Frequently Asked Questions about Copley Press and SB 1019
What was the Copley Press decision and what did it do?
How has Copley Press affected agencies and the public's right to know?
How does the proposed legislation solve this problem?Why is it important that information about police misconduct be made public?
Shouldn't police officers be entitled to the same confidentiality rights as other public employees?
How do other states treat complaints about police?
Why were confidentiality measures imposed in the first place?What was the Copley Press decision and what did it
do?
On August 29, 2006, the California Supreme Court in
Copley Press v. Superior Court held that
records of an administrative appeal of sustained misconduct charges are
confidential and may not be disclosed to the public. The decision prevents the
public from learning the extent to which police officers have been disciplined
as a result of misconduct.
Before Copley
Press, Penal Code 832.7 prevented public access to citizen complaints held
by a police officer’s “employing agency.” This meant that internal affairs
records were confidential, while records of administrative appeals to outside
bodies such as a civil service commission were open to the public. Also, in some
jurisdictions independent civilian review boards functioned in public, hearing
complaints separately from the police department.
The
Copley Press
decision essentially undid the legislatively enacted distinction between
employing agencies and independent agencies, cloaking the records and findings
of both in confidentiality. It 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 in the disciplinary process and thereby functioned as the employing
agency.
Top of Page
How has Copley Press affected agencies and the
public’s right to know?
Copley Press has
effectively shut off all avenues for the public to learn about misconduct
involving individual police officers, such as excessive force and dishonesty;
officer-involved shootings; patterns of misconduct and leniency; previous
discipline for misconduct by another agency; and even the identity of officers
in misconduct cases. Among the agencies that have been effected are:
- San Francisco Police Department: For
years, San Francisco Police Commission records have been open to the public,
allowing the public to learn about serious misconduct cases ranging from
excessive force to dishonesty. Following Copley Press, all hearings have been
closed and related records – even the identity of the subject officers – are no
longer released.
- Los Angeles Police Department: For
decades the LAPD held public hearings in serious misconduct cases and the
Commission regularly released information on use of force incidents, including
officer-involved-shootings. Such information was included in both the
Christopher Commission report and the Report of the Rampart Independent Review
Panel, and helped play a critical role in bringing about much needed changes in
the LAPD. Now, on advice of the Los Angeles City Attorney, the Commission no
longer releases identifying information in officer-involved-shootings or other
uses of force and all disciplinary information is closed to the public.
-
Oakland Citizens Police Review Board:
Since the early 1980s the CPRB has investigated cases of police misconduct and
held open hearings, separate and apart from the Police Department’s internal
affairs unit, to provide an independent and public forum for examining police
misconduct. After over 20 years, the CPRB hearings and records have been closed
down, as have the records of other oversight agencies.
- Los Angeles County Sheriff: The Los
Angeles County Sheriff by its own initiative set up an Office of Independent
Review to audit internal affairs investigations and provide public reports on
issues related to alleged police misconduct. Following the Copley decision, OIR attorneys have been
barred from attending Civil Service Commission hearings on misconduct cases. In
the words of OIR Chief Attorney and former Assistant US Attorney Michael Gennaco
the decision “has had a tremendous effect on our ability to provide
transparency. In one fell swoop, so much has been closed.”
Top of Page
How does the proposed
legislation solve this problem?
SB 1019 directly overturns
Copley Press and will allow
local jurisdictions and state agencies to provide greater transparency around
police complaints. The bill effectively leaves the law as it was before
Copley Press was decided. Local jurisdictions will be able to create open
complaint review processes, like those that were in use before
Copley
Press. The bill also contains a provision that would allow certain
information to be discussed in closed session if the chief officer certifies
that the release of the information would jeopardize an officers’ safety or
operational security.
Top of Page
Why is it important
that information about police misconduct be made public?
Public access to information on complaints about police
misconduct and a department’s response deters police misconduct and generates
public confidence in the ability of government to hold police accountable. According to Merrick Bobb, Executive
Director of the Police Assessment Resource Center and Independent Monitor of the
Los Angeles County Sheriff Department, there is “broad agreement that whether or
not police retain the power to investigate themselves, law enforcement’s
business, in general, is the public’s business, and therefore must be an open
and transparent process.”
Furthermore, open and independent oversight benefits officers
themselves. Only a transparent complaint process can convincingly clear a police
officer of misconduct charges in the eyes of the public. According to Professors
Jerome Skolnick and James Fyfe – also a former Deputy Commissioner for the New
York Police Department – “in the long run, only an independent investigative
body can allay public suspicions of the police and render a convincing
exoneration of police who have been accused of misconduct.”
Finally, current law undermines the credibility of law
enforcement agencies by preventing them from communicating publicly about
significant cases. As Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton recently said: “I
am in support of change... I am very frustrated by [the current process]. The
public has no access to it. The media has no access to it. That's crazy,
absolutely crazy. We have nothing to hide in the Los Angeles Police
Department.
Top of Page
Shouldn't police officers be entitled to the same
confidentiality rights as other public employees?
Yes. Whereas for other
public employees and for doctors and lawyers, records on misconduct and any
resulting disciplinary action are public, under current law, similar records are
“confidential” for police officers. While the proposed legislation provides
greater access, it still allows less access to police records than for records
of other public employees.
Top of Page
How do other states
treat complaints about police?
California is in a minority of states that completely shield
records on police discipline. Other states allowing greater access include:
Georgia, Florida, Indiana, Utah, Oklahoma, Hawaii, Ohio, and Texas.
Top of Page
Why were confidentiality measures imposed in the first place?
In 1974 the California Supreme Court decision
Pitchess v. Superior Court allowed a
criminal defendant access to certain kinds of information in citizen complaints.
Several law enforcement agencies “launched mass record-shredding campaigns to
evade court orders pursuant to Pitchess,” resulting in the dismissal of
criminal charges in those cities. After the state legislature required files to
be maintained for five years, police unions pushed for confidentiality measures,
and the result is the current
restrictive law.
Top of Page
About Us | Newsroom | Action Center | Issues | Cases | Legislation | Support Us | Library/Resources 
