Transparency

California's Top Court Finally Allows Law Enforcement Agencies to Share List of Problem Cops With Prosecutors

Powerful unions and state-mandated secrecy made it a fight to know about misconduct.

|

On Monday, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state's law enforcement agencies may share the names of officers with misconduct records with prosecutors so that prosecutors can figure out whether such cops should be kept from testifying and whether defense attorneys need to be notified of the cops' records.

The need for such disclosures is obvious. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Brady v. Maryland (1963) requires prosecutors to turn over evidence to the defense that might exonerate the defendant. A corrupt police officer connected to the case could certainly qualify.

But in California, thanks to powerful law enforcement unions and state laws that shield police records from disclosure, there had been a legal privacy barrier making it harder for prosecutors to get this information in the first place. Until recently, state laws even prohibited directly passing along information from police records to lawyers. Those records had to go through a judge, who would be responsible for screening out and sharing only what information about an officer that might be relevant to the case.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys have struggled for decades to get this information, Supreme Court precedent notwithstanding. Some cities and counties in California have been proactive in passing along lists—often called Brady lists—of officers whose past conduct could affect their credibility as witnesses. These lists did not contain details, but apparently even sharing names was a problem for some law enforcement unions.

In Los Angeles County, the sheriff's department had been attempting to pass along a list of about 300 deputies with records of bad behavior to the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office. This did not sit well with the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, who sued to stop the sheriff from sharing just these 300 or so names.

Lower courts ruled in favor of the union. That's how powerfully state laws shielded law enforcement from public awareness of bad behavior. But last year, California passed S.B. 1421, which ended decades of secrecy and allowed public access to certain types of police personnel records, including those where officers were credibly found to have engaged in deception, like perjury or fabricating evidence, on the job. That's certainly the type of behavior that could undermine the credibility of a police witness.

Per yesterday's ruling by the California Supreme Court, the records covered under S.B. 1421 are no longer confidential, and thus may be shared with prosecutors. State law no longer forbids disclosure.

Mind you, S.B. 1421 did not grant public access to all police misconduct records. It focused on incidences where an officer used a firearm or force to cause death or great bodily injury; incidences of sexual assault; and the aforementioned findings of dishonest behavior on the job. And this week's California Supreme Court ruling did not mandate that law enforcement agencies keep a Brady list of problematic officers. But, the ruling notes, "when a department seeks to transmit a Brady alert to prosecutors, allowing the department to do so mitigates the risk of a constitutional violation." The lists may be shared.

The Los Angeles Times notes that there's enough ambiguity in the decision that some law enforcement agencies will likely share less information with prosecutors and defense attorneys than others might share.

Still, the upshot of the ruling is that law enforcement agencies in California may no longer use the state's privacy laws to shield bad cops from public scrutiny. That's a win for both criminal defendants and pro-transparency activists.

NEXT: The Oklahoma Ruling Against Johnson & Johnson Hinges on a Sweeping Definition of 'Public Nuisance'

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.

  1. Or maybe, just maybe, the bad cops could be fired. After all, if their testimony is worthless, aren’t they just padding their pensions? I mean …. their corruption certainly is a disability, isn’t it? I can’t wait for some cop to claim ADA violation for being fired for corruption.

    1. I basically earn Easily at home 10,000$ par month .just do work few hours . last 3 year i was free but now i am happy with this website so i advise u to make the Money Easily own way .

      HERE► HERE IS DETAIL

    2. Cops should be required to carry an errors and omissions insurance policy, plus a bond. Multiple claims will make a cop uninsurable and unbondable. Which will result in that person becoming unemployable anywhere. Still not perfect, but it should weed out a lot of chronically bad LE personnel.

  2. Allows? Is that how they’re spinning this? Thank God we got rid of that pesky law that prevents us from telling you about the bad cops we have on our force – we really, really wanted to say something, but we weren’t allowed to let you know.

    1. pesky law

      Even ‘law’ is pretty generous interpretation of ‘repeated precedent set by sue-happy police unions’.

  3. “California’s Top Court Finally Allows Law Enforcement Agencies to Share List of Problem Cops With Prosecutors”

    “Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!”

  4. When I clicked on the “sponsored content” story “How Managed Lanes Act as a Viable Solution to Combat Metropolitan Congestion”, nothing popped up. I thought maybe it was a glitch or a function of my browser’s “sponsored content” management settings, but after several further attempts resulted in nothing coming up, it occurred to me that this might actually be the most succinct article I’ve seen here on the successes of government regulation since the article entitled “A Complete List Of All The Ways A President Bernie Sanders Would Make The US More Libertarian.”

  5. Police Unions suing to protect bad cops. Hmm. Police Unions = Gestapo enablers?

  6. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Brady v. Maryland (1963) requires prosecutors to turn over evidence to the defense that might exonerate the defendant.

    Or else what?

    1. The defendant can get the conviction thrown out and sue for civil rights violations.

      1. I’d hate to be the prosecutor in that case. The loss of a conviction on his resume is the worst punishment I can imagine.

        1. “The loss of a conviction on his resume is the worst punishment I can imagine.”

          This is the biggest reason why provably innocent convicts remain in jail. Prosecutor’s future career prospects > justice.

  7. “Powerful unions and state-mandated secrecy made it a fight to know about misconduct.”

    Aren’t lobbyists wonderful?

  8. Just publish the employee list and be done with it. There, I found your problem cops.

  9. If only Kamala had access to this information back when she was transforming California’s criminal justice system into the utopian ideal that it is today. She wouldn’t have had to imprison quite so many dope smokers.

  10. Interesting.
    Nothing in the article about the cops on the list being fired.
    Nothing in the article about the list being available during the hiring process.
    The only amazing thing is that the CA supreme court even ALLOWS the sharing of criminal behavior.

  11. There are no good cops. There are bad cops, and cops who haven’t shot anyone yet. This is not a cop vs. black problem, it’s a cop vs. civilian problem.

  12. Meh, it’s still going to be “may share” which will functionally be “won’t share”.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.