Public Oversight of Police Crucial

May 30, 2007 by Sanjeev Bery, Palo Alto Daily News

On May 7, the Palo Alto City Council narrowly approved the purchase and deployment of Tasers for the Police Department. The vote followed months of hearings and came on the condition that the Police Department adopt strong limits on when Tasers could be used.

The council and community were clearly divided over the safety and necessity of Tasers. But at the same time, virtually everyone appears to agree: once a Taser use policy is in place, it should be closely followed by Palo Alto police officers.

Unfortunately, if the Taser policy is violated, no one outside the department will ever know who was responsible or what the circumstances were.

This is because the California Supreme Court has interpreted state law to make police complaints and discipline almost completely secret.

California generally has strong public records laws that provide the public access to a wide range of government information. Unfortunately, the 2006 state Supreme Court case Copley Press v. Superior Court provides for near total secrecy around any complaints and discipline that are issued as a result of police misconduct. If a complaint is filed, investigated and sustained, the public cannot learn the identity of the officer, what the results were and what discipline, if any, was issued.

The Copley Press California Supreme Court decision has closed the hearings and records of police oversight agencies throughout the state to the public eye. Some of these agencies have been operating for more than 30 years. Law enforcement leaders and civilian oversight agencies are prohibited from talking publicly with their communities about how they responded to community complaints. This will inevitably damage police-community relations, erode public trust and ultimately undermine law enforcement efforts.

The good news is that Sen. Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles) has authored Senate Bill 1019, which will overturn Copley Press. The bill will return the law to where it was before Copley Press was decided. SB 1019 will also allow local jurisdictions - should they elect to do so - to adopt processes for the public airing of complaints about police misconduct.

A wide range of civil rights, good government, and media organizations support SB 1019. It is also supported by a growing number of law enforcement executives, including Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton, San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey, and Newark Police Chief Ray Samuels.

The police unions, however, are trying to scare legislators into voting against the bill, claiming that it will somehow endanger police officers lives. This claim is easily refuted by the 30-plus years of public oversight in California. It is also refuted by the experiences of the majority of other states. These other states provide more access to police misconduct information than California does - even if SB 1019 is adopted.

The public has a right to access information about misconduct by lawyers, doctors or other public employees. Police officer misconduct should be no different - in fact, the public has an even greater interest in police misconduct since officers have the power to make arrests and use deadly force.

Ultimately, SB 1019 is about the public's right to know how their government is functioning. Whether it is misuse of a Taser, racial profiling, or a false arrest, the public has a right to know. Communities should be able to learn about the small number of officers who are engaging in misconduct and how police departments are addressing the situation.

SB 1019 does not give the California public as much access as residents in other states, but it goes a long way toward enhancing police transparency. It deserves our elected officials' support.

Sanjeev Bery is the San Jose director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.