bodycam Archives - Good Shepherd News - Fastest Growing Religious, Free Speech & Political Content

Police BodyCam Footage Release – California

The Truth News — Sun, 16 Jul 2023 07:50:34 +0000

Police BodyCam Footage Release – California

Freedom of Information

The federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and similar state laws give the public the right to obtain records from certain government entities. Journalists use these laws, also known as sunshine acts, open records laws, or right-to-know laws, to tell important stories about what’s happening in government that might otherwise be kept secret. While exemptions in the laws allow some information to be withheld, many government agencies at the local, state, and federal level routinely delay or deny records requests without proper justification. Explore our work in this area below. For our guide on the Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), visit the FOIA Wiki. The FOIA Wiki has information on submitting requests, exemptions, administrative appeals, and most other topics related to the federal FOIA.

Cal. Gov. Code § 6252

(e) “Public records” includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. “Public records” in the custody of, or maintained by, the Governor’s office means any writing prepared on or after January 6, 1975.

Access to police body-worn camera video

This map shows current state legislation status and police department policies regarding public access to police worn body camera footage.

This map shows the current status of state legislation and police department policies regarding public access to police body-worn cameras (“bodycams” or “BWCs”) around the United States under public records laws. See more notes below.

To search the map, click on the button at the top right to open in full-screen. You can then search by city, state, or police department.

State legislation and case law

The color of the state indicates the status of legislation regarding access to BWC videos. By clicking the state you can find more information and see a link to the bill(s) and/or case(s).

	Blue = Legislation regarding public accessibility to body-worn camera footage has been proposed, but not passed.
	Yellow = A law has been passed regarding public access to body-worn camera footage.
	Brown = No laws regarding public access to body-worn camera footage have been passed. However, some states have introduced or passed bills regarding the implementation of BWCs that do not directly address the question of whom should have public access.
	Green = A court case has decided the rules regarding public access to body-worn camera footage. Click the state to read more about the decision.

Department policies

Police department policies can be found by clicking on the black camera icons. The wording of each department’s policy regarding public access is shown in the description section. Please note — some police departments that have deployed body cameras may not have a written policy.

Because only a few states have passed state-wide rules regarding public access to BWC footage, most police departments are left to determine their own rules. As more states pass regulations, individual policies may change to comply with the state’s uniform policies. source

New California law requiring release of police body camera footage goes into effect Monday

A new California law requiring the release of law enforcement body camera footage goes into effect on Monday, July 1.

Assembly Bill 748 will require the release of recordings from body-worn cameras within 45 days of an incident, including if officers fired shots or if a use-of-force causes death or great bodily harm.

The bill was introduced by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) and signed by Governor Jerry Brown in 2018.

According to Ting, prior to the passage of AB 748, California had no consistent policy regarding the release of body camera recordings. Many lawmakers who voted for the bill believe that footage from body-worn cameras can help shed light, increase transparency and provide clarity when there is confusion in the community after tragic events. source

California Public Records Act GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6250-6270

download here or source

California Public Records Guide

California Public Records Act (PRA) Overview

10 day response time among the shortest
No formal appeals process, requiring a lawsuit
“Purely personal” exemption can limit access to agency records

Seeing as that the federal Freedom of Information Act was largely the result of efforts by Congressman John Moss of California, it should come as no surprise that the state was one of the first to enact a state-level public records law. It should come as a bit of surprise, however, that the law is a frustrating combination of good ideas with no enforcement.

Agencies are required to “comply” with a 10 day time frame, which puts it among the speediest states – assuming you get a clerk who knows the law and is interested in following it. A lack of any formal appeals process means an agency faces no consequences for a violation, unless you’re willing to sue. Fortunately, California does offer the opportunity to recoup attorney’s fees if the requester succeeds on “any significant issue.”

While that’s fairly straightforward in cases where a agency hasn’t responded in the allotted time frame, the law’s unclear language makes that more difficult when fighting an exemption. Rather than extend towards all records created by an agency, the law stipulates that the records must be “relating to the conduct of the public’s business,” and exempts “purely personal” information that happens to be on a public account. Though an agency must cite their reasoning, a broad “outweighing the public interest” catchall makes it tough to build a convincing case.

Despite these challenges (and due to the lack of any alternative), public records lawsuits are common – in fact, in 2013, citing the “tens of millions” the state was spending on the law annually, in 2013 the legislature added a measure to the budget that would gut the law entirely, turning it into “best practices.” Thanks to a massive outcry by journalists, the measure was defeated. source

The Law

Response within 10 days.
Applies to the executive branch and state agencies
No residency requirement.
No administrative appeal option.

Supplemental

Definition of public records – Cal. Gov’t Code § 6252(e)

Constitution of the State of California

“(b) (1) The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.”

TYPES OF REQUESTS — RIGHT TO INSPECT OR COPY PUBLIC RECORDS – 2023 Revisions to the Public Records Act

download here or source

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.
Download Word document | 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.
Download Word document | Download PDF

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.

Learn More…..

California Cops Can No Longer Pass the Cost of Digital Redaction onto Public Records Requesters

California Government Code Section 7922.535 states that each agency, upon request for a copy of record, shall, within 10 days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency and shall promptly notify the person making the request of the determination and the reasons therefore. In unusual circumstances, the time limit prescribed in this section may be extended, by written notice by the head of the agency, or his or her designee, to the person making the request, setting for the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched.

No notice shall specify a date that would result in an extension for more than 14 days. Per Government Code section 7922.000, certain records of a personal nature which may be part of an application shall not be disclosed where the City has determined that the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in nondisclosure.

https://epic.org/state-law-enforcement-body-camera-policies/

STATE LAWS: CALIFORNIA, FLORIDA AND NORTH DAKOTA

California considers body-camera videos public records and requires law enforcement to release video to the public no later than 45 days after an incident is recorded. The law has minor exceptions for disclosure including if releasing the video would violate the privacy rights of individuals depicted. Florida and North Dakota have recently passed laws regarding the availability of police cam footage under public records laws. Florida’s law exempts from public records law any body camera video obtained inside a private residence, a health care, mental health care or social services facility or is taken in a place that a reasonable person would expect to be private. North Dakota’s law exempts any images taken in a private place by law enforcement from open records law.

In 2018, the California Legislature passed SB1421, The Right To Know Act, which gives the public the right to see certain records relating to police misconduct and serious uses of force. You can now request these records under the Public Records Act (“PRA”) — a law that gives the public the right to see the non-confidential documents of our state and local government agencies.

Does it cost money to make a request?

An agency is only allowed to charge for the “direct costs” of duplicating the records, or the cost to create certain documents if you are asking it to create a document — like a list — that it does not already have.8 You should always ask the agency to waive costs in your initial request, but they are not required to do so. You also have the option to inspect the records by looking at them at the agency during its regular business hours, which you can do for free. You can always inspect documents for free, and then request copying only of those that you want.

Can the agency ask me to pay for the time it takes them to locate files or redact audio or video?

No. The Public Records Act allows agencies only the charge for the “direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee if appliable.”⁹ That means that agencies can charge for the costs of paper and ink, or for the disks or drives on which they provide data, but cannot charge for the time their staff spend finding records, making copies or even redacting documents. Despite this, for several years, police agencies still tried to charge requestors an hourly rate, often amounting to thousands of dollars, for the time their staff spent editing body camera video to redact confidential information, arguing that editing video was more like programming a computer to extract data (something they are allowed to charge for) than it was like redacting a document.

However, on May 28, 2020, the California Supreme Court in National Lawyers Guild v. City of Hayward (a case brought by the ACLU of Northern California) rejected this argument¹⁰ and held that the Public Records Act does not allow police departments to charge requestors of police body camera footage for the staff time required to locate that footage and edit it to redact audio & video to remove private information.

If an agency has tried to charge you for the time required to make redactions in audio or video, please see our model follow-up lettera> notifying them of the Hayward decision and informing them such charges are unlawful.

https://www.aclusocal.org/en/know-your-rights/access-ca-police-records

AB 1246 LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 1246, as amended, Quirk. Peace officers. Body worn cameras: peace officers: limited disclosure.

(1) The California Public Records Act requires that public records be open to inspection at all times during the office hours of a state or local agency and that every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as specifically provided. The act further requires that a reasonably segregable portion of a public record be available for inspection by any person requesting the public record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law.

This bill would, notwithstanding any other law, prohibit the disclosure of a recording made by a body worn camera, as defined, except for requiring disclosure to the person whose image is recorded by the body worn camera.

(2) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

(3) The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

(4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1246

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 6254.32 is added to the Government Code, to read:

6254.32.

(a) Notwithstanding any other law, including, but not limited to, Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, a recording made by a body worn camera is confidential and shall not be disclosed, except that the recording shall be disclosed to the person whose image is recorded by the body worn camera.

(b) The following definitions shall apply to this section:

(1) “Body worn camera” means a device attached to the uniform or body of a peace officer that records video, audio, or both, in a digital or analog format.

(2) “Peace officer” means any person designated as a peace officer pursuant to Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code.SEC. 2.

The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act, which adds Section 6254.32 to the Government Code, imposes a limitation on the public’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:

The need to protect individual privacy from the public disclosure of images captured by a body worn camera outweighs the interest in the public disclosure of that information.

SEC. 3.

The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act, which adds Section 6254.32 to the Government Code, furthers, within the meaning of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the purposes of that constitutional section as it relates to the right of public access to the meetings of local public bodies or the writings of local public officials and local agencies. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the Legislature makes the following findings:

Protecting the privacy of a person whose image is captured by body worn cameras on local peace officers enhances public safety and the protection of individual rights, thereby furthering the purposes of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution.

SEC. 4.

No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district under this act would result from a legislative mandate that is within the scope of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1246

California Assembly Bill 2788 LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 2788, as amended, Mathis. Public records.

The Existing law, the California Public Records Act Act, requires state and local agencies to make their records available for public inspection, except as provided. Existing law declares that public records are open to inspection during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as specified. Existing law requires each agency, upon a request for a copy of records, within 10 days from receipt of the request, to determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency and to promptly notify the person making the request of the determination and the reasons therefor.

This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to these provisions. extend that 10-day deadline to 10 business days.

The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

Section 7922.535 of the Government Code is amended to read:

7922.535.

(a) Each agency, upon a request for a copy of records, shall, within 10 business days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency and shall promptly notify the person making the request of the determination and the reasons therefor. If the agency determines that the request seeks disclosable public records, the agency shall also state the estimated date and time when the records will be made available.

(b) In unusual circumstances, the time limit prescribed in this article and Article 1 (commencing with Section 7922.500) may be extended by written notice from the head of the agency or a designee to the person making the request, setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched. No notice shall specify a date that would result in an extension for more than 14 days.

(c) As used in this section, “unusual circumstances” means the following, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to the proper processing of the particular request:

(1) The need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request.

(2) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request.

(3) The need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject matter interest therein.

(4) The need to compile data, to write programming language or a computer program, or to construct a computer report to extract data.

SEC. 2.

The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act, which amends Section 7922.535 of the Government Code, furthers, within the meaning of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the purposes of that constitutional section as it relates to the right of public access to the meetings of local public bodies or the writings of local public officials and local agencies. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the Legislature makes the following findings:

Due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the increased need to work remotely, state and local agencies have had an unavoidable burden placed upon them. Therefore, to accommodate for this, it is necessary to now allow 10 business day for responses to California Public Records Act requests.

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2788/id/2551639

AB 748: More Public Access to Body Camera Footage Under PRA

Amendment to California Law Gives Public Agencies More Responsibility to Provide Footage

The California public will have a greater right to access police body camera footage, and any other audio or video recording acquired by any police agency or state prosecution office, under the Public Records Act with the passage of Assembly Bill 748. The law mandates that audio and visual recordings of “critical incidents” resulting in either the discharge of a firearm by law enforcement or in death or great bodily injury to a person from the use of force by law enforcement are to be made publicly available under the PRA within 45 days of the incident, with limited exceptions. Approved by Gov. Jerry Brown late last month, AB 748 goes into effect July 1.

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.

https://www.bbklaw.com/news-events/insights/2018/legal-alerts/10/ab-748-more-public-access-to-body-camera-footage-u

Assembly Bill No. 748

[ Approved by Governor September 30, 2018. Filed with Secretary of State September 30, 2018. ]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 748, Ting. Peace officers: video and audio recordings: disclosure.

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 would, notwithstanding the above provisions, commencing July 1, 2019, allow 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 would allow 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 would allow 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 would require 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.

By requiring local agencies to make these recordings available, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

Section 6254 of the Government Code, as amended by Section 1 of Chapter 560 of the Statutes of 2017, is amended to read:

6254.

Except as provided in Sections 6254.7 and 6254.13, this chapter does not require the disclosure of any of the following records:

(a) Preliminary drafts, notes, or interagency or intra-agency memoranda that are not retained by the public agency in the ordinary course of business, if the public interest in withholding those records clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

(b) Records pertaining to pending litigation to which the public agency is a party, or to claims made pursuant to Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810), until the pending litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled.

(c) Personnel, medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(d) Records contained in or related to any of the following:

(1) Applications filed with any state agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of the issuance of securities or of financial institutions, including, but not limited to, banks, savings and loan associations, industrial loan companies, credit unions, and insurance companies.

(2) Examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of, any state agency referred to in paragraph (1).

(3) Preliminary drafts, notes, or interagency or intra-agency communications prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of, any state agency referred to in paragraph (1).

(4) Information received in confidence by any state agency referred to in paragraph (1).

(e) Geological and geophysical data, plant production data, and similar information relating to utility systems development, or market or crop reports, that are obtained in confidence from any person.

(f) Records of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of, the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, the Office of Emergency Services and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes. However, state and local law enforcement agencies shall disclose the names and addresses of persons involved in, or witnesses other than confidential informants to, the incident, the description of any property involved, the date, time, and location of the incident, all diagrams, statements of the parties involved in the incident, the statements of all witnesses, other than confidential informants, to the victims of an incident, or an authorized representative thereof, an insurance carrier against which a claim has been or might be made, and any person suffering bodily injury or property damage or loss, as the result of the incident caused by arson, burglary, fire, explosion, larceny, robbery, carjacking, vandalism, vehicle theft, or a crime as defined by subdivision (b) of Section 13951, unless the disclosure would endanger the safety of a witness or other person involved in the investigation, or unless disclosure would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation. However, this subdivision does not require the disclosure of that portion of those investigative files that reflects the analysis or conclusions of the investigating officer.

Customer lists provided to a state or local police agency by an alarm or security company at the request of the agency shall be construed to be records subject to this subdivision.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this subdivision, state and local law enforcement agencies shall make public the following information, except to the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation:

(1) The full name and occupation of every individual arrested by the agency, the individual’s physical description including date of birth, color of eyes and hair, sex, height and weight, the time and date of arrest, the time and date of booking, the location of the arrest, the factual circumstances surrounding the arrest, the amount of bail set, the time and manner of release or the location where the individual is currently being held, and all charges the individual is being held upon, including any outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions and parole or probation holds.

(2) (A) Subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 841.5 of the Penal Code, the time, substance, and location of all complaints or requests for assistance received by the agency and the time and nature of the response thereto, including, to the extent the information regarding crimes alleged or committed or any other incident investigated is recorded, the time, date, and location of occurrence, the time and date of the report, the name and age of the victim, the factual circumstances surrounding the crime or incident, and a general description of any injuries, property, or weapons involved. The name of a victim of any crime defined by Section 220, 261, 261.5, 262, 264, 264.1, 265, 266, 266a, 266b, 266c, 266e, 266f, 266j, 267, 269, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 285, 286, 288, 288a, 288.2, 288.3, 288.4, 288.5, 288.7, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, 646.9, or 647.6 of the Penal Code may be withheld at the victim’s request, or at the request of the victim’s parent or guardian if the victim is a minor. When a person is the victim of more than one crime, information disclosing that the person is a victim of a crime defined in any of the sections of the Penal Code set forth in this subdivision may be deleted at the request of the victim, or the victim’s parent or guardian if the victim is a minor, in making the report of the crime, or of any crime or incident accompanying the crime, available to the public in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.

(B) Subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 841.5 of the Penal Code, the names and images of a victim of human trafficking, as defined in Section 236.1 of the Penal Code, and of that victim’s immediate family, other than a family member who is charged with a criminal offense arising from the same incident, may be withheld at the victim’s request until the investigation or any subsequent prosecution is complete. For purposes of this subdivision, “immediate family” shall have the same meaning as that provided in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 422.4 of the Penal Code.

(3) Subject to the restrictions of Section 841.5 of the Penal Code and this subdivision, the current address of every individual arrested by the agency and the current address of the victim of a crime, if the requester declares under penalty of perjury that the request is made for a scholarly, journalistic, political, or governmental purpose, or that the request is made for investigation purposes by a licensed private investigator as described in Chapter 11.3 (commencing with Section 7512) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code. However, the address of the victim of any crime defined by Section 220, 236.1, 261, 261.5, 262, 264, 264.1, 265, 266, 266a, 266b, 266c, 266e, 266f, 266j, 267, 269, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 285, 286, 288, 288a, 288.2, 288.3, 288.4, 288.5, 288.7, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, 646.9, or 647.6 of the Penal Code shall remain confidential. Address information obtained pursuant to this paragraph shall not be used directly or indirectly, or furnished to another, to sell a product or service to any individual or group of individuals, and the requester shall execute a declaration to that effect under penalty of perjury. This paragraph shall not be construed to prohibit or limit a scholarly, journalistic, political, or government use of address information obtained pursuant to this paragraph.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subdivision, commencing July 1, 2019, a video or audio recording that relates to a critical incident, as defined in subparagraph (C), may be withheld only as follows:

(A) (i) During an active criminal or administrative investigation, disclosure of a recording related to a critical incident may be delayed for no longer than 45 calendar days after the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, if, based on the facts and circumstances depicted in the recording, disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation, such as by endangering the safety of a witness or a confidential source. If an agency delays disclosure pursuant to this paragraph, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the agency’s determination that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation and the estimated date for disclosure.

(ii) After 45 days from the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, and up to one year from that date, the agency may continue to delay disclosure of a recording if the agency demonstrates that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation. After one year from the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, the agency may continue to delay disclosure of a recording only if the agency demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation. If an agency delays disclosure pursuant to this clause, the agency shall promptly provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the agency’s determination that the interest in preventing interference with an active investigation outweighs the public interest in disclosure and provide the estimated date for the disclosure. The agency shall reassess withholding and notify the requester every 30 days. A recording withheld by the agency shall be disclosed promptly when the specific basis for withholding is resolved.

(B) (i) If the agency demonstrates, on the facts of the particular case, that the public interest in withholding a 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, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the expectation of privacy and the public interest served by withholding the recording and may use redaction technology, including blurring or distorting images or audio, to obscure those specific portions of the recording that protect that interest. However, the redaction shall not interfere with the viewer’s ability to fully, completely, and accurately comprehend the events captured in the recording and the recording shall not otherwise be edited or altered.

(ii) Except as provided in clause (iii), if the agency demonstrates that the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording cannot adequately be protected through redaction as described in clause (i) and that interest outweighs the public interest in disclosure, the agency may withhold the recording from the public, except that the recording, either redacted as provided in clause (i) or unredacted, shall be disclosed promptly, upon request, to any of the following:

(I) The subject of the recording whose privacy is to be protected, or his or her authorized representative.

(II) If the subject is a minor, the parent or legal guardian of the subject whose privacy is to be protected.

(III) If the subject whose privacy is to be protected is deceased, an heir, beneficiary, designated immediate family member, or authorized legal representative of the deceased subject whose privacy is to be protected.

(iii) If disclosure pursuant to clause (ii) would substantially interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the agency’s determination that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation, and provide the video or audio recording. Thereafter, the recording may be withheld by the agency for 45 calendar days, subject to extensions as set forth in clause (ii) of subparagraph (A).

(C) For purposes of this paragraph, a video or audio recording relates to a critical incident if it depicts any of the following incidents:

(i) An incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer.

(ii) 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.

(D) An agency may provide greater public access to video or audio recordings than the minimum standards set forth in this paragraph.

(E) This paragraph does not alter, limit, or negate any other rights, remedies, or obligations with respect to public records regarding an incident other than a critical incident as described in subparagraph (C).

(F) For purposes of this paragraph, a peace officer does not include any peace officer employed by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

(g) Test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to administer a licensing examination, examination for employment, or academic examination, except as provided for in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 99150) of Part 65 of Division 14 of Title 3 of the Education Code.

(h) The contents of real estate appraisals or engineering or feasibility estimates and evaluations made for or by the state or local agency relative to the acquisition of property, or to prospective public supply and construction contracts, until all of the property has been acquired or all of the contract agreement obtained. However, the law of eminent domain shall not be affected by this provision.

(i) Information required from any taxpayer in connection with the collection of local taxes that is received in confidence and the disclosure of the information to other persons would result in unfair competitive disadvantage to the person supplying the information.

(j) Library circulation records kept for the purpose of identifying the borrower of items available in libraries, and library and museum materials made or acquired and presented solely for reference or exhibition purposes. The exemption in this subdivision shall not apply to records of fines imposed on the borrowers.

(k) Records, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege.

(l) Correspondence of and to the Governor or employees of the Governor’s office or in the custody of or maintained by the Governor’s Legal Affairs Secretary. However, public records shall not be transferred to the custody of the Governor’s Legal Affairs Secretary to evade the disclosure provisions of this chapter.

(m) In the custody of or maintained by the Legislative Counsel, except those records in the public database maintained by the Legislative Counsel that are described in Section 10248.

(n) Statements of personal worth or personal financial data required by a licensing agency and filed by an applicant with the licensing agency to establish his or her personal qualification for the license, certificate, or permit applied for.

(o) Financial data contained in applications for financing under Division 27 (commencing with Section 44500) of the Health and Safety Code, if an authorized officer of the California Pollution Control Financing Authority determines that disclosure of the financial data would be competitively injurious to the applicant and the data is required in order to obtain guarantees from the United States Small Business Administration. The California Pollution Control Financing Authority shall adopt rules for review of individual requests for confidentiality under this section and for making available to the public those portions of an application that are subject to disclosure under this chapter.

(p) (1) Records of state agencies related to activities governed by Chapter 10.3 (commencing with Section 3512), Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 3525), and Chapter 12 (commencing with Section 3560) of Division 4, that reveal a state agency’s deliberative processes, impressions, evaluations, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work products, theories, or strategy, or that provide instruction, advice, or training to employees who do not have full collective bargaining and representation rights under these chapters. This paragraph shall not be construed to limit the disclosure duties of a state agency with respect to any other records relating to the activities governed by the employee relations acts referred to in this paragraph.

(2) Records of local agencies related to activities governed by Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 3500) of Division 4, that reveal a local agency’s deliberative processes, impressions, evaluations, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work products, theories, or strategy, or that provide instruction, advice, or training to employees who do not have full collective bargaining and representation rights under that chapter. This paragraph shall not be construed to limit the disclosure duties of a local agency with respect to any other records relating to the activities governed by the employee relations act referred to in this paragraph.

(q) (1) Records of state agencies related to activities governed by Article 2.6 (commencing with Section 14081), Article 2.8 (commencing with Section 14087.5), and Article 2.91 (commencing with Section 14089) of Chapter 7 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, that reveal the special negotiator’s deliberative processes, discussions, communications, or any other portion of the negotiations with providers of health care services, impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy, or that provide instruction, advice, or training to employees.

(2) Except for the portion of a contract containing the rates of payment, contracts for inpatient services entered into pursuant to these articles, on or after April 1, 1984, shall be open to inspection one year after they are fully executed. If a contract for inpatient services that is entered into prior to April 1, 1984, is amended on or after April 1, 1984, the amendment, except for any portion containing the rates of payment, shall be open to inspection one year after it is fully executed. If the California Medical Assistance Commission enters into contracts with health care providers for other than inpatient hospital services, those contracts shall be open to inspection one year after they are fully executed.

(3) Three years after a contract or amendment is open to inspection under this subdivision, the portion of the contract or amendment containing the rates of payment shall be open to inspection.

(4) Notwithstanding any other law, the entire contract or amendment shall be open to inspection by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee and the Legislative Analyst’s Office. The committee and that office shall maintain the confidentiality of the contracts and amendments until the time a contract or amendment is fully open to inspection by the public.

(r) Records of Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places and records of Native American places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code maintained by, or in the possession of, the Native American Heritage Commission, another state agency, or a local agency.

(s) A final accreditation report of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals that has been transmitted to the State Department of Health Care Services pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1282 of the Health and Safety Code.

(t) Records of a local hospital district, formed pursuant to Division 23 (commencing with Section 32000) of the Health and Safety Code, or the records of a municipal hospital, formed pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section 37600) or Article 8 (commencing with Section 37650) of Chapter 5 of Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 4 of this code, that relate to any contract with an insurer or nonprofit hospital service plan for inpatient or outpatient services for alternative rates pursuant to Section 10133 of the Insurance Code. However, the record shall be open to inspection within one year after the contract is fully executed.

(u) (1) Information contained in applications for licenses to carry firearms issued pursuant to Section 26150, 26155, 26170, or 26215 of the Penal Code by the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department that indicates when or where the applicant is vulnerable to attack or that concerns the applicant’s medical or psychological history or that of members of his or her family.

(2) The home address and telephone number of prosecutors, public defenders, peace officers, judges, court commissioners, and magistrates that are set forth in applications for licenses to carry firearms issued pursuant to Section 26150, 26155, 26170, or 26215 of the Penal Code by the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department.

(3) The home address and telephone number of prosecutors, public defenders, peace officers, judges, court commissioners, and magistrates that are set forth in licenses to carry firearms issued pursuant to Section 26150, 26155, 26170, or 26215 of the Penal Code by the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department.

(v) (1) Records of the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board and the State Department of Health Care Services related to activities governed by former Part 6.3 (commencing with Section 12695), former Part 6.5 (commencing with Section 12700), Part 6.6 (commencing with Section 12739.5), or Part 6.7 (commencing with Section 12739.70) of Division 2 of the Insurance Code, or Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 15810) or Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 15870) of Part 3.3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and that reveal any of the following:

(A) The deliberative processes, discussions, communications, or any other portion of the negotiations with entities contracting or seeking to contract with the board or the department, entities with which the board or the department is considering a contract, or entities with which the board or department is considering or enters into any other arrangement under which the board or the department provides, receives, or arranges services or reimbursement.

(B) The impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy of the board or its staff or the department or its staff, or records that provide instructions, advice, or training to their employees.

(2) (A) Except for the portion of a contract that contains the rates of payment, contracts entered into pursuant to former Part 6.3 (commencing with Section 12695), former Part 6.5 (commencing with Section 12700), Part 6.6 (commencing with Section 12739.5), or Part 6.7 (commencing with Section 12739.70) of Division 2 of the Insurance Code, or Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 15810) or Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 15870) of Part 3.3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, on or after July 1, 1991, shall be open to inspection one year after their effective dates.

(B) If a contract that is entered into prior to July 1, 1991, is amended on or after July 1, 1991, the amendment, except for any portion containing the rates of payment, shall be open to inspection one year after the effective date of the amendment.

(3) Three years after a contract or amendment is open to inspection pursuant to this subdivision, the portion of the contract or amendment containing the rates of payment shall be open to inspection.

(4) Notwithstanding any other law, the entire contract or amendments to a contract shall be open to inspection by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The committee shall maintain the confidentiality of the contracts and amendments thereto, until the contracts or amendments to the contracts are open to inspection pursuant to paragraph (3).

(w) (1) Records of the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board related to activities governed by Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 10700) of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code, and that reveal the deliberative processes, discussions, communications, or any other portion of the negotiations with health plans, or the impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy of the board or its staff, or records that provide instructions, advice, or training to employees.

(2) Except for the portion of a contract that contains the rates of payment, contracts for health coverage entered into pursuant to Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 10700) of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code, on or after January 1, 1993, shall be open to inspection one year after they have been fully executed.

(3) Notwithstanding any other law, the entire contract or amendments to a contract shall be open to inspection by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The committee shall maintain the confidentiality of the contracts and amendments thereto, until the contracts or amendments to the contracts are open to inspection pursuant to paragraph (2).

(x) Financial data contained in applications for registration, or registration renewal, as a service contractor filed with the Director of Consumer Affairs pursuant to Chapter 20 (commencing with Section 9800) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, for the purpose of establishing the service contractor’s net worth, or financial data regarding the funded accounts held in escrow for service contracts held in force in this state by a service contractor.

(y) (1) Records of the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board and the State Department of Health Care Services related to activities governed by Part 6.2 (commencing with Section 12693) or former Part 6.4 (commencing with Section 12699.50) of Division 2 of the Insurance Code or Sections 14005.26 and 14005.27 of, or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 15850) of Part 3.3 of Division 9 of, the Welfare and Institutions Code, if the records reveal any of the following:

(A) The deliberative processes, discussions, communications, or any other portion of the negotiations with entities contracting or seeking to contract with the board or the department, entities with which the board or department is considering a contract, or entities with which the board or department is considering or enters into any other arrangement under which the board or department provides, receives, or arranges services or reimbursement.

(B) The impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy of the board or its staff, or the department or its staff, or records that provide instructions, advice, or training to employees.

(2) (A) Except for the portion of a contract that contains the rates of payment, contracts entered into pursuant to Part 6.2 (commencing with Section 12693) or former Part 6.4 (commencing with Section 12699.50) of Division 2 of the Insurance Code, on or after January 1, 1998, or Sections 14005.26 and 14005.27 of, or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 15850) of Part 3.3 of Division 9 of, the Welfare and Institutions Code shall be open to inspection one year after their effective dates.

(B) If a contract entered into pursuant to Part 6.2 (commencing with Section 12693) or former Part 6.4 (commencing with Section 12699.50) of Division 2 of the Insurance Code or Sections 14005.26 and 14005.27 of, or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 15850) of Part 3.3 of Division 9 of, the Welfare and Institutions Code, is amended, the amendment shall be open to inspection one year after the effective date of the amendment.

(3) Three years after a contract or amendment is open to inspection pursuant to this subdivision, the portion of the contract or amendment containing the rates of payment shall be open to inspection.

(4) Notwithstanding any other law, the entire contract or amendments to a contract shall be open to inspection by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The committee shall maintain the confidentiality of the contracts and amendments thereto until the contract or amendments to a contract are open to inspection pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3).

(5) The exemption from disclosure provided pursuant to this subdivision for the contracts, deliberative processes, discussions, communications, negotiations, impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy of the board or its staff, or the department or its staff, shall also apply to the contracts, deliberative processes, discussions, communications, negotiations, impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy of applicants pursuant to Part 6.4 (commencing with Section 12699.50) of Division 2 of the Insurance Code or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 15850) of Part 3.3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

(z) Records obtained pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 2891.1 of the Public Utilities Code.

(aa) A document prepared by or for a state or local agency that assesses its vulnerability to terrorist attack or other criminal acts intended to disrupt the public agency’s operations and that is for distribution or consideration in a closed session.

(ab) Critical infrastructure information, as defined in Section 131(3) of Title 6 of the United States Code, that is voluntarily submitted to the Office of Emergency Services for use by that office, including the identity of the person who or entity that voluntarily submitted the information. As used in this subdivision, “voluntarily submitted” means submitted in the absence of the office exercising any legal authority to compel access to or submission of critical infrastructure information. This subdivision shall not affect the status of information in the possession of any other state or local governmental agency.

(ac) All information provided to the Secretary of State by a person for the purpose of registration in the Advance Health Care Directive Registry, except that those records shall be released at the request of a health care provider, a public guardian, or the registrant’s legal representative.

(ad) The following records of the State Compensation Insurance Fund:

(1) Records related to claims pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 3200) of Division 4 of the Labor Code, to the extent that confidential medical information or other individually identifiable information would be disclosed.

(2) Records related to the discussions, communications, or any other portion of the negotiations with entities contracting or seeking to contract with the fund, and any related deliberations.

(3) Records related to the impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes of meetings or sessions that are lawfully closed to the public, research, work product, theories, or strategy of the fund or its staff, on the development of rates, contracting strategy, underwriting, or competitive strategy pursuant to the powers granted to the fund in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 11770) of Part 3 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code.

(4) Records obtained to provide workers’ compensation insurance under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 11770) of Part 3 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code, including, but not limited to, any medical claims information, policyholder information provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to prevent an insurance agent or broker from obtaining proprietary information or other information authorized by law to be obtained by the agent or broker, and information on rates, pricing, and claims handling received from brokers.

(5) (A) Records that are trade secrets pursuant to Section 6276.44, or Article 11 (commencing with Section 1060) of Chapter 4 of Division 8 of the Evidence Code, including, without limitation, instructions, advice, or training provided by the State Compensation Insurance Fund to its board members, officers, and employees regarding the fund’s special investigation unit, internal audit unit, and informational security, marketing, rating, pricing, underwriting, claims handling, audits, and collections.

(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the portions of records containing trade secrets shall be available for review by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, California State Auditor’s Office, Division of Workers’ Compensation, and the Department of Insurance to ensure compliance with applicable law.

(6) (A) Internal audits containing proprietary information and the following records that are related to an internal audit:

(i) Personal papers and correspondence of any person providing assistance to the fund when that person has requested in writing that his or her papers and correspondence be kept private and confidential. Those papers and correspondence shall become public records if the written request is withdrawn, or upon order of the fund.

(ii) Papers, correspondence, memoranda, or any substantive information pertaining to any audit not completed or an internal audit that contains proprietary information.

(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the portions of records containing proprietary information, or any information specified in subparagraph (A) shall be available for review by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, California State Auditor’s Office, Division of Workers’ Compensation, and the Department of Insurance to ensure compliance with applicable law.

(7) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), contracts entered into pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 11770) of Part 3 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code shall be open to inspection one year after the contract has been fully executed.

(B) If a contract entered into pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 11770) of Part 3 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code is amended, the amendment shall be open to inspection one year after the amendment has been fully executed.

(C) Three years after a contract or amendment is open to inspection pursuant to this subdivision, the portion of the contract or amendment containing the rates of payment shall be open to inspection.

(D) Notwithstanding any other law, the entire contract or amendments to a contract shall be open to inspection by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The committee shall maintain the confidentiality of the contracts and amendments thereto until the contract or amendments to a contract are open to inspection pursuant to this paragraph.

(E) This paragraph is not intended to apply to documents related to contracts with public entities that are not otherwise expressly confidential as to that public entity.

(F) For purposes of this paragraph, “fully executed” means the point in time when all of the necessary parties to the contract have signed the contract.

This section does not prevent any agency from opening its records concerning the administration of the agency to public inspection, unless disclosure is otherwise prohibited by law.

This section does not prevent any health facility from disclosing to a certified bargaining agent relevant financing information pursuant to Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 158).\

SEC. 2.

California Constitution Article I – Declaration of Rights

Section 3.

Universal Citation: CA Constitution art I § 3

SEC. 3.

(a) The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.

(b) (1) The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.

(2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. A statute, court rule, or other authority adopted after the effective date of this subdivision that limits the right of access shall be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

(3) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies the right of privacy guaranteed by Section 1 or affects the construction of any statute, court rule, or other authority to the extent that it protects that right to privacy, including any statutory procedures governing discovery or disclosure of information concerning the official performance or professional qualifications of a peace officer.

(4) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies any provision of this Constitution, including the guarantees that a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws, as provided in Section 7.

(5) This subdivision does not repeal or nullify, expressly or by implication, any constitutional or statutory exception to the right of access to public records or meetings of public bodies that is in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, including, but not limited to, any statute protecting the confidentiality of law enforcement and prosecution records.

(6) Nothing in this subdivision repeals, nullifies, supersedes, or modifies protections for the confidentiality of proceedings and records of the Legislature, the Members of the Legislature, and its employees, committees, and caucuses provided by Section 7 of Article IV, state law, or legislative rules adopted in furtherance of those provisions; nor does it affect the scope of permitted discovery in judicial or administrative proceedings regarding deliberations of the Legislature, the Members of the Legislature, and its employees, committees, and caucuses.

(7) In order to ensure public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, as specified in paragraph (1), each local agency is hereby required to comply with the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code), and with any subsequent statutory enactment amending either act, enacting a successor act, or amending any successor act that contains findings demonstrating that the statutory enactment furthers the purposes of this section.

(Sec. 3 amended June 3, 2014, by Prop. 42. Res.Ch. 123, 2013.)

https://law.justia.com/constitution/california/article-i/section-3/#:~:text=SEC.,consult%20for%20the%20common%20good.

Obtaining Police Records by State

Section 832.7 – Peace officer or custodial officer personnel records

The Truth News — Fri, 02 Jun 2023 20:58:47 +0000

Section 832.7 – Peace officer or custodial officer personnel records

Obtaining Police Records by State

How Access to California Police Records click here

Cal. Pen. Code § 832.7

Section 832.7 – Peace officer or custodial officer personnel records

(a)Except as provided in subdivision (b), the personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers and records maintained by a state or local agency pursuant to Section 832.5, or information obtained from these records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery pursuant to Sections 1043 and 1046 of the Evidence Code. This section does not apply to investigations or proceedings concerning the conduct of peace officers or custodial officers, or an agency or department that employs those officers, conducted by a grand jury, a district attorney’s office, or the Attorney General’s office.

(b)

(1)Notwithstanding subdivision (a), subdivision (f) of Section 6254 of the Government Code, or any other law, the following peace officer or custodial officer personnel records and records maintained by a state or local agency shall not be confidential and shall be made available for public inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code):

(A)A record relating to the report, investigation, or findings of any of the following:

(i)An incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer.

(ii)An incident involving the use of force against a person by a peace officer or custodial officer that resulted in death or in great bodily injury.

(iii)A sustained finding involving a complaint that alleges unreasonable or excessive force.

(iv)A sustained finding that an officer failed to intervene against another officer using force that is clearly unreasonable or excessive.

(B)

(i)Any record 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.

(ii)As used in this subparagraph, “sexual assault” means 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 other official favor, or under the color of authority. For purposes of this definition, the propositioning for or commission of any sexual act while on duty is considered a sexual assault.

(iii)As used in this subparagraph, “member of the public” means any person not employed by the officer’s employing agency and includes any participant in a cadet, explorer, or other youth program affiliated with the agency.

(C)Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency involving 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 false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence, or perjury.

(D)Any record 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 conduct including, but not limited to, verbal statements, writings, online posts, recordings, and gestures, involving prejudice or discrimination against a person on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status.

(E)Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that the peace officer made an unlawful arrest or conducted an unlawful search.

(2)Records that are subject to disclosure under clause (iii) or (iv) of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), or under subparagraph (D) or (E) of paragraph (1), relating to an incident that occurs before January 1, 2022, shall not be subject to the time limitations in paragraph (11) until January 1, 2023.

(3)Records that shall be released pursuant to this subdivision include all investigative reports; photographic, audio, and video evidence; transcripts or recordings of interviews; autopsy reports; all materials compiled and presented for review to the district attorney or to any person or body charged with determining whether to file criminal charges against an officer in connection with an incident, whether the officer’s action was consistent with law and agency policy for purposes of discipline or administrative action, or what discipline to impose or corrective action to take; documents setting forth findings or recommended findings; and copies of disciplinary records relating to the incident, including any letters of intent to impose discipline, any documents reflecting modifications of discipline due to the Skelly or grievance process, and letters indicating final imposition of discipline or other documentation reflecting implementation of corrective action. Records that shall be released pursuant to this subdivision also include records relating to an incident specified in paragraph (1) in which the peace officer or custodial officer resigned before the law enforcement agency or oversight agency concluded its investigation into the alleged incident.

(4)A record from a separate and prior investigation or assessment of a separate incident shall not be released unless it is independently subject to disclosure pursuant to this subdivision.

(5)If an investigation or incident involves multiple officers, information about allegations of misconduct by, or the analysis or disposition of an investigation of, an officer shall not be released pursuant to subparagraph (B), (C), (D), or (E) of paragraph (1), unless it relates to a sustained finding regarding that officer that is itself subject to disclosure pursuant to this section. However, factual information about that action of an officer during an incident, or the statements of an officer about an incident, shall be released if they are relevant to a finding against another officer that is subject to release pursuant to subparagraph (B), (C), (D), or (E) of paragraph (1).

(6)An agency shall redact a record disclosed pursuant to this section only for any of the following purposes:

(A)To remove personal data or information, such as a home address, telephone number, or identities of family members, other than the names and work-related information of peace and custodial officers.

(B)To preserve the anonymity of whistleblowers, complainants, victims, and witnesses.

(C)To protect confidential medical, financial, or other information of which disclosure is specifically prohibited by federal law or would cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy that clearly outweighs the strong public interest in records about possible misconduct and use of force by peace officers and custodial officers.

(D)Where there is a specific, articulable, and particularized reason to believe that disclosure of the record would pose a significant danger to the physical safety of the peace officer, custodial officer, or another person.

(7)Notwithstanding paragraph (6), an agency may redact a record disclosed pursuant to this section, including personal identifying information, where, on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not disclosing the information clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the information.

(8)An agency may withhold a record of an incident described in paragraph (1) that is the subject of an active criminal or administrative investigation, in accordance with any of the following:

(A)

(i)During an active criminal investigation, disclosure may be delayed for up to 60 days from the date the misconduct or use of force occurred or until the district attorney determines whether to file criminal charges related to the misconduct or use of force, whichever occurs sooner. If an agency delays disclosure pursuant to this clause, the agency shall provide, in writing, the specific basis for the agency’s determination that the interest in delaying disclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. This writing shall include the estimated date for disclosure of the withheld information.

(ii)After 60 days from the misconduct or use of force, the agency may continue to delay the disclosure of records or information if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a criminal enforcement proceeding against an officer who engaged in misconduct or used the force. If an agency delays disclosure pursuant to this clause, the agency shall, at 180-day intervals as necessary, provide, in writing, the specific basis for the agency’s determination that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a criminal enforcement proceeding. The writing shall include the estimated date for the disclosure of the withheld information. Information withheld by the agency shall be disclosed when the specific basis for withholding is resolved, when the investigation or proceeding is no longer active, or by no later than 18 months after the date of the incident, whichever occurs sooner.

(iii)After 60 days from the misconduct or use of force, the agency may continue to delay the disclosure of records or information if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a criminal enforcement proceeding against someone other than the officer who engaged in the misconduct or used the force. If an agency delays disclosure under this clause, the agency shall, at 180-day intervals, provide, in writing, the specific basis why disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a criminal enforcement proceeding, and shall provide an estimated date for the disclosure of the withheld information. Information withheld by the agency shall be disclosed when the specific basis for withholding is resolved, when the investigation or proceeding is no longer active, or by no later than 18 months after the date of the incident, whichever occurs sooner, unless extraordinary circumstances warrant continued delay due to the ongoing criminal investigation or proceeding. In that case, the agency must show by clear and convincing evidence that the interest in preventing prejudice to the active and ongoing criminal investigation or proceeding outweighs the public interest in prompt disclosure of records about misconduct or use of force by peace officers and custodial officers. The agency shall release all information subject to disclosure that does not cause substantial prejudice, including any documents that have otherwise become available.

(iv)In an action to compel disclosure brought pursuant to Section 6258 of the Government Code, an agency may justify delay by filing an application to seal the basis for withholding, in accordance with Rule 2.550 of the California Rules of Court, or any successor rule, if disclosure of the written basis itself would impact a privilege or compromise a pending investigation.

(B)If criminal charges are filed related to the incident in which misconduct occurred or force was used, the agency may delay the disclosure of records or information until a verdict on those charges is returned at trial or, if a plea of guilty or no contest is entered, the time to withdraw the plea pursuant to Section 1018.

(C)During an administrative investigation into an incident described in paragraph (1), the agency may delay the disclosure of records or information until the investigating agency determines whether the misconduct or use of force violated a law or agency policy, but no longer than 180 days after the date of the employing agency’s discovery of the misconduct or use of force, or allegation of misconduct or use of force, by a person authorized to initiate an investigation.

(9)A record of a complaint, or the investigations, findings, or dispositions of that complaint, shall not be released pursuant to this section if the complaint is frivolous, as defined in Section 128.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or if the complaint is unfounded.

(10)The cost of copies of records subject to disclosure pursuant to this subdivision that are made available upon the payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 6253 of the Government Code shall not include the costs of searching for, editing, or redacting the records.

(11)Except to the extent temporary withholding for a longer period is permitted pursuant to paragraph (8), records subject to disclosure under this subdivision shall be provided at the earliest possible time and no later than 45 days from the date of a request for their disclosure.

(12)

(A)For purposes of releasing records pursuant to this subdivision, the lawyer-client privilege does not prohibit the disclosure of either of the following:

(i)Factual information provided by the public entity to its attorney or factual information discovered in any investigation conducted by, or on behalf of, the public entity’s attorney.

(ii)Billing records related to the work done by the attorney so long as the records do not relate to active and ongoing litigation and do not disclose information for the purpose of legal consultation between the public entity and its attorney.

(B)This paragraph does not prohibit the public entity from asserting that a record or information within the record is exempted or prohibited from disclosure pursuant to any other federal or state law.

(c)Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), a department or agency shall release to the complaining party a copy of the complaining party’s own statements at the time the complaint is filed.

(d)Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), a department or agency that employs peace or custodial officers may disseminate data regarding the number, type, or disposition of complaints (sustained, not sustained, exonerated, or unfounded) made against its officers if that information is in a form which does not identify the individuals involved.

(e)Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), a department or agency that employs peace or custodial officers may release factual information concerning a disciplinary investigation if the officer who is the subject of the disciplinary investigation, or the officer’s agent or representative, publicly makes a statement they know to be false concerning the investigation or the imposition of disciplinary action. Information may not be disclosed by the peace or custodial officer’s employer unless the false statement was published by an established medium of communication, such as television, radio, or a newspaper. Disclosure of factual information by the employing agency pursuant to this subdivision is limited to facts contained in the officer’s personnel file concerning the disciplinary investigation or imposition of disciplinary action that specifically refute the false statements made public by the peace or custodial officer or their agent or representative.

(f)

(1)The department or agency shall provide written notification to the complaining party of the disposition of the complaint within 30 days of the disposition.

(2)The notification described in this subdivision is not conclusive or binding or admissible as evidence in any separate or subsequent action or proceeding brought before an arbitrator, court, or judge of this state or the United States.

(g)This section does not affect the discovery or disclosure of information contained in a peace or custodial officer’s personnel file pursuant to Section 1043 of the Evidence Code.

(h)This section does not supersede or affect the criminal discovery process outlined in Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1054) of Title 6 of Part 2, or the admissibility of personnel records pursuant to subdivision (a), which codifies the court decision in Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.

(i)Nothing in this chapter is intended to limit the public’s right of access as provided for in Long Beach Police Officers Association v. City of Long Beach (2014) 59 Cal.4th 59.

Ca. Pen. Code § 832.7

Amended by Stats 2022 ch 58 (AB 200),s 5, eff. 6/30/2022.

Amended by Stats 2021 ch 615 (AB 474),s 339, eff. 1/1/2022, op. 1/1/2023.

Amended by Stats 2021 ch 409 (SB 2),s 5.5, eff. 1/1/2022.

Amended by Stats 2021 ch 402 (SB 16),s 3, eff. 1/1/2022.

Amended by Stats 2018 ch 988 (SB 1421),s 2, eff. 1/1/2019.

Amended by Stats 2003 ch 102 (AB 1106), s 1, eff. 1/1/2004.

Amended by Stats 2002 ch 63 (AB 1873), s 1, eff. 1/1/2003.

Amended by Stats 2002 ch 391 (AB 2040), s 6, eff. 1/1/2003.

Amended by Stats 2000 ch 971 (AB 2559), s 1, eff. 1/1/2001.

https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-penal-code/part-2-of-criminal-procedure/title-3-additional-provisions-regarding-criminal-procedure/chapter-45-peace-officers/section-8327-peace-officer-or-custodial-officer-personnel-records

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE–2021-2022 REGULAR SESSION

Assembly Bill No. 2557
Introduced by Assembly Member Mia Bonta
February 17, 2022

An act to amend Section 832.7 of the Penal Code, relating to peace officers.

AB 2557 – as introduced, Mia Bonta. Peace officers: records.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 2557, as introduced, Mia Bonta. Peace officers: records.

Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires a state or local public agency to make public records available for public inspection and to make copies available upon request and payment of a fee, unless the records are exempt from disclosure. Existing law makes peace officer and custodial officer personnel records and specified records maintained by any state or local agency, or information obtained from these records, confidential and prohibits these records from being disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery.

This bill would make records and information obtained from records maintained by an agency or body established by a city, county, city and county, local government entity, state agency, or state department for the purpose of civilian oversight of peace officers subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act. The bill would require those records to be redacted only as specified. By increasing duties on local entities, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Vote Required: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: YES Immediate Effect NO Urgency: NO Tax Levy: NO Election: NO Usual Current Expenses: NO Budget Bill: NO Prop 25 Trailer Bill: NO

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares that public access to information concerning civilian complaints regarding peace officers, including the records of proceedings of civilian law enforcement review agencies, is crucial to safe and effective law enforcement in the state. It is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this act, to abrogate the decision in Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1272, to restore public access to peace officer records, and to restore public access to meetings and hearings that were open to the public prior to the Copley Press decision.

SEC. 2. Section 832.7 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

832.7. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers and records maintained by a state or local agency pursuant to Section 832.5, or information obtained from these records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery pursuant to Sections 1043 and 1046 of the Evidence Code. This section does not apply to investigations or proceedings concerning the conduct of peace officers or custodial officers, or an agency or department that employs those officers, conducted by a grand jury, a district attorney’s office, or the Attorney General’s office, or the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.

(b) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), subdivision (f) of Section 6254 of the Government Code, or any other law, the following peace officer or custodial officer personnel records and records maintained by a state or local agency shall not be confidential and shall be made available for public inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code):

(A) A record relating to the report, investigation, or findings of any of the following:

(i) An incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer.

(ii) An incident involving the use of force against a person by a peace officer or custodial officer that resulted in death or in great bodily injury.

(iii) A sustained finding involving a complaint that alleges unreasonable or excessive force.

(iv) A sustained finding that an officer failed to intervene against another officer using force that is clearly unreasonable or excessive.

(B) (i) Any record 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.

(ii) As used in this subparagraph, “sexual assault” means 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 other official favor, or under the color of authority. For purposes of this subparagraph, the propositioning for or commission of any sexual act while on duty is considered a sexual assault.

(iii) As used in this subparagraph, “member of the public” means any person not employed by the officer’s employing agency and includes any participant in a cadet, explorer, or other youth program affiliated with the agency.

(C) Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency involving 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, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence, or perjury.

(D) Any record 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 conduct including, but not limited to, verbal statements, writings, online posts, recordings, and gestures, involving prejudice or discrimination against a person on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status.

(E) Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that the peace officer made an unlawful arrest or conducted an unlawful search.

(2) Records that are subject to disclosure under clause (iii) or (iv) of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), or under subparagraph (D) or (E) of paragraph (1), relating to an incident that occurred before January 1, 2022, shall not be subject to the time limitations in paragraph (8) until January 1, 2023.

(3) Records that shall be released pursuant to this subdivision include all investigative reports; photographic, audio, and video evidence; transcripts or recordings of interviews; autopsy reports; all materials compiled and presented for review to the district attorney or to any person or body charged with determining whether to file criminal charges against an officer in connection with an incident, or whether the officer’s action was consistent with law and agency policy for purposes of discipline or administrative action, or what discipline to impose or corrective action to take; documents setting forth findings or recommended findings; and copies of disciplinary records relating to the incident, including any letters of intent to impose discipline, any documents reflecting modifications of discipline due to the Skelly or grievance process, and letters indicating final imposition of discipline or other documentation reflecting implementation of corrective action. Records that shall be released pursuant to this subdivision also include records relating to an incident specified in paragraph (1) in which the peace officer or custodial officer resigned before the law enforcement agency or oversight agency concluded its investigation into the alleged incident.

(4) A record from a separate and prior investigation or assessment of a separate incident shall not be released unless it is independently subject to disclosure pursuant to this subdivision.

(5) If an investigation or incident involves multiple officers, information about allegations of misconduct by, or the analysis or disposition of an investigation of, an officer shall not be released pursuant to subparagraph (B), (C), (D), or (E) of paragraph (1), unless it relates to a sustained finding regarding that officer that is itself subject to disclosure pursuant to this section. However, factual information about that action of an officer during an incident, or the statements of an officer about an incident, shall be released if they are relevant to a finding against another officer that is subject to release pursuant to subparagraph (B), (C), (D), or (E) of paragraph (1).

(6) An agency shall redact a record disclosed pursuant to this section only for any of the following purposes:

(A) To remove personal data or information, such as a home address, telephone number, or identities of family members, other than the names and work-related information of peace and custodial officers.

(B) To preserve the anonymity of whistleblowers, complainants, victims, and witnesses.

(C) To protect confidential medical, financial, or other information of which disclosure is specifically prohibited by federal law or would cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy that clearly outweighs the strong public interest in records about possible misconduct and use of force by peace officers and custodial officers.

(D) Where there is a specific, articulable, and particularized reason to believe that disclosure of the record would pose a significant danger to the physical safety of the peace officer, custodial officer, or another person.

(7) Notwithstanding paragraph (6), an agency may redact a record disclosed pursuant to this section, including personal identifying information, where, on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not disclosing the information clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the information.

(8) An agency may withhold a record of an incident described in paragraph (1) that is the subject of an active criminal or administrative investigation, in accordance with any of the following:

(A) (i) During an active criminal investigation, disclosure may be delayed for up to 60 days from the date the misconduct or use of force occurred or until the district attorney determines whether to file criminal charges related to the misconduct or use of force, whichever occurs sooner. If an agency delays disclosure pursuant to this clause, the agency shall provide, in writing, the specific basis for the agency’s determination that the interest in delaying disclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. This writing shall include the estimated date for disclosure of the withheld information.

(ii) After 60 days from the misconduct or use of force, the agency may continue to delay the disclosure of records or information if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a criminal enforcement proceeding against an officer who engaged in misconduct or used the force. If an agency delays disclosure pursuant to this clause, the agency shall, at 180-day intervals as necessary, provide, in writing, the specific basis for the agency’s determination that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a criminal enforcement proceeding. The writing shall include the estimated date for the disclosure of the withheld information. Information withheld by the agency shall be disclosed when the specific basis for withholding is resolved, when the investigation or proceeding is no longer active, or by no later than 18 months after the date of the incident, whichever occurs sooner.

(iii) After 60 days from the misconduct or use of force, the agency may continue to delay the disclosure of records or information if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a criminal enforcement proceeding against someone other than the officer who engaged in misconduct or used the force. If an agency delays disclosure under this clause, the agency shall, at 180-day intervals, provide, in writing, the specific basis why disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a criminal enforcement proceeding, and shall provide an estimated date for the disclosure of the withheld information. Information withheld by the agency shall be disclosed when the specific basis for withholding is resolved, when the investigation or proceeding is no longer active, or by no later than 18 months after the date of the incident, whichever occurs sooner, unless extraordinary circumstances warrant continued delay due to the ongoing criminal investigation or proceeding. In that case, the agency must show by clear and convincing evidence that the interest in preventing prejudice to the active and ongoing criminal investigation or proceeding outweighs the public interest in prompt disclosure of records about misconduct or use of force by peace officers and custodial officers. The agency shall release all information subject to disclosure that does not cause substantial prejudice, including any documents that have otherwise become available.

(iv) In an action to compel disclosure brought pursuant to Section 6258 of the Government Code, an agency may justify delay by filing an application to seal the basis for withholding, in accordance with Rule 2.550 of the California Rules of Court, or any successor rule, if disclosure of the written basis itself would impact a privilege or compromise a pending investigation.

(B) If criminal charges are filed related to the incident in which misconduct occurred or force was used, the agency may delay the disclosure of records or information until a verdict on those charges is returned at trial or, if a plea of guilty or no contest is entered, the time to withdraw the plea pursuant to Section 1018.

(C) During an administrative investigation into an incident described in of paragraph (1), the agency may delay the disclosure of records or information until the investigating agency determines whether misconduct or the use of force violated a law or agency policy, but no longer than 180 days after the date of the employing agency’s discovery of the misconduct or use of force, or allegation of misconduct or use of force, by a person authorized to initiate an investigation.

(9) A record of a complaint, or the investigations, findings, or dispositions of that complaint, shall not be released pursuant to this section if the complaint is frivolous, as defined in Section 128.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or if the complaint is unfounded.

(10) The cost of copies of records subject to disclosure pursuant to this subdivision that are made available upon the payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 6253 of the Government Code shall not include the costs of searching for, editing, or redacting the records.

(11) Except to the extent temporary withholding for a longer period is permitted pursuant to paragraph (8), records subject to disclosure under this subdivision shall be provided at the earliest possible time and no later than 45 days from the date of a request for their disclosure.

(12) (A) For purposes of releasing records pursuant to this subdivision, the lawyer-client privilege does not prohibit the disclosure of either of the following:

(i) Factual information provided by the public entity to its attorney or factual information discovered in any investigation conducted by, or on behalf of, the public entity’s attorney.

(ii) Billing records related to the work done by the attorney so long as the records do not relate to active and ongoing litigation and do not disclose information for the purpose of legal consultation between the public entity and its attorney.

(B) This paragraph does not prohibit the public entity from asserting that a record or information within the record is exempted or prohibited from disclosure pursuant to any other federal or state law.

(c) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), a department or agency shall release to the complaining party a copy of the complaining party’s own statements at the time the complaint is filed.

(d) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), a department or agency that employs peace or custodial officers may disseminate data regarding the number, type, or disposition of complaints (sustained, not sustained, exonerated, or unfounded) made against its officers if that information is in a form that does not identify the individuals involved.

(e) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), a department or agency that employs peace or custodial officers may release factual information concerning a disciplinary investigation if the officer who is the subject of the disciplinary investigation, or the officer’s agent or representative, publicly makes a statement that they know to be false concerning the investigation or the imposition of disciplinary action. Information may not be disclosed by the peace or custodial officer’s employer unless the false statement was published by an established medium of communication, such as television, radio, or a newspaper. Disclosure of factual information by the employing agency pursuant to this subdivision is limited to facts contained in the officer’s personnel file concerning the disciplinary investigation or imposition of disciplinary action that specifically refute the false statements made public by the peace or custodial officer or their agent or representative.

(f) (1) The department or agency shall provide written notification to the complaining party of the disposition of the complaint within 30 days of the disposition.

(2) The notification described in this subdivision is not conclusive or binding or admissible as evidence in any separate or subsequent action or proceeding brought before an arbitrator, court, or judge of this state or the United States.

(g) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), subdivision (f) of Section 6254 of the Government Code, or any other law, or the holding in Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1272, records and information obtained from records maintained by an agency or body established by a city, county, city and county, local government entity, state agency, or state department for the purpose of civilian oversight of peace officers shall not be confidential and shall be made available for public inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code). A record disclosed pursuant to this paragraph shall be redacted only to remove personal data or information such as a home address, telephone number, or identities of family members, other than the names and work-related information of peace and custodial officers, to preserve the anonymity of complainants and witnesses, or to protect confidential medical, financial, or other information in which disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy that clearly outweighs the strong public interest in records about misconduct by peace officers and custodial officers, or where there is a specific, particularized reason to believe that disclosure of the record would pose a significant danger to the physical safety of the peace officer, custodial officer, or others.

(g)

(h) This section does not affect the discovery or disclosure of information contained in a peace or custodial officer’s personnel file pursuant to Section 1043 of the Evidence Code.

(h)

(i) This section does not supersede or affect the criminal discovery process outlined in Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1054) of Title 6 of Part 2, or the admissibility of personnel records pursuant to subdivision (a), which codifies the court decision in Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.

(i)

(j) Nothing in this chapter is intended to limit the public’s right of access as provided for in Long Beach Police Officers Association v. City of Long Beach (2014) 59 Cal.4th 59.

SEC. 3. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

https://custom.statenet.com/public/resources.cgi?id=ID:bill:CA2021000A2557&ciq=ncsl&client_md=1c5939e5a79f136311c30544d3e45b5d&mode=current_text

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?

Templates for Sample Requests

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

Download Word document | Download PDF

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.)

Ian J. v. Peter M

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.

Law Enforcement Misconduct

The Truth News — Fri, 26 May 2023 22:14:51 +0000

Law Enforcement Misconduct

INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS

The Department of Justice (“The Department”) vigorously investigates and, where the evidence permits, prosecutes allegations of Constitutional violations by law enforcement officers. The Department’s investigations most often involve alleged uses of excessive force, but also include sexual misconduct, theft, false arrest, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or a substantial risk of harm to a person in custody. These cases typically involve police officers, jailers, correctional officers, probation officers, prosecutors, judges, and other federal, state, or local law enforcement officials. The Department’s authority extends to all law enforcement conduct, regardless of whether an officer is on or off duty, so long as he/she is acting, or claiming to act, in his/her official capacity.

In addition to Constitutional violations, the Department prosecutes law enforcement officers for related instances of obstruction of justice. This includes attempting to prevent a victim or witnesses from reporting the misconduct, lying to federal, state, or local officials during the course of an investigation into the potential misconduct, writing a false report to conceal misconduct, or fabricating evidence.

The principles of federal prosecution, set forth in the United States Attorneys’ Manual (“USAM”), require federal prosecutors to meet two standards in order to seek an indictment.

First, the government must be convinced that the potential defendant committed a federal crime. Second, the government must also conclude that the government would be likely to prevail at trial, where the government must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. See USAM § 9-27.220.^[1]

^[1]The USAM provides only internal Department of Justice guidance. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal. Nor are any limitations hereby placed on otherwise lawful litigative prerogatives of the Department of Justice.

ABOUT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT MISCONDUCT STATUTE

The federal criminal statute that enforces Constitutional limits on conduct by law enforcement officers is 18 U.S.C. § 242. Section 242 provides in relevant part:

“Whoever, under color of any law, …willfully subjects any person…to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States [shall be guilty of a crime].”

Section 242 is intended to “protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication.” Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 98 (1945) (quoting legislative history).

To prove a violation of § 242, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant deprived a victim of a right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, (2) that the defendant acted willfully, and (3) that the defendant was acting under color of law. A violation of § 242 is a felony if one of the following conditions is met: the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use a dangerous weapon, explosive or fire; the victim suffered bodily injury; the defendant’s actions included attempted murder, kidnapping or attempted kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse or attempted aggravated sexual abuse, or the crime resulted in death. Otherwise, the violation is a misdemeanor.

Establishing the intent behind a Constitutional violation requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the law enforcement officer knew what he/she was doing was wrong and against the law and decided to do it anyway. Therefore, even if the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual’s Constitutional right was violated, § 242 requires that the government prove that the law enforcement officer intended to engage in the unlawful conduct and that he/she did so knowing that it was wrong or unlawful. See Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 101-107 (1945). Mistake, fear, misperception, or even poor judgment does not constitute willful conduct prosecutable under the statute.

Physical Assault

In cases of physical assault, such as allegations of excessive force by an officer, the underlying Constitutional right at issue depends on the custodial status of the victim. If the victim has just been arrested or detained, or if the victim is being held in jail but has not yet been convicted, the government must, in most cases, prove that that the law enforcement officer used more force than is reasonably necessary to arrest or gain control of the victim. This is an objective standard dependent on what a reasonable officer would do under the same circumstances. “The ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97 (1989).

If the victim is a convicted prisoner, the government must show that the law enforcement officer used physical force to punish , retaliate against, an inmate, or otherwise cause harm to the prisoner, rather than to protect the officer or others from harm or to maintain order in the facility. See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986).

Sexual Misconduct

Law enforcement officers who engage in nonconsensual sexual contact with persons in their custody deprive those persons of liberty without due process of law, which includes the right to bodily integrity. The Department investigates and prosecutes instances of nonconsensual sexual misconduct committed by patrol officers, federal and state probation officers, wardens, and corrections officers, among others. Sexual misconduct includes, but is not limited to, sexual assault without consent (rape), sexual contact procured by force, threat of force or coercion, and unwanted or gratuitous sexual contact such as touching or groping.

To prove that a law enforcement officer violated a victim’s right to bodily integrity, the government must prove that the victim did not consent to the defendant’s actions. Prosecutors can establish lack of consent or submission by showing that the defendant officer used either force or coercion to overcome the victim’s will. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant used actual violence against the victim. Coercion may exist if a victim is told that an officer will bring false charges or cause the victim to suffer unjust punishment.

Deliberate Indifference to a Serious Medical Condition or a Substantial Risk of Harm

Section 242 prohibits a law enforcement officer from acting with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of harm to persons in custody. Therefore, an officer cannot deliberately ignore a serious medical condition of or risk of serious harm (such as a risk that an inmate will be assaulted by other inmates or officers) to a person in custody. To prove deliberate indifference, the government must prove that the victim faced a substantial risk of serious harm; that the officer had actual knowledge of the risk of harm; and that the officer failed to take reasonable measures to abate it.

Failure to Intervene

An officer who purposefully allows a fellow officer to violate a victim’s Constitutional rights may be prosecuted for failure to intervene to stop the Constitutional violation. To prosecute such an officer, the government must show that the defendant officer was aware of the Constitutional violation, had an opportunity to intervene, and chose not to do so. This charge is often appropriate for supervisory officers who observe uses of excessive force without stopping them, or who actively encourage uses of excessive force but do not directly participate in them. source

We found 85,000 cops who’ve been investigated for misconduct. Now you can read their records.

10 Examples of Police Misconduct to Refer to for Your Case

Police misconduct is any action done by a police officer that is illegal, inappropriate, or against police policies. This is a broad concept that can range from using excessive force, performing illegal searches, selective law enforcement, racial profiling, and even sexual assault.

What are The Different Types of Police Misconduct?

Because many of these actions and concepts are broad and non-specific, it can be hard to delve into exactly what problems these cases involve. But skilled criminal defense attorneys can often use police intimidation to get criminal charges dismissed or even bring a civil claim against police for financial damages.

We’re going to go over 10 examples of police misconduct cases so you can see exactly what are the different types of police misconduct, and how it plays out in court.

1. Philando Castile Case

The Philando Castile case is one of the most famous police brutality cases to come up since Rodney King’s assault in 1992. So what happened?

Philando Castile was driving in a car with his girlfriend and his girlfriend’s daughter. He was then pulled over by Officer Jeronimo Yanez. Mr. Castile immediately reported to the officer that he had a legal gun in his possession.

The events that happened next are the example of police officer misconduct: Yanez tells Castile not to reach for his gun. Castile replies that he is not going to reach for his gun and that he is going to reach for his ID. His girlfriend, and police body footage, corroborate this story.

However, Yanez does not listen and fires 7 shots into the car, killing Castile. This is considered excessive use of force, especially considering that there was an unarmed person and child in the car when Yanez fired 7 shots at close range.

Yanez was charged with manslaughter and acquitted. However, he was removed from his position as a police officer and Castile’s girlfriend received over 800,000 dollars in settlements from the city.

2. Lying to Investigators

When police officers make an arrest, they’re required to tell the investigators that often take over the case all of the details and information they can. Lying to investigators about anything involving the arrest or the case is an example of police officer misconduct. This can be considered an obstruction of justice as well as going against police rules and regulations.

After the Mike Brown case in Ferguson, there was a huge Department of Justice probe into the racial profiling and misconduct performed by the Ferguson Police Department.

One thing they found in this report is that officers consistently lied to investigators about arrests, events, and interactions. One example given was that an officer lied about an altercation over the police loudspeaker.

This is a serious police misconduct laws offense, but the officer was only suspended for 12 hours (which, in fact, is another example of police officer misconduct, since that punishment doesn’t follow police regulations).

3. Ferguson Racial Profiling

That same report showed multiple examples of racial profiling within the FPD as well. Racial profiling occurs when officers and law enforcement officials use race or skin color as the basis for suspecting a crime.

This occurred a lot in Ferguson and is a prime example of police misconduct. The report showed that officers would target men of color, hold them, and then search whether there was a warrant out for their arrest (which is another example of police officer misconduct).

4. Planted Evidence

Officers planting evidence in order to make an arrest is a gross misuse of power and an example of police officer misconduct. A current case involving the premise of planting evidence involves Officer Richard Pinheiro of the Baltimore Police Department.

This case showed via body cam footage that Officer Pinheiro planted fake drug evidence in order to arrest a man on drug charges, which led to this man being held in jail for multiple months (all because of fake evidence).

This might be a problem within the Baltimore Police Department, seeing as another example of planted evidence was unearthed also because of body cam footage at a 2016 traffic stop.

5. Walter Scott Case

The Walter Scott case involves both the issue of planted evidence and police brutality. Attorneys involved in this case had to be both experts on police brutality, civil rights issues, and planted evidence in order to get a conviction.

If you want to learn more about or find lawyers that specialize in police brutality, check out these attorneys.

And get a conviction they did: the officer involved was sentenced to 20 years in prison for his involvement in the case. But what happened?

A cell phone video captured the events: Officer Michael Slager pulled over Walter Scott for an allegedly broken taillight. Scott and Slager apparently fought, and Scott fled the scene as Slager fired multiple shots at him (he was unarmed).

Slager is also seen to be placing his taser next to the body of Walter Scott, essentially planting evidence to make it seem like Scott was armed and using a weapon against him.

It was eventually ruled that Slager used excessive force and that Scott’s shooting death should be considered second-degree murder.

6. Sexual Assault and Rape

Some officers use their power to assault and rape alleged suspects. One example detailed how two New York City police officers arrested a young teenage woman for possession of marijuana. They loaded her into their unmarked police van and forced her to perform oral sex on them; they eventually raped her.

They threatened to charge her with crimes if she didn’t follow their orders. They’ve since been charged with multiple crimes including official police intimidation, sexual assault, kidnapping, and coercion.

7. Witness Tampering

Witness tampering is a type of misconduct where police officers attempt to change or alter witness testimony by bribes, threats, or other coercive measures. An example case of this occurred recently in Maui, Hawai’i.

Now former police officer Anthony Maldonado pulled over a vehicle in a routine traffic stop. During this stop, Maldonado noticed a large amount of cash in the car, so he stole it.

This in itself is an act of police intimidation referred to as theft under the law. That’s not where the misconduct ends, though. Once the man realized his money was stolen, he reported it to the police department.

Maldonado and four others tried to bribe the man to drop the charges and withdraw the complaint. This is considered witness tampering and is a serious example of police misconduct.

Maldonado is no longer on the force, and he faces years in prison for these actions.

8. Drunk Police Officer

Drinking or using drugs on duty is a huge violation of police rules and regulations, which makes it an example of police intimidation. A recent example: a former Georgia police officer was fired after his supervisor discovered him drunk while filing paperwork.

While this might seem relatively innocuous, image what could happen if a police officer was drunk on duty and got into their police vehicle. Or made an arrest while high. Or shot someone in a drunken rage. Or even made a huge error in paperwork that allowed a murderer to walk free.

Even the smallest example of police intimidation is a serious problem.

9. Rachelle Jackson

Rachelle Jackson of Chicago witnessed a horrific car accident involving Chicago police officers. She bravely ran to the car and pulled one of the officers out fearing that the vehicle was going to explode.

When other officers arrived, Jackson was immediately detained and was questioned about stealing the officer’s weapon and disarming a peace officer. She then went to jail for 10 months awaiting trial after she was threatened and essentially forced to sign a statement that officers made for her.

The case was dismissed by a judge and Jackson turned around and sued the officers involved and the city for a false arrest, coercive questioning, and malicious prosecution.

10. Eric Garner

The Eric Garner case is another example of police brutality as a form of police misconduct. He was allegedly selling illegal cigarettes on the street of Staten Island. He wasn’t threatening or being violent towards the officers.

The officers attempted to make an arrest and wrestled Garner to the ground. They then put him in a chokehold (an illegal maneuver for police officers to perform) when Garner said repeatedly that he couldn’t breathe.

“I can’t breathe” has become one of the rallying cries of the Black Lives Matter movement, a movement that focuses on the unfair and biased police brutality that mostly black men (but also any person of color) face.

Officers continued to press his head into the ground and kept him in a chokehold. He suffered neck injuries and died because of those compressions.

This case was considered to show police officers right that using illegal maneuvers and using excessive force. However, neither of the officers involved were charged with a crime.

The officer who put Garner in a chokehold was stripped of both his badge and his gun. His supervisor was also charged with failure to supervise and also stripped of her badge and gun.

10 Examples of Police Intimidation Cases: Wrapping Up

Police misconduct is a scary thought: police offers are supposed to be the people we trust to keep us safe. But, as these examples of what are the different types of police misconduct show, when police break the law or go against regulations, they can harm people’s lives forever.

Obtaining Police Records by State

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?

Templates for Sample Requests

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

Download Word document | Download PDF

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.)

Ian J. v. Peter M

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.

California Cops Can No Longer Pass the Cost of Digital Redaction onto Public Records Requesters

The Truth News — Wed, 03 May 2023 08:05:04 +0000

California Cops Can No Longer Pass the Cost of Digital Redaction onto Public Records Requesters

At a dark time when the possibility of police accountability seems especially bleak, there is a new glimmer of light courtesy of the California Supreme Court. Under a new ruling, government agencies cannot pass the cost of redacting police body-camera footage and other digital public records onto the members of the public who requested them under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).

The case, National Lawyers Guild vs. Hayward was brought by civil rights groups against the City of Hayward after they filed requests for police body-camera footage related to protests on UC Berkeley’s campus following the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown. Hayward Police agreed to release the footage, but not before assessing nearly $3,000 for redacting the footage and editing that they claimed NLG needed to pay before they’d release the video.

The California Supreme Court sided with NLG, as well as the long list of transparency advocates and news organizations that filed briefs in the case. The court ruled that:

“Just as agencies cannot recover the costs of searching through a filing cabinet for paper records, they cannot recover comparable costs for electronic records. Nor, for similar reasons, does ‘extraction’ cover the cost of redacting exempt data from otherwise producible electronic records.”

The court further acknowledged that such charges “could well prove prohibitively expensive for some requesters, barring them from accessing records altogether.”

This is an unqualified victory for government transparency. So what does this mean in practical terms for public records requesters? As people march against police violence across the Golden State, many members of the press and non-profits will likely use the CPRA to obtain evidence of police breaking the law or otherwise violating people’s civil rights.

These videos can prove to be invaluable records of police activity and misconduct, though they can also capture individuals suffering medical emergencies, violence, and other moments of distress. The CPRA attempts to balance these and other interests by allowing public agencies to redact personally identifying details and other information while still requiring that the videos be made public.

So when making a request for body-camera footage, the first thing requesters should know is that sometimes the individuals handling public records requests are not keeping up with legal decisions, particularly one issued last week. To preempt these misinterpretations of the law, requesters could consider including a line in their letters that says something like:

“Pursuant to NLG vs. Hayward, S252445 (May 28, 2020), government agencies may not charge requesters for the cost of redacting or editing body-worn camera footage.”

More broadly, the decision’s reasoning doesn’t just apply to body-camera footage, but all digital records. This is because the court’s ruling recognizes that because the CPRA already prohibits agencies from charging requesters for redacting non-digital records, that same prohibition applies to digital records.

So, in requests for electronic information, such as emails or datasets, you could include the line:

“Pursuant to NLG vs. Hayward, S252445 (May 28, 2020), government agencies may not charge requesters for the cost of redacting digital records.”

Additionally, people filing CPRA requests for digital records should know that the law does permit agencies to charge for the costs of duplicating records, though in the case of digital records that cost should be no more than the price of media the copy is written to – in NLG’s case, it was $1 for a USB memory stick.

The CPRA also permits agencies, in certain narrow circumstances, to charge for its staff’s time spent programming or extracting data to respond to a public records request. The good news is that the California Supreme Court’s decision last week significantly narrowed the circumstances under which an agency can claim these costs and pass them along to requesters.

According to the court, data “extraction” under the CPRA “refers to a particular technical process—a process of retrieving data from government data stores—when this process is” required to produce a record that can be released. The court said the provision would permit charges when, for example, a request for demographic data of state employees requires an agency to pull that data from a larger human resources database. But “extraction” does not cover the time spent searching for responsive records, such as when an official has to search through email correspondence or a physical file cabinet.

Requesters should thus be prepared to push back on any agency claims that seek to assess charges for merely searching for responsive records. And requesters should also be on the lookout for exorbitant charges associated with data “extraction” even when the CPRA permits it, as such techniques in practice can amount to little more than a database query or formula. source

California Supreme Court: Agencies May No Longer Charge For Costs Of Redacting Body Cam Footage or Other Electronic Public Records

In a unanimous decision issued May 28, 2020, the California Supreme Court ruled that the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) does not permit public agencies to recover from the requesting party the cost of redacting information from electronic records in response to a request for electronically stored public records. This decision reversed a prior decision by the California Court of Appeal, which held that the cost of such redactions could be charged to the requesting party.

In this case, the San Francisco Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild (“NLG”) requested from the City of Hayward (“City”) electronic records related to a demonstration for which the City’s Police Department provided security. The NLG initially requested 11 categories of records, including electronic and paper records. The NLG made a second request for video recordings of police body camera footage from 24 named officers and additional unnamed officers.

The City complied with the NLG’s records requests, producing more than six hours of body camera footage. City staff spent approximately 170 hours reviewing and redacting portions of the video that contained sensitive information exempt from disclosure under the CPRA. The task required the City to research and acquire specialized editing software to edit and redact the video recordings. The City sought reimbursement for $2,939.58 in costs incurred in copying and redacting the videos, including City staff time spent reviewing, editing, and redacting exempt portions of the requested video recordings and costs incurred in copying the videos. In response to the NLG’s second request for videos, the City indicated that it would charge NLG $308.89 to reimburse the City for its production costs.

The NLG filed a legal action seeking reimbursement for its payment of $2,939.58, and access to the second set of its requested videos for no more than the City’s direct production costs. The parties agreed that the video recordings that the NLG requested were subject to disclosure but disputed which party should bear the costs incurred in connection with the City’s production of these records.

The trial court granted the NLG’s request. The City appealed to the Court of Appeal, which reversed the trial court’s decision. Interpreting Section 6253.9 of the CPRA, which requires a requester to bear the cost of “programming and computer services necessary to produce a copy of the record when…[t]he ‘request would require data compilation, extraction, or programming,’” the Court of Appeal held that the City was entitled to recover redaction costs as a form as an “extraction” of data necessary to produce the record.

The Supreme Court granted review, and on May 28, 2020 it unanimously reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision. The Court noted that in the computing field, the term “data extraction” is generally used refer to the process of retrieving specific data needed for a particular use from a larger database. The Court also looked to the legislative intent behind Section 6253.9, and concluded that the Legislature likely did not intend to create a distinction between redaction costs for electronic and non-electronic records and allow agencies to charge for charge for time spent redacting an electronic version of a document when it cannot charge for time spent redacting a hard copy of the very same document.

The Court did not provide a clear rule for determining what is or is not reimbursable data “extraction.” But the Court did conclude that the legislative history indicated the term was meant to cover retrieving disclosable information from a government database that cannot be disclosed as a whole, such as “pulling demographic data for all state agency employees from a human resources database and producing the relevant data in a spreadsheet.”

The Court also recognized that if agencies cannot seek reimbursement for redaction costs, that places an additional burden on public agencies, and the Court noted various alternative solutions available under the CPRA. For example, the Court noted that agencies are only required to disclose nonexempt portions of records if they are “reasonably segregable” from exempt portions. (Gov. Code § 6253(a).) The Court also noted that agencies can withhold records if “the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record,” which may encompass requests that place undue burdens on an agency. (Gov. Code § 6255(a); American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. Deukmejian (1982) 32 Cal.3d 440, 453.) Finally, the Court noted that the CPRA allows agencies to suggest ways requesters can reduce practical barriers to producing the records, such as asking the requesting party to narrow its request.

In light of the Court’s decision, it is clear that agencies can no longer charge CPRA requestors for the costs associated with redacting video, audio and similar electronic records. However, there are other strategies that can be implored to reduce the costs associated with complying with CPRA requests, and agencies and their legal counsel should become familiar with them. Liebert Cassidy Whitmore has significant experience in this area and can assist agencies as needed. source

National Lawyers Guild, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter v. City of Hayward, et al., Case no. S252445 (May 28, 2020).

“I Hope They Stomp His Ass” One Officer BodyCam Recorded Saying

The Truth News — Wed, 01 Feb 2023 06:14:30 +0000

“I Hope They Stomp His Ass” One Officer BodyCam Recorded Saying

REMEMBER THESE LONG ASS VIOLENT VIDEOS ARE STILL REDACTED SO YOU KNOW IT WAS EVEN WORSE

Police-issued body worn camera at an intersection. There is no audio for the first minute.

Someone within the City of Memphis, and I hope it’s the Chief of Police, understands that the murder of Tyre Nichols is not about rogue officers. It’s not about bad apples. It’s about a police culture that encourages brutality and indifference, and if that culture can’t change, the Memphis Police Department has forfeited its right to patrol the streets.

The City of Memphis has released four videos. Everyone will focus on the last three because they capture Mr. Nichols’ murder. But someone in the city made the decision to also release body camera footage (Video 1 above atop article) from an officer who was present when Memphis police first stopped Mr. Nichols. So far as I know, this officer has not been named, has not been charged, and was not present when Mr. Nichols was beaten to death. But if you wonder whether the murder is connected to a culture within the department, this is the video to watch.

The body camera in this video captures the moments after Mr. Nichols stopped his car. It’s worn by an officer who arrives just as another officer reaches into Mr. Nichols’ car, drags him out and, assisted by a third officer, forces Mr. Nichols to the ground.

At this point, the police apparently know nothing about Mr. Nichols except that he is a Black man who was allegedly driving recklessly. No video yet disclosed by Memphis confirms this allegation and the Chief of Police has said she has seen no evidence to support it. But even assuming it is true, the officers know nothing to suggest that Mr. Nichols was armed or violent. Indeed, in the course of the entire evening, no officer indicates they had ever seen Mr. Nichols before. They don’t even imply that they knew him by reputation. So far as they know, he is simply a young Black male motorist who may have driven recklessly, and nothing more.

Yet there is no way to describe the officers’ behavior except as aggressive, abusive, and belligerent. If anyone wants to know what the warrior mentality looks like on the street, watch this stop. This is how Memphis officers treat Black male motorists about whom they know virtually nothing. Mr. Nichols, whom the police variously describe as “thin” and “slim,” is submissive and frightened as he is surrounded by what looks like three or four much larger Memphis police officers. If you don’t trust any of my adjectives, or if you doubt any of this description, I strongly encourage you to watch the video of the body camera footage (Video 1 above atop article) (These officers were part of a special unit that the Memphis Police Chief has disbanded, to her credit. The question, however, is whether she also changes the cultural mindset that made the officers in that unit behave as they did.)

The officers sprayed a chemical agent in Nichols’ eyes, apparently several times. This agent burns horribly and makes it extremely difficult to see. A person sprayed will reflexively turn their head and try to wipe their eyes, which is exactly what the officers did when the spray got in their own eyes. As they did, Mr. Nichols got up and ran from the scene. As he ran, an officer fired a taser at him and believes that he hit him.

One group of officers chased after Mr. Nichols, even though the ostensible threat—reckless driving—had ended. At least two remained at the scene, apparently because of the chemical agent in their eyes. And as one officer complains that he “can’t see shit,” he sends out his hope for what should happen to Mr. Nichols when his colleagues finally catch him:

“I hope they stomp his ass.”

He says this though he knows his body camera is recording every word he says. It is the sort of unrehearsed, unmediated declaration that throws open a window into a department’s culture. If extralegal violence were unheard of in the Memphis Police Department, if there weren’t a cultural expectation that a person who makes the police look silly has to be “stomped,” this officer wouldn’t have expressed his hope on tape. Tellingly, the other officer at the scene does not react or object to this statement, at least not that we can see or hear.

Pole camera video contains no audio

Have you ever seen someone beaten to death? Not on television, but in real life. At a certain point, the repeated blows will render the victim utterly helpless. They can’t run away. They can’t cover their face. They can’t protect themselves. Yet they’re still conscious; it’s actually much more difficult to knock someone unconscious than it appears on TV. They can still cry out and make pitiful, ineffectual attempts to escape. They crawl and moan while blows rain down. More kicks to the head or back. More punches to the face.

If you’ve never seen someone beaten to death, now you can.

The second video body camera footage (Video 2 above) is taken from a camera attached to a pole in a residential neighborhood. There is no audio. It provides a largely unobstructed view of Mr. Nichols being beaten to death by the police. It’s horrific.

When the camera picks up the scene, Mr. Nichols is already on the ground, surrounded by four officers. One, and perhaps two officers spray him in his eyes. As Mr. Nichols reflexively tries to wipe his eyes, some officers continue to spray him while others scream, “Give me your hands! Gimme your hands, bro!” As Mr. Nichols turns his body to free a hand to wipe his eyes, the police become more aggressive. At least two officers kick him in the back and head. At this point, a fifth officer arrives and beats Mr. Nichols across the back with his police baton. It’s hard to tell, but Mr. Nichols may also have been tased again during this period.

By this time, Mr. Nichols is badly weakened and defenseless. The officers lift him up and, as he is surrounded by four officers, a fifth punches him viciously in the head and face. Over and over. His head snaps back and drops. No officer tries to intervene or prevent any part of the assault. Three days later, he died in the hospital.

Police-issued body worn camera video at a second location, a residential neighborhood. There is no audio for the first minute.

In some ways, the last 25 minutes of the second video are as hard to watch as the first five. After they beat Mr. Nichols, the police drop him to the ground. He is handcuffed from behind. After a couple minutes, they drag his limp body along the ground and prop him up against a police car. And for about a quarter of an hour, the police do nothing. No one administers first aid. No one checks his welfare.

By this time, Mr. Nichols is barely conscious. He cannot remain propped against the car. He falls to the left and lolls helplessly. The police grab him and prop him up again. He falls to the right. They prop him up again. More officers arrive. They mill around, talking with each other. Someone places a first aid bag next to Mr. Nichols but for long minutes, no one bothers to open it. A crowd of officers gathers. An officer adjusts his pants and reties his shoes. Finally, an ambulance arrives and takes him away, 22 minutes after the beating ended.

This simply doesn’t happen absent a culture of indifference.

Police-issued body worn camera video at a second location, a residential neighborhood. There is no audio for the first minute.

The third body camera footage (Video 3 above) and fourth body camera footage (Video 4 above) videos are body camera footage from officers at the scene of the beating. They add detail to the video provided by the pole camera, and because they are footage from body cameras, they include audio. On these videos, you can see Mr. Nichols sprayed repeatedly with the chemical agent and the futile attempts he makes to wipe his eyes. You can hear his groans. You can hear him calling out for his mother, again and again. You can see that he never makes any aggressive movements and that an officer has his arm even as he is shouting for Mr. Nichols to give him his hands.

And when the beating is finally over and Mr. Nichols lay prone, you can see the officers wandering around their police cars, catching their breath and checking their phones. You can hear them recount the details of the chase, both for each other and the officers who arrived after it was all over. You can hear them as they get their story straight. “He was high on something, bro. He was high as a motherfucker.” “He strong, I tell you that. He strong as a motherfucker.” “I opened that car door, he punched me.” “He reached for my gun. He had his hand on my gun.” None of this happened. At least, you can’t see any of it on the videos released by the city.

If someone asked you what happened in Memphis, what would you say? Would you say that five Memphis police officers have been charged with murder after they killed an unarmed man? That’s an easy and familiar headline: “Police Kill Unarmed Man” Can you file it all away now and move on, reassured by the fact that, thanks to the tapes, these five officers will almost certainly be convicted and sent to prison for a very long time? Is that the story?

Someone in the City of Memphis understands that that’s not the story. The murder of Tyre Nichols came at the end of a long series of culturally-determined decisions and choices involving scores of officers with decades of combined experience. It’s a story about recruitment. About training. About locker room culture. It’s a story about incentives and relationships. It’s about how Memphis police learn to patrol “those” neighborhoods and deal with “those” people, a designation that transcends simple narratives about race. It’s about what it means in Memphis to be a “good cop,” and the stories the good cops tell the new guys about the difference between legal and extralegal justice.

It’s about everything that adds up to the difference between dignity and brutality, and if the City of Memphis and the Memphis Police Department can’t change the culture they’ve created, their officers don’t deserve the badge.

After this essay appeared, the media reported that the Memphis Police Department had suspended the officer whose body camera captured the first video and who expressed the hope that other officers would “stomp” Mr. Nichols. source

Video footage of incident between Tyre Nichols and Memphis Police Department

Posted on January 27, 2023

These videos were recorded on the evening of January 7, 2023, in Memphis, Tennessee. Video 1 is a police-issued body-worn camera near the intersection of Raines and Ross Rd. Videos 2, 3, and 4 are video footage at the second location, a residential neighborhood. Video 2 is from a pole camera and contains no audio. Videos 3 and 4 are police-issued body-worn camera videos. These videos have been redacted pursuant to T.C.A. § 10-7-501, et. seq. WARNING: The video contains graphic content and language. Viewer discretion is advised. The video can be viewed at www.vimeo.com/CityofMemphis

Missing Michigan girl, 4, rescued in Ohio during traffic stop, bodycam video shows

The Truth News — Thu, 12 Jan 2023 23:20:45 +0000

Missing Michigan girl, 4, rescued in Ohio during traffic stop, bodycam video shows

Lilliana Nardini safely located in Ohio after estranged father allegedly takes her from Michigan

By Stephen Sorace | Fox News

ONE AGAIN THE SYSTEM THINKS ITS DOING A GREAT JOB, THEY SHOULD REALIZE THE ONLY THING DUMB FUCKS ARE GOOD AT IS BEING DUMB FUCKS.

Police in Ohio released video showing officers pulling over a car and rescuing a missing 4-year-old Michigan girl after she was allegedly taken by her noncustodial father on Tuesday.

Lilliana Nardini was safely located and her father, 46-year-old Eric Nardini, was taken into custody on Tuesday night after Ohio state troopers located his silver 2003 Ford Taurus driving on a roadway, the Michigan State Police said.

Nardini is accused of taking Lilliana from Marysville, Michigan, earlier Tuesday after being served with a court order stating that he had to turn the child over to her mother. After Nardini was served with the court order, police said he told the mother “she would never see the child again.”

Police in Michigan then issued an “endangered missing” alert for the 4-year-old girl.

A trooper held the child and told her everything would be OK. (Ohio State Highway Patrol)

The Ohio State Highway Patrol released bodycam video of troopers locating and speeding after Nardini’s vehicle. Troopers surround the vehicle after the driver pulls over.

The video shows how tofficers spotted the child in the backseat of the car, and ordered the driver to throw the keys out the window and exit the vehicle.

As the driver was taken into custody, another trooper could be seen carrying the girl out of the vehicle.

Eric Nardini’s vehicle was located Tuesday night in Ohio with his daughter inside, police said. (Ohio State Highway Patrol)

“Come on sweetie, you’re okay,” the officer said as he took the child from the seat.

When the trooper asked the child if she was hurt, she responded, “We saw you coming and then I was scared.”

LOVE HOW COPS THINK THEY ARE HELPING! OBVIOUSLY NO PSYCHOLOGY TRAINING OR BRAINS, THE CHILD SAY “We saw you coming and then I was scared.” SO THE CHILD WAS PERFECTLY HAPPY AND FINE WITH HER DADDY THAT DOES NOT GET TIME WITH HIS OWN DAUGHTER! THE KID WAS FINE, SHE GOT SCARE FROM THE DUMB IGNORANT SHIT BAG PIG WHO THINKS HE’S HELPING! GO FUCK YOURSELF PIG BOY

Michigan State Police say that Lilliana Nardini was safely returned home and that her father, Eric Nardini, was arrested. (Michigan State Police)

“We’re here to help you, okay babe,” the trooper said. “We’re gonna get your mom over here and we’re going to take care of you, alright?”

“Okay,” the girl said.

Police said Nardini was arrested without incident and Liliana was returned home safely.

CPRA Request Report / BodyCam Release / Incident Report Request / Other Data from for Orange County California

The Truth News — Sat, 29 Oct 2022 08:39:19 +0000

CPRA Request Report /
BodyCam Release /
Incident Report Request /
Other Data from for California and the OCSD

WHAT IS THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT?

In 1968, the California Legislature enacted the California Public Records Act (CPRA) under Government Code (GC) sections 6250-6270. In its findings and declarations, mindful of the right of individuals’ privacy, the Legislature declared it was the public’s right to access information concerning the people’s business.

WHAT IS A PUBLIC RECORD?

As defined in the California Public Records Act, Government Code section 6252 “public records include any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.”

WHO CAN MAKE A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST?

Any person can make a Public Records request.

HOW TO MAKE A PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST

Pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7(b)(1)(A)-(C) and the California Public Records Act (Government Code section 6250, et seq., or the “CPRA”) these records are now available for public review unless a legal exemption preventing disclosure applies.

Once a Public Records Act coordinator receives a request for public records, they should make an initial determination of whether the requested records are subject to public disclosure. The CDCR must respond to the requester within 10 calendar days of receiving the request with CDCR’s determination whether it has responsive records. With written notice to the requester, this deadline may be extended by up to an additional 14 days to accommodate unusual circumstances. A list of these circumstances can be found in Government Code section 6253(c)(1)-(4). Additionally, CDCR staff should redact all exempt information with the records and then promptly send the public records to the requester. If some or all requested records are withheld from release, the responsible CDCR staff must explain why in a written response.

CPRA REQUEST GUIDELINES

Guidelines for Making a California Public Records Act (CPRA) Request

Reports and other documents requested without a subpoena, court order or specific statutory authority will be treated as a request made under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). Many of the Sheriff’s records may be exempt from disclosure under the provisions of the CRPA. Cal. Gov. Code § 7920.000. In order to identify responsive records and review them for possible exemptions, the Sheriff may take up to 10 days to respond to a CPRA request (Cal. Gov. Code § 7927.700) and, if necessary, may take a reasonable period of time thereafter to produce the non-exempt records that are responsive to the request (Motorola Communication & Electronics v. Dept. of General Svcs., 55 Cal. App. 4th 1340, 1349 (1997)).

You will want to include the following information to ensure the scope of the request is understood and clear enough for personnel to determine if we have the records you are requesting:

· A clear and specific description of the record
· The date(s) of the record
· Location where the incident occurred
· The subject of the record
· Any additional information that helps staff identify the record
· Your contact information, only if you want to be notified when your request is available.

Prompt access to public records is required by the CPRA (Government Code 6253). The 10–day period mentioned in the CPRA is not a deadline for producing records. Should the request be voluminous, the records are housed in a location other than the location the record is being sought, the Department may need a reasonable amount of time to review and inspect records; therefore, it may take longer before the records can be made available. The Department will make every effort to keep you apprised of timeframes.

This is for Orange County only everything in orange!

The parasites charge even though all supplies are paid for by us US taxpayers, just another way to slow poor people down as OCSD is pure tyrants to anyone who questions their incompetence and lack of authority
Per Board resolution, copies are $0.15 per page. Bring pennies and make them count them! there is no law stating you have to count the money infront of them. count it at home, hand it to them, it is legal tender in the US, make sure it is out of the wrappers so they have to think, count, stack, and do some work, lazy incomps hate that

To make a CPRA request to the Sheriff’s Department you may:

Send an e-mail to: prarequests@ocsheriff.gov
Mail a written request to: 320 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92703, ATTN: CPRA
In person, visit the Public Counter click here for directions
Fax a request to: (714) 834-5466, ATTN: CPRA
Telephone : (714) 834-6781 or (714) 834-4497

cited and cited

REPORT – CPRA REQUEST

Report Request

Email your request to: reportrequest@ocsheriff.gov
Report Request Guidelines

CPRA Request

Email your request to: prarequests@ocsheriff.gov
Guidelines for making a California Public Records Act (CPRA) request

PUBLIC RECORDS ACT FORM & INSTRUCTIONS Orange County District Attorney’s Office Special Prosecutions – PRA Request Click Here

OCDAPRASubmissions@da.ocgov.com

You will receive a response to your PRA within 10 days of OCDA’s receipt of your request. In some cases, additional time may be needed to procure requested documents.

i suggest avoid the PURE SCUM LIARS AND TRAMPLERS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY OCSD OCDA OFFICE JUST GO HERE

Here is the Public Records Service Act Portal for all of CALIFORNIA Click Here

REPORT REQUEST GUIDELINES

Before requesting a copy of an OCSD report, please call the Records unit at 714-834-6454 to confirm if the report is available. Phone lines are open Monday-Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., however office doors are closed at 4:00 p.m.

Depending on the complexity of the report, it takes an average of 7 – 10 days for a report to be finalized by the Deputy, approved by the Sergeant, and submitted to the Information Management Bureau for processing. Once the report is available, you may submit your request using the form provided below.

Please be advised that reports requested without a subpoena, court order or specific statutory authority will be treated as a request made under the California Public Records Act. (See Cal. Gov. Code 7923.600). The Sheriff’s Department may take up to 10 calendar days to respond to your request (Cal. Gov. Code 7922.535) and, if necessary, may take a reasonable period of time thereafter to produce the non-exempt records responsive to your request.

To Make a Report Request by Email

In an effort to save processing time, an electronic version of the Request Authorization for Release of Case Information form can be downloaded below.

To request a report via email, follow these steps:

Step 1: Download the form.
Step 2: Save the document to your computer and complete it.
Step 3: Email your request to reportrequest@ocsheriff.gov with your completed document attached.

To Make a Report Request in Person, via U.S. Mail or by Fax

You may submit a report request in person, via U.S. mail or fax.

For in person: Visit the Records Division in Santa Ana between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Click here for directions.
Via U.S. mail: Send the request to P.O. Box 449, Santa Ana, CA 92702
Via Fax: Send the request to 714-834-5466

Per Board resolution, the cost of a report is fifteen cents ($0.15) per page with the exception of a Domestic Violence report which is released at no cost to the victim pursuant to Family Code section 6228. If your request is approved, you will be contacted to arrange pick-up and payment of the report. If your request is denied, you will receive a written denial in accordance with Government Code section 7922.540(a).

Guidelines for releasing reports are as follows:

Crime and Incident Reports

Released to:

Victim(s)
Authorized representative of victim
Insurance carrier against which a claim has been made and/or might be made
Person suffering bodily injury, property damage or loss

Not released:

If the disclosure would endanger the safety of a witness or other involved party
If disclosure could endanger the successful completion of an investigation and/or related investigation
Name and address of a victim(s) of certain specified crimes will not be disclosed
If the Department is prohibited by law from releasing the report (e.g. elder abuse reports)

Traffic Collision Reports

Released to:

Drivers involved in the collision
Registered owners of vehicles involved
Parents of a minor driver involved
Passengers listed in the report
Insurance companies
Those incurring property damage as a result of the accident
Those who may incur civil liability as a result of the accident
Any attorney who declares that he or she represents any of the above persons

Juvenile Reports

Released to:

Parents of a juvenile may receive a copy of certain types of reports if their child is the only juvenile identified in the report.

All other requesters must petition the Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court directly for the release of juvenile records. The Juvenile Court has the exclusive authority to determine whom, and the extent to which juvenile record information may be released.

Request Authorization Form Release of Case Information – Click Here

PUBLIC RECORDS

Requests for Copies of Campaign Statements and Statements of Economic Interest

All statements filed pursuant to the Political Reform Act are public documents and are open for public inspection and reproduction during regular business hours no later than the second business day after they are received in the Office of the City Clerk. The City does not impose any conditions upon persons desiring to inspect or reproduce campaign statements and no information or identification is required. Copies are available at 50 cents per page.

Access to Public Records

Public records are accessible at all times during regular office hours and can be inspected at no charge. In most cases, the City Clerk’s Office is able to provide records immediately upon request. On occasion, additional time is necessary to compile requested information as provided for in the Public Records Act. Copies are available at 50 cents per page.

How to Request Public Records

Public Records are made through the City Clerk’s Office
City of La Habra
110 East La Habra Boulevard
La Habra, CA 90631

Online: You are not required to submit your request in writing; however, we’ve provided a Public Records Request form to assist you in making a request online.

Important – for request sent by email or online, you will receive an email confirmation. If you do not receive a confirmation, please call (562) 383-4030.

Orange County Data, BodyCam, Police Report, Incident Reports, and all other available known requests for data below:

APPLICATION TO EXAMINE LOCAL ARREST RECORD UNDER CPC 13321 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 FormRelease of Case Information – Click Here

CPRA Public Records Act Data Request – Click Here

Here is the Public Records Service Act Portal for all of CALIFORNIA Click Here

To Learn More…. Read MORE Below and click the links Below

Abuse & Neglect – The Reporters (Police, D.A & Medical & the Bad Actors)

If You Would Like to Learn More About: The California Mandated Reporting Law Click Here

To Read the Penal Code § 11164-11166 – Child Abuse or Neglect Reporting Act – California Penal Code 11164-11166 Article 2.5. (CANRA) Click Here

Mandated Reporter form Mandated Reporter FORM 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 files taken from

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….

$$ Retaliatory Arrests and Prosecution $$

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

We also have the Freedom of the Press – Flyers, Newspaper, Leaflets, Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment

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

ARE PEOPLE LYING ON YOU? CAN YOU PROVE IT? IF YES…. THEN YOU ARE IN LUCK!

We also have the Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law

We also have the Federal Perjury – Definition by Law

We also have the Penal Code 132 PC – Offering False Evidence

We also have the Penal Code 134 PC – Preparing False Evidence

We also have the Penal Code 118.1 PC – Police Officer$ Filing False Report$

We also have the Spencer v. Peters– Police Fabrication of Evidence – 14th Amendment

We also have the Penal Code 148.5 PC – Making a False Police Report in California

We also have the Penal Code 115 PC – Filing a False Document in California

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

Know Your Rights Click Here (must read!)

Under 42 U.S.C. $ection 1983 – Recoverable Damage$

42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Right$

$ection 1983 Lawsuit – How to Bring a Civil Rights Claim

18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of Right$ Under Color of Law

18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against Right$

$uing for Misconduct – Know More of Your Right$

Police Misconduct in California – How to Bring a Lawsuit

Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct – Know What it is!

New Supreme Court Ruling – makes it easier to sue police

RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR CHILDREN & YOUR CONSTITUIONAL RIGHT$ + RULING$

YOU CANNOT GET BACK TIME BUT YOU CAN HIT THOSE PUNKS WHERE THEY WILL FEEL YOU = THEIR BANK

We also have the 9.3 Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant as (Individuals) — 14th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

We also have the Amdt5.4.5.6.2 – Parental and Children’s Rights 5th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

We also have the 9.32 – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship – 14th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

We also have the California Civil Code Section 52.1 Interference with exercise or enjoyment of individual rights

We also have the Parent’s Rights & Children’s Bill of Rights SCOTUS RULINGS FOR YOUR PARENT RIGHTS

We also have a SEARCH of our site for all articles relating for PARENTS RIGHTS Help!

GRANDPARENT CASE LAW

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) – Grandparents – 14th Amendment

Third “PRESUMED PARENT” Family Code 7612(C) – Requires Established Relationship Required

S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)

9.32 Particular Rights – Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship

Parent’s Rights & Children’s Bill of Rights

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

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

Retrieving Evidence / Internal Investigation Case

Fighting Discovery Abuse in Litigation – Forensic & Investigative Accounting – Click Here

Conviction Integrity Unit (“CIU”) of the Orange County District Attorney OCDA – Click Here

Orange County Data, BodyCam, Police Report, Incident Reports, and all other available known requests for data below:

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 FormRelease of Case Information – Click Here

CPRA Public Records Act Data Request – Click Here

Here is the Public Records Service Act Portal for all of CALIFORNIA Click Here

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

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 Judicial & Prosecutorial Conduct

Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards

Download Here this Recommended Citation

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.

bodycam Archives - Good Shepherd News - Fastest Growing Religious, Free Speech & Political Content

Police BodyCam Footage Release – California

Police BodyCam Footage Release – California

New California law requiring release of police body camera footage goes into effect Monday

California Public Records Act GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6250-6270

download here or source

California Public Records Guide

California Public Records Act (PRA) Overview

The Law

Supplemental

Article I, California Constitution

TYPES OF REQUESTS — RIGHT TO INSPECT OR COPY PUBLIC RECORDS – 2023 Revisions to the Public Records Act

download here or source

Templates for Sample Requests

Learn More…..

California Cops Can No Longer Pass the Cost of Digital Redaction onto Public Records Requesters

STATE LAWS: CALIFORNIA, FLORIDA AND NORTH DAKOTA

AB 1246 LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

California Assembly Bill 2788 LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 748: More Public Access to Body Camera Footage Under PRA

Assembly Bill No. 748

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

6254.

California Constitution Article I – Declaration of Rights

Obtaining Police Records by State

Section 832.7 – Peace officer or custodial officer personnel records

Obtaining Police Records by State

Cal. Pen. Code § 832.7

Section 832.7 – Peace officer or custodial officer personnel records

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE–2021-2022 REGULAR SESSION

Assembly Bill No. 2557 Introduced by Assembly Member Mia Bonta February 17, 2022

An act to amend Section 832.7 of the Penal Code, relating to peace officers.

AB 2557 – as introduced, Mia Bonta. Peace officers: records.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

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)

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department SB-1421 Records

Obtaining a Report from LASD Records (You, 3rd party or consel can obtain)

SB1421 – Form Access to California Police Records

California Statewide CPRA Requests Submit a CPRA Request

How do I submit a request for information?

from the ACLU we have 2 types of SB 1421 Templates for Sample Requests

We also have more robust sample letters below:

Sample Letter | SB 1421 & SB 16 Records

Sample Letter | Police Recordings

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)

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

Assembly Bill No. 2557
Introduced by Assembly Member Mia Bonta
February 17, 2022

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

ALL POLICE CHIEFS, SHERIFFS AND COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENTS INFO BULLETIN:
Click Here Officers and DA’s for (Procedure to Follow)

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

National District Attorneys Association puts out its standards
National Prosecution Standards – NDD can be found here

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