Governor Signs SB 1421 and AB 748, Dramatically Increasing Public Access to Peace Officer Personnel Records
On September 30, 2018, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. signed two significant pieces of legislation, Senate Bill 1421 and Assembly Bill 748, that will require major changes in how law enforcement agencies respond to requests for peace officer personnel records.
In short, these two statutes will allow members of the public to obtain certain peace officer personnel records that were previously available only through the Pitchess procedure by making a request under the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) request.
Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1421 amends Government Code Section 832.7 to generally require disclosure of records and information relating to the following types of incidents in response to a request under the CPRA:
- Records relating to the report, investigation, or findings of an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer.
- Records relating to the report, investigation or findings of an incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person results in death or great bodily injury.
- Records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public. “Sexual assault” is defined for the purposes of section 832.7 as the commission or attempted initiation of a sexual act with a member of the public by means of force, threat, coercion, extortion, offer of leniency or any other official favor, or under the color of authority. The propositioning for or commission of any sexual act while on duty is considered a sexual assault.
- Records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction of evidence or falsifying or concealing of evidence.
AB 748 requires agencies, effective July 1, 2019, to produce video and audio recordings of “critical incidents,” defined as an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer, or an incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death or great bodily injury, in response to CPRA requests.
These statutes have different timelines for production of records, and different circumstances under which production of records can be delayed or records can be withheld. Further, agencies may wish to evaluate their document retention policies in light of these new disclosure requirements. Agencies should work closely with trusted legal counsel to ensure compliance with both statutes.
AB 748 requires agencies, effective July 1, 2019, to produce video and audio recordings of “critical incidents,” defined as an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer, or an incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death or great bodily injury, in response to CPRA requests.
These statutes have different timelines for production of records, and different circumstances under which production of records can be delayed or records can be withheld. Further, agencies may wish to evaluate their document retention policies in light of these new disclosure requirements. Agencies should work closely with trusted legal counsel to ensure compliance with both statutes. source
CA Laws Intersect to Create New, More Immediate Disclosure Obligations for Police Recordings
Now, more than ever, Californians have greater access to police personnel records, body and dashboard camera footage and other recordings acquired by police agencies due to companion laws Senate Bill 1821 and Assembly Bill 748. Signed into law in 2018, these laws alter the way law enforcement agencies respond to California Public Records Act requests for records relating to critical incidents.
Agencies have operated under the authority of these laws since January 2019 (SB 1421) and July 2019 (AB 748), but questions remain about permitted delays and redactions, privacy, criminal proceedings and internal investigations. Agencies did receive some disclosure clarity earlier this year when a judge held that, while SB 1421 applies prospectively, it still requires an agency to publicly release pre-2019 police personnel records it maintains in response to CPRA requests to critical incidents.
However, further case law doesn’t yet exist to help responding agencies answer many of the outstanding questions.
Without court opinions to guide an agency’s practices, agencies can look to the legislative intent of the bills to better understand what images and data are subject to redaction, the limited circumstances that warrant a delay in a record’s release and privacy interests often associated with these types of records.
Closed Off and Confidential
Prior to SB 1421 and AB 748, California was one of the most secretive states when it came to the release of video, audio and other records relating to critical incidents. Generally, exempt from public disclosure under the CPRA, they were protected as investigatory files or confidential police officer personnel records.
Then, courts and policies shifted.
Beginning in 2016 with the California Court of Appeal’s ruling in City of Eureka v. Superior Court, the court held that police “dashcam” footage was not protected as a confidential personnel record simply because it might later be used by a police department in connection with a complaint or investigation.
Next came the Los Angeles Police Department’s Critical Incident Video Release Policy, which, revised in 2018, stated that the Department would release to the public video of critical incidents within 45 days of the incident.
At the same time, California lawmakers were grappling with how to mandate similar access statewide. Their debate centered on how to increase transparency while also respecting the privacy rights at issue, and the new LAPD policy provided them a roadmap.
Enter SB 1421 and AB 748.
Critical Incidents Spark Release
Under both laws, the general principles for processing CPRA requests apply equally. As such, the CPRA dictates that an agency must make a determination of whether it has responsive records within 10 calendar days of receiving a request. A rule governing a 14-day extension still applies. Agencies are still expected to produce records within a “reasonable” amount of time, and traditionally, the CPRA allows for a few, specific reasons to delay the production of records. This is where SB 1421 and AB 748 differ.
SB 1421 amended California Penal Code section 832.7 governing police personnel records to strengthen the public’s faith in law enforcement by ensuring its right to access to reports of potential police misconduct, civilians’ rights violation and use or deadly force. source
Law Enforcement Agencies Must Disclose Video and Audio Recordings Even if it is Relating to a “Critical Incident” and Certain Investigation Records Without Pitchess Process Under New Laws
Governor Brown has signed two new laws to require law enforcement agencies to provide, in response to a California Public Records Act request, certain information that was previously exempt from disclosure and, in some instances, was confidential and subject to Pitchess Motion requirements.
AB 748:
Starting on July 1, 2019, video and audio recordings that relate to a “critical incident” are no longer exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act. A “critical incident” is defined as either 1) an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; or 2) an incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death or great bodily injury. The timing of the disclosure is subject to the deadlines already in place in the Public Records Act, except the agency may take additional time, as specified in amended Government Code section 6254(f), if the agency demonstrates that disclosure would substantially interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation. However, there are specific requirements set forth in Government Code section 6254(f)(4)(A) to justify the delay in disclosure.
SB 1421:
Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 state that peace officer personnel files are confidential and cannot be disclosed absent compliance with Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1046 (i.e., a Pitchess Motion). However, effective January 1, 2019, certain peace officer or custodial officer personnel records are no longer confidential and shall be made available for public inspection pursuant to the Public Records Act.
Specifically, records relating to the report, investigation, or findings of 1) an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; 2) an incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer resulted in death or great bodily injury; 3) an incident in which a sustained finding was made regarding sexual assault involving a member of the public; and 4) incidents relating to sustained findings of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer must be made available pursuant to the Public Records Act.
The amended Penal Code section 832.7 contains important provisions regarding the specific types of records that are subject to disclosure, which information may be redacted from the records, and under what circumstances the agency may delay disclosure and for how long.
Law enforcement agencies and custodians of records should prepare for significant numbers of new requests for this information when the new laws take effect, and should consult with legal counsel regarding the possible need for new policies and procedures. source
California bill requires cops to release body cam video
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A longstanding national debate about police transparency and privacy has been reignited in California with legislation that would require law enforcement agencies to release body camera video and recordings of fatal police shootings and other significant incidents.
The proposal, which comes amid a push across the U.S. for body camera recordings to be released more quickly after fatal police shootings, seeks to establish a statewide policy on when body camera footage and other audio and video recordings should be released.
The state Senate’s Public Safety Committee has scheduled a hearing Tuesday on Assembly Bill 748, which would amend California’s public records statute to limit the discretion that police departments have for withholding body camera videos. The proposed measure would require police departments to release video in cases where law enforcement officers use force or in incidents where it is believed there is a violation of law or public policy.
More than a dozen law enforcement organizations oppose the measure and many contend it should be up to local police departments to determine when, if ever, body camera footage should be released.
State lawmakers have failed to pass a handful of different bills in the last few years that addressed body-worn video, including establishing policies on when officers should turn their cameras on and off and when the public would have access to videos.
Several California police departments, including the Los Angeles Police Department, maintain policies denying the disclosure of body camera videos and consider the footage to be investigative records that are exempt from the state’s open records law.
“We have a patchwork of policies and in some instances, very little policy, as to when the public can access the information and when the public can’t,” said Assemblyman Phil Ting, who introduced the bill. “Body cameras were created to improve greater public trust between law enforcement and community members and without access to that video footage we’re not really able to achieve those goals.”
Ting, a Democrat, says the bill “strikes a fair balance” because it also carves out several exemptions, which allow police departments to withhold videos if there’s more of a public interest in not disclosing the recordings and to withhold recordings that are part of an ongoing investigation for up to 90 days.
Advocates of the bill, including the American Civil Liberties Union, say the legislation is an important step forward in ensuring police transparency, especially after fatal police shootings.
“This is an area where California law really lags behind the rest of the country in allowing transparency,” said Peter Bibring, the director of policing practices at the ACLU of Southern California.
Opponents argue that because the bill requires police to release the recordings after 90 days, it could compromise ongoing criminal investigations and disciplinary proceedings.
“This bill will taint ongoing police investigations and all but kills the impartiality of the investigation process,” said Craig Lally, the president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union that represents city police officers. source
AB748 – Audio and Video Recordings
Many law enforcement agencies withhold video and audio recordings of serious use of force incidents as investigatory records under Government Code Section 6254(f). AB748 adds an exception to the investigatory record exemption to now require disclosure of recordings related to a “critical incident.” Critical incident is defined as an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or an incident in which the use of force resulted in death or great bodily injury. A law enforcement agency may redact the recordings if the agency demonstrates that the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Agencies should consider using redaction technology to redact, blur, or distort the recording to protect the privacy interest while still allowing disclosure. An agency may only withhold a video or audio recording in its entirety if the agency demonstrates that the privacy interest cannot be adequately protected by use of redaction technology.
A law enforcement agency may withhold the release of a recording for 45 days if the agency determines the disclosure would substantially interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation. As with the personnel records affected by SB1421, any delay beyond the initial time period will impose a significant burden on the agency to justify the delay. The law enforcement agency will be required to reevaluate the nondisclosure and state its justification to the requestor in writing at regular intervals. source
Assembly Bill 748
Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires that public records, as defined, be available to the public for inspection and made promptly available to any person. Existing law makes records of investigations conducted by any state or local police agency exempt from these requirements. Existing law requires specified information regarding the investigation of crimes to be disclosed to the public unless disclosure would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation.
This bill, commencing July 1, 2019, allows a video or audio recording that relates to a critical incident, as defined, to be withheld for 45 calendar days if disclosure would substantially interfere with an active investigation, subject to extensions, as specified. The bill allows the recording to be withheld if the public interest in withholding video or audio recording clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure because the release of the recording would, based on the facts and circumstances depicted in the recording, violate the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording, in which case the bill allows the recording to be redacted to protect that interest. If the agency demonstrates that the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording cannot adequately be protected through redaction, the bill requires that the recording be promptly disclosed to a subject of the recording, his or her parent, guardian, or representative, as applicable, or his or her heir, beneficiary, immediate family member, or authorized legal representative, if deceased.
For purposes of this paragraph, a video or audio recording relates to a critical incident if it depicts any of the following incidents:
- An incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer.
- An incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death or in great bodily injury. source
Read the full bill text for AB 748
Governor Signs SB 1421 and AB 748, Dramatically Increasing Public Access to Peace Officer Personnel Records
Assembly Bill 748 Makes Video Evidence Captured by Police Agencies in Two Types of Cases Subject to Disclosure as Public Records
Assembly Bill 748, introduced by Assembly member Phil Ting, changes previous law under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) relating to video evidence captured by police officers during investigations and/or detentions of individuals. This Bill was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on Sunday, September 30, 2018, and will take effect on July 1, 2019.
Prior to the enactment of AB 748, video and audio evidence of any type (i.e., light-bar camera, body camera, taser camera) was exempt from disclosure as an “investigatory record” under the California Public Records Act if the video evidence recorded an officer contacting/detaining anyone to investigate whether a violation of any law had occurred (Haney v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1061).
Assembly Bill 748 will require disclosure of a video or audio recording of a “critical incident” within time limits specified in the Bill. The law defines a “critical incident” as either a discharge of a firearm by an officer or the use of any type of force which results in death or great bodily injury. The generally accepted definition of “great bodily injury” in California is any “significant or substantial physical injury.” (Penal Code § 12022.7(f)).
The rules concerning the obligation of a public agency to disclose video or audio evidence of a “critical incident” are somewhat murky, and will undoubtedly have to be clarified through future court proceedings which will occur when an agency refuses to disclose video or audio evidence under the CPRA.
However, at present, the language of AB 748 provides that the public agency’s disclosure obligations are as follows:
- In the event the Agency receives a Public Records Act Request relating to an “active criminal or administrative investigation” of an OIS or other use of force causing great bodily injury, the Agency may initially delay disclosure of the video/audio under the “active criminal investigation “exemption for a maximum of 45 days.
Thereafter, in the event the “active criminal and or administrative investigation” continues beyond the initial 45 day period following receipt of the CPRA request, the Agency may thereafter delay disclosure of the audio/video for up to one year if the agency can demonstrate that disclosure would continue to interfere with the active investigation. We expect that this issue will probably be litigated between the person/entity making the CPRA request and the governmental agency in the event that the agency declines to release the audio/video after the initial 45 day period.
AB 748 allows the Agency to continue to delay disclosure even after 1 year. However, if the Agency does that, it is required to demonstrate (most likely in a court of law in a Writ of Mandate proceeding) by “clear and convincing evidence” that disclosure of the audio/video would still “substantially interfere with the investigation.” In addition, if the Agency continues to delay disclosure after one year, the Agency must provide the requestor an estimated date when the Agency will disclose the audio/video, and the Agency is further required to reassess the withholding of the audio/video and notify the requestor every 30 days thereafter.
AB 748 allows the Agency to use “redaction technology” (by blurring faces of persons depicted in a video) to “prevent violations of the reasonable expectation of privacy” of the person(s) depicted. This may mean that the Agency would be permitted to blur the face of a juvenile, a crime victim, a bystander, or a person whose image is captured by a body camera in a hospital (as examples). However, the Bill also states that if the “reasonable expectation of privacy” of a person depicted in a video cannot be protected through the use of redaction technology, the Agency can then continue to withhold disclosure of the audio/video pursuant to a CPRA request. However, in the event the Agency withholds the audio/video from public disclosure under these circumstances, it will be required to provide a copy of the audio/video to the person depicted in the video and/or his/her legal representative (who may then provide the video to the media).
The concern of this Firm about the release of agency captured video and audio of officer-involved shootings or other substantial uses of force resulting in great bodily injury is the fact that this type of evidence is always graphic and can be quite unsettling to persons unaccustomed to seeing the application of force to subdue or arrest individuals. Public disclosure has the potential to create public hysteria concerning virtually any police use of force and therefore increase political and media pressure on elected and appointed officials to take disciplinary action and/or file criminal charges against the peace officers depicted in these videos.
RLS has been undertaking careful analysis of video evidence of law enforcement actions for over two decades. We will continue to perform the critical analyses which often demonstrate that OISs and other uses of force are lawfully permitted uses of force. It is only through careful and considered analysis of these videos that we can ensure that officers involved in these matters are not subjected to erroneous and inflammatory assertions made by members of the public who have little understanding or appreciation of the rights and obligations of officers to use physical force under the law, and who will likely react to video and/or audio evidence of police use of force on only first impression and emotion. source
AB 748: More Public Access to Body Camera Footage Under PRA
Amendment to California Law Gives Public Agencies More Responsibility to Provide Footage
Under existing law, the public is entitled to certain information contained within complaints and investigations of crimes, although public agencies may otherwise withhold material that would endanger either the success of an ongoing criminal investigation or the safety of people involved in that investigation. Under AB 748, recordings acquired by law enforcement and prosecutors must generally be disclosed in response to a PRA request within 45 days of the “critical incident” or the date the public agency reasonably should have known it occurred.
A public agency may delay disclosure of the recording for between 45 days and 1 year during an active criminal or administrative investigation, but only if disclosure would “substantially interfere” with that ongoing investigation. Examples of such interference include endangering a witness’ or confidential source’s safety. After 1 year following the critical incident, a public agency may withhold the audio or visual recording only if the agency demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that disclosure would still substantially interfere with an ongoing investigation. Under AB 748, the public agency is required to reassess the withholding of that recording and notify the PRA requester every 30 days. Any time a public agency withholds a recording on that criteria, the requester must be notified in writing.
Once the specific basis for withholding the recording of a critical incident is resolved, it must be disclosed. However, if a public agency demonstrates that the reasonable expectation of privacy for individuals depicted in the recording outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure, the public agency must use “redaction technology, including blurring or distorting images or audio” to protect those privacy interests prior to that recording’s disclosure. If the public agency demonstrates that the reasonable expectation of privacy cannot be adequately protected by redaction, the public agency may withhold the recording. However, a redacted or unredacted copy of that recording must be made promptly available to any person (or designated representative) whose privacy interest is protected by public nondisclosure. AB 748 does not apply to peace officers employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. source
More access also below
Section 832.7 – Peace officer or custodial officer personnel records
Senate Bill No. 1421 – California Public Records Act
Assembly Bill 748 Makes Video Evidence Captured by Police Agencies Subject to Disclosure as Public Records
SB 2, Creating Police Decertification Process and Expanding Civil Liability Exposure
California Senate Bill 16 (SB 16) – 2023-2024 – Peace officers: Release of Records
The Right To Know: How To Fulfill The Public’s Right Of Access To Police Records
PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST CONTACTS for Los Angeles County (click here for media policy)
How Access to California Police Records
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department SB-1421 Records
Obtaining a Report from LASD Records (You, 3rd party or consel can obtain)
SEARCH SB-1421 SB-16 Incidents of LA County, Oakland
SB1421 – Form Access to California Police Records
California Statewide CPRA Requests Submit a CPRA Request
How do I submit a request for information?
To submit a request send the request via mail, fax, or email to the agency. Some agencies list specific departments or people whose job it is to respond to PRA requests, so check their websites or call them for further info. Always keep a copy of your request so that you can show what you submitted and when.
from the ACLU we have 2 types of SB 1421 Templates for Sample Requests
1. Incident Based Request: Use this template if you want records related to a particular incident, like the investigative record for a specific police shooting, an arrest where you believe an officer may have been found to have filed a false report, or to find out whether complaint that an officer committed sexual assault was sustained.
ACLU Download Word document | ACLU Download PDF
or from us Download Word document | or from us Download PDF
2. Officer Based Request: Use this template if you want to find any public records of misconduct related to a particular officer or if he or she has been involved in past serious uses of force.
ACLU Download Word document | ACLU Download PDF
or from us Download Word document | or from us Download PDF
We also have more robust sample letters below:
Sample Letter | SB 1421 & SB 16 Records
Download Word document | Download PDF
Sample Letter | Police Recordings
Download Word document | Download PDF
The CPRA is now located at Government Code sections 7920.000-7931.000
The First Amendment Coalition also has some useful information to help explain the PRA process.
To Learn More…. Read MORE Below and click the links Below
Abuse & Neglect – The Mandated Reporters (Police, D.A & Medical & the Bad Actors)
Mandated Reporter Laws – Nurses, District Attorney’s, and Police should listen up
If You Would Like to Learn More About: The California Mandated Reporting LawClick Here
To Read the Penal Code § 11164-11166 – Child Abuse or Neglect Reporting Act – California Penal Code 11164-11166Article 2.5. (CANRA) Click Here
Mandated Reporter formMandated ReporterFORM SS 8572.pdf – The Child Abuse
ALL POLICE CHIEFS, SHERIFFS AND COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENTS INFO BULLETIN:
Click Here Officers and DA’s for (Procedure to Follow)
It Only Takes a Minute to Make a Difference in the Life of a Child learn more below
You can learn more here California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Law its a PDF file
Learn More About True Threats Here below….
We also have the The Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) – 1st Amendment
CURRENT TEST = We also have the The ‘Brandenburg test’ for incitement to violence – 1st Amendment
We also have the The Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action Test– 1st Amendment
We also have the True Threats – Virginia v. Black is most comprehensive Supreme Court definition – 1st Amendment
We also have the Watts v. United States – True Threat Test – 1st Amendment
We also have the Clear and Present Danger Test – 1st Amendment
We also have the Gravity of the Evil Test – 1st Amendment
We also have the Elonis v. United States (2015) – Threats – 1st Amendment
Learn More About What is Obscene…. be careful about education it may enlighten you
We also have the Miller v. California – 3 Prong Obscenity Test (Miller Test) – 1st Amendment
We also have the Obscenity and Pornography – 1st Amendment
Learn More About Police, The Government Officials and You….
$$ Retaliatory Arrests and Prosecution $$
Anti-SLAPP Law in California
Freedom of Assembly – Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment Right
Supreme Court sets higher bar for prosecuting threats under First Amendment 2023 SCOTUS
We also have the Brayshaw v. City of Tallahassee – 1st Amendment – Posting Police Address
We also have the Publius v. Boyer-Vine –1st Amendment – Posting Police Address
We also have the Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida (2018) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
We also have the Nieves v. Bartlett (2019) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
We also have the Hartman v. Moore (2006) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment
We also have the Reichle v. Howards (2012) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment
Freedom of the Press – Flyers, Newspaper, Leaflets, Peaceful Assembly – 1$t Amendment – Learn More Here
Vermont’s Top Court Weighs: Are KKK Fliers – 1st Amendment Protected Speech
We also have the Insulting letters to politician’s home are constitutionally protected, unless they are ‘true threats’ – Letters to Politicians Homes – 1st Amendment
We also have the First Amendment Encyclopedia very comprehensive – 1st Amendment
Sanctions and Attorney Fee Recovery for Bad Actors
FAM § 3027.1 – Attorney’s Fees and Sanctions For False Child Abuse Allegations – Family Code 3027.1 – Click Here
FAM § 271 – Awarding Attorney Fees– Family Code 271 Family Court Sanction Click Here
Awarding Discovery Based Sanctions in Family Law Cases – Click Here
FAM § 2030 – Bringing Fairness & Fee Recovery – Click Here
Zamos v. Stroud – District Attorney Liable for Bad Faith Action – Click Here
Malicious Use of Vexatious Litigant – Vexatious Litigant Order Reversed
Mi$Conduct – Pro$ecutorial Mi$Conduct Prosecutor$
Attorney Rule$ of Engagement – Government (A.K.A. THE PRO$UCTOR) and Public/Private Attorney
What is a Fiduciary Duty; Breach of Fiduciary Duty
The Attorney’s Sworn Oath
Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct – Know What it is!
New Supreme Court Ruling – makes it easier to sue police
Possible courses of action Prosecutorial Misconduct
Misconduct by Judges & Prosecutor – Rules of Professional Conduct
Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct
Standards on Prosecutorial Investigations – Prosecutorial Investigations
Information On Prosecutorial Discretion
Why Judges, District Attorneys or Attorneys Must Sometimes Recuse Themselves
Fighting Discovery Abuse in Litigation – Forensic & Investigative Accounting – Click Here
Criminal Motions § 1:9 – Motion for Recusal of Prosecutor
Pen. Code, § 1424 – Recusal of Prosecutor
Removing Corrupt Judges, Prosecutors, Jurors and other Individuals & Fake Evidence from Your Case
National District Attorneys Association puts out its standards
National Prosecution Standards – NDD can be found here
The Ethical Obligations of Prosecutors in Cases Involving Postconviction Claims of Innocence
ABA – Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct
Prosecutor’s Duty Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence Fordham Law Review PDF
Chapter 14 Disclosure of Exculpatory and Impeachment Information PDF
Mi$Conduct – Judicial Mi$Conduct Judge$
Prosecution Of Judges For Corrupt Practice$
Code of Conduct for United States Judge$
Disqualification of a Judge for Prejudice
Judicial Immunity from Civil and Criminal Liability
Recusal of Judge – CCP § 170.1 – Removal a Judge – How to Remove a Judge
l292 Disqualification of Judicial Officer – C.C.P. 170.6 Form
How to File a Complaint Against a Judge in California?
Commission on Judicial Performance – Judge Complaint Online Form
Why Judges, District Attorneys or Attorneys Must Sometimes Recuse Themselves
Removing Corrupt Judges, Prosecutors, Jurors and other Individuals & Fake Evidence from Your Case
DUE PROCESS READS>>>>>>
Due Process vs Substantive Due Process learn more HERE
Understanding Due Process – This clause caused over 200 overturns in just DNA alone Click Here
Mathews v. Eldridge – Due Process – 5th, & 14th Amendment
Mathews Test – 3 Part Test– Amdt5.4.5.4.2 Mathews Test
“Unfriending” Evidence – 5th Amendment
At the Intersection of Technology and Law
We also have the Introducing TEXT & EMAIL Digital Evidence in California Courts – 1st Amendment
so if you are interested in learning about Introducing Digital Evidence in California State Courts
click here for SCOTUS rulings
Right to Travel freely – When the Government Obstructs Your Movement – 14th Amendment & 5th Amendment
What is Probable Cause? and.. How is Probable Cause Established?
Misuse of the Warrant System – California Penal Code § 170 – Crimes Against Public Justice – 4th, 5th, & 14th Amendment
What Is Traversing a Warrant (a Franks Motion)?
Dwayne Furlow v. Jon Belmar – Police Warrant – Immunity Fail – 4th, 5th, & 14th Amendment
Obstruction of Justice and Abuse of Process
What Is Considered Obstruction of Justice in California?
Penal Code 135 PC – Destroying or Concealing Evidence
Penal Code 141 PC – Planting or Tampering with Evidence in California
Penal Code 142 PC – Peace Officer Refusing to Arrest or Receive Person Charged with Criminal Offense
Penal Code 182 PC – “Criminal Conspiracy” Laws & Penalties
Penal Code 664 PC – “Attempted Crimes” in California
Penal Code 32 PC – Accessory After the Fact
Penal Code 31 PC – Aiding and Abetting Laws
What is Abuse of Process?
What is a Due Process Violation? – 4th Amendment & 14th Amendment
What’s the Difference between Abuse of Process, Malicious Prosecution and False Arrest?
Defeating Extortion and Abuse of Process in All Their Ugly Disguises
The Use and Abuse of Power by Prosecutors (Justice for All)
ARE PEOPLE LYING ON YOU?
CAN YOU PROVE IT? IF YES…. THEN YOU ARE IN LUCK!
Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law
Federal Perjury – Definition by Law
Penal Code 132 PC – Offering False Evidence
Penal Code 134 PC – Preparing False Evidence
Penal Code 118.1 PC – Police Officer$ Filing False Report$
Spencer v. Peters– Police Fabrication of Evidence – 14th Amendment
Penal Code 148.5 PC – Making a False Police Report in California
Penal Code 115 PC – Filing a False Document in California
Misconduct by Government Know Your Rights Click Here
Under 42 U.S.C. $ection 1983 – Recoverable Damage$
42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Right$
18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of Right$ Under Color of Law
18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against Right$
Section 1983 Lawsuit – How to Bring a Civil Rights Claim
Suing for Misconduct – Know More of Your Right$
Police Misconduct in California – How to Bring a Lawsuit
How to File a complaint of Police Misconduct? (Tort Claim Forms here as well)
Deprivation of Rights – Under Color of the Law
What is Sua Sponte and How is it Used in a California Court?
Removing Corrupt Judges, Prosecutors, Jurors
and other Individuals & Fake Evidence from Your Case
Anti-SLAPP Law in California
Freedom of Assembly – Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment Right
How to Recover “Punitive Damages” in a California Personal Injury Case
Pro Se Forms and Forms Information(Tort Claim Forms here as well)
What is Tort?
Tort Claims Form
File Government Claim for Eligible Compensation
Complete and submit the Government Claim Form, including the required $25 filing fee or Fee Waiver Request, and supporting documents, to the GCP.
See Information Guides and Resources below for more information.
Tort Claims – Claim for Damage, Injury, or Death (see below)
Federal – Federal SF-95 Tort Claim Form Tort Claim online here or download it here or here from us
California – California Tort Claims Act – California Tort Claim Form Here or here from us
Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Non-Prisoner Complaint) and also UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT PDF
Taken from the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Forms source
WRITS and WRIT Types in the United States
How do I submit a request for information?
To submit a request send the request via mail, fax, or email to the agency. Some agencies list specific departments or people whose job it is to respond to PRA requests, so check their websites or call them for further info. Always keep a copy of your request so that you can show what you submitted and when.
Templates for Sample Requests
Incident Based Request: Use this template if you want records related to a particular incident, like the investigative record for a specific police shooting, an arrest where you believe an officer may have been found to have filed a false report, or to find out whether complaint that an officer committed sexual assault was sustained.
ACLU Download Word document | ACLU Download PDF
or from us Download Word document | or from us Download PDF
Officer Based Request: Use this template if you want to find any public records of misconduct related to a particular officer or if he or she has been involved in past serious uses of force.
ACLU Download Word document | ACLU Download PDF
or from us Download Word document | or from us Download PDF
The First Amendment Coalition also has some useful information to help explain the PRA process.
Sample Letter | SB 1421 & SB 16 Records
Appealing/Contesting Case/Order/Judgment/Charge/ Suppressing Evidence
First Things First: What Can Be Appealed and What it Takes to Get Started – Click Here
Options to Appealing– Fighting A Judgment Without Filing An Appeal Settlement Or Mediation
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 Motion to Reconsider
Penal Code 1385 – Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise
Penal Code 1538.5 – Motion To Suppress Evidence in a California Criminal Case
CACI No. 1501 – Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings
Penal Code “995 Motions” in California – Motion to Dismiss
WIC § 700.1 – If Court Grants Motion to Suppress as Evidence
Suppression Of Exculpatory Evidence / Presentation Of False Or Misleading Evidence – Click Here
Notice of Appeal — Felony (Defendant) (CR-120) 1237, 1237.5, 1538.5(m) – Click Here
California Motions in Limine – What is a Motion in Limine?
Petition for a Writ of Mandate or Writ of Mandamus (learn more…)
PC 1385 – Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise
Retrieving Evidence / Internal Investigation Case
Conviction Integrity Unit (“CIU”) of the Orange County District Attorney OCDA – Click Here
Fighting Discovery Abuse in Litigation – Forensic & Investigative Accounting – Click Here
Orange County / LA County Data, BodyCam, Police Report, Incident Reports,
and all other available known requests for data below:
SEARCH SB-1421 SB-16 Incidents of LA County, Oakland
California Senate Bill 16 (SB 16) – 2023-2024 – Peace officers: Release of Records
APPLICATION TO EXAMINE LOCAL ARREST RECORD UNDER CPC 13321 Click Here
Learn About Policy 814: Discovery Requests OCDA Office – Click Here
Request for Proof In-Custody Form Click Here
Request for Clearance Letter Form Click Here
Application to Obtain Copy of State Summary of Criminal HistoryForm Click Here
Request Authorization Form Release of Case Information – Click Here
Texts / Emails AS EVIDENCE: Authenticating Texts for California Courts
Can I Use Text Messages in My California Divorce?
Two-Steps And Voila: How To Authenticate Text Messages
How Your Texts Can Be Used As Evidence?
California Supreme Court Rules:
Text Messages Sent on Private Government Employees Lines
Subject to Open Records Requests
case law: City of San Jose v. Superior Court – Releasing Private Text/Phone Records of Government Employees
Public Records Practices After the San Jose Decision
The Decision Briefing Merits After the San Jose Decision
Rules of Admissibility – Evidence Admissibility
Confrontation Clause – Sixth Amendment
Exceptions To The Hearsay Rule – Confronting Evidence
Prosecutor’s Obligation to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence
Successful Brady/Napue Cases – Suppression of Evidence
Cases Remanded or Hearing Granted Based on Brady/Napue Claims
Unsuccessful But Instructive Brady/Napue Cases
ABA – Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct
Frivolous, Meritless or Malicious Prosecution – fiduciary duty
Section 832.7 – Peace officer or custodial officer personnel records
Senate Bill No. 1421 – California Public Records Act
Assembly Bill 748 Makes Video Evidence Captured by Police Agencies Subject to Disclosure as Public Records
SB 2, Creating Police Decertification Process and Expanding Civil Liability Exposure
The Right To Know: How To Fulfill The Public’s Right Of Access To Police Records
How Access to California Police Records
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department SB-1421 Records
SB1421 – Form Access to California Police Records
California Statewide CPRA Requests Submit a CPRA Request
Electronic Audio Recording Request of OC Court Hearings
CPRA Public Records Act Data Request – Click Here
Here is the Public Records Service Act Portal for all of CALIFORNIA Click Here
Police BodyCam Footage Release
Cleaning Up Your Record
Tossing Out an Inferior Judgement – When the Judge Steps on Due Process – California Constitution Article VI – Judicial Section 13
Penal Code 851.8 PC – Certificate of Factual Innocence in California
Petition to Seal and Destroy Adult Arrest Records – Download the PC 851.8 BCIA 8270 Form Here
SB 393: The Consumer Arrest Record Equity Act – 851.87 – 851.92 & 1000.4 – 11105 – CARE ACT
Expungement California – How to Clear Criminal Records Under Penal Code 1203.4 PC
How to Vacate a Criminal Conviction in California – Penal Code 1473.7 PC
Seal & Destroy a Criminal Record
Cleaning Up Your Criminal Record in California (focus OC County)
Governor Pardons –What Does A Governor’s Pardon Do
How to Get a Sentence Commuted (Executive Clemency) in California
How to Reduce a Felony to a Misdemeanor – Penal Code 17b PC Motion
PARENT CASE LAW
RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR CHILDREN &
YOUR CONSTITUIONAL RIGHT$ + RULING$
YOU CANNOT GET BACK TIME BUT YOU CAN HIT THOSE IMMORAL NON CIVIC MINDED PUNKS WHERE THEY WILL FEEL YOU = THEIR BANK
Family Law Appeal – Learn about appealing a Family Court Decision Here
9.3 Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant as (Individuals) — 14th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$
Amdt5.4.5.6.2 – Parental and Children’s Rights“> – 5th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$
9.32 – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship – 14th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$
California Civil Code Section 52.1
Interference with exercise or enjoyment of individual rights
Parent’s Rights & Children’s Bill of Rights
SCOTUS RULINGS FOR YOUR PARENT RIGHTS
SEARCH of our site for all articles relating for PARENTS RIGHTS Help!
Child’s Best Interest in Custody Cases
Are You From Out of State (California)? FL-105 GC-120(A)
Declaration Under Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA)
Learn More:Family Law Appeal
Necessity Defense in Criminal Cases
Can You Transfer Your Case to Another County or State With Family Law? – Challenges to Jurisdiction
Venue in Family Law Proceedings
GRANDPARENT CASE LAW
Do Grandparents Have Visitation Rights? If there is an Established Relationship then Yes
Third “PRESUMED PARENT” Family Code 7612(C) – Requires Established Relationship Required
Cal State Bar PDF to read about Three Parent Law –
The State Bar of California family law news issue4 2017 vol. 39, no. 4.pdf
Distinguishing Request for Custody from Request for Visitation
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) – Grandparents – 14th Amendment
S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)
9.32 Particular Rights – Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship
Child’s Best Interest in Custody Cases
When is a Joinder in a Family Law Case Appropriate? – Reason for Joinder
Joinder In Family Law Cases – CRC Rule 5.24
GrandParents Rights To Visit
Family Law Packet OC Resource Center
Family Law Packet SB Resource Center
Motion to vacate an adverse judgment
Mandatory Joinder vs Permissive Joinder – Compulsory vs Dismissive Joinder
When is a Joinder in a Family Law Case Appropriate?
Kyle O. v. Donald R. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 848
Punsly v. Ho (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1099
Zauseta v. Zauseta (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1242
S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)
Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards
Download Here this Recommended Citation
Epic Criminal / Civil Right$ SCOTUS Help – Click Here
Epic Parents SCOTUS Ruling – Parental Right$ Help – Click Here
Judge’s & Prosecutor’s Jurisdiction– SCOTUS RULINGS on
Prosecutional Misconduct – SCOTUS Rulings re: Prosecutors
Please take time to learn new UPCOMING
The PROPOSED Parental Rights Amendment
to the US CONSTITUTION Click Here to visit their site
The proposed Parental Rights Amendment will specifically add parental rights in the text of the U.S. Constitution, protecting these rights for both current and future generations.
The Parental Rights Amendment is currently in the U.S. Senate, and is being introduced in the U.S. House.
