Court affirms public’s access to police files
News media and the public have a right to see records of police shootings and officer misconduct that the state attorney general’s office has received from law enforcement agencies throughout California, a state appeals court ruled Wednesday.
Police personnel records were sealed from the public under longstanding California laws, but a new law effective last year provides for disclosure of records of shootings, use of force resulting in death or serious injury, sexual assault or findings of dishonesty by an officer.
After state courts ruled that the law applies to records created before 2019, some police departments, including San Francisco’s, have granted requests by news organizations for their records, while others have resisted. And many local police files have been turned over to Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s office, in at least some cases because that office conducts its own investigations of serious misconduct.
Becerra has refused to release the records
voluntarily, arguing that the law requires disclosure only by the law enforcement agencies that created the records. He was sued by San Francisco public broadcaster KQED and the First Amendment Coalition, a media advocacy group, for records dating to January 2014, a suit that drew supportive filings by organizations, including the Hearst Corp., which owns The Chronicle.
Upholding a decision last year by Superior Court Judge Richard Ulmer of San Francisco, the First District Court of Appeal said the new law was intended to cover any agency in possession of the records.
Lawmakers viewed California as “one of the most secretive states in the nation” in matters of police misconduct, Justice Carin Fujisaki said in the 30 ruling, quoting a legislative staff analysis. She said the law was drafted “to provide transparency.”
The court also said Becerra’s office, or any other office possessing such documents, could withhold them by showing that disclosure of a specific record was not in the public interest. Fujisaki rejected arguments by Becerra’s office that the time and expense of combing through large volumes of records sought in the lawsuit justified withholding them, but said Becerra’s office could seek to withhold individual records when the case returns to Ulmer’s court.
Attorney Glen Smith of the First Amendment Coalition said the next step is up to Becerra.
“We’re hopeful they will follow the lead of other law enforcement agencies and start releasing records,” Smith said. “The attorney general’s office has told us nothing about these cases, just about the burden of processing our request. We have no idea which agencies this might involve.”
Becerra could appeal to the state Supreme Court. His office said it was reviewing the ruling.