Los Angeles Sheriff's Department

When Reason Requested the New L.A. Sheriff's Disciplinary Records, the Deputies Union Got an Injunction to Block Us

A newly passed police transparency bill is under attack across the state. The latest tactic: insisting it's not retroactive.

|

Alex Villanueva
Ringo Chiu/ZUMA Press/Newscom

A judge has temporarily rebuffed Reason in our attempt to request any disciplinary records related to new Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva, as law enforcement unions across the state fight the implementation of a new police transparency law.

Villaneuva, who was elected last November, promised on the campaign trail to push federal immigration officials out of Los Angeles County jails and to also fight corruption and cronyism in the leadership of the sheriff's department. He claimed that he been targeted in the past for discipline and kept from advancing into leadership positions because he challenged the department for discriminating against Latino deputies.

For decades, Villaneuva's discipline records were sealed by an expansive California law that exempts details of law enforcement officers' conduct from the state's government transparency regulations. But last year lawmakers passed SB 1421, which, starting this month, was supposed to give the public access to certain law enforcement officers' records—investigations of whenever an officer fired a weapon, killed or seriously injured a person, engaged in sexual assault, or engaged in dishonest conduct on the job.

Because Villanueva declared that he had been disciplined in the past for retaliatory reasons, he seemed a prime opportunity to take SB1421 for a spin. On January 3, Reason submitted a California Public Records Act request for any files about Villanueva's performance with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department that would be subject to release under this new law. We didn't necessarily think Villanueva had done anything wrong. He may well have been targeted for political reasons, as he claimed. But because we don't have access to those records, all we're left with is Villanueva's account of his work history.

California's public records laws gives agencies 10 days to respond to a request. On January 11, Villanueva's office sent Reason a letter asking for a 14-day extension under a provision of the law triggered by the need to get records from "field facilities or other establishments."

On January 25, shortly before this extension would expire, Reason received this message from Los Angeles Sheriff's Department's Discovery Unit:

This is in response to your request for records under the California Public Records Act dated and received by the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department Discovery Unit on January 3, 2019.

On January 24, 2019, the Los Angeles County Superior Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining and restraining the Sheriff's Department "from retroactively enforcing or applying Senate Bill 1421's amendments to California Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 in any manner which would result in the disclosure or production of peace officer personnel records and information regarding incidents or reflecting conduct occurring prior to January 1, 2019 that would not have otherwise been subject to disclosure prior to January 1, 2019."

Since your Public Records Act request appears to seek such personnel records and/or information, we are unable to respond to your request at this time.

That restraining order came as a result of a request from the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, one of several law enforcement unions who have been trying to keep these records sealed. They are attempting to argue that SB1421 is not retroactive and applies only to records produced after the start of this year.

There is nothing in the text of SB1421 that indicates it is not retroactive. While its changes came into force with the start of the new year, it was not written in such a way that it would exempt past records. The state senator who sponsored the bill, Nancy Skinner (D–Berkeley), has said she intended for it to be retroactive. According to the Los Angeles Times, the law enforcement unions also knew it would be retroactive, and that was one of the reasons they had been fighting its passage.

Reason is certainly not the only media outlet affected by this restraining order. The Times had been trying to get the past discipline records of Deputy Caren Carl Mandoyan. Mandoyan, who was a campaign aide during Villanueva's run, was fired from the department in 2016 following allegations of stalking and abusing an ex-girlfriend. He was just reinstated by Villanueva, prompting criticism and possibly a challenge by the county's Board of Supervisors. (A call to the Discovery Unit to try to find out how many media outlets' requests have been affected by this injunction has not yet been returned.)

And it's not just law enforcement in Los Angeles trying to stop SB1421 from taking full effect. Courts in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Ventura counties have all put temporary injunctions into place stopping the release of records prior to January 1 while this fight goes on.

Now the Los Angeles Times and other media outlets are going to court as well. The Times and Southern California Public Radio are suing the L.A. County Sheriff's Department for not disclosing records. The Times has also joined with the Sacramento Bee to sue the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department for refusing to release records produced prior to 2019.

This is far from over. The injunction is in place only while the courts try to decide whether the law is retroactive or not. Do not be surprised if it eventually ends up before the state Supreme Court (though it has declined to jump in immediately), particularly if different judges disagree about the law's requirements.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

24 responses to “When Reason Requested the New L.A. Sheriff's Disciplinary Records, the Deputies Union Got an Injunction to Block Us

  1. Hey Scott, learn to code!

    HA! Got you.

      1. I am unable to have children because of the accident.

  2. Two things.

    1. The dude in the front in that picture should be arrested for animal cruelty.

    2. That guy in the back with the mustache – Supertroopers.

    1. Police Chief Grady:
      I will have the enchilada platter with two tacos and no guacamoles. Mike?

      Officer Smy:
      Yeah, chief. I’ll have a CHINCHILLA.

      Rabbit:
      I don’t get it. Tacos?

      Thorny:
      They think I’m Mexican.

      Rabbit:
      You’re not?

    2. 1. That horse has seen worse.

      2. He was going for Magnum P.I..

    3. Taft rode horses at his fattest. That dude’s not even that big. You should see me on a horse.

      1. You should see me on a horse.

        Link pls

  3. What happened to that ole’ cop quip, If you have nothing to hide then you’ll show me and the fact that you are not willing to show me makes me think you have something to hide.”

    It appears that only Trump’s intent for executive orders are subject to the scrutiny of prior statements but the sponsoring politician who said she did intend it to be retroactive is not. Go figure.

    Perhaps Reason failed to tell the sheriff that Reason would go easier on him if he just showed them his records.

  4. . . . .asking for a 14-day extension

    So, I got to know – was it askin’ or was it tellin’? And if it was truly asking, did you tell them no?

  5. Doxxing our first responders. Is there no depths too low?

    1. Asking for accountability from government employees/agents of the state is not doxing…It’s a bare minimum of responsible government.

      1. That was sarc from Foe.

  6. because he challenged the department for discriminating against Latino deputies.

    Perhaps blocking the disciplinary records from the public is consistent with protecting the Latino deputies.

    1. LOL

      Probably. Some studies have showed that black cops are more likely to lay the hammer down on black perps, probably because they’re not afraid of being called racist over it like white cops. Wouldn’t be surprised if the same were true of Hispanic cops in LA.

  7. Scott,
    Props to you and the others at Reason who are pursuing this. KEEP IT UP!
    Several years back, I had a discussion with Welsh asking him if Reason was going to get involved in the legal actions regarding Assange and Wikileaks. The response ran along the lines that ‘Reason attempts to influence policy matters, rather than (get dirty hands) getting involved in the rough and tumble of actual legal advocacy’.
    Nice story, but neither Reason nor any other organization can provide decent metrics for the results of that claim; counting TV appearances *ain’t* a measure of anything, other than ego satisfaction.
    Between that and the steam-powered server you guys rent, my contributions to Reason suffered a serious loss; by comparison, IJ delivers results.
    Now you’re onto something; KEEP IT UP. Get those suckers to pony-up (sorry) the records. Get some results.

  8. Reason needs to argue that the transparency law makes records of misconduct available, which are current records of the various departments. You are seeking current records not past conduct. This denies the police union the ex post facto claim.

    1. Agree.

      For what it’s worth, this is not an ex post facto claim (which applies in the criminal context and is outright prohibited under the Constitution), but is instead a retroactivity claim (which applies in the civil context and is not prohibited outright but has a presumption against it that must be overcome by a specific retroactivity clause in the statute at issue).

      However, for the reasons you state, I do not think that the concept of retroactivity applies here. A retroactive statute changes the rights and remedies pertaining to past conduct, and that is not what is going on here. I hope the legal geniuses representing the news agencies make the appropriate arguments, perhaps analogizing to FOIA or other transparency statues that we already have lots of case law on.

  9. What happened when you asked the FBI about its use of Gestapo tactics to go after people associated with trump and charged with process crimes?
    What happened when you asked the FBI or DOJ why roger Stone was arrested but Comey and Clapper haven’t been?

    Oh, you didn’t ask those questions.
    Weird

  10. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work -online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by -sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link?

    Try it, you won’t regret it!??? http://www.Mesalary.com

  11. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for
    everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid
    from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the
    end of this week.I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    …………….. http://www.briskgold.com

  12. Does the new law specify it applies to or was written for all records generated after passage? No, of course not, therefore the presumption is it applies to all records.
    Did “Reason” deny the request for more time (2 weeks)? Or was it not really a request, but legal stalling? If you did approve it, did you request a reason, the justification?
    Will “Reason” request all records after passage (January)? They might try to block that also.
    I assumed all criminal conduct during duty was grounds for immediate firing. Am I wrong? If so, why?

  13. They bend over backwards to prove their scum, don’t they?

  14. We need more organizations like Reason and Judicial Watch to keep pushing for justice! Thank you Reason for taking the reins!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.