Judge rules police must release records
Union says law should not apply to old cases
MARTINEZ >> In the first ruling on the scope of California’s new police transparency law, a Contra Costa County judge on Friday ruled that years of discipline and use-of-force documents can be made public, rejecting the arguments of law enforcement unions that records prior to Jan. 1 should be kept secret.
Judge Charles Treat immediately put a hold on the ruling to give the unions time to appeal. But his decision, made from the bench following a 90-minute hearing, was lauded by First Amendment and police-reform advocates as a victory in what they expect will be a long fight.
“The judge got the answer right,” making it “clear to all police departments” that years of records should be released, said David Snyder, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition,
which is taking part in the case, along with this news organization, KQED and others.
Police lawyer Tim Talbot said he wasn’t surprised by Treat’s ruling and that the unions would appeal.
“I think the issue is more political than legal, and I’ll just leave it at that,” Talbot said after the hearing. He added that Treat seemed to be accepting of the law enforcement officers’ privacy arguments “then seemingly at the end he denies it, without an explanation.”
The legal battle over Senate Bill 1421 is far from over and is likely to end up before California’s Supreme Court. The legislation, signed last year by Gov. Jerry Brown, throws open disciplinary records for a variety of officer misconduct and guarantees the public access to internal reviews of officerinvolved shootings and use of force.
Unions representing police officers in Antioch, Richmond, Martinez, Walnut Creek and Concord, and county sheriff’s deputies sued last month to block release of records requested by this news organization and others going back at least five years. Treat temporarily barred those agencies from releasing records last month while he considered the matter.
About 15 similar legal challenges, mostly in Southern California, also are working their way through the courts. At hearings Thursday in Orange County and on Friday in Los Angeles, judges did not immediately rule.
On Friday, Treat said the legislature’s intent behind SB 1421 was to open access, not hinder it.
“The Legislature has clearly indicated, at least prospectively, ‘We the Legislature think that (disciplinary) documents should not be confidential and should be publicly available,’ ” the judge said. “Didn’t the legislature think that insufficient
access to police records was the problem last year?”
Richmond police union head Benjamin Therriault condemned Treat’s decision to open the contested records.
The judge “seemed more concerned about what was going to be in the newspaper than what was the appropriate application of the law,” Therriault said.
About 15 police-reform advocates demonstrated outside the Contra Costa courthouse before the hearing, chanting “Release the records, release the records.”
“Give us the information,” said Antioch resident Kathleen Wade, who said her son was crippled in a police beating. “We need to know who these police officers are. They know who we are. Why won’t they just release the documents?”
Friday’s ruling “is a victory for us,” Frank Running Horse of Concord said after the hearing. “We know it’s going to be a back-and-forth battle. We know they’re going to appeal.”
Rick Perez, whose son, Richard “Pedie” Perez III, died in a 2014 Richmond
police shooting, said after the hearing he felt “like the man on the moon. It’s one small step toward getting justice but one big step for all these families involved.”
As of Friday, 60 agencies have released at least partial records to a coalition of news organizations that have filed public records requests since SB 1421 became law on Jan. 1. Some, such as the Solano County town of Rio Vista, where two officers were fired for use-of-force violations and dishonesty, provided complete internal affairs case files. Others, such as Burlingame and Watsonville, which fired officers for sexual misconduct, released summary information outlining what records they possess and are preparing for release.
State Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a Democrat, said earlier this week that the Department of Justice will not issue records about law enforcement officers it employs until the matter is decided by the courts. “Historically, peace officers have had a significant privacy right in their personnel records,” his office said in response to requests.
Officials at several public agencies have informed this news organization that they are taking similar positions.
Becerra’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Treat’s ruling.
Four of the departments that Treat had temporarily stopped from disclosing records — Antioch, Concord, Richmond and the Contra Costa Sheriff — combined to have at least 12 fatal shootings during the past five years, according to records and news reports. In addition, the sheriff’s department had at least 13 in-custody deaths between 2014 and 2019. Reports on those deaths must be released under the new law.
“The new law is a landmark bill that provides for sorely needed public scrutiny of police misconduct,” Snyder said. “The argument that police can keep secret records from past years and decades is simply wrong.”
Thomas Peele and Nate Gartrell are staff writers and Alex Emslie works for KQED News.
Ted Goldberg and Sukey Lewis of KQED News and UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism students Josh Slowiczek and Susie Neilson contributed to this report.