Los Angeles Times

Survey supports greater access to police records

California­ns oppose restrictio­ns backed by powerful unions, according to poll.

- By Kate Mather kate.mather@latimes.com

California voters widely support lifting the veil of secrecy that prevents the public from learning about police disciplina­ry matters or viewing footage from body cameras, according to a poll released Wednesday.

The results of the July survey come as lawmakers and police officials grapple with ways to restore public trust in law enforcemen­t, which has come under scrutiny after a series of highprofil­e killings by officers across the country. Critics have called for more transparen­cy of police conduct to help hold officers accountabl­e for their actions.

California’s laws protecting police records are among the most restrictiv­e in the country, in part because politicall­y strong police unions have worked to thwart changes. Officers’ personnel records and disciplina­ry history are kept private under state law. Agencies are also allowed to withhold informatio­n that they deem investigat­ive records — including body camera footage.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which commission­ed the 900-person survey, hailed the results as a sign that voters wanted change.

“These numbers clearly show that state law is out of step with the public’s understand­ing of how transparen­t police should be,” said Peter Bibring, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Southern California chapter. “The Legislatur­e is failing the people by ignoring this problem and if they don’t act, the people will act themselves.”

Nearly 80% of the voters polled said they believed the public should have access to investigat­ions into misconduct by an officer. Sixty-four percent said they believed the public should be able to access investigat­ions into alleged misconduct, including any discipline that was imposed.

And more than 70% said they believed body camera footage should be publicly accessible in situations in which an officer used force or was accused of misconduct.

Peter Scheer, director of the Bay Area-based First Amendment Coalition, said he wasn’t surprised that the numbers were so high given the increased public attention on police. In the past, he said, only “public policy junkies” paid attention to the limited access to police records.

“People are now on high alert about this issue,” he said.

Martin J. Mayer, an Orange County attorney who counsels dozens of law enforcemen­t agencies and unions, including the California Peace Officers’ Assn., questioned whether the 900 people surveyed represente­d widespread demand for change.

Police are already scrutinize­d by outside entities such as civilian oversight boards, county prosecutor­s and state and federal officials, he said. If the public wants more access to police records, he said, there were mechanisms in place to obtain it.

“It is state law. If the public wants it to be changed, then change it,” he said. “Until then, I and my clients will obey the law.”

But changing police-related law in California is no easy task. Lawmakers proposed a flurry of bills this year aimed at repairing relationsh­ips between police and communitie­s, many of which faced opposition from powerful police unions.

Assemblywo­man Shirley Weber (D-San Diego) wrote one of those proposals, designed to regulate how police use body cameras. Despite a number of amendments intended to reach a consensus, she said, law enforcemen­t officials were able to influence other politician­s and stymie the bill.

But the assemblywo­man said she was confident that the growing public support for increased transparen­cy would someday amount to legislativ­e change.

“The polls are clear, and I think we’re serious about trying to repair and improve relationsh­ips,” she said. “The public needs to be assured that there’s nothing being hidden.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States