California Law Enforcement Union Sues To Block Police Accountability
from the we'll-take-the-power...-hold-the-responsibility dept
Because there's just not enough opacity shrouding police misconduct and not enough slanting of the criminal justice system against defendants, California police unions have decided to get involved in a judicial dispute over lists of law enforcement officers whose half of "our word against yours" isn't quite as bulletproof as is normally assumed.
A Los Angeles sheriff is trying to do the right thing, but he's running into opposition from his own supposed "representatives."
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has collected the names of about 300 deputies who have a history of past misconduct — such as domestic violence, theft, bribery and brutality — that could damage their credibility if they testify in court.
Sheriff Jim McDonnell wants to send the names to prosecutors, who can decide whether to add them to an internal database that tracks problem officers in case the information needs to be disclosed to defendants in criminal trials.
I don't imagine prosecutors are exactly thrilled to be the recipient of information that damages the credibility of their favorite witnesses, but it's probably better than having your witness destroyed in open court by a defense attorney. But prosecutors may never see this information, thanks to the police union's belief that officers shouldn't be held accountable for anything.
The union that represents rank-and-file deputies strongly opposes providing the names to prosecutors and has taken the department to court. The Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs argues that the disclosure would violate state laws protecting officer personnel files and draw unfair scrutiny on deputies whose mistakes might have happened long ago.
The union is wrong. Officers' misconduct records are a crucial part of their trustworthiness. Burying these just makes the union look like a willing enabler of bad behavior. There would be no "unfair scrutiny" of deputies. Judges and juries are perfectly capable of determining whether past misconduct is relevant to the case at hand. The union's lawsuit seeks to place the determination of officers' credibility solely in the union's hands. And in its hands, all officers are credible until proven otherwise -- something that will be almost impossible to do with exactly zero information on hand.
The union's move is a preemptive Brady violation. Brady material is exculpatory evidence and information prosecutors are statutorily required to turn over to the defense. That would include misconduct records, which might point to a testifying officer's lack of credibility, or show a pattern of relevant misconduct. These files would not be made public, which undercuts the union's "privacy violation" claims. True, some of the files' contents would be made public during court proceedings, but it's not as though the sheriff is asking the DA's office to post the contents of the list on its website.
The union wants law enforcement officers to have more rights than the people they serve. The body of a person killed by an officer hasn't even begun to cool before department press liaisons are pushing the dead person's criminal background check results into the hands of every reporter covering the incident. No one expresses any privacy concerns when a 20-year-old arrest is used to alter the public's perception of a police shooting victim. But when it comes to cops themselves -- public servants with immense power, layers of immunity, and publicly-funded opacity that separates them from the consequences of their actions -- privacy is of utmost concern.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: california, los angeles county sheriff's department, police, transparency
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sue the union trend set in motion.
If the union gets to make the decision to not release relevant information, it would not only be a Brady violation, as mentioned in the article, but it could open their very deep pockets up to victims and their lawyers in a way the membership really won't like.
On the whole, and since I despise public employee unions, it would be better to give the list to the DA. Better still would be to give the list to all the defense lawyers, which would be nearly the same as making it public, which isn't such a bad idea. They are employees of the public, after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sue the union trend set in motion.
Why? That's an a-hole way to think. Why shouldn't any employee, regardless of employer, have the right to be represented by a union? Because those *sort* of unions have been invariably ass-holic in the past? Not good enough. That attitude's not going to inspire them to do better.
"... deputies who have a history of past misconduct — such as domestic violence, theft, bribery and brutality ..."
Geez, who wouldn't want (alleged) dirtbags like that pleading *your* case in court? That list ought to be posted to the news media, open access, by law!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sue the union trend set in motion.
It is bad enough that our current system allows for special interest groups to bribe/contribute to political candidates in order to get their agenda, even if that agenda is not in the best interest of the electorate, enacted/prosecuted against the will of the people. Letting them have a second bite at the apple is much too much. Public employees should be held to a higher standard than private employees, especially since their purview is to perform their duties in the name of the people, rather than in pursuit of the almighty dollar (or other form of money).
Do they need to be altruistic? Not necessarily. There should be good career paths in government work. But there should be no methodology for withholding the services they were hired to perform, from the people. Don't like your job conditions, find another job. Go private sector if striking gets you stoked.
As far as other unions, I think they had a purpose, an especially important purpose, in the past. These days they seem to be about making union executives rich and powerful, as well as feeling superior when they throw their political clout around, often to satisfy needs not related to the unions original purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sue the union trend set in motion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sue the union trend set in motion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Mistakes"
"Mistakes" made by these deputies include "domestic violence, theft, bribery and brutality".
Because who hasn't slipped up and totally accidentally brutalized someone. oops!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Mistakes"
Wiggle room; gotta love it. "PBA" == "Constitution, what's that?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Mistakes"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep in mind
It has nothing to do with ridding the sheriff department of deputies who have a record of domestic violence, brutality, theft, falsifying reports, etc. Nope, their jobs are entirely safe, regardless of how this lawsuit turns out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
California Law Enforcement Union Seeks To Bring Order Back To Its Rightful Place
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: California Law Enforcement Union Seeks To Bring Order Back To Its Rightful Place
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: California Law Enforcement Union Seeks To Bring Order Back To Its Rightful Place
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: California Law Enforcement Union Seeks To Bring Order Back To Its Rightful Place
You seem to be saying that cops with disciplinary problems make for tighter enforcement. The article, which was not written by Mr. Masnick (highlighting your MOST EXCELLENT reading skillz) is about the rule of law and those rules that make the law work. Like telling the defense about issues with the reliability of witnesses for the prosecution. As the Brady rule requires. Which makes law enforcement more about feelz than facts. Like your writing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: California Law Enforcement Union Seeks To Bring Order Back To Its Rightful Place
For all their chest pounding about "the rule of law" I do not see them following it when it does not serve their wants and desires, they only drag it out for those times when it does. They are now attempting to remove the rule of law from impeding their goose stepping toward fascism.
Pro Tip: You can not just whip it out when ever you want, that's not how it works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: California Law Enforcement Union Seeks To Bring Order Back To Its Rightful Place
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: California Law Enforcement Union Seeks To Bring Order Back To Its Rightful Place
Those with such bravery will be summarily arrested, interrogated, water boarded and put in prison -forever disappeared.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: California Law Enforcement Union Seeks To Bring Order Back To Its Rightful Place
Like, say, blogging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: California Law Enforcement Union Seeks To Bring Order Back To Its Rightful Place
If he is unhappy about it, perhaps he should've written this piece.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: California Law Enforcement Union Seeks To Bring Order Back To Its Rightful Place
Who hated the process of due
Each product he'd paid
Was DMCAed
And shoved up his ass with a screw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mistakes might have happened long ago
It is also a two way street. If police would like the negative repercussions of their mistakes to fade over time they need to give that same benefit to citizens too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mistakes might have happened long ago
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mistakes might have happened long ago
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Impossibly high standards, what do you think they are, members of the public?
Balderdash, who hasn't accidentally bribed someone and/or smashed someone's teeth in?
I mean we're not talking about serious crimes like copyright infringement here, I'm sure that after a stern talking to they learned their lesson, no need to go overboard and impose some sort of punishment for what really amounts to harmless pranks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Impossibly high standards, what do you think they are, members of the public?
should stop bashing their faces into our boots, it really is difficult to remove those blood stains. Those damn terrorists should be made to pay for my next shoe shine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Impossibly high standards, what do you think they are, members of the public?
Watching a cop walk down a line of handcuffed "Occupy" protesters while spraying mace in their faces was highly alluminating.
This's one shitty century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mistakes might have happened long ago
Funny, that. Where I live, most renters insist on a criminal records check before they'll rent their place to you. Threaten to beat your spouse forty years ago? You get to live in a homeless shelter.
Police databases never forget the least of your (our?) transgressions. Police unions are demanding that kind of thing shouldn't apply to their members.
They're special. Why they deserve such consideration is beyond me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something wrong here...
Things like this usually crop up when the group (Union, in this case) first gets this stuff USED against them. Then they'll backtrack it.
McDonnell's name showing up in this shows premeditation. He's making a stink and getting his name out there, now he'll be seen as the paladin fighting the evil Union - and that list won't ever be released now, so he wins no matter what.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something wrong here...
My guess is that he had to access several databases to collect the information, and either had to submit a justification for why he was doing so or if he didn't need to do so someone noticed what he was doing and asked why. Union gets word of what is happening and throws it's tantrum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Problem solved using LAPD think
[ link to this | view in chronology ]