California police officers accused of misconduct have been covered up by some of the country’s strictest secrets laws, but state lawmakers are considering adding more confidentiality this week.
The state legislature is weighing General Assembly Act 1178, Media advocates and police regulators say the number of police officers who are exempt from public disclosure will be greatly expanded, thus putting the Police Transparency Act into crisis in 2018 and 2021.
Last-minute changes to the bill last week will allow law enforcement agencies to reject requests for public records related to any officers who have been undercover in the past two years, with death threats over the past 10 years or anyone assigned to a state or federal task force.
The office of Congresswoman Blanca Pacheco (D-downney) said the bill was originally a “very narrow goal” to protect the identities of active secret officials who did not commit misconduct and did not conduct investigations but were on the scene of other people conducting misconduct.
Pacehco spokesman Alina Evans said the bill was amended in the state Senate at the request of the state Senate, and Evans said the bill would not continue if it was reinserted.
Asked details about why the California Department of Justice promoted the amendment to the State Councilor spokesman. General Rob Bonta said: “We provide technical assistance to legislation regularly, but we cannot comment on any specific discussions with the Legislative Office or the Commission.”
Opponents believe that even the names of undercover personnel can still keep their names secret, even if they are involved in a fatal shooting or are charged with serious misconduct, Evans said their names can still be disclosed, just like any other official, under current law.
Shayla Wilson, policy and advocacy consultant for criminal justice reform advocacy group La Defensa, said there was a last-minute lobbying push around Pacheco’s proposal, one of several late bids to downplay the transparency bill paid this year.
“As public trust in law enforcement continues to decrease, further repairs to police misconduct records are not the right move,” she said. “Generally, the public is not aware of these things.” [police misconduct] The violations occurred, or how serious they were. ”
Advocates of transparency have tried to expand public access to police personnel files, as well as records related to civilian monitoring agencies and litigation of misconduct. Efforts to open up records of misconduct have repeatedly met active opposition from police unions, one of the most powerful political forces in the Capitol.
LAPD officials conducted an operation on Slauson Avenue in July.
(Luke Johnson/Los Angeles Times)
The union and its allies believe that California’s confidentiality rules protect the security and privacy of officials and prevent the so-called Doxxing incident where personal information about officials spreads online.
LAPD chief Jim McDonnell did not respond to several attempts to comment through a spokesperson. The department’s civil regulator said in a statement that the police commission supported Pacheco’s legislation.
“For the safety of officials, their mandate requires anonymity and the safety of employees threatened by death, as well as their families. The Commission does see transparency as important, but believes that it is crucial to strike a balance between the public’s right to know and the safety of officials and their families,” the statement said.
The Commission’s statement did not cite specific information, but stated: “Sometimes, the disclosure of records provides security issues for officials, by default [undue] Level of contact with family members (including minor children). ”
The proposed change is an ongoing lawsuit in the lawsuit, which published thousands of photos of LAPD officials obtained by Los Angeles journalists, while WatchDog Group Stop Lapd Spying Coalition was awarded.
Reporter Ben Camacho obtained the image through a request from the California Public Records Act and posted it on a searchable website called Watch Watchers. The website describes itself as a transparent tool for people to identify officials who commit misconduct.
But shortly after the website went live in March 2023, LAPD officials announced that they had accidentally released photos of secret staff members of their work. The disclosure led to a series of legal cases, including the City of Los Angeles’ claims against Camacho and its organization trying to retract the images.
Last June, the city settled the lawsuit, agreed to pay legal bills to Camacho and stop LAPD espionage. In the process, New York City has withdrawn from the initial claim that many officials who released photos were put in danger for work secrets. The police union also filed a lawsuit, raising similar arguments about the security of compromised police officers, but their demands for LAPD were revoked in April.
The Los Angeles Times is joining Alliance of news organizations against city litigation Oppose Camacho, who believes that forcing him to return to the photos “will set dangerous precedents that will undermine the free ability of the news media to spread legal access to information.”
Atti, Los Angeles. Hydee Feldstein Soto was one of those who lobbyed California lawmakers to undercut the state’s public record law. In the summer of 2023, she Changes were proposed This will allow government agencies to refuse future public record requests for employees seeking “images or data that may be personally identified”.
