On September 30, 2018, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. signed two significant pieces of legislation, Senate Bill 1421 and Assembly Bill 748, that will require major changes in how law enforcement agencies respond to requests for peace officer personnel records.

In short, these two statutes will allow members of the public to obtain certain peace officer personnel records that were previously available only through the Pitchess procedure by making a request under the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) request.

Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1421 amends Government Code Section 832.7 to generally require disclosure of records and information relating to the following types of incidents in response to a request under the CPRA:

• Records relating to the report, investigation, or findings of an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer.
• Records relating to the report, investigation or findings of an incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person results in death or great bodily injury.
• Records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public. “Sexual assault” is defined for the purposes of section 832.7 as the commission or attempted initiation of a sexual act with a member of the public by means of force, threat, coercion, extortion, offer of leniency or any other official favor, or under the color of authority.   The propositioning for or commission of any sexual act while on duty is considered a sexual assault.
• Records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction of evidence or falsifying or concealing of evidence.

AB 748 requires agencies, effective July 1, 2019, to produce video and audio recordings of “critical incidents,” defined as an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer, or an incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death or great bodily injury, in response to CPRA requests.

These statutes have different timelines for production of records, and different circumstances under which production of records can be delayed or records can be withheld. Further, agencies may wish to evaluate their document retention policies in light of these new disclosure requirements.  Agencies should work closely with trusted legal counsel to ensure compliance with both statutes.

AB 748 requires agencies, effective July 1, 2019, to produce video and audio recordings of “critical incidents,” defined as an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer, or an incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death or great bodily injury, in response to CPRA requests.

These statutes have different timelines for production of records, and different circumstances under which production of records can be delayed or records can be withheld. Further, agencies may wish to evaluate their document retention policies in light of these new disclosure requirements.  Agencies should work closely with trusted legal counsel to ensure compliance with both statutes. source

CA Laws Intersect to Create New, More Immediate Disclosure Obligations for Police Recordings

Now, more than ever, Californians have greater access to police personnel records, body and dashboard camera footage and other recordings acquired by police agencies due to companion laws Senate Bill 1821 and Assembly Bill 748. Signed into law in 2018, these laws alter the way law enforcement agencies respond to California Public Records Act requests for records relating to critical incidents.

Agencies have operated under the authority of these laws since January 2019 (SB 1421) and July 2019 (AB 748), but questions remain about permitted delays and redactions, privacy, criminal proceedings and internal investigations. Agencies did receive some disclosure clarity earlier this year when a judge held that, while SB 1421 applies prospectively, it still requires an agency to publicly release pre-2019 police personnel records it maintains in response to CPRA requests to critical incidents.

However, further case law doesn’t yet exist to help responding agencies answer many of the outstanding questions.

Without court opinions to guide an agency’s practices, agencies can look to the legislative intent of the bills to better understand what images and data are subject to redaction, the limited circumstances that warrant a delay in a record’s release and privacy interests often associated with these types of records.

Closed Off and Confidential 

Prior to SB 1421 and AB 748, California was one of the most secretive states when it came to the release of video, audio and other records relating to critical incidents. Generally, exempt from public disclosure under the CPRA, they were protected as investigatory files or confidential police officer personnel records.

Then, courts and policies shifted.

Beginning in 2016 with the California Court of Appeal’s ruling in City of Eureka v. Superior Court, the court held that police “dashcam” footage was not protected as a confidential personnel record simply because it might later be used by a police department in connection with a complaint or investigation.

Next came the Los Angeles Police Department’s Critical Incident Video Release Policy, which, revised in 2018, stated that the Department would release to the public video of critical incidents within 45 days of the incident.

At the same time, California lawmakers were grappling with how to mandate similar access statewide. Their debate centered on how to increase transparency while also respecting the privacy rights at issue, and the new LAPD policy provided them a roadmap.

Enter SB 1421 and AB 748.

Critical Incidents Spark Release

Under both laws, the general principles for processing CPRA requests apply equally. As such, the CPRA dictates that an agency must make a determination of whether it has responsive records within 10 calendar days of receiving a request. A rule governing a 14-day extension still applies. Agencies are still expected to produce records within a “reasonable” amount of time, and traditionally, the CPRA allows for a few, specific reasons to delay the production of records. This is where SB 1421 and AB 748 differ.

SB 1421 amended California Penal Code section 832.7 governing police personnel records to strengthen the public’s faith in law enforcement by ensuring its right to access to reports of potential police misconduct, civilians’ rights violation and use or deadly force. source

Law Enforcement Agencies Must Disclose Video and Audio Recordings Even  if it is Relating to a “Critical Incident” and Certain Investigation Records Without Pitchess Process Under New Laws

Governor Brown has signed two new laws to require law enforcement agencies to provide, in response to a California Public Records Act request, certain information that was previously exempt from disclosure and, in some instances, was confidential and subject to Pitchess Motion requirements.

AB 748:
Starting on July 1, 2019, video and audio recordings that relate to a “critical incident” are no longer exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act. A “critical incident” is defined as either 1) an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; or 2) an incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death or great bodily injury. The timing of the disclosure is subject to the deadlines already in place in the Public Records Act, except the agency may take additional time, as specified in amended Government Code section 6254(f), if the agency demonstrates that disclosure would substantially interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation. However, there are specific requirements set forth in Government Code section 6254(f)(4)(A) to justify the delay in disclosure.

SB 1421:
Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 state that peace officer personnel files are confidential and cannot be disclosed absent compliance with Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1046 (i.e., a Pitchess Motion). However, effective January 1, 2019, certain peace officer or custodial officer personnel records are no longer confidential and shall be made available for public inspection pursuant to the Public Records Act.

Specifically, records relating to the report, investigation, or findings of 1) an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; 2) an incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer resulted in death or great bodily injury; 3) an incident in which a sustained finding was made regarding sexual assault involving a member of the public; and 4) incidents relating to sustained findings of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer must be made available pursuant to the Public Records Act.

The amended Penal Code section 832.7 contains important provisions regarding the specific types of records that are subject to disclosure, which information may be redacted from the records, and under what circumstances the agency may delay disclosure and for how long.

Law enforcement agencies and custodians of records should prepare for significant numbers of new requests for this information when the new laws take effect, and should consult with legal counsel regarding the possible need for new policies and procedures. source

California bill requires cops to release body cam video

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A longstanding national debate about police transparency and privacy has been reignited in California with legislation that would require law enforcement agencies to release body camera video and recordings of fatal police shootings and other significant incidents.

The proposal, which comes amid a push across the U.S. for body camera recordings to be released more quickly after fatal police shootings, seeks to establish a statewide policy on when body camera footage and other audio and video recordings should be released.

The state Senate’s Public Safety Committee has scheduled a hearing Tuesday on Assembly Bill 748, which would amend California’s public records statute to limit the discretion that police departments have for withholding body camera videos. The proposed measure would require police departments to release video in cases where law enforcement officers use force or in incidents where it is believed there is a violation of law or public policy.

More than a dozen law enforcement organizations oppose the measure and many contend it should be up to local police departments to determine when, if ever, body camera footage should be released.

State lawmakers have failed to pass a handful of different bills in the last few years that addressed body-worn video, including establishing policies on when officers should turn their cameras on and off and when the public would have access to videos.

Several California police departments, including the Los Angeles Police Department, maintain policies denying the disclosure of body camera videos and consider the footage to be investigative records that are exempt from the state’s open records law.

“We have a patchwork of policies and in some instances, very little policy, as to when the public can access the information and when the public can’t,” said Assemblyman Phil Ting, who introduced the bill. “Body cameras were created to improve greater public trust between law enforcement and community members and without access to that video footage we’re not really able to achieve those goals.”

Ting, a Democrat, says the bill “strikes a fair balance” because it also carves out several exemptions, which allow police departments to withhold videos if there’s more of a public interest in not disclosing the recordings and to withhold recordings that are part of an ongoing investigation for up to 90 days.

Advocates of the bill, including the American Civil Liberties Union, say the legislation is an important step forward in ensuring police transparency, especially after fatal police shootings.

“This is an area where California law really lags behind the rest of the country in allowing transparency,” said Peter Bibring, the director of policing practices at the ACLU of Southern California.

Opponents argue that because the bill requires police to release the recordings after 90 days, it could compromise ongoing criminal investigations and disciplinary proceedings.

“This bill will taint ongoing police investigations and all but kills the impartiality of the investigation process,” said Craig Lally, the president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union that represents city police officers. source

AB748 – Audio and Video Recordings

Many law enforcement agencies withhold video and audio recordings of serious use of force incidents as investigatory records under Government Code Section 6254(f). AB748 adds an exception to the investigatory record exemption to now require disclosure of recordings related to a “critical incident.” Critical incident is defined as an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or an incident in which the use of force resulted in death or great bodily injury. A law enforcement agency may redact the recordings if the agency demonstrates that the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Agencies should consider using redaction technology to redact, blur, or distort the recording to protect the privacy interest while still allowing disclosure. An agency may only withhold a video or audio recording in its entirety if the agency demonstrates that the privacy interest cannot be adequately protected by use of redaction technology.

A law enforcement agency may withhold the release of a recording for 45 days if the agency determines the disclosure would substantially interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation. As with the personnel records affected by SB1421, any delay beyond the initial time period will impose a significant burden on the agency to justify the delay. The law enforcement agency will be required to reevaluate the nondisclosure and state its justification to the requestor in writing at regular intervals. source

Assembly Bill 748

Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires that public records, as defined, be available to the public for inspection and made promptly available to any person. Existing law makes records of investigations conducted by any state or local police agency exempt from these requirements. Existing law requires specified information regarding the investigation of crimes to be disclosed to the public unless disclosure would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation.

This bill, commencing July 1, 2019, allows a video or audio recording that relates to a critical incident, as defined, to be withheld for 45 calendar days if disclosure would substantially interfere with an active investigation, subject to extensions, as specified. The bill allows the recording to be withheld if the public interest in withholding video or audio recording clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure because the release of the recording would, based on the facts and circumstances depicted in the recording, violate the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording, in which case the bill allows the recording to be redacted to protect that interest. If the agency demonstrates that the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording cannot adequately be protected through redaction, the bill requires that the recording be promptly disclosed to a subject of the recording, his or her parent, guardian, or representative, as applicable, or his or her heir, beneficiary, immediate family member, or authorized legal representative, if deceased.

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

• An incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer.
• An incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death or in great bodily injury. source

Read the full bill text for AB 748

Governor Signs SB 1421 and AB 748, Dramatically Increasing Public Access to Peace Officer Personnel Records

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.

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

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

 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

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

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

Police BodyCam Footage Release

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

Download Here this Recommended Citation

Sexual assault in jail. Domestic violence complaints against an officer ignored. Knocked out teeth followed by a cover up. Throw in tens of thousands of stolen bullets, an illegal choke hold, falsified police reports, and cavorting with sex workers and you’ve got an emerging picture of what California’s new police transparency law has revealed in its first six months.

Those cases involving California peace officers are detailed in documents recently made public under a landmark transparency law that undid decades of secrecy surrounding police internal affairs files.

But six months after Senate Bill 1421 went into effect, some of the state’s largest law enforcement agencies haven’t provided a single record.

Some law enforcement organizations are charging high fees for records, destroying documents and even ignoring court orders to produce the files.

‘DRAGGING THEIR FEET’

The law, authored by State Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), covers records of shootings by officers, severe uses of force and confirmed cases of sexual assault and dishonesty by officers. Skinner said the revelations that have come out so far are proof that the law is working to shed sunlight on police misconduct.

But she said it’s troubling that major state agencies, such as the California Highway Patrol, which employs more than 7,300 officers, haven’t yet produced a single record.

“If the state agencies themselves are acting like they’re above the law, that’s absolutely the wrong model and the wrong example to set for the rest of the local government agencies up and down the state,” Skinner said.

Skinner said she plans to call for oversight hearings to push for full disclosure.

“We’ll have to start being more proactive about really poking them if they’re dragging their feet,” she said.

Officials with many law enforcement agencies insist they’ve done nothing wrong, saying they are trying to release records as best they can. They also dispute that there is anything improper about the records that have been destroyed.

Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva acknowledged earlier this year that public records requests were “stacking up.” He has said he’s asked the county Board of Supervisors for funding to hire more people to handle requests.

“People are asking for the world,” he said. His office did not respond to requests to comment for this story.

Villanueva’s department has refused to search for records, instead demanding that reporters identify specific cases they are seeking. The Sheriff’s Department released records pertaining to one deputy to the Los Angeles Times, and a handful of separate files to KPCC/LAist, but nothing to the Orange County Register.

The files from the Sheriff’s Department included internal affairs records for Deputy Caren Mandoyan, who was fired for dishonesty and domestic violence and later reinstated by Villanueva. The documents also showed that Mandoyan had admitted to having a tattoo linked to a secret society of deputies.

The failure to disclose police records under the new law is also happening among law enforcement agencies in Southern California.

Both the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and the Long Beach Police Department have yet to release any records to KPCC/LAist, the Los Angeles Times, the Orange County Register or KQED.

The Los Angeles County Probation Department, which supervises youths held in detention, has declined to release records, claiming disclosure of records about cases involving minors is prohibited by law. Records from the department, which also supervises adults, could be redacted to remove names of protected individuals.

After a San Francisco judge ordered the state Department of Justice to release SB1421-related records in May, the agency issued two dated internal investigations into misconduct by state agents. The department has since failed to provide additional records.

The Attorney General’s Office is expected to appeal the judge’s ruling, arguing that it shouldn’t have to provide the files it has on local agencies and otherwise seeking to narrow the records it is required to release.

At a recent San Francisco Police Commission meeting, public defenders addressed the difficulty they’ve been having getting records on officer dishonesty from the Bay Area’s largest police department.

“All it takes to support charges and hold individuals in jail is testimony by police officers,” said law student Will Kirkland, who is interning for the public defender. “Of course many officers in San Francisco are honest and have records of integrity. But for the minority of officers who don’t, their word is still being relied upon to keep people locked up. And that’s why we are simply requesting compliance with the law.”

SFPD has released only partial documentation from four shootings by officers — and no disciplinary records. The department has said promptly releasing the files is too taxing, and it has invoked a dozen extensions. A department spokesman said SFPD is hiring 11 people to respond to requests.

The Los Angeles Police Department has released more than a dozen files and is issuing additional documents on a rolling basis.

Public access advocates say they’re troubled by the pace of the release of records.

“They’re just delaying the inevitable,” said Jim Ewert, general counsel of the California News Publishers Association, which lobbied in favor of the new law. He added the agencies are “wasting taxpayer funds” by stalling and dragging out the release of the records.

$25 A MINUTE

Several agencies are seeking high fees for the public records.

The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department charged KPCC/LAist $1,655 to redact audio from shooting investigations, including that of Deputy Gonzalo Inzunza, who shot at four people in seven months and was the subject of KPCC podcast Repeat. The department has yet to provide the tapes.

The city of Bakersfield estimated that reviewing the audio and body camera footage related to a single shooting would cost about $6,621.60. Footage related to cases from the past five years, when Bakersfield Police shot 28 people, would cost an estimated $185,000.

West Sacramento estimated it would cost $25 per minute to redact its footage, meaning the material from five shootings would cost $25,000 in total.

Skinner said her office is monitoring the issue.

“If we see a pattern of this kind of really prohibitive costs then it is appropriate and essential for the legislature to revisit and relook at it,” Skinner said.

The California Supreme Court is also considering a case that could limit the amount that agencies can charge for review and redaction.

BURNED AND SHREDDED

Some agencies destroyed records before they could be turned over to the public.

Earlier this year, the Downey Police Officers’ Association went to court in an attempt to force the city to destroy records older than five years, arguing that doing so would be in keeping with the records retention schedule.

KPCC/LAist, the Los Angeles Times and the Long Beach Post opposed the union. The court sided with the media organizations in May, paving the way for records to be released.

KPCC/LAist reporters learned recently that many of the records sought had already been purged before the beginning of the year, including the investigation into Officer Steven Gilley’s 2011 deadly police shooting of Michael Nida, an unarmed father of four.

Police shooting investigations can amass hundreds of pages of witness statements, forensic reports and officer interviews as well as video and audio files. The city’s attorney promised to hand over what little was preserved – a 33 page report, which still hasn’t been provided.

Sarah Lustig, Downey’s attorney, said the city will produce records in keeping with new law, but also may continue to purge older records based on its retention schedule.

While cities like Downey, Inglewood, Fremont, and Morgan Hill destroyed records before Jan. 1, the Yuba County Sheriff destroyed years’ worth of records including internal affairs investigations of dishonesty and sexual misconduct on Jan. 16, two weeks after the new law went into effect.

Yuba had already received requests from the Los Angeles Times, the Bay Area News Group and KQED for records disclosable under SB 1421.

County Counsel Andrew Naylor said this was a routine purge, completely unrelated to the law. But many of the records that were destroyed had already been kept years beyond their required retention dates, and were potentially responsive to pending public records requests.

Naylor said the fact that they were destroyed just days after they became disclosable was a coincidence.

“They’d fallen behind,” he said.

David Snyder, director of the First Amendment Coalition, called Yuba County’s move “highly suspicious.” He said once the county understood that the public were seeking these records, it had a duty to preserve them.

LEGAL FIGHT

Attempts by several police unions to ask judges to block the release of records have largely failed. The unions argued the new law did not apply to records of incidents that happened before Jan. 1.

In March, more than 170 agencies were either in active litigation or refusing to produce records as they waited for direction from the courts. Now, Ventura County appears to be the only local government barred from releasing records due to active union litigation.

One of the state’s top police lawyers, who led the fight to block access to pre-2019 cases, said the fact that thousands of those records have nevertheless been released did not create a crisis.

“I don’t think the sky is falling,” Michael Rains said in an interview Wednesday. “If anything, members of the public probably got some reading enjoyment.”

Rains said most of the law enforcement unions his firm represents had given up on blocking the release of older cases, following a series of losses and rejections in several county superior courts and state appeals courts.

The state Supreme Court has declined to hear the issue multiple times. But that may not be the last word. A Ventura County judge resurrected the “retroactivity” issue in a June 19 ruling that bucked every other decision to date. As a result of the ruling, pre-2019 records remain sealed in that county.

The Ventura County Public Defender, which intervened in the case to fight for access to pre-2019 records, has not decided whether to appeal.

But for most agencies outside of Ventura County, Rains said they should provide the records or face lawsuits from news organizations and other groups. He said he was surprised that some of the largest agencies in the state have still not produced much or any information.

“Unless the agency is in complete disarray and it has no staff that would be able to … respond to these requests, which is a problem, they should be able to get them out,” Rains said.

Senator Skinner said she will be monitoring which agencies are releasing records and other issues with the new law as they arise.

“First and foremost I want to take my state agencies to task,” she said. “And then we can start looking at what ways either we need to modify the legislation or what ways we need to have public hearings to basically, in a way, shame these agencies for refusing to comply with the law.”

source

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.

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

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

PUBLIC RECORDS