluding that the statute affords
confidentiality only in criminal and civil proceedings, and not in “an administrative
hearing” involving disciplinary action against a police officer. (Id. at p. 921.)
We reject the petitioner's argument because, like every appellate court to address the
issue in a subsequently published opinion, we disagree with Bradshaw’s conclusion that
section 832.7 applies only in criminal and civil proceedings. When faced with a question
of statutory interpretation, we look first to the language of the statute. (People v. Murphy
(2001) 25 Cal.4th 136, 142 [105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 387, 19 P.3d 1129].) In interpreting that
language, we strive to give effect and significance to every word and phrase. (Garcia
v. [1285] McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 476 [66 Cal. Rptr. 2d 319, 940 P.2d 906].)
If, in passing section 832.7, the Legislature had intended “only to define procedures for
disclosure in criminal and civil proceedings, it could have done so by stating that the
records ‘shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery
pursuant to Sections 1043 and 1046 of the Evidence Code … ,’ without also designating
the information ‘confidential.’ (Pen. Code, § 832.7, subd. (a).)” (Richmond, supra, 32
Cal.App.4th at p. 1439; see also SDPOA, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 284.) Thus, by
interpreting the word “confidential” (§ 832.7, subd. (a)) as “establish[ing] a general
condition of confidentiality” (Hemet, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 1427), and interpreting
the phrase “shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery
pursuant to Sections 1043 and 1046 of the Evidence Code” (Pen. Code, § 832.7, subd.
(a)) as “creat[ing] a limited exception to the general principle of confidentiality,” we

 SB 1421 (Skinner)

Page 12 of 16

“give[] meaning to both clauses” of the provision in question. (Hemet, supra, 37
Cal.App.4th at p. 1427.)
The Court goes on to state:
. . .Bradshaw’s narrow interpretation of section 832.7 would largely defeat the
Legislature's purpose in enacting the provision. “[T]here is little point in protecting
information from disclosure in connection with criminal and civil proceedings if the same
information can be obtained routinely under CPRA.” (Richmond, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th
at p. 1440.) Thus, “it would be unreasonable to assume the Legislature intended to put
strict limits on the discovery of police personnel records in the context of civil and
criminal discovery, and then to broadly permit any member of the public to easily obtain
those records” through the CPRA. (SDPOA, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 284.) “Section
832.7’s protection would be wholly illusory unless [we read] that statute … to establish
confidentiality status for [the specified] records” beyond criminal and civil proceedings.
(SDPOA, supra, at p. 284.) We cannot conclude the Legislature intended to enable third
parties, by invoking the CPRA, so easily to circumvent the privacy protection granted
under section 832.7. We therefore reject the petitioner’s argument that section 832.7
does not apply beyond criminal and civil proceedings, and we disapprove Bradshaw v.
City of Los Angeles, supra, 221 Cal. App. 3d 908, to the extent it is inconsistent with this
conclusion. (Id., supra, at 1284-86 (footnotes omitted).)
The court additionally held that the “Commission records of disciplinary appeals, including the
officer’s name, are protected under section 832.7.” (Id. at 1286.)
[I]t is unlikely the Legislature, which went to great effort to ensure that records of such
matters would be confidential and subject to disclosure under very limited circumstances,
intended that such protection would be lost as an inadvertent or incidental consequence of
a local agency's decision, for reasons unrelated to public disclosure, to designate someone
outside the agency to hear such matters. Nor is it likely the Legislature intended to make
loss of confidentiality a factor that influences this decision. (Id. at 1295.)
The Court repeated continuously throughout the opinion that weighing the matter of whether and
when such records should be subject to disclosure is a policy matter for the Legislature, not the
Courts, to decide:
Petitioner’s appeal to policy considerations is unpersuasive. The petitioner insists that
“public scrutiny of disciplined officers is vital to prevent the arbitrary exercise of official
power by those who oversee law enforcement and to foster public confidence in the
system, especially given the widespread concern about America's serious police
misconduct problems. There are, of course, competing policy considerations that may
favor confidentiality, such as protecting complainants and witnesses against recrimination
or retaliation, protecting peace officers from publication of frivolous or unwarranted
charges, and maintaining confidence in law enforcement agencies by avoiding premature
disclosure of groundless claims of police misconduct. “… the Legislature, though
presented with arguments similar to the petitioner's, made the policy decision “that the
desirability of confidentiality in police personnel matters does outweigh the public
interest in openness.” ... [I]t is for the Legislature to weigh the competing policy
considerations. As one Court of Appeal has explained in rejecting a similar policy
argument: “[O]ur decision ... cannot be based on such generalized public policy notions.

 SB 1421 (Skinner)

Page 13 of 16

As a judicial body, ... our role [is] to interpret the laws as they are written.” (Id., supra,
1298-1299, citations omitted, emphasis added.)
5. What Is the Discovery (“Pitchess”) Process for Obtaining Police Personnel Records?
The California Supreme Court has described the discovery process, also known as a Pitchess
motion, for a party obtaining information from a police officer’s personnel records. This process
is an independent method of obtaining very limited access to officer personnel records through
an ongoing litigation discovery process.
In 1978, the California Legislature codified the privileges and procedures surrounding
what had come to be known as “Pitchess motions” (after our decision in Pitchess v.
Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 531 [113 Cal. Rptr. 897, 522 P.2d 305]) through the
enactment of Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 and Evidence Code sections 1043
through 1045. The Penal Code provisions define “personnel records” (Pen. Code, §
832.8) and provide that such records are “confidential” and subject to discovery only
pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Evidence Code. (Pen. Code § 832.7.) Evidence
Code sections 1043 and 1045 set out the procedures for discovery in detail. As here
pertinent, section 1043, subdivision (a) requires a written motion and notice to the
governmental agency which has custody of the records sought, and subdivision (b)
provides that such motion shall include, inter alia, “(2) A description of the type of
records or information sought; and [para.] (3) Affidavits showing good cause for the
discovery or disclosure sought, setting forth the materiality thereof to the subject matter
involved in the pending litigation and stating upon reasonable belief that such
governmental agency identified has such records or information from such records.”
A finding of “good cause” under section 1043, subdivision (b) is only the first hurdle in
the discovery process. Once good cause for discovery has been established, section 1045
provides that the court shall then examine the information “in chambers” in conformity
with section 915 (i.e., out of the presence of all persons except the person authorized to
claim the privilege and such other persons as he or she is willing to have present), and
shall exclude from disclosure several enumerated categories of information, including:
(1) complaints more than five years old, (2) the “conclusions of any officer investigating
a complaint . . .” and (3) facts which are “so remote as to make disclosure of little or no
practical benefit.” (§ 1045, subd. (b).)
In addition to the exclusion of specific categories of information from disclosure, section
1045 establishes general criteria to guide the court’s determination and insure that the
privacy interests of the officers subject to the motion are protected. Where the issue in
litigation concerns the policies or pattern of conduct of the employing agency, the statute
requires the court to “consider whether the information sought may be obtained from
other records . . . which would not necessitate the disclosure of individual personnel
records.” (§ 1045, subd. (c).) The law further provides that the court may, in its
discretion, “make any order which justice requires to protect the officer or agency from
unnecessary annoyance, embarrassment or oppression.” (§ 1045, subd. (d), italics added.)
And, finally, the statute mandates that in any case where disclosure is permitted, the court
“shall . . . order that the records disclosed or discovered shall not be used for any purpose
other than a court proceeding pursuant to applicable law.” (§ 1045, subd. (e), italics
added.) (City of Santa Cruz v. Mun. Court, 49 Cal. 3d 74, 81-83 (1989, footnotes and
citations omitted.).)

 SB 1421 (Skinner)

Page 14 of 16

A so-called “Pitchess motion” is most commonly filed when a criminal defendant alleges the
officer who arrested him or her used excessive force and the defendant wants to know whether
that officer has had complaints filed against him or her previously for the same thing. The
Supreme Court described the purpose of this discovery process: “The statutory scheme thus
carefully balances two directly conflicting interests: the peace officers just claim to
confidentiality, and the criminal defendant’s equally compelling interest in all information
pertinent to his defense.” (City of Santa Cruz v. Mun. Court, supra, at, 84.)
6. Lack of Privacy Interests Exist for Other Public Employees
The secrecy afforded police records stands in contrast to the records of all other public
employees of this state, to which the public has a settled right of access to facts about a
complaint, investigation and outcome of misconduct.
The standard of mandating disclosure was first set in Chronicle Publishing v. Superior Court,
where the Court held that “strong public policy” requires disclosure of both publicly and
privately issued sanctions against attorneys. 54 Cal.2d 548, 572, 574 (1960). For charges that
lead to discipline, the Court held in the 1978 case, AFSCME v. Regents, that the disclosure of
public employees’ disciplinary records “where the charges are found true, or discipline is
imposed” is required because “the strong public policy against disclosure vanishes.” 80 Cal.
App. 3d 913, 918. “In such cases a member of the public is entitled to information about the
complaint, the discipline, and the “information upon which it was based.” Id.
This line of reasoning was affirmed in the 2004 case, Bakersfield City School Dist. v. Superior
Court, which involved a school official accused of conduct including threats of violence. The
Court held that the public’s right to know outweighs an employee’s privacy when the charges are
found true or when the records “reveal sufficient indicia of reliability to support a reasonable
conclusion that the complaint was well founded.” 118 Cal. App. 4th 1041, 1047. Two years later,
in BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court, the court went further to require the disclosure of records
reflecting an investigation of a high-level official, even as to charges that may be unreliable. The
Court found that “the public’s interest in understanding why [the official] was exonerated and
how the [agency] treated the accusations outweighs [the official’s] interest in keeping the
allegations confidential,” the court concluded. 143 Cal. App. 4th 742, 758-759 (2006).
The reasoning in BRV is particularly salient as applied to police shootings: Whether there is
reason to infer misconduct or not, the public has a right to know how an agency investigates and
resolves questions into serious uses of force.
7. Argument in Support
According to the American Civil Liberties Union:
California is one of the most secretive states in the nation when it comes to officer
misconduct and deadly uses of force. Sections 832.7 and 832.8 of the Penal Code
make all records relating to police discipline secret, prohibiting public disclosure
through the Public Records Act. Courts have interpreted these provisions broadly,
blocking access to any records that could be used to assess discipline, including

 SB 1421 (Skinner)

Page 15 of 16

civilian complaints, incident reports, internal investigations, and any other records
related to uses of force or misconduct.2
SB 1421 will pierce the secrecy that shrouds deadly uses of force and serious
officer misconduct by providing public access to information about these critical
incidents, such as when an officer shoots, kills, or seriously injures a member of
the public, is proven to have sexually assaulted a member of the public, or is
proven to have planted evidence, committed perjury, or otherwise been dishonest
in the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime. Access to records of how
departments handle these serious uses, or abuses, of police power is necessary to
allow the public to make informed judgements about whether existing processes
and infrastructures are adequate. To account for privacy and safety interests, SB
1421 permits withholding these records if there is a risk of danger to an officer or
someone else, or if disclosure would represent an unwarranted invasion of an
officer's privacy.
Under current law, California deprives the public of basic information on how law
enforcement policies are applied, even in critical incidents like officer-involved
shootings and when an officer has been found to have committed sexual assault or
fabricated evidence. In contrast, many other states recognize that disclosure of
records of critical incidents is a basic element of police oversight. Police
disciplinary records are generally available to the public in 12 states, including
Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Washington, and available to the public under
limited circumstances in another 15, including Texas, Massachusetts, Louisiana,
and Illinois.3
Even in California, this secrecy is not afforded to any public employees other than
law enforcement. For all other public employees, disciplinary records are public,
and even allegations of misconduct are generally public, as long as the complaint
is not trivial and there is reasonable cause to believe it is well-founded.4 For highprofile public officials, the standard of reliability for allegations is even lower,
because “the public’s interest in understanding why [they were] exonerated …
outweighs [their] interest in keeping the allegations confidential.”5
In contrast, records relating to even high-profile and controversial killings of
civilians by police are kept completely secret by agencies, even though the
public’s interest in understanding how the agency handled such critical incidents
should normally outweigh the officer’s privacy interests. Only then can the public
properly engage in democratic debate about the way we are policed, the fiscal
consequences of police misconduct, and whether the existing processes for
preventing and correcting serious abuses by police are adequate.
2

Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court, 39 Cal. 4th 1272, 1286–87 (2006); see also Wesley Lowery, How many
police shootings a year? No one knows, WASHINGTON POST (Sept. 8, 2014), available at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/09/08/how-many-police-shootings-a-year-no-oneknows/.
3
Lewis, R, N Veltman and X Landen, Is police misconduct a secret in your state? WNYC News (Oct. 15, 2015),
available at https://www.wnyc.org/story/police-misconduct-records/.
4
See Bakersfield City Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court, 118 Cal. App. 4th 1041, 1044 (2004).
5
BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court, 143 Cal. App. 4th 742, 758 (Ct. App. 2006), as modified on denial of reh'g (Oct. 26,
2006).

 SB 1421 (Skinner)

Page 16 of 16

SB 1421 will honor the public’s right to know how police departments deal with
officer shootings, beatings, and cases of serious and proven sexual assault and
corruption. It will provide the public with the tools to determine whether agencies
apply standards consistent with community values, and whether they hold officers
who violate those standards accountable. It will allow communities to see systems
of accountability at work.
California deserves accountable and transparent decision-making by all
government officials, particularly those with the state-sanctioned ability to kill
civilians. The ACLU is proud to cosponsor SB 1421 and thanks you for your
leadership on this critical issue.
8. Argument in Opposition
According to the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officer Association:
This bill will significantly undermine the protections of current law for peace
officer personnel records. Peace officers take a sworn oath to defend and protect
the communities they serve, all while facing extraordinary risks of danger daily.
Oftentimes, we forget that those individuals who become peace officers are still
public employees who are protected under the California Public Records Act,
which assures that disciplinary records are not made public in an unfettered
fashion.
Current law already provides for a focused and appropriate access to police
officer records through the Pitchess motion process. In contrast to the relevant
access of the Pitchess process, Senate Bill 1421 calls for the release of
information concerning an officer even where his or her activities are entirely
lawful, and entirely within the scope of departmental policy. We are aware of no
other area of public employment where an employee’s information is made public
for conduct that conforms entirely within the scope of departmental policy. Far
from building community trust, the release of officer records where the officer has
been entirely within policy will give the misperception that there was “something
wrong” with the officer’s conduct. Again, such release of personnel information –
where the conduct in question is totally lawful and within policy is unheard of in
any other area of public employment.
Moreover, out reading of Senate Bill 1421 is that making the records of an
officer’s lawful and in policy conduct is retroactive in its impact. In other words,
notwithstanding that the officer’s conduct was entirely in policy, his or her
records are available for public inspection irrespective of whether or not they
occurred prior to the effective date of SB 1421.
The Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officer Association believes that
Senate bill 1421 singles out police officers for public opprobrium even where they
have behaved entirely within law and agency policy and must respectfully oppose
the bill.
-- END –

 EXHIBIT 

CRIME - SACTO 911

Sacto 911

19-year-old killed by police showed signs of mental
illness after ‘very mellow’ childhood
BY MOLLY SULLIVAN AND
CYNTHIA HUBERT









SEPTEMBER 12, 2018 04:42 PM, UPDATED SEPTEMBER 12, 2018 03:42 PM

SHARE



An officer-involved shooting that killed a suspect September 6, 2018 at 21st and Broadway left several streets
cordoned off. Sacramento officers had to deal with pedestrians and motorists in the area.
By Hector Amezcua    David Caraccio 

 As the clock ticked toward midnight on a cool September night in Sacramento, a young man
wearing a dark hoodie and a medical face mask walked alone along the city’s busy Broadway
corridor, passing restaurants, bars and bookstores and waving an object that looked like a gun.
The first calls to police dispatchers came around 11:30 p.m. on Wednesday, Sept. 5. A
“suspicious subject” was roaming the area.
One caller said a man wearing a mask had pointed a gun at a group standing in front of
Dimple Records before moving on, according to dispatch audio recorded by Broadcastify, an
online archive. The man walked past Tower Cafe, where callers said he brandished the
weapon at a few employees cleaning the restaurant.
The suspect was Darell Richards, 19, who grew up in Elk Grove and, following altercations
with a younger brother that resulted in criminal charges, had recently moved in with his
grandparents in Oak Park. Family members and friends believed Richards was mentally
spiraling, showing signs of paranoia and aggression — a stark change from his mostly quiet
and gentle past.

He was scheduled for a psychiatric evaluation, but he ran out of time.
Three hours after police began pursuing Richards that Wednesday night, SWAT team
members shot him dead as he crouched under a stairwell in Curtis Park, just a few blocks
from where Richards was first spotted on Broadway and 16th Street. Police later determined
that his weapon was a pellet gun that resembled a handgun, and that he also was carrying a
knife.

The most recent fatal shooting of a young black man by Sacramento police has shaken the
community, with some wondering if officers could have subdued Richards without shooting

 him dead. Protesters said they intend to confront City Council members Thursday to demand
police changes and justice for Richards and others killed by police, including Stephon Clark,
whose death in March became a national controversy.
“Every time they kill somebody, we are going to be in their face,” said Tanya Faison, a leader
in Sacramento’s Black Lives Matter movement.
Police said that prior to approaching Richards, they sent in K9 officers to help pin down his
whereabouts. Officers never engaged in a foot chase with him — unlike in the Clark case —
and instead tracked him with a California Highway Patrol airplane crew.
SWAT officers, upon finding Richards in the back of an occupied house, ordered him “to drop
his weapon.” When he pointed it at them, officers had no choice but to open fire, police said.
“When a suspect is pointing a firearm at officers, they’re in immediate danger,” said Sgt.
Vance Chandler, police department spokesman. “At that point, a less lethal weapon is not an
option.”

‘Very mellow’ teenager changed dramatically
Richards leaves a large, tightly knit family and close friends.
“He was a good kid. He was always helpful around the house,” said Aina Eden, his former
girlfriend of two years. “He always wanted to make his family proud. I know that for a fact.”
Richards was born in Oak Park but spent part of his childhood in Elk Grove, where he
attended Monterey Trail High School before transferring to Hiram Johnson for his junior year,
Eden said. He was drawn to music and art, and wrote and recorded his own rap songs. He
was rarely seen without his earphones, dancing to different beats. He liked working out in
gyms and playing basketball on public courts.
Eden said he enjoyed playing with air guns, such as the replica of a Sig Sauer handgun that he
carried the night he died.
“He was still trying to figure out life,” said his older sister, Marlena Lee. After graduating
from a continuation school, she said, he became interested in following a cousin and an uncle

 into the military. He had already met with recruiters and filled out paperwork, but his plan
was derailed by arrests.
The confrontations with his brother were out of character, Lee said. For most of his life,
Richards was polite and respectful. “Very mellow,” she said. “He didn’t like loud arguing or
confrontation. He tended to laugh things off.”
But something changed within Richards in the past year or so, according to court records and
interviews.
His personality changed, and family members and friends began to suspect he was mentally
troubled. His unpredictable behavior and eruptions of anger led to the confrontations with his
brother, Lee said. The fights led to criminal charges and a restraining order against Richards.
Following the incidents, Richards moved to Oak Park to live with his grandparents. He was
staying with them on the last night of his life.
“I did see signs recently that something was wrong,” Lee said. “Darell was not ever violent or
argumentative. It wasn’t like him.”
He also seemed paranoid at times, worrying that people were out to get him, friends and
acquaintances said.
“We worried about schizophrenia,” Lee said. “We were trying to get him help, but it came a
little too late. It’s heartbreaking.”
The first confrontation with his then-15-year-old brother was April 24, according to court
records. Police were called to the house after Richards allegedly hit his sibling with a “ceramic
bank,” court records and a police report show. Richards was arrested on assault charges. His
brother suffered minor injuries.
About a month later, things escalated. Richards allegedly hit his brother on the head with a
“wooden club” and fled his family home on foot, according to court records and the police
report. His brother was taken to the hospital for treatment.

 ‘Let’s get you some counseling’
Richards’ mother, Khoua Vang, applied for a domestic violence restraining order against
Richards in response. In it, she said her younger son had a concussion from the blow and a
bump on his head. She said Richards was “sick in the head to beat up his little brother.”
A warrant was issued for his arrest, and he was taken into custody July 9 by the Sacramento
County Sheriff ’s Department.

Quoc To, who grew close to Richards and his family while serving as his public defender in
the cases, said his client had never been in trouble with the law prior to those incidents and
expressed deep remorse for what happened. “Darell loved his brother,” he said, “and his
brother loved him.”
At the urging of family members, the lawyer said he filed a petition this summer to appoint a
doctor to evaluate his client’s mental condition. Richards was next scheduled to be in court on
Oct. 1.
Richards at first resisted the notion that he might be mentally ill, his lawyer said.

“But I told him, ‘Look, Darell, you have the rest of your life ahead of you. Let’s sit down with
a doctor, let’s get you some counseling.’”
The lawyer spoke with a psychiatrist, and last Thursday morning phoned his client’s family
members to let them know that he had taken that step. He got a devastating reply, he said.
“I was told, ‘The coroner is here right now,’” To said.

‘I heard pow-pow-pow-pow-pow’
Interviews, police reports and court documents fill in the details of what happened in a slice
of Curtis Park between railroad tracks and 21st Street the night Richards died.
Shortly before midnight, Candace Schuncke was awakened by a voice from a police
loudspeaker.

 “Get in your house and lock your doors,” was the command.
“I wasn’t that concerned,” said Schuncke, who lives on 20th Street, just south of Broadway.
“Obviously they were looking for someone.” She went back to bed, she said.
While she slept, SWAT and K9 teams began arriving. Police learned that the suspect had fled
to the neighborhood and had jumped a fence. They blocked off the area and began searching
for him.
Officers caught glimpses of Richards a few times that night as he scrambled between
backyards, knocking over garbage cans, according to radio communications.
Around 3 a.m., Schuncke’s two dachshunds began barking hysterically. She peered into her
backyard and saw flashlights. Her doorbell rang, and she opened it to find a pair of SWAT
officers, heavily armed and in dark uniforms, standing before her.
“They were very polite,” she said. They urged her to remain indoors and continued their
search.
About 15 minutes later, “I heard pow-pow-pow-pow-pow, and I thought, ‘I guess they have
their man,’” Schuncke recalled. She estimated that she heard 15 to 20 shots.
Later that morning, she saw officers place a backpack and other evidence into plastic bags.
She learned that a man had been killed by police while hiding under a stairwell at a house
around the corner from her, on First Avenue.

The reality of what she had experienced began to sink in, she said.
“A young man had been shot to death. Couldn’t they have stunned him or shot him in the arm
or shoulder? I just felt very sad. It’s a sad situation.”
Lee said the family is gathering information and reserving comment on what happened to
Richards in the wee hours of Sept. 6. They did not want to address why he was outdoors at
midnight wearing a face mask, or why he was carrying a pellet gun.
On Wednesday they were still in shock, she said, as they planned his memorial service.

“It’s still so unbelievable,” Lee said. “I can’t even put into words what I am feeling right now.
I can’t believe my brother is gone.”

 LOCAL

Sacto 911

Following Darell Richards shooting, Sacramento
police change placement of body cameras on
officers
BY THERESA CLIFT









NOVEMBER 12, 2018 04:13 PM, UPDATED NOVEMBER 13, 2018 07:14 AM

At a news conference Monday, Tanya Faison of Black Lives Matter Sacramento demanded Sacramento Police
Department change its procedures. Faison was joined by the family of 19-year-old Darell Richards, shot and
killed by police in September.
By Theresa Clift 

 Sacramento police officers are changing the position of their body cameras to minimize
accidental shut-offs when officers use their rifles, a police spokesman said Monday.
The change was implemented after police learned that the body cameras of multiple officers
were turned off when officers fatally shot 19-year-old Darell Richards in September –
including the camera of one of the SWAT officers who fired shots, said Vance Chandler,
Sacramento police spokesman.
“(They’re) putting them now in a place where the stock of their weapon is less likely to hit the
button to turn them off,” Chandler said. Chandler said officers were previously wearing the
cameras on the center of their chests, where rifle butts were prone to hit the power switch.
Now officers who carry rifles will wear cameras off to the side.
The change applies to the department’s roughly 15 SWAT officers, as well as all patrol officers
who carry rifles, Chandler said.

The department is looking for a long-term solutions to the problem, Chandler said.
Richards’ family has filed a claim against the city – a precursor to a federal civil rights lawsuit,
said John Burris, the family’s lawyer.

Burris, who has litigated several police shooting cases, said he has not heard of officers’
weapons turning off body cameras.

“There should not be a situation where typically the best evidence in a case is neutralized
because of the video camera’s contact with the weapon,” Burris said. “It should never

 happen.”

Several other departments who buy body cameras from the same company, Axon, have had
similar issues, Chandler said.
During a news conference Monday, Richards’ family and Black Lives Matter activists criticized
the department for the cameras being turned off. They also demanded the police department
release the names of the officers involved, demanded the city fire the officers involved, and
demanded the District Attorney’s Office charge the officers. Richards had mental health
issues, family members said.
“They had a chance to use other options, for them to arrest him, bring him in alive instead of
them just shooting him down the way they did,” said Kathie Richards, Darell’s grandmother.
“I still don’t understand why the SWAT team was brought in to the situation.”

The two officers who fired shots were placed on paid administrative leave, in accordance with
the department’s policy for police-involved shootings, Chandler said. Both officers are now
back on active duty.
The department does not plan to release the officers’ names because the department has
received threats against them, but the department will continue to consider it, Chandler said.
The incident began at around 11:30 p.m. Sept. 5 when a 911 caller said a man wearing a
face mask was pointing a gun at people while walking up Broadway. Patrol officers found the
man near 20th Street and Broadway, and he fled to Curtis Park. Police blocked off streets,
used K-9 officers and a California Highway Patrol airplane crew to find him. SWAT officers
found Richards hours later crouching under a stairwell in the backyard of a Curtis Park home.
Police said Richards pointed the gun at officers, causing police to fatally shoot him. Afterward,
police said they recovered Richards’ gun, which looked like a 9mm handgun but was actually
a pellet gun. They said they also recovered a knife.
Police later released video of the incident, which showed Richards had a gun, but did not
show where he pointed it.

The police investigation in to the incident is ongoing, Chandler said. The investigation
includes determining whether the officers acted according to policy.

 LATEST NEWS

Sacto 911

New details lead to more questions in fatal freeway
shooting by Sacramento sheriffs
BY MARCOS BRETON AND
ANITA CHABRIA









JULY 19, 2018 03:55 AM, UPDATED JULY 19, 2018 08:59 AM

Brigett McIntrye, mother of Mikel McIntrye, and Sacramento Sheriff spokesman Tony Turnbull describe the
incident that led to Mikel's fatal shooting by sheriff's deputies in Rancho Cordova in 2017.
By José Luis Villegas 

 A Sacramento County Sheriff ’s deputy fired his weapon 19 times while walking across six
lanes of Highway 50 in a fatal officer-involved shooting that is still under investigation more
than a year after it occurred.
The new information about the death of Mikel Laney McIntyre, 32, released last week in an
annual report from Sacramento County Inspector General Rick Braziel, is raising questions on
whether the use of force was justified and why the District Attorney’s review is taking so long.
As inspector general, Braziel is responsible for monitoring the Sacramento County Sheriff ’s
Department. His report said three deputies — Gabriel Rodriguez, Ken Becker and Jeffrey
Wright — fired 29 shots during an incident with McIntyre on May 8, 2017 that began in a
shopping center parking lot off Zinfandel Drive in Rancho Cordova at 6:48 p.m. McIntyre hit
deputies and a police dog with rocks during the incident, but was unarmed when the fatal
shots were fired.
“It’s not right,” said his mother, Brigett McIntyre. “It’s over excessive.”

Sacramento County Sheriff ’s Department spokesman Shaun Hampton said he couldn’t discuss
details of the case because of pending litigation. Last month, Brigett McIntyre filed a federal
civil rights lawsuit in the case.
Deputies first encountered Mikel McIntyre when responding to a call about an assault in
progress outside a Ross Dress for Less store, the report said.
According to Brigett McIntyre, her son was experiencing a mental health crisis and she was
the woman the caller had said McIntyre was assaulting.
Twice that day, she said, her family had called 911 because McIntyre appeared to be
experiencing a mental health crisis. Both times, Brigett McIntyre said, deputies and medical
personnel assessed her son and found he did not qualify for an involuntary psychiatric hold,

 despite the family’s concerns. But after the second call, deputies told McIntyre to leave his
aunt’s house, where he and his mother were visiting, she said.
McIntyre later asked his mother to pick him up in the parking lot where the incident began.
She said she and McIntyre were arguing over the car keys, which she did not want to give
him. She said her son was not attacking her, but she did call for help from passersby.
When Wright arrived, McIntyre ignored verbal commands from the deputy and left the
parking lot, according to reports at the time. He crossed the street to a nearby Red Roof Inn.
Wright, a Sheriff ’s deputy on contract with Rancho Cordova, followed and attempted to
restrain him.
A “brief struggle started, and McIntyre used a football size rock to strike” Wright in the head,
according to the inspector general’s report.
Wright was “dazed” and fearful of further assault, and fired two rounds at McIntyre as
McIntyre fled toward Highway 50, the report said. It is unclear if McIntyre was hit.
McIntyre ran a few hundred yards, underneath the Zinfandel overpass. He went onto a
walkway near the top of the structure, pursued by an unidentified deputy. Below him along
the shoulder of the freeway, Becker and his canine also were in pursuit, as were other
deputies and California Highway Patrol officers.
At the end of the elevated walkway, McIntyre threw a softball sized rock at Becker as he ran
down the embankment and past the deputy, the report said. The rock hit the dog in the
muzzle and Becker in the leg.
Becker fired eight shots at McIntyre, who continued to run westbound along the unpaved part
of the freeway shoulder. It is unclear if Becker hit McIntyre.
Rodriguez had pulled his patrol car along the center divider of the eastbound lanes of
Highway 50 before the Zinfandel Drive overpass, according to the report. Spotting McIntyre
under the cement structure, Rodriguez “climbed over the center concrete barrier onto
Westbound Highway 50,” the report said.
Rodriguez then began crossing the six lanes of traffic, “and while continuing to cross the lanes
of traffic fired 19 rounds from his handgun as McIntyre fled away from deputies,” the report

 said.
Hampton, the department spokesman, said that even though the incident took place at the
end of the rush-hour commute, “there was no traffic” at the time Rodriguez fired. Hampton
said he was one of the deputies who responded to the incident and “traffic had slowed down
at that point.”
One driver on a nearby on-ramp filmed a brief video of the incident showing some of the
shots fired and gave it to a local news station.
John Burris, the lawyer for Brigett McIntyre and Mikel McIntyre’s infant son, questioned if so
many shots — 27 in less than a minute — were necessary.
“Even if (deputies) had seen rocks thrown at another person, is that the basis to use deadly
force? I don’t think so,” Burris said.
Burris also said that McIntyre was running away from deputies when they fired, and
questioned if he posed an immediate threat to officers or others — one part of the legal
standard for using deadly force. He called firing across the freeway “reckless.”
“The officer who fired 19 shots, his life was not in immediate danger nor was the life of
anyone else,” Burris said.
All three officers involved in the shooting are back on active duty, Hampton said.
Police use of force expert Ed Obayashi said he believed Wright and Becker likely were
justified in shooting because they may have felt they faced an immediate threat. Obayashi said
while he lacked all the details, Rodriguez may have had justification to shoot as well.
“(McIntyre) has committed two serious felonies against a police officer,” Obayashi said of the
thrown rocks. “(Rodriguez) is not sure how this guy is armed. All he knows is two of his
colleagues have discharged their weapons under conditions a reasonable deputy could assume
are life threatening.”
Obayashi said firing across the freeway — potentially putting drivers at risk — would be a
“tactical” issue that would be handled internally by the department. He added that he was not
aware of a handgun that could fire 19 bullets without a special clip or the officer reloading.

 Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert, whose office is charged with
reviewing officer-involved shootings in the region, has not completed her investigation and the
office is not close to doing so, said Michael Blazina, assistant chief deputy district attorney.
When asked if the McIntyre review will be finished in this calendar year, Blazina said: “I can’t
give you an estimate there.”
Blazina said the DA’s office strives to complete officer involved shooting reviews within 90
days after they receive all the materials related to the investigations from the involved
department.
Blazina couldn’t say how long the DA’s office has been reviewing the McIntyre case. “But it’s
not uncommon for us to realize that there is some material that didn’t come over or witnesses
that need to be interviewed,” he said. “There are a number of factors that contribute to (a
review being delayed) such as the amount of materials involved in a specific case and the case
loads of the individuals reviewing them. It’s an extensive process and can take additional
time.”
Sacramento County deputies were involved in nine officer-involved shootings last year in the
county, according to Braziel’s report. Five of those resulted in fatalities, including the death of
Deputy Bob French at a shootout at a local hotel.
Additionally, Sacramento police officers were involved in five officer-involved fatalities last
year, according to Sacramento Police Department spokesperson Vance Chandler.
All of those investigations remain ongoing with Schubert’s office, according to the District
Attorney’s website, where concluded investigations are posted. The site contains no
investigative reports from 2017 or 2018. The last officer-involved shooting for which a report
is available is the November 2016 fatal shooting of Logan Augustine by a Sacramento County
Sheriff ’s deputy. That report is dated Sept. 13, 2017.
Blazina said his office is close to releasing three reviews of use-of-force shootings by county
law enforcement officers, and three other reviews are in the final stages of completion.
Braziel also has a full report pending on the McIntyre shooting that has not been released.
Typically, the inspector general does not release his findings until after the district attorney.

 Brigett McIntyre said the delays are frustrating and has caused her to doubt if she will ever
know all the facts around her son’s shooting.
“It’s been over a year,” she said. “Why aren’t they talking? Why aren’t they saying anything?
... How come they can’t just tell me the truth?”

 EXHIBIT 

CRIME - SACTO 911

Sacto 911

Police fired 20 times at south Sacramento man
fatally shot while holding a cellphone
BY NASHELLY CHAVEZ,
BENJY EGEL, AND
ANITA CHABRIA









MARCH 20, 2018 05:05 PM, UPDATED MARCH 24, 2018 11:57 AM



Sequita Thompson, recounts the harrowing night her grandson Stephon Clark was shot by Sacramento police
in her backyard.
By Renée C. Byer

 Stephon Clark was holding only his cellphone when he was fatally shot Sunday night by two
Sacramento police officers who fired at him 20 times, the department said Tuesday.
Department officials on Tuesday offered more details about what happened in the moments
before Clark, 22, encountered officers in the backyard of the south Sacramento home where
he was staying with his grandparents.
Clark’s family members, meanwhile, flooded his grandparents' spacious, two-story stucco and
brick house on Tuesday, demanding answers on what led up to the fatal shooting. His
grandmother, Sequita Thompson, pointed from a living room window to the spot where Clark
was found.
A few feet away in the dining room, the walls were covered with framed photos of family
members, including Clark.

Digital Access for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

#READLOCAL

"He was at the wrong place at the wrong
time in his own backyard?" Thompson said
Tuesday. "C'mon now, they didn't have to
do that."
Police arrived at the 7500 block of 29th
Street at about 9:18 p.m. Sunday,
responding to a 911 call that a man was
breaking into vehicles, according to the
department. A Sacramento County Sheriff 's
Department helicopter had also responded.
Deputies in the helicopter reported seeing a
man armed with a "tool bar" in a nearby

 backyard and began to direct ground
officers to that location.

Clark had two sons as well as a younger sister
(pictured).
- Stevonte Clark

The airborne deputies said they saw the
man use the "tool bar" to break a window,
which police later said was the rear sliding
glass door in an occupied home on the 7500 block of 29th Street.
Police Tuesday said a cinder block and a piece of aluminum similar to what would be used in
a rain gutter were recovered from near the broken door and taken into evidence, though
neither item was definitely identified as the "tool bar" seen by deputies in the helicopter.



WARNING: Graphic content. The Sacramento Police Department has released body cam footage of the
shooting of Stephon Clark, an unarmed black man, in his grandparents' backyard. This footage is from camera
1. The shooting occurs near the 7:40 mark.
By Sacramento Police Department

The resident at that house, Bill Wong, 88, Tuesday told The Bee that he was unaware of
events as they unfolded Sunday night. He didn't hear or see how the window was broken or
hear any gunshots, he said. The sliding door had been patched up by Tuesday morning.

 "I came out, the police is here already," he said of the night. "They don't tell me (anything)."
Police said that after seeing Clark break Wong's window, the helicopter deputies observed him
running south, where he jumped a fence into his grandparents' yard adjacent to Wong's
house. He headed toward the front of the property, along the way looking into another car,
police said.
On Tuesday, there was a black SUV and a gold Cadillac parked in Clark's driveway.
Clark had been staying with his grandparents in that home on and off for more than a month,
his family said. He had been released from county jail about a month earlier, said his brother,
Stevante Clark.
A search of Sacramento Superior Court records found four related cases for a Stephan Alonzo
Clark. The most recent were two felony counts of domestic abuse, to which Clark – who
preferred to go by the name Stephon – pleaded guilty and agreed to complete a treatment
program. The court record also shows a 2008 robbery charge, and charges in 2013 for
possession of a firearm and possession of a controlled substance.

 Lashunda Britt, a cousin of Stephan Clark, said he was probably knocking on the window through the bars to
alert his grandfather to use his remote to open the garage door when he was fatally shot by police on Sunday.
Renée C. Byer rbyer@sacbee.com

Clark's family said their front doorbell was broken and family members would knock on the
back window for entrance through the garage door.
Police entered the front yard of Clark's grandparents' house and saw him along the side of the
house, according to the original department press release. Police said officers "gave the
suspect commands to stop and show his hands," but that he "immediately fled from the
officers and ran towards the back of the home."
It was there that police said they pursued Clark and where he "turned and advanced towards
the officers while holding an object which was extended in front of him."
Police said officers believed the object was a gun and fired, "fearing for their safety."

 No gun was found at the scene. Police later said that object was a cellphone. It was found
near Clark's body and taken into evidence.
Thompson, Clark's grandmother, said the object was an iPhone. She said he was also found
with a pair of headphones. Clark's girlfriend, Salena Manni, said the phone Clark held
belonged to her. She said it was an iPhone 6 Plus in a rose gold-colored case with a black
holder on the back to carry items like credit cards.
Department spokesman Sgt. Vance Chandler said each of the two officers involved in the
shooting fired 10 shots, for a total of 20 shots fired. Chandler said he did not know how many
times Clark was hit.
Clark was pronounced dead at the scene by Fire Department responders.
The two officers involved in the shooting have two and four years with the Sacramento Police
Department, and each has an additional four years experience with other agencies.
Chandler said the on-scene investigation had been concluded by Tuesday, but the overall
investigation would take longer. Typically, reviews of such officer-involved police shootings
take months before a final report is issued. The incident will be investigated by homicide
detectives and internal affairs, as is protocol, within the department. The internal
investigation will then be reviewed by the city's Office of Public Safety Accountability, which
will release a public report of its findings.
Video of the incident will also be released, in compliance with a city policy enacted in 2016
after the officer-involved shooting of Joseph Mann in North Sacramento. That shooting
prompted a series of police reforms that included requiring all patrol officers to wear body
cameras and to receive increased training in de-escalation techniques.
Mayor Darrell Steinberg on Tuesday said police Chief Daniel Hahn would expedite the release
of video captured on body-worn cameras and dashboard cameras. In recent instances, the
department has also released relevant audio as well.
Chandler said it would also include footage shot by sheriff 's deputies from the helicopter. If
so, it would be one of the first times Sheriff Scott Jones has agreed to release video.

 A call to the Sheriff's Department to confirm it would release video was not immediately
returned.



Sacramento police fatally shot Stephon Clark on Sunday night in his own South Sacramento backyard after
responding to a call of a person breaking car windows nearby.
By José Luis Villegas 

Advocates in the African American community have voiced concerns over the shooting and
how the department will respond to it.
"This is a moment of truth," said community activist Berry Accius. Accius said that many
community members are looking to the department to handle this incident with a greater
degree of transparency than some feel past police shootings have received.
Hahn, who took over the department following the Mann shooting, has expressed a
commitment to transparency and has on several occasions released police footage even
though the department was not required to do so. Hahn has also spoken often to community
groups about his desire to build trust between the department and communities of color
through more collaborative policing and greater transparency.

 Accius said some community members question if the shooting was excessive force and want
to know "what led up to this young man being killed." He said the Clark shooting is being
viewed as a defining moment by many on how far that transparency and accountability will
go..
"This is the moment that I think a lot of us have been expecting," said Accius. "This is
definitely where transparency, accountability and justice are really going to be put in full
display with this new regime of policing. I think a lot of us in the community have been told
there will be a whole other way of how the police in Sacramento police the community,
especially black and brown people, and this will be the test."

Photographs of Stephon Clark, his girlfriend Salena Manni, sons Aiden Clark, 3, and Cairo Clark, 1, are
displayed on a table inside his grandmother Sequita Thompson's home.
Renée C. Byer rbyer@sacbee.com

For Clark's family, the concerns are more personal.

 They are trying to raise money to bury Clark next to his brother, who was also killed by gun
violence. Tuesday, a GoFundMe campaign had raised more than $4,000 toward that goal.
Clark leaves behind two sons, 3 and 1 years old.
"They're asking, 'Where's Daddy, where's Daddy?" said Manni, the mother of Clark's
children. "He was a part of our family. He was our rock."

Editor’s note: This story was changed March 24 to correct the spelling of Clark’s first name.

 EXHIBIT 

Lawmakers again take aim at California's
tight lid on police shooting investigations
PO LI TI CS

By LIAM DILLON
MAR 30, 2018   S A C R A M E N TO







Black Lives Matter protesters march in Sacramento this week in response to the police shooting of Stephon Clark. (Josh
Edelson / AFP/Getty Images)

After police killed an unarmed black man in Sacramento earlier this month,
California legislators are poised to again try to loosen some of the nation’s strictest
prohibitions on the release of officer shooting and misconduct investigations.

 State Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) plans to introduce a bill next week that would
require the disclosure of investigations of serious uses of force, including police
shootings.
The legislation, which civil rights groups across the state support, is necessary
because people have a right to know how law enforcement treats those cases, said
Lizzie Buchen, a legislative advocate for the American Civil Liberties Union of
California.
“Currently, the public is completely shut out of the entire disciplinary process,”
Buchen said. “When an officer kills someone, which is an extreme example of their
ability to use force, the public has no way of actually knowing how it was handled by
that agency.”
California has some of the most stringent laws against disclosing police personnel
records. Most information about discipline is presumed confidential, even when
complaints are determined to be valid. California’s rules are so rigorous that last year
a state appellate court ruled the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department isn’t even
allowed to tell prosecutors the names of deputies with confirmed cases of
misconduct. The California Supreme Court is now reviewing that case.
Over the years, lawmakers have tried to open up some information. But law
enforcement groups have fought back, arguing that disciplinary records should
remain private to protect officer safety and limit the sensationalizing of such
incidents.
The latest attempt came in 2016 under growing pressure from civil rights activists to
respond to disputed police shootings in Ferguson, Mo., San Francisco, Los Angeles
and elsewhere. An effort from former state Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) was
shelved in a Senate committee after intense lobbying from law enforcement groups.
No state legislator proposed a bill on the issue last year, and Leno has said the police
lobby is so strong that it might take a statewide ballot measure for the law to change.
This year, the union that represents professors and lecturers in the California State
University system is supporting Skinner’s bill. Buchen said she expects other labor
groups to join, which would broaden the list of organizations that have supported
similar legislation.

 The latest legislation, which has been planned for months, has taken on new urgency
since the March 18 killing of 22-year-old Stephon Clark by Sacramento police,
Buchen said. Clark’s death has sparked daily protests in the capital city after police
shot him in his grandmother’s backyard during a vandalism investigation while he
was unarmed and carrying a cellphone. Under current law, the Sacramento Police
Department investigation won’t become public except through any potential criminal
prosecution of the officers or civil litigation against the city.
About two dozen representatives from civil rights groups and relatives of those killed
by police rallied before a meeting of the state’s anti-police racial profiling board in
Compton Thursday morning. They called on lawmakers to pass Skinner’s legislation
and increase police accountability provisions.
“We are going to demand justice,” Melina Abdullah, a professor of Pan-African
Studies at Cal State L.A. and a member of the Black Lives Matter movement, said at
the rally. “We are going to pass this bill as a first step in ending the murders of our
people.”
Besides opening access to use of force investigations, Skinner’s proposed bill would
also require the disclosure of confirmed cases of sexual assault and lying while on
duty.
Representatives with the California State Sheriffs’ Assn., California Police Chiefs
Assn. and the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California — the state’s largest police
labor organization — declined to comment on the legislation. All three groups and
two dozen other law enforcement and labor organizations opposed Leno’s bill two
years ago. Brian Marvel, the labor group’s president, said public safety groups
planned to meet with Skinner next week.
“We’re trying to work with the senator to find some common ground,” Marvel said.
“We realize the importance of this issue.”
Skinner said she wouldn’t comment on the bill until she introduces it.

 An L.A. County deputy faked evidence.
Here's how his misconduct was kept secret
in court for years
By CORINA KNOLL, BEN POSTON and MAYA LAU
AUG 09, 2018   5:00 AM



They were at the tail end of their overnight shift when they spotted Gerald
Simmons near a vacant lot in Inglewood.





 The two Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies said they saw the 43-year-old toss
a plastic baggie of rock cocaine to the ground.

Their testimony would become the backbone of the 2009 criminal case against
Simmons.
After a six-day trial, the verdict was swift. Guilty.
But jurors made their decision without knowing a crucial detail.
Jose Ovalle, one of the deputies who also booked the evidence, had been
suspended five years earlier for pouring taco sauce on a shirt to mimic blood in a
criminal case. He nearly lost his job.
Ovalle’s past was kept secret for years from prosecutors, judges, defendants and
jurors, even though he was a potential witness in hundreds of criminal cases that
relied on his credibility, according to a Times investigation.

A Times investigation
Aug. 9, 2018

You've been arrested by a dishonest cop. Can you win in a
system set up to protect officers?
Aug. 10, 2018

This L.A. sheriff's deputy was a pariah in federal court. But
his secrets were safe with the state.
Aug. 14, 2018

One cop came forward to expose secrets in his own ranks.
The revelation rocked the court system.
Aug. 15, 2018

Here's how California became the most secretive state on
police misconduct

 The deputy took the stand in 31 cases before the district attorney’s office found
out about his misconduct. Once his credibility came into question, prosecutors
offered some career criminals generous plea deals in pending cases or dropped
charges altogether. Some went on to commit serious crimes.
Ovalle is not an isolated example. Misconduct by law enforcement officers who
testify in court is routinely kept hidden by California’s police privacy laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court requires prosecutors to inform criminal defendants
about an officer’s wrongdoing — but the state’s laws are so strict that prosecutors
cannot directly access the personnel files of their own police witnesses. Instead,
California puts the burden on defendants to prove to a judge that an officer’s
record is relevant.
Times reporters reviewed documents from hundreds of criminal cases in which
the district attorney’s office identified Ovalle as a potential witness after he was
caught faking the bloody evidence in 2003.
Few defendants tried to obtain information about Ovalle’s past. A handful of
those who did weren’t given information about the deputy’s discipline. Judges
never gave them a public explanation for why it wouldn’t have been relevant.
By the time the district attorney’s office learned about Ovalle’s misconduct, he
had been a potential witness against 312 defendants. More than 230 were
convicted.

 The California Supreme Court will decide whether law enforcement agencies can tell prosecutors if a police witness has a
record of serious discipline. (Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)

A Times investigation last year identified Ovalle and others on a secret Sheriff’s
Department list of deputies whose misconduct included falsely testifying in court,
pulling over a motorist and receiving oral sex from her while on patrol, and
tipping off a drug dealer’s girlfriend about a narcotics bust.
Los Angeles County Sheriff Jim McDonnell wanted to disclose the so-called Brady
list of about 300 officers to prosecutors, but the deputies union went to court to
stop him.
The state’s Supreme Court will soon decide whether McDonnell and other law
enforcement agencies can tell prosecutors if a police witness has a record of
serious discipline. An appellate court has ruled they cannot.
Ovalle now works as a sergeant in the Sheriff’s Department’s Century station in
Lynwood. Last year, he was paid $240,000 in salary, overtime and other
earnings.

 When reached by The Times for comment, Ovalle said: “I don’t understand why
the L.A. Times is so interested about me.” He declined to comment further and
asked not to be contacted again.

‘It was stupidity’
Ovalle’s troubles began in August 2003.

 Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy Jose Ovalle. (L.A. County Sheriff's Department)

Several gang members at the Pitchess Detention Center in Castaic had slashed an
inmate’s neck and head with razor blades.
A 26-year-old deputy with just three years on the job, Ovalle was responsible for
collecting the evidence and writing the incident report.
When he realized a bloody shirt from one of the suspects had gone missing,
Ovalle took a clean one from the jail laundry, topped it with taco sauce and took a
photo, according to court and law enforcement records.
A custody assistant watching Ovalle warned him not to do it, but the deputy went
ahead and booked the photograph into evidence. The custody assistant reported
him to a supervisor, according to court records.
Confronted by sheriff’s investigators, Ovalle confessed.
“It was stupidity now that I look back on it,” he told the investigators, according
to a transcript of his interview obtained by The Times. “This uniform means
everything to me, this badge and gun, it’s my life. … I’m embarrassed.”
Sheriff’s Department officials told Ovalle he would be fired but then relented,
noting that he had cooperated with investigators and accepted responsibility,
according to internal documents. Ovalle was instead handed a 30-day suspension.

 He was ordered to serve 10 of those days and the remainder only if he committed
a similar offense within the next five years.
In testimony he gave years later, Ovalle blamed poor training for his conduct and
downplayed the significance of what he had done, insisting he hadn’t fabricated
evidence because the bloody shirt had once existed.
“I don’t consider myself a liar,” he said.
The Sheriff’s Department never notified the district attorney’s office about
Ovalle’s actions to see if he should be charged with a crime, according to law
enforcement records. As a result, prosecutors handling cases in which Ovalle was
involved had no way of knowing about his past actions.

‘Trying to hide misconduct’
Two years after his suspension, Ovalle was transferred to the Sheriff’s
Department’s Lennox station in South Los Angeles, where he made arrests for
drug possession, theft and assault and later testified in court.
Defendants who faced him had only one method of possibly learning about his
misconduct, a procedure that is itself cloaked in secrecy.

 "They are trying to hide misconduct, and everyone should be against it," said David Kanuth, a former Los Angeles County
public defender, regarding California's police privacy laws. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Under California’s so-called Pitchess laws, defendants can ask a judge to examine
an officer’s personnel records for allegations of excessive force, dishonesty, theft
or other acts of “moral turpitude.” Few go through the trouble.
By the spring of 2008, Ovalle had been listed by prosecutors as a potential
witness against 125 defendants. Only five tried to delve into Ovalle’s background,
according to a review of court records.
If a defendant’s Pitchess motion is granted, a representative from the officer’s law
enforcement agency meets with the judge in private to go over relevant
complaints. Neither the prosecutor nor the defense attorney is allowed in the
room.
If a judge decides to turn over anything, it is usually only the name and contact
information of someone who made a complaint against the officer within the last
five years.
It is then up to the defense attorney to figure out what happened.

 Supporters say the Pitchess laws prevent accused criminals from fishing for
information about police witnesses that is irrelevant in their cases.
David E. Mastagni, a Sacramento-based attorney who represents police unions,
said most defendants don’t file Pitchess motions because “in the vast majority of
cases, the officer’s credibility is not an issue.” If an officer has a history of
dishonesty, he said, a judge will almost always disclose it through Pitchess.
“It’s a pretty perfect balancing,” he said.
But defense lawyers complain that the laws make it difficult for people facing
criminal charges to ask for the information. Many of their jailed clients, they say,
don’t want to spend weeks or months trying to find out whether a law
enforcement witness has a history of complaints, especially if they could accept a
plea deal that would speed up their release.
“It isn’t a defeatist attitude as much as it is a realistic understanding of your
client’s life,” said David Kanuth, a former L.A. County deputy public defender
who is sharply critical of the state’s police privacy laws. “They are trying to hide
misconduct, and everyone should be against it.”
Inside a secret 2014 list of hundreds of L.A. deputies with histories of
misconduct »
One of the defendants who tried to dig into Ovalle’s background was Lamar
Dotson. He had been returning to the Acacia Inn in Inglewood from his job as a
security officer when Ovalle and his partner ordered him out of his car with guns
drawn.
The deputies said they smelled marijuana and found two baggies with the drug.
When they discovered a stolen gun in the trunk, Dotson explained he had
confiscated it from someone at one of the clubs where he worked.
In court records and an interview with The Times, Dotson insisted the deputies
lied about him having marijuana in the car to justify the search. He said he had
kept the gun because he had been worried about getting into trouble if he turned
the weapon in to authorities.
“I was 29 years old, never been in handcuffs, never been to jail,” Dotson told The
Times.

 Dotson’s attorney filed a Pitchess motion asking for the deputies’ history of
misconduct, including fabricating evidence. The judge denied the motion. The
case file and related transcripts have since been destroyed.
Dotson, who had no criminal history, ended up agreeing to a deal in which he
pleaded no contest to carrying a loaded firearm and was placed on summary
probation for three years. The misdemeanor conviction, he said, prevented him
from obtaining a firearm permit for 10 years, hurting his efforts to find work as a
security officer and bodyguard.
If he had known about Ovalle’s past misconduct, Dotson said, he would have
fought harder for his case to be dismissed. But as months slipped by, his family
members urged him to acquiesce.
“I was trying to get out of the situation as opposed to making it worse,” Dotson
said. “It really upset me, to tell you the truth, but what can you do about it at that
point? I did what I had to do to keep going forward.”

Can you win in a system set up to protect officers? »

Word about Ovalle’s misconduct began to spread after he arrested 18-year-old
Sergio Martinez on suspicion of possessing methamphetamine in May 2008.

 Martinez challenged Ovalle’s account of his arrest. His lawyer filed a Pitchess
motion seeking any complaints accusing the deputy of fabricating or planting
evidence.
Superior Court Judge Hector M. Guzman reviewed Ovalle’s personnel records
and saw the Sheriff’s Department’s internal report about the taco sauce incident.
In an unusual move, the judge gave the records to the prosecutor and suggested
the district attorney’s office decide whether Ovalle should be added to the
agency’s database of problem officers to alert future defendants.
But that didn’t happen.
The prosecutor in the case, William Frank, told The Times he informed a
supervisor about Ovalle’s misconduct soon after the hearing — just before he
started a new job with the state attorney general’s office.
“I understood the seriousness of the material even though I was a relatively new
lawyer. I knew what it meant for the case,” Frank said. “I felt I had done what I
was supposed to do.”
A district attorney’s spokeswoman blamed “a miscommunication among
prosecutors.”
The charges against Martinez were thrown out.

 (California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation)

Juan Alvarez
• Suspected gang member known as “Demon,” arrested Aug. 10, 2008, by Deputy Jose
Ovalle
• Accused of assault with a gun, facing more than a decade in prison
• Filed a Pitchess motion asking for allegations of misconduct against Ovalle
• Not informed that Ovalle had been suspended in 2004 for using taco sauce to mimic
blood on evidence in a criminal investigation
• Filed another Pitchess motion saying Ovalle’s discipline was disclosed in a different
case
• Accepted plea deal and released from prison eight months later
• Convicted in 10 cases since then, for domestic violence, drunk driving, violating a court
order and drug possession

A month later, Ovalle took the stand at a preliminary hearing for Juan Alvarez, a
suspected gang member known as “Demon.”
At 31, Alvarez had amassed a criminal record that spanned three states and
included arrests for assault, drug possession, driving under the influence and
domestic violence, according to court records.
Responding to a report of an armed assault, Ovalle said, he witnessed Alvarez toss
a gun from his waistband, then flee down Lennox Boulevard. The deputies
recovered a handgun from the scene, Ovalle testified. His misconduct never came
up.
Alvarez’s defense attorney, Deputy Public Defender Ethna Burns, filed a Pitchess
motion that accused Ovalle of lying in court about the arrest and asked for
complaints against the deputy. Superior Court Judge Mark S. Arnold said he
would turn over only information related to perjury or planting evidence.
After looking at Ovalle’s file, the judge initially determined there was nothing to
disclose.

 Burns objected. She demanded evidence about the taco sauce incident, which
attorneys had been discussing in the Torrance courthouse.
At a later hearing, Arnold ordered the information be given to Burns and Paul
Guthrie, the prosecutor handling the charges against Alvarez. Guthrie notified his
office that Ovalle should be added to the district attorney’s database of problem
law enforcement officers.
Alvarez was facing up to nearly 16 years in prison. A probation officer
recommended he serve the maximum sentence if convicted.
“His criminal activity appears to be escalating and he does not appear to have
been appreciative of the leniency afforded to him in the past,” she wrote in her
report.
But after Alvarez learned of Ovalle’s wrongdoing, he struck a deal on Sept. 22,
2009, in which he pleaded no contest to carrying a loaded firearm. He was out on
parole eight months later.
Alvarez has since been convicted in 10 additional cases, for domestic violence,
drunk driving, violating a court order and drug possession.

(Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department)

 Gerald Simmons
• Arrested Jan. 22, 2009, by Deputy Jose Ovalle on suspicion of drug possession
• Filed a Pitchess motion asking for allegations of misconduct against Ovalle
• Not informed that Ovalle had been suspended in 2004 for using taco sauce to mimic
blood evidence in a criminal investigation
• Convicted at trial on Aug. 18, 2009
• Judge threw out Simmons’ conviction after learning about Ovalle’s misconduct
• Convicted in 2013 of intentionally infecting a girlfriend with HIV
• Still in a Nevada prison

A day after Alvarez’s plea agreement, another Ovalle case was rapidly crumbling
in the same courthouse.
Gerald Simmons, the Inglewood man who had been convicted of cocaine
possession after Ovalle and a partner said they spotted him dropping a baggie of
drugs, was requesting a new trial.
Months earlier, his attorney, Jennifer Cheng, had filed a Pitchess motion. She
alleged that the deputies “intentionally lied about their observations in order to
create a case against Mr. Simmons.”

Her motion was granted, but the information she was given about the deputies
did not mention the taco sauce incident.
Simmons’ criminal record dated back two decades and included assault with a
deadly weapon, drug possession, attempted robbery and burglary. He had
violated parole and probation several times.
After the jury found him guilty, he faced up to 12 years in prison.
But before sentencing, Cheng and the prosecutor learned of Ovalle’s misconduct,
according to court records.
The judge threw out the conviction. He ruled Ovalle had been a “significant
material witness” and that his fabrication of evidence in 2003 went to “the very

 heart of this case.”
Less than two years later, Simmons was in Las Vegas when he intentionally
infected a girlfriend with HIV, court records show. He was sentenced to up to 12
½ years in prison.
The 53-year-old was recently denied release. The parole board said his crimes
were becoming increasingly more serious.

 Gov. Jerry Brown signs landmark laws that
unwind decades of secrecy surrounding
police misconduct, use of force
By LIAM DILLON and MAYA LAU
SEP 30, 2018   S AC R A ME N T O







Orange County Sheriff's deputies prepare for a Donald Trump rally in 2016 near the Anaheim Convention Center. (Irfan
Khan / Los Angeles Times)

Gov. Jerry Brown ushered in a new era of transparency in California law
enforcement on Sunday signing two new laws that for the first time give the public

 enforcement on Sunday, signing two new laws that for the first time give the public
access to internal police investigations and video footage of shootings by police
officers and other serious incidents.
The measures begin to undo decades of laws and court decisions that had made
California the nation’s most secretive state for police records.
“With Governor Brown’s signature, California is finally joining other states in
granting access to the investigatory records on officer conduct that the public truly
has a right to know,” said Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), the author of one of the
measures, Senate Bill 1421, in a statement.

Here's how California became the most secretive state on police misconduct »
Skinner’s bill allows the public to view investigations of officer shootings and other
major uses of force, along with confirmed cases of sexual assault and lying while on
duty.
The availability of these records will allow the public to press California police
departments and elected officials in ways not possible before, said Peter Bibring,
director of police practices at the American Civil Liberties Union of California, which
was a principal supporter of both bills.
“People have seen there are systematic problems and the police aren’t being held
accountable — or at least the public isn’t aware of it because it’s secret,” Bibring said.
“That’s something the public is not willing to ignore.”
Legal experts also say SB 1421 could have a significant effect on the state’s justice
system by allowing broader access to records that could bear on the credibility of a
police witness who has a history of discipline for dishonesty or other significant
misconduct.
California is the only state in which even prosecutors cannot directly obtain officer
personnel files. Under the current system, prosecutors and criminal defendants must
navigate a labyrinthine process in court to glean information from those files. The
procedure, which requires filing a so-called Pitchess motion, often yields only the
name and contact information of a complainant against an officer.
A recent Times investigation into secrecy surrounding law enforcement discipline
found that past misconduct by police witnesses whether alleged or proven routinely

 found that past misconduct by police witnesses, whether alleged or proven, routinely
is kept hidden in court as a result of California’s confidentiality laws.

An L.A. County deputy faked evidence. Here's how his misconduct was kept secret in court for years
AUG 0 9, 20 18

 

5 : 0 0 AM

The new law opens up interview transcripts, evidence and full investigatory reports
to the public, prosecutors and defense attorneys alike.
“This is revolutionary,” said San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi. “It would
unveil what we have been wanting for a long time.”
Lara Bazelon, a professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law, said the
measure could expose officer misconduct that was long withheld from defendants
and could lead to numerous convictions being dismissed.

“We are going to see a lot of skeletons falling out of the closets dating back years, if

 not decades. That means people who were convicted unjustly and unfairly will finally
get a chance to be heard,” Bazelon said.
Contra Costa County prosecutors tossed 19 convictions in 2016 and 2017 after a
police lieutenant revealed to a judge that files showing internal investigations into
two officers had not been disclosed in criminal cases featuring the officers.
California’s rules prohibiting the public release of law enforcement records date back
four decades. At the time, police unions and other law enforcement officials were
complaining that criminal defense attorneys had flooded departments with requests
for complaints against officers. Before the 1978 law was passed, the Los Angeles
Police Department shredded four tons of prior complaints against officers that
hadn’t resulted in a finding of wrongdoing.
In previous years, law enforcement labor groups waged aggressive campaigns to
successfully shut down attempts to loosen the state’s police confidentiality laws.
Police unions opposed SB 1421 as well. Brian Marvel, the head of the Peace Officers
Research Assn. of California — the state’s largest law enforcement labor organization
— said he worried the new disclosure rules would put officers at risk. Earlier this
year, protesters angry over the killing of Stephon Clark, an unarmed black man in
Sacramento, gathered at the wedding of a police officer after identifying him as one
of the officers who shot Clark, and Marvel said releasing more information about
officers could lead to more confrontations that could turn violent.
“There would be a greater potential for officers and their families being harmed by
having all of their information being put out publicly,” Marvel said.
Labor officials had used similar arguments in the past to defeat transparency
proposals. But Marvel said their position wasn’t as effective this year because public
opinion has shifted against officers, pressuring lawmakers to act differently.
Legislators and civil rights activists similarly have cited the rise of the Black Lives
Matter movement and increased scrutiny on police killings of civilians as reasons
why SB 1421 passed when prior attempts at changing the transparency laws failed.
Brown signed the original 1978 police confidentiality law during his first term in
office. He did not issue a statement after signing the bill, and a spokesman declined
to comment on the decision.

 Besides the open records law, Brown signed a second measure, Assembly Bill 748,
requiring departments statewide to release body-worn camera and other video and
audio recordings of officer shootings and serious uses of force within 45 days unless
doing so would interfere with an ongoing investigation.
This law, modeled after a new LAPD policy on releasing body-camera video, makes
California’s rules for releasing footage some of the most transparent in the country,
according to research by Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
The body-camera law also breaks a long stalemate in the Legislature over setting
statewide rules on releasing the police recordings. Multiple proposals in recent years
either to make the videos public or limit access had failed before AB 748.
“Public access to body camera footage is necessary to boost confidence and rebuild
trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve,” said Assemblyman
Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), the bill’s author, in a statement.
The new transparency laws could spur more efforts to increase public access to
policing records in the state. Marvel, the police union leader, said he’d like to release
body-camera footage of day-to-day interactions officers have with community
members, such as typical traffic stops, so that the public has a better sense of what
regular policing is like.
“If the only thing we’re releasing is negative contacts with people, then that becomes
the narrative,” Marvel said.
The new open records law takes effect Jan. 1. The body-camera law won’t be
implemented until July 1 to give police departments more time to update their
policies on disclosure.

Coverage of California politics »
5:45 p.m: This article was updated with comments from the bills’ authors and
additional information about the governor’s decision.
This article was originally published at 5:25 p.m.

 Here's how California became the most
secretive state on police misconduct
MUST READS

POLITICS

By LIAM DILLON
AUG 15, 2018   SACRAMENTO







Former state Sen. Gloria Romero introduced a bill more than a decade ago that would have allowed the public to access
police discipline hearings and some records. It was defeated in the face of fierce opposition from police unions. (Myung
J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

In the 1970s, Los Angeles police officers were furious that past complaints against
them increasingly were making their way into court cases.

 So LAPD officials did something radical: They took more than four tons of
personnel records dating to the 1940s and shredded them.
That decision resulted in the dismissal of more than 100 criminal cases involving
officers accused of wrongdoing whose records had been purged, sparking public
outrage.
The Legislature responded by passing a law that ensured officer discipline records
would be preserved — but also made it nearly impossible for anyone to learn
about them. The action, driven by police unions, began a decades-long process
that has made California the strictest state in the nation when it comes to
protecting police confidentiality.
That could change in the next few weeks, with lawmakers in Sacramento
considering a landmark effort to increase disclosure.

A Times investigation
Aug. 9, 2018

An L.A. County deputy faked evidence. Here's how his
misconduct was kept secret in court for years.
Aug. 9, 2018

You've been arrested by a dishonest cop. Can you win in a
system set up to protect officers?
Aug. 10, 2018

This L.A. sheriff's deputy was a pariah in federal court. But
his secrets were safe with the state
Aug. 14, 2018

One cop came forward to expose secrets in his own ranks.
The revelation rocked the court system.

 Repeated efforts to open access to misconduct records have run into aggressive
opposition from the unions, one of the most powerful political forces in the
Capitol and city halls around the state. Lawmakers who championed
transparency faced threats of union opposition at election time.
Police unions repeatedly have argued that California’s confidentiality rules
protect officer safety and privacy — and prevent cops’ names from being dragged
through the mud.
But this year, a group of California legislators is confronting police unions in ways
once unthinkable. They argue the organizations are out of touch with public
sentiment over how officers use force and interact with communities of color. The
shift comes amid the backdrop of the Black Lives Matter and criminal justice
reform movements.
“It’s hard to build trust … when police keep secret how they respond to killing
members of the public and hide serious misconduct,” said Peter Bibring, director
of police practices at the American Civil Liberties Union of California.
The latest proposal to make some misconduct records public faces a key decision
in the Legislature this week. While passage is far from assured, some union
leaders privately are conceding that a measure of disclosure might be inevitable.
Robert Harris, a director for the union that represents rank-and-file LAPD
officers, said high-profile videos capturing police using force — and the protests
that followed — have put his side on the defensive.
“We’re kind of at the table trying to work with them, not because of the validity of
their arguments but because we’re watching this movement create some hostility
in our communities,” Harris said. “The profession of law enforcement is under
siege.”
No other state has locked away citizen complaints and internal investigation files
like California.
Records of misconduct that results in suspensions and other significant discipline
are public in 21 states. Only California, Delaware and New York have specially
enshrined confidentiality laws that single out police disciplinary files. California is

 (Los Angeles Times)

alone in denying prosecutors direct access to the records.
A Times investigation found that past misconduct, whether alleged or proven,
routinely is kept hidden in court as a result of California’s police privacy laws.
The road to secrecy began in 1974, when the California Supreme Court ruled that
defendants had a right to know about complaints that had been lodged against
officers testifying in their cases. Defense attorneys started asking for information
that might cast doubt on officers’ testimony.

 It was during the barrage of requests that the LAPD destroyed complaints dating
to 1949 that hadn’t resulted in a finding of wrongdoing. The leader of the Peace
Officers Research Assn. of California, or PORAC — the state’s largest law
enforcement labor organization — complained that criminal defendants could
now “embark on fishing expeditions into peace officers’ personnel files.”

First-term Gov. Jerry Brown, left, appears with California Atty. Gen. Evelle Younger on NBC's "Meet The Press" in 1978.
Younger was the principal backer of the police confidentiality bill that Brown signed into law the same year. (Associated
Press)

In 1978, state Atty. Gen. Evelle Younger sponsored the legislation that required
departments to keep misconduct records but also expressly blocked public access
and made it much more difficult to view them in criminal court.
Under the bill, defendants would have to persuade a judge to examine an officer’s
confidential file, in private, and decide if there was relevant information to
disclose.
The Legislature passed the measure unanimously, sending it to Gov. Jerry Brown,
then in his first term, who signed it.

 Later that year, after Brown won reelection, his chief of staff credited law
enforcement as one of most significant endorsements that led to his victory.
After the law took effect, a slice of police misconduct records remained available
to the public.
In Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco and other major cities, civil service
commissions or police review boards considered officer discipline issues in open
hearings. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled that the confidentiality law
also applied to those hearings.

As a state senator, Gloria Romero repeatedly tried to pass legislation to loosen restrictions on police disciplinary
records but was stymied by police unions. "It's a pack. Like wolves coming at you," she said. (Myung J. Chun / Los
Angeles Times)

That prompted Sen. Gloria Romero, a Democrat from Los Angeles, to introduce a
bill to reopen disciplinary hearings and make some police records directly
available to the public.

 Law enforcement unions fiercely opposed what they described in letters to
lawmakers as an attempt to undermine their “sacred” right to privacy.
John Stites, a union leader from Southern California, warned in an email to a
lobbyist that if the bill passed, police would try to defeat a ballot measure seeking
to extend the time some legislators could remain in office.
“There is no compromise on this. Ensure it be understood that this will only be
the beginning,” Stites wrote in the message, which quickly made its way to
lawmakers.
At a hearing for Romero’s bill in the Assembly Public Safety Committee, law
enforcement officials filed into the committee room’s front rows — seats typically
reserved for legislators and their staffs. So many police officers and lobbyists
stood to express their opposition that the line extended out the door.
Ron Cottingham, then head of the law enforcement union PORAC, told the
committee that Romero’s proposal was “one of the most insidious and dangerous
bills we’ve seen come along in many years and maybe decades in Sacramento.”
The bill died without a vote.
The following year, Romero tried and failed again.
She said in a recent interview that the experience showed her why police unions
are so feared in the Capitol.
“It’s a pack. Like wolves coming at you,” Romero said. “Other [legislators] see it,
and you’re basically like meat thrown to the lions.”

 Mark Leno, left, talks with Lou Correa at the Capitol when both men served in the state Senate. Leno twice proposed
police transparency bills that failed when police unions opposed them. (Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

Around the time of Romero’s first bill, Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San
Francisco) introduced a similar proposal. It failed to win enough support to merit
even a committee vote.
A year later, in 2008, Leno was running for the state Senate when opponents set
up a political action committee called Protect Our Kids that ran ads attacking his
votes to cut education spending. San Francisco’s police union, which was critical
of Leno’s unsuccessful bill, was one of its top donors.
The lawmaker, who is openly gay, said he considered the committee’s name to be
a clear reference to homophobic stereotypes about gay men as child predators.
“That’s how they play,” Leno said. “You come after us, we’ll come after you.”
San Francisco police labor officials did not return calls for comment. At the time,
a union leader told reporters they were upset about Leno's votes on public safety

 and education issues.
Leno won the election but waited until his final year in the Senate before
introducing a new police transparency bill in 2016.
The timing followed the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement and the 2014
killing of Michael Brown, a black teenager shot by a white officer in Ferguson,
Mo.
Even so, the bill quickly died in a Senate fiscal committee.
“It was just too hot,” Leno said.

State Sen. Holly J. Mitchell at the Ronald Reagan State Building in Los Angeles. Mitchell told lobbyists for police unions
this year that they were out of touch with public sentiment about law enforcement. (Gary Coronado / Los Angeles
Times)

Two years later, a hearing on the latest disclosure bill showed how far the tone
surrounding police issues has changed in the Capitol.
Sen. Holly J. Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) told union lobbyists in April that they were
out of touch with how communities perceived officers. No longer, she said, would

 the unions always get their way.
“Those days are over,” Mitchell said.
 TOPICS



LOG IN

Her warning came less than a month after protests erupted near the Capitol in the
wake of the fatal shooting of Stephon Clark, an unarmed black man, by
Sacramento police.
Senate Bill 1421 would open records from investigations of officer shootings and
other major force incidents, along with confirmed cases of sexual assault and
lying while on duty. The bill must clear an Assembly fiscal committee this week en
route to passage in the Legislature by the end of August, when lawmakers break
for the year.
Its author, Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), has argued lawmakers must heed
calls from black and Latino residents who want to know what happens to officers
they accuse of misbehavior.
Police unions complain the measure would increase government costs and
prompt a flood of court filings by inmates seeking release once a law enforcement
witness’ past dishonesty is revealed. Knowing internal investigations will be
disclosed, they say, also could lead some officers to hesitate during violent
confrontations, endangering their lives.
“It has unintended consequences that are extreme and will hurt the public,” Ed
Fishman, an attorney with PORAC, said at the April hearing.
Unlike in years past, the unions say they’re willing to negotiate.
Brian Marvel, current president of PORAC, said he could see the state’s rules
changing in cases in which officers were found to have committed serious
misconduct. “I’m not opposed to opening records,” he said.
As public scrutiny of police conduct has increased, unions also have experienced
setbacks at the ballot box. In recent years, statewide voters approved several
justice reform measures despite law enforcement opposition, including initiatives
to unwind the state’s strict three-strikes sentencing law and reduce punishments
for low-level thefts and drug offenses.

 Still, the law enforcement lobby remains highly influential and the bill’s future
uncertain.
Endorsements from police groups still are highly coveted by lawmakers fearful of
opponents labeling them as soft on crime. Over the last decade, those unions have
contributed more than $145 million to statewide ballot measures as well as
legislative, gubernatorial and other statewide races, according to a Times analysis
of campaign finance data. They’ve spent an additional $18 million on lobbying
and other efforts to influence policy at the Capitol.
Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher (D-San Diego), who worked closely
with police unions as a labor leader before being elected in 2013, heads the fiscal
committee that will consider the bill this week.
Gonzalez Fletcher said she strongly supports protecting officers’ privacy. But she
agrees that the conversation surrounding policing issues has changed.
In her district, which encompasses southern San Diego and stretches to the
Mexican border, she’s noticed more complaints from Latino residents that police
are treating them unfairly.
“Transparency is necessary,” Gonzalez Fletcher said. “We have to do something in
order for communities like mine to gain trust in police again.”
Times staff writers Ben Poston, Mini Racker, Maloy Moore and Jack Leonard
contributed to this report.

 One cop came forward to expose secrets in
his own ranks. The revelation rocked the
court system
By MAYA LAU
AUG 15, 2018  

P I T T SBU R G , C A L I F .







Wade Derby was a lieutenant at the police department in Pittsburg, Calif., when he revealed to a judge that an officer
who was expected to testify in a murder case had resigned amid a misconduct investigation. (Josh Edelson / For The
Times)

 Pittsburg Police Officer Michael Sibbitt was ready to testify in a murder trial when
a lieutenant from his own department rushed to the courthouse to reveal a
startling secret.
The lieutenant told the court that the officer had resigned more than a year earlier
during an investigation into whether he had falsified reports and used excessive
force.
Details about allegations against Sibbitt and his partner had not been disclosed in
more than a dozen other criminal cases in which the officers had made arrests.
The revelation in a Contra Costa County courthouse in 2015 had a sweeping
effect: Nineteen convictions secured with help from the two officers were
dismissed after prosecutors learned of the misconduct investigation.
The incident rocked the criminal justice system in this Bay Area suburb and
showed how information from officers’ confidential disciplinary files can change
the outcome of cases — if courts are made aware of the material.
The case was unusual because the lieutenant took it upon himself to reveal the
officer’s background. Most of the time, getting this information into court is a
convoluted process that often leaves judges, attorneys and jurors in the dark
about misconduct by officers who take the stand in criminal proceedings.
“It’s one of the more stark examples of why we need to have more transparency
about police officers’ backgrounds,” Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor
who teaches criminal law at Loyola Law School, said about the case.
Internal records of police misconduct are confidential in California, but state law
allows judges to order police agencies to bring personnel files to court if an
officer’s credibility is formally challenged.
Judges, who review the files privately with only a representative from the police
agency, rely on departments to present them with complete and accurate
documents. Unlike in open court, where lawyers can argue about evidence,
prosecutors and defense attorneys are not allowed to review the records with the
judge.

 (Los Angeles Times)

This is not how much of the country operates. In 21 states, records of significant
police discipline are public. In many others, prosecutors and defendants are able
to access them, eliminating the need for a judge’s private review.

A Times investigation
Aug. 9, 2018

An L.A. County deputy faked evidence. Here's how his
misconduct was kept secret in court for years.

 Aug. 9, 2018

You've been arrested by a dishonest cop. Can you win in a
system set up to protect officers?
Aug. 10, 2018

This L.A. sheriff's deputy was a pariah in federal court. But
his secrets were safe with the state.
Aug. 15, 2018

Here's how California became the most secretive state on
police misconduct

But California is the only state in which even prosecutors cannot directly access
the personnel file of a police witness. State lawmakers are weighing a proposal
this month that would allow the public to see some law enforcement misconduct
records.
The police lieutenant in Pittsburg, Calif., a small industrial city 34 miles northeast
of San Francisco, said he decided to inform a judge after learning that his
department had not given the court information about Sibbitt and his partner in
other cases.
The lieutenant, Wade Derby, knew about the investigation because he’d been the
one to conduct it. The officers resigned before his inquiry was finished, but
months later, some of the people whom the cops had arrested were still facing
trial.
When judges ordered the Pittsburg Police Department to show them evidence of
wrongdoing in the officers’ files, the agency did not bring documents from
Derby’s investigation, court records show.
Derby raised concerns in memos to his chief that the department wasn’t revealing
the evidence and could be violating the law. He said he was prepared to tell the
court himself.
“My whole career I have tried to stand up against wrong, and sometimes it was
going on in my own place” of work, he said.

 Pittsburg Police Chief Brian Addington acknowledged that his agency failed to
properly disclose the documents, but he said the omission was unintentional. He
declined to answer additional questions.

ö Document
"If we do not disclose this information we will likely
compromise or have a criminal conviction on a domestic
violence homicide case overturned. In addition there
will likely be civil ramifications from the victim's
family. Finally, I believe we will bear possible
criminal culpability for violating State and/or Federal
laws for nondisclosure."
— Memo by former Pittsburg Police Lt. Wade Derby
SEE THE DOCUMENT

ì

Sibbitt and his partner, Elisabeth Terwilliger, filed a lawsuit denying they used
excessive force and accusing a department supervisor of ordering them to write
reports that left out details about hitting suspects with flashlights. They said the
department forced them out after Sibbitt complained that the agency required
officers to falsely downgrade reports of serious crimes to misrepresent its crime
statistics.
In court papers, the department denied the officers’ claims, but it later agreed to
pay them $47,500 each. The city said it would note in their personnel files that
the internal affairs investigation was never completed and that “no negative
findings were ever made,” according to a copy of the settlement agreement. The
officers agreed they would never work for the city again.
The agreement, which includes a confidentiality clause, was not disclosed by the
city until Wednesday, a day after this article was originally published online.
Sibbitt declined to speak about the case; Terwilliger did not respond to requests
for comment.

 ‘My flashlight is getting to play’
Sibbitt had been a cop for five years when he began mentoring Terwilliger, a
rookie officer.
Derby, the internal affairs lieutenant, found troubling messages on the officers’
patrol car computers.
Sibbitt sometimes wrote advice to Terwilliger, teaching her how to instigate highspeed chases and find people to arrest, according to internal department chat
messages obtained by The Times.
“Just drive with your lights on back and forth on Leland until you get a vehicle
that doesn’t yield and takes off on you. Totally illegal but it works,” he wrote to
her in late 2013 from his patrol car computer.
A few months later, he warned the officer not to attribute that type of advice to
him. Terwilliger replied: “I’ll just call it fishing. Officer Sibbitt taught me to fish.”

ö Document
"JUST DRIVE WITH YOUR LIGHTS ON BACK AND FORTH ON
LELAND UNTIL YOU GET A VEHICLE THAT DOESNT YIELD AND
TAKES OFF ON YOU. TOTALLY ILLEGAL BUT IT WORKS"
— Message sent on patrol car computer by former
Pittsburg Police Officer Michael Sibbitt
SEE THE DOCUMENT

ì

On April 26, 2014, Terwilliger said she wanted to watch a police dog “gnaw on
someone.” But the dog was not available, Sibbitt replied.
“Maybe a flashlight party is in order?” she wrote. “U have to teach me that good
flashlight work.”
The next night, Sibbitt struck a boy with his flashlight as Terwilliger struggled
with the suspect, according to court records. The juvenile, who officers thought

 was armed, had an unloaded BB gun.
Some departments warn officers against hitting people with flashlights because
they can inflict more severe injuries than batons.
“Two weekends in a row my flashlight is getting to play,” Sibbitt wrote his partner
about an hour after the incident.
“Good flashlight work kid,” replied Terwilliger, whose last name was Ingram at
the time.
The officers failed to document that they hit people with flashlights on two
occasions, according to a Pittsburg police memo filed in court. The department
launched internal-affairs and criminal inquiries into whether they used excessive
force and lied on reports.
Their badges and guns were seized on June 18, 2014. They resigned six weeks
later.

Messages sent by a police officer in Pittsburg, Calif., from his patrol car computer led to an investigation into excessive force
and false reporting. (Josh Edelson / For The Times)

None of this was told to judges or the people who were still facing trial after being
arrested by Sibbitt and Terwilliger.

 In one case, Terwilliger took the witness stand against a man she had arrested on
suspicion of possessing drugs and a firearm but never mentioned that she had
been placed on leave two days earlier.
Terwilliger testified that Carl Schoppe was combative and made evasive
movements near his car when she approached him. She found a glass pipe in his
pocket and discovered a pistol and baggies of powder that turned out to be
methamphetamine in the vehicle.
Schoppe accused the officer of lying, saying that he had never made any furtive
movements and that he had cooperated with Terwilliger from the start. His
girlfriend, who was in the car at the time, said the weapon was hers, not
Schoppe’s.
Schoppe filed a so-called Pitchess motion asking a judge to review any potential
evidence of misconduct in Terwilliger’s file.
After granting the motion, the judge ordered a police representative to bring the
officer’s internal affairs file to a judge for a private viewing.
Under the law, if a judge determines that some of an officer’s file is relevant to the
case the court may release some information, but the documents are not entered
into the public record.

 (Los Angeles Times)

Police advocates say the process is necessary to balance an officer’s right to
privacy against a defendant’s right to a fair trial. Robert Rabe, an attorney who
represents several police associations in California, said that the 1978 law that
created the Pitchess system has “stood the test of time” and that problems are
rare.
“The great majority of the men and women in law enforcement … comply with
Pitchess requests and provide what’s necessary,” he said.
But in Contra Costa County, the Pittsburg Police Department failed to deliver the
documents about Sibbitt and Terwilliger after judges had ordered the files be
brought to court. Judges had no way of knowing there were, in fact, relevant
records that should have been handed over.

 Schoppe’s Pitchess motion yielded no records on Terwilliger. He pleaded no
contest to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 16
months in prison.
Two other defendants who filed Pitchess motions also entered pleas after judges
said there was nothing to disclose about Sibbitt or Terwilliger.
They were among the 19 defendants whose convictions depended on the word of
the two officers.
Priscilla Cardenas was eating at a Salvadoran restaurant in Pittsburg in 2013
when a waitress called the police on her. The waitress, who’d been a victim of an
armed robbery at a food stand months earlier, said she recognized Cardenas as
one of her attackers.
Sibbitt responded to the call and showed up at the restaurant. He spoke to the
waitress, wrote down Cardenas’ contact information and issued a police report of
the encounter.

Priscilla Cardenas says that after being arrested and convicted, she’s had difficulty finding jobs and stable places to live.
(Josh Edelson / For The Times)

 Cardenas, then a 21-year-old community college student with a clean record, was
later arrested and accused of using a handgun and a knife in the taco truck
robbery — an offense that carried a maximum seven-year sentence.
Cardenas claimed she was innocent and had been four hours away in Bakersfield
at the time of the robbery. The waitress said the robber spoke fluent Spanish with
a Salvadoran accent. Cardenas, a California native, said she does not speak
Spanish well.
Cardenas’ attorney said no one notified her of any reason to distrust Sibbitt, so
she didn’t file a Pitchess motion seeking background on the officer.
Sibbitt testified at Cardenas’ trial, six months after he had resigned from the
Police Department and four months after he had taken a job as a Macy’s lossprevention officer. He told the jury the waitress was “shaking” and “stuttering”
upon seeing Cardenas at the restaurant. That testimony helped convict Cardenas
in February 2015.
She was sentenced to three years in prison.
It would take several more months before Derby revealed the extent of Sibbitt’s
file to a judge in the murder trial in October 2015.
After Derby filed a civil claim alleging retaliation by the Police Department in
March 2016, the two officers’ alleged misdeeds were made public. His allegations,
first reported by the East Bay Times, prompted the county’s public defender’s
office and local prosecutors to launch a review of the officers’ cases.
In his civil case, Derby described his investigation against Sibbitt and Terwilliger,
claiming he was pushed out of the department by his managers after exposing the
information. The department denied wrongdoing, noting that Derby had agreed
to resign after he was found to have sexually harassed another officer. A judge
recently dismissed Derby’s civil suit and he is appealing.

 Former Lt. Wade Derby says supervisors at the Pittsburg Police Department retaliated against him after he exposed
information about fellow officers' misconduct. (Josh Edelson / For The Times)

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1963 decision in Brady vs. Maryland and later rulings
require prosecutors and police to alert defendants to favorable evidence,
including information that could undermine the credibility of government
witnesses. Once the details about Derby’s investigation became public, several
defendants argued that they’d been unlawfully deprived of the information about
the officers’ alleged wrongdoing and never had the chance to attack their
credibility.
Contra Costa County prosecutors looked into other criminal cases where the two
officers had testified to determine whether the defendants should have been
notified about the information. That also included a look at cases in which
defendants accepted plea deals without going to trial.
“If I have reason to doubt the credibility of an officer, or a witness, then anything
that witness introduces, I can’t use,” said Lynn Uilkema, a Contra Costa County
prosecutor who was involved in the dismissals.

 Those concerns pose an especially high risk to prosecutions of low-level crimes,
such as drug possession and resisting arrest, which often rely heavily on an
officer’s eyewitness account. An internal affairs finding that an officer has lied in
the past could undermine the prosecution of a minor crime in which there is little
evidence other than an officer’s word.
Of the 19 convictions thrown out by Contra Costa County prosecutors, seven
involved nonviolent felonies, such as drug possession or being a felon carrying a
firearm. Eleven others were misdemeanors or infractions — DUI, petty theft,
domestic abuse, false representation to a police officer, disturbing the peace or
resisting arrest. Most of the defendants pleaded no contest.
In at least some cases, there was compelling evidence that defendants were in fact
guilty. One man convicted of carrying a loaded, concealed firearm told The Times
the weapon had indeed been in his car.
In the murder trial in which Derby revealed the extent of the records on Sibbitt,
prosecutors dropped him as a witness rather than risk his credibility being
questioned in front of jurors.
Even in Cardenas’ case, which involved other evidence on top of Sibbitt’s
testimony, prosecutors found they could no longer stand by her conviction, given
the allegations about the police officer’s past misconduct.
They offered to throw out Cardenas’ armed robbery charge and release her
immediately if she would plead no contest to a lesser count of grand theft. She
agreed.
Since her release, she said, she’s had difficulty finding permanent jobs and stable
places to live.
Before she was arrested, Cardenas was taking courses at a local college near
Pittsburg and was interested in studying criminal justice.
“I was going to be a police officer,” she said.
Times staff writer Ben Poston contributed to this report.

 This L.A. sheri 's deputy was a pariah in
federal court. But his secrets were safe with
the state
By JOEL RUBIN
AUG 10, 2018  

3:00 AM







An image taken from dash cam video of L.A. County Sheriff's Deputy James Peterson during a 2016 traffic stop in which
he found drugs. (Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department)

For years, James Peterson’s secrets were safe in the courtrooms of Los Angeles.

 o yea s, Ja es ete so s sec ets we e sa e

t e cou t oo s o

os

ge es.

The L.A. County sheriff’s deputy, who trawled a stretch of the 5 Freeway for drug
traffickers, often testified in the state court system about his arrests. No one knew
to ask about his troubled past.
Then one of Peterson’s cases landed in federal court.
Prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office delved into the deputy’s personnel
records for black marks that could call his credibility into question. They found
records alleging dishonesty and other misconduct, and they turned the
information over to attorneys defending two accused drug traffickers, according
to court documents reviewed by The Times.
The case — along with several others built on Peterson’s work — collapsed, and
the deputy became a pariah in federal court.
The different treatment of Peterson’s past in state and federal courts wasn’t
happenstance. It was just one example of how special privacy protections granted
to California’s police officers prevent defendants, prosecutors and jurors from
learning about information that could undermine an officer’s credibility. Those
special privacy protections don’t apply in federal court.
California is the only state in the nation that blocks prosecutors from directly
accessing the personnel files of law enforcement witnesses. Defendants who want
to find out about an officer’s past must navigate a Byzantine legal process that
limits disclosures about previous wrongdoing or blocks the release of information
altogether.
A Times review of recent state court cases in which Peterson was a potential
witness found that only two of 170 defendants facing felony charges tried to
obtain information about past complaints against him — and, even in those cases,
the defense came away with little to show for it. Most of the others accepted plea
deals offered by prosecutors before Peterson was called to testify.
The findings, defense attorneys and some legal experts say, highlight how
California’s laws risk denying defendants fair trials by preventing them from
learning about evidence that could lead judges and jurors to doubt an officer’s
truthfulness.

 A state appellate court ruled last year that Sheriff Jim McDonnell cannot tell prosecutors the names of about 300 deputies
disciplined in the past for dishonesty, tampering with evidence or similar misconduct. (Al Seib / Los Angeles Times)

A Times investigation
Aug. 9, 2018

An L.A. County deputy faked evidence. Here's how his
misconduct was kept secret in court for years.
Aug. 9, 2018

You've been arrested by a dishonest cop. Can you win in a
system set up to protect officers?
Aug. 14, 2018

One cop came forward to expose secrets in his own ranks.
The revelation rocked the court system.
Aug. 15, 2018

Here's how California became the most secretive state on
police misconduct

 “The stakes are far too high to play a shell game with this kind of material,” said
Jonathan Abel, who studied law enforcement privacy laws across the country as a
fellow at the Stanford Constitutional Law Center. “Innocent people will serve time
in prison … because police misconduct evidence is not disclosed.”
But Gregory Palmer, an attorney who advises police departments across the state,
defended the privacy laws, arguing that they do allow defendants to learn about a
law enforcement witness’ past if there is legitimate reason. Without the laws, he
said, defense attorneys would be able to malign a police witness regardless of
whether it was relevant to their case.
“As long as California recognizes a police officer’s right to privacy, we have to
have a way to balance that right against a defendant’s right to a fair trial,” said
Palmer, who specializes in instructing law enforcement agencies on how to
oppose legal attempts to open an officer’s disciplinary file. “California’s law does
that.”
A Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department spokeswoman said she could not
discuss Peterson’s disciplinary history, citing state law. The deputy also declined
to comment.
California lawmakers this month are weighing a proposal that would allow the
public to see some law enforcement misconduct records. Disclosure of internal
discipline would mark a dramatic change.
The state’s confidentiality laws are so strict that an appellate court ruled last year
that L.A. County Sheriff Jim McDonnell could not give prosecutors the names of
about 300 deputies disciplined for dishonesty, tampering with evidence or similar
misconduct.
The Times identified dozens of deputies on a 2014 version of the Sheriff’s
Department’s list of problem officers. Among them was a deputy convicted of
filing a false report and another suspended after he pulled over a stranger and
received oral sex from her in his patrol car. Both kept their jobs.
The California Supreme Court has agreed to consider McDonnell’s appeal in the
case. But even a decision in the sheriff’s favor would not come close to matching
the disclosure rules in federal court.

 There, prosecutors are required to give the defense any material from officer
personnel files that “reflects upon the truthfulness or possible bias” of potential
witnesses, according to Department of Justice policy. And if they are unsure
whether something should be handed over, the policy instructs prosecutors to
“err on the side of disclosure.”
The rules are designed to ensure federal prosecutors meet their so-called Brady
obligations, named after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1963 decision in
Brady vs. Maryland. In it, the justices ruled that the Constitution requires
prosecutors to tell defendants about evidence that might be favorable to them. In
later cases, the high court expanded the obligation to include information about
government witnesses that calls into question their credibility.
But under California’s Pitchess laws, named after a former L.A. County sheriff
who fought to keep police disciplinary records sealed, local prosecutors are barred
from looking at that information. Instead, the burden falls on defendants to
persuade judges to examine officers’ files.

 (Swetha Kannan / Los Angeles Times)

To do so, they must make a specific allegation that a police officer lied about an
arrest, used excessive force or committed some other serious breach. The judge
then looks at the officer’s records in private for complaints about similar conduct
and determines whether it should be disclosed to the defense.
The law does not allow complaints of misconduct more than five years old to be
disclosed. If a judge decides something should be turned over, typically only basic
information is released, such as the names and contact information of people who
previously accused the officer.
In a San Fernando courtroom last year, a state court judge, David Walgren, went
through Peterson’s file at the request of a defense lawyer.

 L.A. County Superior Court Judge David Walgren is seen during a murder trial in 2014. (Anne Cusack / Los Angeles Times)

Peterson had pulled over Ramon Mercado and his father in November 2016 and
discovered a gun and some drug residue inside a hidden compartment in the
trunk of the car. In his arrest report, Peterson wrote that Mercado had said the
car belonged to him and gave Peterson permission to search it.
Mercado, however, insisted he was innocent, telling his attorney that he had
borrowed the car from a friend and had known nothing about the hidden
compartment and gun. Mercado wrote in a sworn statement to the judge that he
never told Peterson he owned the vehicle.
The car’s owner corroborated the story, telling an investigator that he lent the
vehicle to Mercado and did not mention the secret compartment, defense
attorney Jeffrey Vallens said.
Later, Vallens received a tip from a prosecutor in the case that there might be
something incriminating in Peterson’s past. Vallens asked the judge to review
Peterson’s file, arguing that if the deputy had lied about Mercado, he may have
been caught lying about other things.
Judge Walgren limited his search to episodes of dishonesty and did not consider
any incident more than five years old, court records show. Vallens said he
received only the name and phone number of a prosecutor in the U.S. attorney’s

 y

p

p

y

office in Los Angeles. The judge ordered him not to disclose the name to anyone
else.
Vallens then had to figure out what the prosecutor knew about Peterson.
He called the federal prosecutor and left a message. A different prosecutor called
back but declined to say anything about Peterson, telling Vallens he needed to
submit a formal request in writing.
“It’s very frustrating,” Vallens said. “My client arguably was illegally arrested and
prosecuted, but when I tried to investigate Peterson, I hit a wall.”

Ramon Mercado was pulled over on the 5 Freeway and arrested by L.A. County Sheriff's Deputy James Peterson. He said
the deputy lied in his arrest report. (Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

The case, he said, highlighted why he rarely tries to extract information about
cops through California’s Pitchess laws. He estimated that he attempts to get
material on officers in less than 5% of his cases.
It is a common sentiment among defense attorneys, who say the little information
they get from judges often leads to dead ends as people cannot be found or refuse
to cooperate. The process can take weeks or longer to play out. The pace and
marginal payoff, several defense attorneys said, are strong deterrents to filing

 such motions — especially if a client is being held in jail and could be freed by
taking a plea deal.
California’s Supreme Court has concluded that the Pitchess laws do not violate
the constitutional rights guaranteed to defendants under the Brady decision.
On the same day in May 2017 that Walgren was reviewing Peterson’s records in
his state court chambers, U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder held a far
different hearing about Peterson’s record in her downtown L.A. courtroom.

I want to make clear that if there’s something that hasn’t
been produced, then I expect it to be produced.
—  U .S . D is t r ict J u dg e C h r i st in a A . S n y de r

Attorneys for Cesar Castillo Flores and Manuel Moreno, whom Peterson had
caught with nearly 9 pounds of methamphetamine and a gun, were arguing that
the drugs and weapon should be thrown out as evidence. Peterson, they
contended, had violated the men’s constitutional rights by stopping and searching
their car without justification.
At that hearing, and a similar one a few weeks earlier, Snyder questioned whether
the government had provided the defense all the information about Peterson that
the law required.
Saying Peterson’s credibility was “on the line,” the federal judge told prosecutors,
“I want to make clear that if there’s something that hasn’t been produced, then I
expect it to be produced.”
Because federal prosecutors must adhere strictly to the rules set out by the Brady
case and are not beholden to a state’s police privacy laws, they can review an
officer’s personnel records.
In a nod to California’s strict rules, the judge barred any public discussion of
Peterson’s disciplinary history. But at the hearing and in a written order, she
referenced two incidents in Peterson’s file that had resulted in punishment — one
from 1998 and another in 2002.

 In one of the incidents, Snyder said, Peterson had been suspended for breaking a
department rule and being “less than truthful” in some way. The judge did not
describe the other instance of misconduct, but defense attorneys claimed in a
court filing that Peterson had been found “lying to his supervisors regarding the
… misconduct” in both episodes.
A prosecutor assured Snyder the government had handed over the records from
the two incidents. The government also disclosed documents from an
investigation into whether Peterson had lied about a 2014 traffic stop.
In that case, Peterson wrote a report saying he obtained consent from a driver to
search a car that turned out to be carrying 3 pounds of methamphetamine. But
after the deputy twice amended his account amid questions over how he got
permission for the search from the Spanish-speaking motorist, the prosecutor
asked the judge to dismiss the charges, according to law enforcement records
reviewed by The Times.
Afterward, Sheriff’s Department officials opened an investigation into whether
Peterson had committed perjury, district attorney records show. The district
attorney’s office decided against charging Peterson, concluding that there was no
evidence he knowingly falsified his report and that the deputy’s accounts were not
necessarily inconsistent. A Sheriff’s Department spokeswoman said “appropriate
administrative action was taken” after the investigation, but she did not say what
discipline, if any, was imposed.
After disclosing the personnel reports about Peterson, federal prosecutors in the
case against Flores and Moreno opted not to call the deputy to testify about the
traffic stop. Instead, they argued that footage from the camera in Peterson’s car
showed he had been justified in stopping and searching the men’s vehicle.
Snyder disagreed, saying the video was inconclusive. She tossed out the drugs and
gun as evidence, and prosecutors dismissed the case.
The government dismissed seven of the 10 federal cases based on Peterson’s
arrests and has not filed a new case involving the deputy in more than a year.
Shortly after Peterson’s last two federal cases were dismissed in October, Sheriff’s
Department officials removed him from his specialized assignment patrolling the

 5 Freeway for drug traffickers. He was reassigned to a post ticketing truck drivers
on city streets in Santa Clarita.
Back in state court, however, Peterson’s past behavior remained largely unknown.

Attorney Jeffrey Vallens said that within a few days of the publication of a Times report on Deputy James Peterson last year,
a county prosecutor called with an offer to reduce charges against a client of his who was arrested by Peterson. (Mel Melcon
/ Los Angeles Times)

The case against Mercado — the man Peterson arrested after finding the secret
compartment — had yet to go to trial when The Times published a story last year
detailing some of the federal drug cases that had fallen apart due to questions
about the deputy’s credibility.
Vallens, Mercado’s attorney, said that within a few days of the article, a county
prosecutor called with an offer to reduce the gun and drug trafficking charges
against his client to a minor traffic violation that came with no jail time. The deal
was made because of an “insufficiency of evidence,” a spokeswoman for the
district attorney’s office told The Times.

 Mercado, who works as a plumber in Stockton, insists he was innocent and said
he remains angry that he was ever prosecuted.
“I could have lost everything, for what? Nothing,” the 24-year-old said.
His attorney never learned why, after seeking information on Peterson, he was
given the name of a prosecutor in the U.S. attorney’s office. But he said one thing
was clear: Had the case gone to trial, Vallens would have known little, if anything,
about the deputy’s disciplinary history.
“Those are the rules,” he said.
Times staff writer Ruben Vives contributed to this report.