The California Supreme Court on Wednesday batted aside an attempt by a San Bernardino County sheriff’s union to block the release of police disciplinary records under a new law that took effect this week, making most of the records public for the first time in 40 years.
Justices rejected a request by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Employees’ Benefit Association to delay the records law, Senate Bill 1421, because it did not address whether older and existing records were eligible for release. The union argued that records should be public only for incidents occurring after Jan. 1, when the law went into effect.
The high court did not explain its rationale in the one-line ruling denying the union’s request.
Carrie Tichenor, a spokeswoman for the union’s law firm, Rains, Lucia, Stern, said the Supreme Court’s decision not to rule on the merits of the case opens the door for police unions across California to take their cases to local courts.
That is what the Los Angeles Police Protective League did this week, winning a lower court order temporarily prohibiting the city from disclosing personnel records. A hearing on that court order will be held Feb. 5, said Tichenor, whose law firm also represents the Los Angeles police union.
“It is possible that numerous lawsuits will be pursued by peace officer labor organizations in local courts throughout the state to prevent public agencies from releasing confidential information which is prohibited by law,” Tichenor said.
“The possibility of multiple lawsuits being filed and litigated in numerous counties throughout the state, and the potential for conflicting decisions at the Superior Court level, was the impetus for the action we filed” on behalf of the San Bernardino County union, she said.
The union said it is exploring its options to continue the legal fight.
The effort by the San Bernardino County group was challenged by the First Amendment Coalition, the California News Publishers Association and the Los Angeles Times.
David Snyder, executive director of the coalition, said the ruling was a big victory for transparency.
“The court thankfully got this right,” Snyder said. “This was a last-ditch effort by the police union to undermine SB 1421. There is now a broad range of records the public has access to.”
Proposed by state Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, the new statute allows the release of some personnel and disciplinary records for police officers involved in shootings resulting in death or great bodily injury, as well as files for sustained sexual assault and sustained misconduct.
Telephone numbers, home addresses, the names of family members and other personal information will remain exempt from disclosure. Skinner in a recent interview said that it was the right time for more transparency, “to create … sunshine.”
On the eve of the law taking effect, the city of Inglewood ordered the destruction of thousands of files older than the state’s five-year requirement for keeping documents. Other police agencies have said they will comply.
Since 1976, California law enforcement officers have been protected by statutes and court rulings — the strictest in the nation — that make it illegal to release virtually all police personnel records, including those involving wrongdoing and disciplinary action.
Efforts to undo those protections have been rejected under withering opposition by law enforcement unions, which argue that releasing confidential personnel information would endanger police lives, spur lawsuits and make it more difficult for officers to do their jobs.
The new law could put a hole in the police veil of secrecy.