30 ms·

California keeps a secret list of criminal cops, but says you can’t have it

330 points by rrauenza 8y ago

sarcasmatwork 8y ago
California IS a sanctuary state......
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  Most of the big government states and many of the small government states give police a very wide berth and (until very recently) have had no problem enacting authoritarian policy, heavy handed policing, double standards for government and police, etc, etc. If you want the good of big government you have to make peace with the bad and historically people have made peace with a lot of "the bad" and buried their heads deeply in the sand with regard to police misconduct and similar matters. This is only slowly beginning to change now that more police behavior is recorded on video and the public (and the politicians who control the government bureaucracies and who rely on support of said public) is less able to turn a blind eye to police and government misconduct. Things are generally trending in a good direction when it comes to tolerance of misconduct by police and in government in general. Give it a decade or two.
  - biztos 8y ago
    What would be a "small-government state" that doesn't give the police as wide a berth as the "big-government states?" And which are which? I'm assuming you consider California big-government based on your comment, and as a Californian I'm inclined to agree. But it seems Alaska leads in "State FTE's per 10K pop"[0] and Texas and Florida both have large absolute numbers of state employees according to that source. Intuitively, and subject to my own prejudice, I would guess those states that have vocal majorities against activist government also tend to let the cops get away with all kinds of things, from aggressive civil forfeiture to assault and murder; and that states like California perhaps counterintuitively do so as well, maybe (or maybe not) to a lesser extent. [0]: http://www.governing.com/gov-data/public-workforce-salaries/states-most-government-workers-public-employees-by-job-type.html http://www.governing.com/gov-data/public-workforce-salaries/... [Edit: typo]
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      >What would be a "small-government state" that doesn't give the police as wide a berth as the "big-government states?" NH takes civil liberties very seriously. Maine takes having high quality government very seriously. Granted both those statements are becoming less true every year as a particular southern neighbor sheds some population in a northern direction. Police conduct that would get 30sec on the evening news and a "well shucks, that's the government, what can ya do" response in MA or NY would almost certainly result in heads rolling and many letters to the editor involving the words "tar" and "feathers" in northern New England. It's about culture as more than it is which particular party is in charge in any given state. The people of the small government states in my experience tend to get more riled up when representatives of government do bad things and politicians respond to that.
    - MrMorden 8y ago
      Illinois has among the lowest per-capita government employee count per that list and is in the middle of the pack for taxes. It's much easier to build housing in Chicago than San Francisco... but aldermanic privilege is a thing. So not really a small-government state, and nobody claims it is. Texas is more commonly presented as an example of small government. They're still on the lower half of that employee list and have relatively low taxes, but the government aggressively gets in the way of consenting adults doing things. It's still illegal to gamble in Texas (excepting the state-run numbers racket, because objections mysteriously vanish when the government does it), or to buy alcohol or cars on Sunday, and the only state that has more restrictive gun laws without discretionary-issue of CCW permits is Nevada. Texas did repeal their certificate-of-need law for health care providers, so they're definitely doing something right, but government is not an exception to everything being bigger there. Assuming that FTE/population chart is what it says and doesn't include contractors, I'm not even sure it has any use whatsoever. And that's not getting into all the things where some government would clearly be useful—for instance, getting internet speeds off the list of things that aren't bigger in Texas.
- lurker213 8y ago
  people can't have it both ways!
api 8y ago
Could there be a legitimate reason? Sometimes corrupt officials are placed under surveillance to catch other corrupt officials. If you out them you lose your information source.
- Kinnard 8y ago
  This is too easily gamed to suffice as a rationale.
- ericcumbee 8y ago
  They would have just cited the exception for records pertaining to ongoing investigations. I assume there is a provision in the Cal Open Records act, there is in the Georgia Open Records act.
- badfrog 8y ago
  Another potential reason is that the list would be a great starting point for somebody who was looking for a police officer to bribe. I'm not saying that's sufficient justification, just spitballing ideas.
  - api 8y ago
    That's a better idea than mine. It could also potentially out undercovers.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    The fact that it's currently a secret actually makes them potentially vulnerable to blackmail. Airing it would remove that threat.
    - badfrog 8y ago
      I meant that on average a police officer who has committed a crime in the past is more susceptible than one who has not. It seems your suggestion is that people would fight to keep their past crimes secret? That's an interesting alternative view.
Shivetya 8y ago
Let us make it even more direct. All government employees who commit crimes while in the employ of any government agency should have the record made public if it leads to disciplinary action or above a class C misdemeanor which for many jurisdictions is fines up to 1k. teachers, police, and fire, are some of the most protected classes of people when it comes to findings of wrong doing. Yet they are in positions we give our highest trust. From cops breaking the law to teachers getting caught abusing children, all are facts that are hidden from the public and at times only result in an offender being reassigned to different positions with pay. having an accountable government starts by holding the individuals in it accountable. I would not just start with the three I listed, I would put them right in the same starting group as elected officials.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  It’s all about “incompetence”. Unions fight these disclosures because disclosing a policeman’s identity would potentially exclude the employee from certain jobs. That gives the government an easy path to bypass the disciplinary process — just arrest an officer for some bullshit charge and transfer them to a job where their identity must be secret.
  - cascom 8y ago
    Except aren’t these convictions, not arrests?
- ams6110 8y ago
  Almost all criminal convictions are public record, unless sealed for a specific reason (youthful offender, perhaps). Please cite an example of a teacher convicted of child abuse where that conviction was "hidden from the public." If anything, those cases are splashed across news websites even when there's nothing more than an accusation.
  - megaremote 8y ago
    > Please cite an example of a teacher convicted of child abuse where that conviction was "hidden from the public." If anything, those cases are splashed across news websites even when there's nothing more than an accusation. How could they?
ahaferburg 8y ago
How do other states/countries handle this?
- magduf 8y ago
  For industrialized Western nations, far less corruptly. For countries like Venezuela, probably a lot like the US.
- Tsubasachan 8y ago
  Police officers are suspended pending investigations. And if you have a criminal record you can't be a policeman. All seems sensible to me.
nickles 8y ago
In September, California passed the law (S.B. 1421) described in the article, supposedly allowing access to records of police misconduct. It is restricted to certain circumstances, but should unambiguously allow for possession and publication, for example, of a list of officers who molested children (a sexual assault against a member of the public). Other states, like New York (CRL 50-a), have laws preventing public access to records of police misconduct, going so far as to hold proceedings against officers in secret [0]. Even efforts to post an anonymized list of violations have been blocked [1]. We require that other professions (e.g. doctors, lawyers, financial advisors) have complete, public records of professional misconduct as a matter of public safety (or awareness at a minimum). However, the very people who walk around with what amounts to a license to kill [2] are not held to the same standard. In fact, officers may be granted additional rights, shielding them from interrogation techniques that would otherwise be applied to members of the public [3]. [0] https://law.yale.edu/mfia/case-disclosed/new-yorks-section-50-shields-law-enforcement-records https://law.yale.edu/mfia/case-disclosed/new-yorks-section-5... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/03/nyregion/police-discipline-records-garner.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/03/nyregion/police-disciplin... [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/police-rarely-criminally-charged-for-on-duty-shootings-1416874955 https://www.wsj.com/articles/police-rarely-criminally-charge... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/04/24/the-police-officers-bill-of-rights https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/04/24/...
- gnopgnip 8y ago
  There is certainly some grey area in how the law should be implemented. Should the police disclose only those who have been convicted of a crime AND who have exhausted all appeals?
  - nickles 8y ago
    > Should the police disclose only those who have been convicted of a crime AND who have exhausted all appeals? Are civilians afforded that privilege? Consider the case of stockbrokers, for example. Regulations require that a broker immediately discloses, on a publicly accessible website [0], that they have become "a defendant or respondent in any securities- or commodities-related civil litigation or arbitration" [1]. This does not require a finding of guilt nor an exhaustion of appeals. While allegations of financial fraud are certainly concerning, a police officer convicted of molesting a child or sexual assaulting suspects is potentially shielded from similar levels of disclosure (as described in the article). Are stockbrokers subject to too much scrutiny, or are police officers subject to too little scrutiny? Furthermore, the gray area in the law, when assigning the benefit of the doubt to the officer, puts the public in danger. In the Washington Post article cited above, the following example is referenced: > In 2007, Shreveport police officer Wiley Willis arrested 38-year-old Angela Garbarino on suspicion of drunken driving. While in custody, as captured on the video below, Garbarino begins arguing with Willis about what she said is her right to make a phone call. About a minute later, Willis walks over and turns off the video camera. When the camera comes back on, Garbarino is lying on the floor in a pool of her own blood. She was later photographed with severe facial injuries she says were the result of Willis beating her. Willis’ attorney stated that she tripped and fell while the camera was off. After the video went viral, Willis was fired, but has never been criminally charged. > Last month, the Shreveport Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board voted to reinstate Willis on the police force. He’ll get full back pay and benefits for the year-and-a-half he was fired. The reason? During the internal investigation of Willis, a polygraph machine operator failed to record the results of his Q&A with Willis. This apparently is a violation of Louisiana’s “Police Officer’s Bill of Rights,” a set of guidelines every department must follow when investigating officer misconduct. > Garbarino won a $400,000 settlement from the city of Shreveport last year. This officer was reinstated on what is incontrovertibly a technicality. Since the appeal was successful, PO Willis' actions could be concealed from the public due to the gray area of the law. Is it in the public interest to hide such blatant misconduct? [0] https://brokercheck.finra.org/ https://brokercheck.finra.org/ [1] http://www.brokeandbroker.com/2975/finra-4530-/ http://www.brokeandbroker.com/2975/finra-4530-/
nimbius 8y ago
Disclosure: I am a former felon, convicted and sentenced for assaulting a carjacker. pro-tip: never take the public defender. My question about this whole discussion is this: Whats the point. If prisons are designed as "correctional" facilities, which many good ones are, then you'll obviously move past being a felon and improve your life. If you keep a secret list of people you know have been convicted of a felony, you're tacitly admitting you either dont believe in prisons as an effective tool for correction, or you're looking for something more sinister...biblical retribution And lets be honest, being a former felon IS a scarlet letter in the US. employers can discriminate against you, housing can discriminate against you in renting and in homeowners covenants, and you can be denied public services like disability and food stamps in some states. Former felons cant vote without a lengthy and expensive process of reinstatement. Yes, i get that teachers, doctors, and police are certainly important positions, but again, the list. If you're just keeping it as part of their personnel and noting certain positions they shouldnt hold out of an abundance of caution in the face of an indeterminate outcome from mental rehabilitation or incarceration, then perhaps keep it secret. Use it as a blacklist if thats whats required for certain positions. however If you're just looking to shield felons from the inconvenience of incarceration or criminal charges, then reconsider it.
- Tsubasachan 8y ago
  "You have paid of your debt to society" is a meme like "Lady Justice is blind". Hell you can be acquitted and still have society set against you, see the Central Park five.
- IshKebab 8y ago
  I think it's pretty clear to most people that the US prison system is a deterrent and provides retribution. It's not about rehabilitation.
  - elliekelly 8y ago
    I agree that it isn't about rehabilitation. And to a certain degree it definitely seems our system is geared towards retribution. But study after study[1] has shown that an individual's perception of the likely punishment (e.g., prison time) doesn't deter crime. Rather, an individual's perception of the likelihood they'll get _caught_ seems to be the main deterrent. This is a really interesting & related read.[2] [1]https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/670398 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/670398 [2]https://undark.org/article/deterrence-punishments-dont-reduce-crime/ https://undark.org/article/deterrence-punishments-dont-reduc...
__jal 8y ago
Police may be one of the few professions below who have real privacy protections in US, although most decent humans would never want to take advantage of particular ones in effect. The special rights the police have are amazing, and that's before you get to the ones about use of force. My personal favorite is that the maxim 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' is flipped on its head if you're a cop - qualified immunity combined with judges willing to make absurd distinctions make it a great excuse. I absolutely want a list of the ones that still got caught, even with all those advantages. In terms of evaluating the risks of local community members, that's far more useful than a list of "sex offenders" who may have peed in public or something.
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  > my personal favorite is that the maxim 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' is flipped on its head if you're a cop So true. When it's you being arrested, sorry, too bad. When a cop is trying to arrest you for taking photos in a public place, "We can't expect cops to be constitutional lawyers".
erikpukinskis 8y ago
People wring their hands about how we’re losing privacy in the modern age. But this is an example of the good that we get from that loss. Not saying we shouldn’t worry about privacy, just highlighting this is the silver lining to that cloud and it’s not an unsubstantial public good.
- godelski 8y ago
  These are two completely different topics. One is about privacy the other is about holding people in positions of power accountable for their actions(and that we have evidence about them not being).
  - erikpukinskis 8y ago
    You can’t hold anyone accountable unless you can see into their private life.
archarios 8y ago
All cops are crooks anyway so who gives a fuck?
- drdeca 8y ago
  Do you mean to say that that is necessarily the case, or merely that it, in the actual world, is the case? I don’t believe that to be a necessary truth, true in all possible worlds. i.e. I believe that it is possible for there to be a cop who is not a “crook”. Which, I suppose follows from the fact that I am not an anarchist. As such, I believe it to be desirable that there be a cop who is not a “crook”. I think that an important part of discouraging misbehavior among law enforcement is not only to threaten punishment against anyone who, while acting as an instrument by which the state enforces the law, abuses the power they have been lent for that purpose, but in addition, the state must be seen to actually dole out this punishment to its agents when they abuse the power lent to them. It should be seen that it will not tolerate abuse done in its name. Of course, in order for this to be seen, it must first be done. But, another requirement is that, if any agent (of law enforcement) of the state does about the power, that this certainly should not be kept secret! That, I think, is enough reason for me to care.
- iceninenines 8y ago
  US police only have one prime directive: protect property owners. Individual citizens, rights, lives, etc. are low on their priority list because they're untouchable and have little incentive to do so.
acomjean 8y ago
I don't like all the secrecy. Massachusetts has a "secret court system" that lets connected people avoid court and problems. I've lived here for a while and had no idea these shenanigans were going on. Well to be fair, we're a pretty jaded bunch so it wasn't overly surprising. "Every year, tens of thousands of cases wind up in secret court sessions — formally known as “show cause hearings” — that are presided over by court clerks and usually held for suspects who haven’t been arrested and don’t pose a flight risk or danger to others. People are generally entitled to these hearings for misdemeanors, but police can request them for felonies as well. .... Show cause hearings were originally created to weed out baseless allegations, but, in practice, there are so few checks on the clerks’ power that they regularly go far beyond that, brokering deals and, in nearly half of the cases, rejecting requests for charges. Clerk magistrates, who are appointed by the governor, routinely refuse to issue charges even when there is significant evidence — as in the case of a judge caught on camera taking someone else’s $4,000 watch off a security belt at Logan International Airport. Over the last two years, clerks have set aside nearly 62,000 cases, including more than 18,000 after a clerk concluded there was probable cause to believe that the accused committed a crime, according to court data. The Spotlight Team uncovered cases where clerks tossed charges involving serious injuries or deaths, including one brought against a Quincy taxi driver who ran over and allegedly dragged an elderly man, killing him." Good reporting in a strange web first format.. https://apps.bostonglobe.com/spotlight/secret-courts/ https://apps.bostonglobe.com/spotlight/secret-courts/ More info here. https://apps.bostonglobe.com/metro/investigations/spotlight/secret-courts-in-massachusetts/ https://apps.bostonglobe.com/metro/investigations/spotlight/...
sbenitoj 8y ago
It’s almost like members of the government are above the law...
Tsubasachan 8y ago
"All animals are equal but some are more equal than others" the pig said.
turc1656 8y ago
What I would really like to know is what is the rate of criminality within the CA police force vs the public. Because 12,000 in a 10 year period is a LOT of felons that have worn or still wear a badge. From what I can find, the US average for all adult residents is about 8.6% (about 1 in 12). For officers in CA, I found estimates of 90,000 to 100,000 on several sites. However, a survey of specific cities seems to indicate roughly 15 officers per 10,000 residents (http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/law-enforcement-police-department-employee-totals-for-cities.html http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/law-enforce...). CA has about 40 million residents, which would be about 60,000 officers. Going with the 60,000 number, that's 20%! If we go with the higher estimate of 100,000 officers, that's still 12%! And don't forget - the 8.6% US average number is for anyone who has a felony record - meaning it covers their entire adult life, not just the past 10 years. That makes the officer numbers even worse! From what I can gather, the rate of criminality for officers (at least in CA) as far, far above the average for everyone else.
- shereadsthenews 8y ago
  This isn't just felonies. It includes things like misdemeanor drunk driving.
  - turc1656 8y ago
    Good point. They mention felonies and list some very serious specific ones so it primed me to think the list was all felonies, even though it did say "felonies and other crimes that would disqualify them". I'd still be very interested in knowing what the rate comparison is.
  - natch 8y ago
    Well drunk driving is a pretty serious matter no matter how the legal system categorizes it. I realize it was an example. Just not a great example.
- kodablah 8y ago
  I think the ~12k convictions includes police officers no longer active or that may just have been applicants. TFA says less than a third match police personnel records and that it is unclear which may just be for applicants. I don't think we should speculate with these ballpark numbers if we can count on the results coming out later.
SiempreViernes 8y ago
Why both ”secret” and ”you can’t have it” in the title? Surely this is a news item worth a title somoeone actually put effort into?
abtinf 8y ago
The two major public safety unions in CA, the California Peace Officers Association and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, collect a combined total of about $100M per year in dues. They are incredibly active and influential in CA politics. The probability of the overturning a policy they support that directly concerns their members, as in the article, is zero.
HillaryBriss 8y ago
How can AG Becerra seriously contend that it's a crime for the newspaper to have this info, which was inadvertently leaked to them through legal channels? Didn't the "NY Times vs the United States" SCOTUS case resolve that sort of question? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ccnafr 8y ago
Than why is it keeping it in the first place?
Golfkid2Gadfly 8y ago
Ask yourselves. How many 'regular' citizens would be able to keep their jobs, relationships, lives if committed only one of half the crimes suggested in the article above? The Socialist Peoples Republic of California. Working hard to better the lives of themselves... not you!

330 points by rrauenza 8y ago

sarcasmatwork 8y ago

California IS a sanctuary state......

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
Most of the big government states and many of the small government states give police a very wide berth and (until very recently) have had no problem enacting authoritarian policy, heavy handed policing, double standards for government and police, etc, etc. If you want the good of big government you have to make peace with the bad and historically people have made peace with a lot of "the bad" and buried their heads deeply in the sand with regard to police misconduct and similar matters. This is only slowly beginning to change now that more police behavior is recorded on video and the public (and the politicians who control the government bureaucracies and who rely on support of said public) is less able to turn a blind eye to police and government misconduct. Things are generally trending in a good direction when it comes to tolerance of misconduct by police and in government in general. Give it a decade or two.
- biztos 8y ago
  What would be a "small-government state" that doesn't give the police as wide a berth as the "big-government states?" And which are which? I'm assuming you consider California big-government based on your comment, and as a Californian I'm inclined to agree. But it seems Alaska leads in "State FTE's per 10K pop"[0] and Texas and Florida both have large absolute numbers of state employees according to that source. Intuitively, and subject to my own prejudice, I would guess those states that have vocal majorities against activist government also tend to let the cops get away with all kinds of things, from aggressive civil forfeiture to assault and murder; and that states like California perhaps counterintuitively do so as well, maybe (or maybe not) to a lesser extent. [0]: http://www.governing.com/gov-data/public-workforce-salaries/states-most-government-workers-public-employees-by-job-type.html http://www.governing.com/gov-data/public-workforce-salaries/... [Edit: typo]
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >What would be a "small-government state" that doesn't give the police as wide a berth as the "big-government states?" NH takes civil liberties very seriously. Maine takes having high quality government very seriously. Granted both those statements are becoming less true every year as a particular southern neighbor sheds some population in a northern direction. Police conduct that would get 30sec on the evening news and a "well shucks, that's the government, what can ya do" response in MA or NY would almost certainly result in heads rolling and many letters to the editor involving the words "tar" and "feathers" in northern New England. It's about culture as more than it is which particular party is in charge in any given state. The people of the small government states in my experience tend to get more riled up when representatives of government do bad things and politicians respond to that.
  - MrMorden 8y ago
    Illinois has among the lowest per-capita government employee count per that list and is in the middle of the pack for taxes. It's much easier to build housing in Chicago than San Francisco... but aldermanic privilege is a thing. So not really a small-government state, and nobody claims it is. Texas is more commonly presented as an example of small government. They're still on the lower half of that employee list and have relatively low taxes, but the government aggressively gets in the way of consenting adults doing things. It's still illegal to gamble in Texas (excepting the state-run numbers racket, because objections mysteriously vanish when the government does it), or to buy alcohol or cars on Sunday, and the only state that has more restrictive gun laws without discretionary-issue of CCW permits is Nevada. Texas did repeal their certificate-of-need law for health care providers, so they're definitely doing something right, but government is not an exception to everything being bigger there. Assuming that FTE/population chart is what it says and doesn't include contractors, I'm not even sure it has any use whatsoever. And that's not getting into all the things where some government would clearly be useful—for instance, getting internet speeds off the list of things that aren't bigger in Texas.
lurker213 8y ago
people can't have it both ways!

api 8y ago

Could there be a legitimate reason? Sometimes corrupt officials are placed under surveillance to catch other corrupt officials. If you out them you lose your information source.

Kinnard 8y ago
This is too easily gamed to suffice as a rationale.
ericcumbee 8y ago
They would have just cited the exception for records pertaining to ongoing investigations. I assume there is a provision in the Cal Open Records act, there is in the Georgia Open Records act.
badfrog 8y ago
Another potential reason is that the list would be a great starting point for somebody who was looking for a police officer to bribe. I'm not saying that's sufficient justification, just spitballing ideas.
- api 8y ago
  That's a better idea than mine. It could also potentially out undercovers.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  The fact that it's currently a secret actually makes them potentially vulnerable to blackmail. Airing it would remove that threat.
  - badfrog 8y ago
    I meant that on average a police officer who has committed a crime in the past is more susceptible than one who has not. It seems your suggestion is that people would fight to keep their past crimes secret? That's an interesting alternative view.

Shivetya 8y ago

Let us make it even more direct. All government employees who commit crimes while in the employ of any government agency should have the record made public if it leads to disciplinary action or above a class C misdemeanor which for many jurisdictions is fines up to 1k. teachers, police, and fire, are some of the most protected classes of people when it comes to findings of wrong doing. Yet they are in positions we give our highest trust. From cops breaking the law to teachers getting caught abusing children, all are facts that are hidden from the public and at times only result in an offender being reassigned to different positions with pay. having an accountable government starts by holding the individuals in it accountable. I would not just start with the three I listed, I would put them right in the same starting group as elected officials.

Spooky23 8y ago
It’s all about “incompetence”. Unions fight these disclosures because disclosing a policeman’s identity would potentially exclude the employee from certain jobs. That gives the government an easy path to bypass the disciplinary process — just arrest an officer for some bullshit charge and transfer them to a job where their identity must be secret.
- cascom 8y ago
  Except aren’t these convictions, not arrests?
ams6110 8y ago
Almost all criminal convictions are public record, unless sealed for a specific reason (youthful offender, perhaps). Please cite an example of a teacher convicted of child abuse where that conviction was "hidden from the public." If anything, those cases are splashed across news websites even when there's nothing more than an accusation.
- megaremote 8y ago
  > Please cite an example of a teacher convicted of child abuse where that conviction was "hidden from the public." If anything, those cases are splashed across news websites even when there's nothing more than an accusation. How could they?

ahaferburg 8y ago

How do other states/countries handle this?

magduf 8y ago
For industrialized Western nations, far less corruptly. For countries like Venezuela, probably a lot like the US.
Tsubasachan 8y ago
Police officers are suspended pending investigations. And if you have a criminal record you can't be a policeman. All seems sensible to me.

nickles 8y ago

In September, California passed the law (S.B. 1421) described in the article, supposedly allowing access to records of police misconduct. It is restricted to certain circumstances, but should unambiguously allow for possession and publication, for example, of a list of officers who molested children (a sexual assault against a member of the public). Other states, like New York (CRL 50-a), have laws preventing public access to records of police misconduct, going so far as to hold proceedings against officers in secret [0]. Even efforts to post an anonymized list of violations have been blocked [1]. We require that other professions (e.g. doctors, lawyers, financial advisors) have complete, public records of professional misconduct as a matter of public safety (or awareness at a minimum). However, the very people who walk around with what amounts to a license to kill [2] are not held to the same standard. In fact, officers may be granted additional rights, shielding them from interrogation techniques that would otherwise be applied to members of the public [3]. [0] https://law.yale.edu/mfia/case-disclosed/new-yorks-section-50-shields-law-enforcement-records https://law.yale.edu/mfia/case-disclosed/new-yorks-section-5... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/03/nyregion/police-discipline-records-garner.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/03/nyregion/police-disciplin... [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/police-rarely-criminally-charged-for-on-duty-shootings-1416874955 https://www.wsj.com/articles/police-rarely-criminally-charge... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/04/24/the-police-officers-bill-of-rights https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/04/24/...

gnopgnip 8y ago
There is certainly some grey area in how the law should be implemented. Should the police disclose only those who have been convicted of a crime AND who have exhausted all appeals?
- nickles 8y ago
  > Should the police disclose only those who have been convicted of a crime AND who have exhausted all appeals? Are civilians afforded that privilege? Consider the case of stockbrokers, for example. Regulations require that a broker immediately discloses, on a publicly accessible website [0], that they have become "a defendant or respondent in any securities- or commodities-related civil litigation or arbitration" [1]. This does not require a finding of guilt nor an exhaustion of appeals. While allegations of financial fraud are certainly concerning, a police officer convicted of molesting a child or sexual assaulting suspects is potentially shielded from similar levels of disclosure (as described in the article). Are stockbrokers subject to too much scrutiny, or are police officers subject to too little scrutiny? Furthermore, the gray area in the law, when assigning the benefit of the doubt to the officer, puts the public in danger. In the Washington Post article cited above, the following example is referenced: > In 2007, Shreveport police officer Wiley Willis arrested 38-year-old Angela Garbarino on suspicion of drunken driving. While in custody, as captured on the video below, Garbarino begins arguing with Willis about what she said is her right to make a phone call. About a minute later, Willis walks over and turns off the video camera. When the camera comes back on, Garbarino is lying on the floor in a pool of her own blood. She was later photographed with severe facial injuries she says were the result of Willis beating her. Willis’ attorney stated that she tripped and fell while the camera was off. After the video went viral, Willis was fired, but has never been criminally charged. > Last month, the Shreveport Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board voted to reinstate Willis on the police force. He’ll get full back pay and benefits for the year-and-a-half he was fired. The reason? During the internal investigation of Willis, a polygraph machine operator failed to record the results of his Q&A with Willis. This apparently is a violation of Louisiana’s “Police Officer’s Bill of Rights,” a set of guidelines every department must follow when investigating officer misconduct. > Garbarino won a $400,000 settlement from the city of Shreveport last year. This officer was reinstated on what is incontrovertibly a technicality. Since the appeal was successful, PO Willis' actions could be concealed from the public due to the gray area of the law. Is it in the public interest to hide such blatant misconduct? [0] https://brokercheck.finra.org/ https://brokercheck.finra.org/ [1] http://www.brokeandbroker.com/2975/finra-4530-/ http://www.brokeandbroker.com/2975/finra-4530-/

nimbius 8y ago

Disclosure: I am a former felon, convicted and sentenced for assaulting a carjacker. pro-tip: never take the public defender. My question about this whole discussion is this: Whats the point. If prisons are designed as "correctional" facilities, which many good ones are, then you'll obviously move past being a felon and improve your life. If you keep a secret list of people you know have been convicted of a felony, you're tacitly admitting you either dont believe in prisons as an effective tool for correction, or you're looking for something more sinister...biblical retribution And lets be honest, being a former felon IS a scarlet letter in the US. employers can discriminate against you, housing can discriminate against you in renting and in homeowners covenants, and you can be denied public services like disability and food stamps in some states. Former felons cant vote without a lengthy and expensive process of reinstatement. Yes, i get that teachers, doctors, and police are certainly important positions, but again, the list. If you're just keeping it as part of their personnel and noting certain positions they shouldnt hold out of an abundance of caution in the face of an indeterminate outcome from mental rehabilitation or incarceration, then perhaps keep it secret. Use it as a blacklist if thats whats required for certain positions. however If you're just looking to shield felons from the inconvenience of incarceration or criminal charges, then reconsider it.

Tsubasachan 8y ago
"You have paid of your debt to society" is a meme like "Lady Justice is blind". Hell you can be acquitted and still have society set against you, see the Central Park five.
IshKebab 8y ago
I think it's pretty clear to most people that the US prison system is a deterrent and provides retribution. It's not about rehabilitation.
- elliekelly 8y ago
  I agree that it isn't about rehabilitation. And to a certain degree it definitely seems our system is geared towards retribution. But study after study[1] has shown that an individual's perception of the likely punishment (e.g., prison time) doesn't deter crime. Rather, an individual's perception of the likelihood they'll get _caught_ seems to be the main deterrent. This is a really interesting & related read.[2] [1]https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/670398 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/670398 [2]https://undark.org/article/deterrence-punishments-dont-reduce-crime/ https://undark.org/article/deterrence-punishments-dont-reduc...

__jal 8y ago

Police may be one of the few professions below who have real privacy protections in US, although most decent humans would never want to take advantage of particular ones in effect. The special rights the police have are amazing, and that's before you get to the ones about use of force. My personal favorite is that the maxim 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' is flipped on its head if you're a cop - qualified immunity combined with judges willing to make absurd distinctions make it a great excuse. I absolutely want a list of the ones that still got caught, even with all those advantages. In terms of evaluating the risks of local community members, that's far more useful than a list of "sex offenders" who may have peed in public or something.

FireBeyond 8y ago
> my personal favorite is that the maxim 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' is flipped on its head if you're a cop So true. When it's you being arrested, sorry, too bad. When a cop is trying to arrest you for taking photos in a public place, "We can't expect cops to be constitutional lawyers".

erikpukinskis 8y ago

People wring their hands about how we’re losing privacy in the modern age. But this is an example of the good that we get from that loss. Not saying we shouldn’t worry about privacy, just highlighting this is the silver lining to that cloud and it’s not an unsubstantial public good.

godelski 8y ago
These are two completely different topics. One is about privacy the other is about holding people in positions of power accountable for their actions(and that we have evidence about them not being).
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  You can’t hold anyone accountable unless you can see into their private life.

archarios 8y ago

All cops are crooks anyway so who gives a fuck?

drdeca 8y ago
Do you mean to say that that is necessarily the case, or merely that it, in the actual world, is the case? I don’t believe that to be a necessary truth, true in all possible worlds. i.e. I believe that it is possible for there to be a cop who is not a “crook”. Which, I suppose follows from the fact that I am not an anarchist. As such, I believe it to be desirable that there be a cop who is not a “crook”. I think that an important part of discouraging misbehavior among law enforcement is not only to threaten punishment against anyone who, while acting as an instrument by which the state enforces the law, abuses the power they have been lent for that purpose, but in addition, the state must be seen to actually dole out this punishment to its agents when they abuse the power lent to them. It should be seen that it will not tolerate abuse done in its name. Of course, in order for this to be seen, it must first be done. But, another requirement is that, if any agent (of law enforcement) of the state does about the power, that this certainly should not be kept secret! That, I think, is enough reason for me to care.
iceninenines 8y ago
US police only have one prime directive: protect property owners. Individual citizens, rights, lives, etc. are low on their priority list because they're untouchable and have little incentive to do so.

acomjean 8y ago

I don't like all the secrecy. Massachusetts has a "secret court system" that lets connected people avoid court and problems. I've lived here for a while and had no idea these shenanigans were going on. Well to be fair, we're a pretty jaded bunch so it wasn't overly surprising. "Every year, tens of thousands of cases wind up in secret court sessions — formally known as “show cause hearings” — that are presided over by court clerks and usually held for suspects who haven’t been arrested and don’t pose a flight risk or danger to others. People are generally entitled to these hearings for misdemeanors, but police can request them for felonies as well. .... Show cause hearings were originally created to weed out baseless allegations, but, in practice, there are so few checks on the clerks’ power that they regularly go far beyond that, brokering deals and, in nearly half of the cases, rejecting requests for charges. Clerk magistrates, who are appointed by the governor, routinely refuse to issue charges even when there is significant evidence — as in the case of a judge caught on camera taking someone else’s $4,000 watch off a security belt at Logan International Airport. Over the last two years, clerks have set aside nearly 62,000 cases, including more than 18,000 after a clerk concluded there was probable cause to believe that the accused committed a crime, according to court data. The Spotlight Team uncovered cases where clerks tossed charges involving serious injuries or deaths, including one brought against a Quincy taxi driver who ran over and allegedly dragged an elderly man, killing him." Good reporting in a strange web first format.. https://apps.bostonglobe.com/spotlight/secret-courts/ https://apps.bostonglobe.com/spotlight/secret-courts/ More info here. https://apps.bostonglobe.com/metro/investigations/spotlight/secret-courts-in-massachusetts/ https://apps.bostonglobe.com/metro/investigations/spotlight/...

sbenitoj 8y ago

It’s almost like members of the government are above the law...

Tsubasachan 8y ago

"All animals are equal but some are more equal than others" the pig said.

turc1656 8y ago

What I would really like to know is what is the rate of criminality within the CA police force vs the public. Because 12,000 in a 10 year period is a LOT of felons that have worn or still wear a badge. From what I can find, the US average for all adult residents is about 8.6% (about 1 in 12). For officers in CA, I found estimates of 90,000 to 100,000 on several sites. However, a survey of specific cities seems to indicate roughly 15 officers per 10,000 residents (http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/law-enforcement-police-department-employee-totals-for-cities.html http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/law-enforce...). CA has about 40 million residents, which would be about 60,000 officers. Going with the 60,000 number, that's 20%! If we go with the higher estimate of 100,000 officers, that's still 12%! And don't forget - the 8.6% US average number is for anyone who has a felony record - meaning it covers their entire adult life, not just the past 10 years. That makes the officer numbers even worse! From what I can gather, the rate of criminality for officers (at least in CA) as far, far above the average for everyone else.

shereadsthenews 8y ago
This isn't just felonies. It includes things like misdemeanor drunk driving.
- turc1656 8y ago
  Good point. They mention felonies and list some very serious specific ones so it primed me to think the list was all felonies, even though it did say "felonies and other crimes that would disqualify them". I'd still be very interested in knowing what the rate comparison is.
- natch 8y ago
  Well drunk driving is a pretty serious matter no matter how the legal system categorizes it. I realize it was an example. Just not a great example.
kodablah 8y ago
I think the ~12k convictions includes police officers no longer active or that may just have been applicants. TFA says less than a third match police personnel records and that it is unclear which may just be for applicants. I don't think we should speculate with these ballpark numbers if we can count on the results coming out later.

SiempreViernes 8y ago

Why both ”secret” and ”you can’t have it” in the title? Surely this is a news item worth a title somoeone actually put effort into?

abtinf 8y ago

The two major public safety unions in CA, the California Peace Officers Association and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, collect a combined total of about $100M per year in dues. They are incredibly active and influential in CA politics. The probability of the overturning a policy they support that directly concerns their members, as in the article, is zero.

HillaryBriss 8y ago

How can AG Becerra seriously contend that it's a crime for the newspaper to have this info, which was inadvertently leaked to them through legal channels? Didn't the "NY Times vs the United States" SCOTUS case resolve that sort of question? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ccnafr 8y ago

Than why is it keeping it in the first place?

Golfkid2Gadfly 8y ago

Ask yourselves. How many 'regular' citizens would be able to keep their jobs, relationships, lives if committed only one of half the crimes suggested in the article above? The Socialist Peoples Republic of California. Working hard to better the lives of themselves... not you!