BILL NUMBER: SB 1019 AMENDED BILL TEXT AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 12, 2008 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 20, 2007 AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 30, 2007 AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 26, 2007 INTRODUCED BY Senator Romero (Coauthors: Senators Kuehl, McClintock, Migden,Ridley-Thomas,and Scott) (Coauthor:Assembly MemberLenoCoauthors: Assembly Members Leno and Price ) FEBRUARY 23, 2007 An act to amend Section 832.7 of the Penal Code, relating to peace officer records. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 1019, as amended, Romero. Peace officer records: confidentiality. Existing law generally regulates the confidentiality of various personnel records relating to peace and custodial officers. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to abrogate the California Supreme Court decision in Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court and to restore public access to meetings and hearings regarding peace officer discipline that were open prior to the Copley Press decision. This bill would provide that notwithstanding specified statutory provisions or the holding in Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court, any city, county, city and county, or other local government entity that employs or reviews disciplinary actions imposed upon peace officers,or any state agency or state department,and that is operating under a federal consent decree, as specified, may elect, through an ordinance, regulation, or resolution, duly enacted, as specified, to follow the practices followedby any city, county, city and county, or other local government entity that employs peace officers, or any state agency or state department,before the Copley Press decision with respect to the release of limited information regarding certain personnel investigations, subject to certain conditions. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 832.7 of the Penal Code is amended to read: 832.7. (a) Peace officer or custodial officer personnel records and records maintained by any state or local agency pursuant to Section 832.5, or information obtained from these records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery pursuant to Sections 1043 and 1046 of the Evidence Code. This section shall not apply to investigations or proceedings concerning the conduct of peace officers or custodial officers, or an agency or department that employs those officers, conducted by a grand jury, a district attorney's office, or the Attorney General's office. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a department or agency shall release to the complaining party a copy of his or her own statements at the time the complaint is filed. (c) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a department or agency that employs peace or custodial officers may disseminate data regarding the number, type, or disposition of complaints (sustained, not sustained, exonerated, or unfounded) made against its officers if that information is in a form which does not identify the individuals involved. (d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a department or agency that employs peace or custodial officers may release factual information concerning a disciplinary investigation if the officer who is the subject of the disciplinary investigation, or the officer's agent or representative, publicly makes a statement he or she knows to be false concerning the investigation or the imposition of disciplinary action. Information may not be disclosed by the peace or custodial officer's employer unless the false statement was published by an established medium of communication, such as television, radio, or a newspaper. Disclosure of factual information by the employing agency pursuant to this subdivision is limited to facts contained in the officer's personnel file concerning the disciplinary investigation or imposition of disciplinary action that specifically refute the false statements made public by the peace or custodial officer or his or her agent or representative. (e) (1) Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter or the holding in Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1272, any city, county, city and county, or local government entity, state agency, or state departmentthat employs or reviews disciplinary actions imposed upon peace officers, and that is operating under a federal consent decree on the basis of police misconduct as of January 1, 2008, may elect through ordinance, resolution, or regulation, duly enacted or adopted, to follow the practices thatany city, county, city and county, local government entity, state agency, or state department that employs peace officers followed, with respect to publicit followed with respect to public hearings on, and the release of information regarding, citizen complaints, disciplinary actions, and other personnel investigations, prior to the Copley Press decision. Ifany of those entities so elects, the local legislative body or the state agency or state departmenta department's civilian oversight board or, if none is in existence, the local legislative body so elects, it shall find, based on the presentation of substantial evidence, that the practices to be enacted or adopted and followed do not provide for greater release of information than was allowed by any city, county, city and county, or local government entity, state agency, or state departmentin California that employs peace officers, and that is operating under a federal consent decree on the basis of police misconduct as of January 1, 2008, prior to when the Copley Press decision became final. (2) A chief officer of the employing agency may certify in writing that information otherwise rendered nonconfidential pursuant to paragraph (1) be withheld from public disclosure only if the chief officer expressly finds and publicly discloses facts that establish all of the following: (A) On the facts of the particular case, there exists a threat to officer safety or operational security that overrides the right of public access to the information. (B) A threat to officer safety or operational security supports nondisclosure of the information. (C) A substantial probability exists that the officer safety or operational security will be jeopardized if the information is not withheld. (D) The proposed withholding of information is narrowly tailored. (E) No less restrictive means exist toprotectingprotect officer safety or operational security. (3) If the chief officer pursuant to paragraph (2) so certifies, the commission or entity that is charged with reviewing the peace officer discipline investigation may review the chief officer's certification in closed session to determine whether or not to override the certification. (f) (1) The department or agency shall provide written notification to the complaining party of the disposition of the complaint within 30 days of the disposition. (2) The notification described in this subdivision shall not be conclusive or binding or admissible as evidence in any separate or subsequent action or proceeding brought before an arbitrator, court, or judge of this state or the United States. (g) Nothing in this section shall affect the discovery or disclosure of information contained in a peace or custodial officer's personnel file pursuant to Section 1043 of the Evidence Code. SEC. 2. It is the intent of the Legislature, in amending Section 832.7 of the Penal Code during the 2007-08 Regular Session, to abrogate the holding by the California Supreme Court in Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1272, to encourage appropriate public disclosure of peace officer and custodial officer personnel records in disciplinary matters, and to restore the public' s right of access to meetings and hearings as it existed prior to the Copley Press decision.