California Attorney General Doubles Down On Threatening Journalists For Possessing Convicted Cops List
from the I-guess-the-Constitution-only-protects-bad-cops dept
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has decided there's too much First Amendment in his state. First, he ignored clarification provided directly to him by the author of the state's new public records law to declare past police misconduct records off limits. Claiming the question of retroactivity was still open, Becerra denied public records requests seeking documents created prior to January 1, 2019.
His next potshot at the First Amendment occurred shortly thereafter. Journalists from UC Berkeley received a list of convicted California police officers in response to a records request. The list covered 10 years of convictions and contained 12,000 names. At this point, the journalists have not published the full list. But they have been vetting the list to prep for publication.
That's where AG Becerra stepped in. He told the journalists it was illegal for them to possess "confidential information" they obtained lawfully through a public records request. He's wrong, of course. It is not illegal to possess documents received via public records requests even if the government entity has mistakenly sent you the wrong documents.
As for the "confidential" claim, any convictions would already be public records, seeing as prosecutions are handled by the state's court system. What the list does is provide one-stop shopping for bad cops, which is what law enforcement agencies are doing when they run applicants against this list.
So far, only three officers' names have been published. AG Becerra is trying to ensure those three names are the only ones the public will ever see. If the First Amendment needs to be damaged to protect bad cops, that's a sacrifice he's willing to make.
In a statement provided to Freedom of the Press Foundation on Wednesday, a spokesman for the California Department of Justice doubled down on the contention that the journalists are breaking the law:
“The UC Berkeley Investigative Reporting Program is not an entity permitted to possess or use this confidential data. The UC Berkeley Investigative Reporting Program chose to publish the confidential information of Californians despite being alerted by the Department of Justice that doing so was prohibited by law.”
The AG's office is still threatening the reporters with criminal charges simply for possessing the list. But even if the journalists publish the list in full, it's unlikely any court will support Becerra's decision to pretend the First Amendment doesn't exist. Both the act of requesting public records and the publication of obtained records are protected speech. AG Becerra has nothing to work with here, but he's publicly demonstrating his willingness to do whatever it takes to protect the state's bad cops.
Worse, he's doubled down. When AG Becerra was asked for clarification by the Freedom of the Press Foundation, he had this to say:
“We always strive to balance the public’s right to know, the need to be transparent and an individual’s right to privacy. In this case, information from a database that’s required by law to be confidential was released erroneously, jeopardizing personal data of individuals across our state. No one wants to shield criminal behavior; we’re subject to the rule of law.”
If Becerra has a problem with "jeopardizing personal data," the only action he should be taking is against the government entity that (supposedly) breached the law by releasing it to reporters. Becerra's nod to "rule of law" is especially rich. The Constitution is part of the "law" Becerra professes allegiance to. But it's clear he'd rather cover up for his cop buddies than respect the parts of the law that restrain his ability to punish people for protected speech.
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: 1st amendment, california, foia, journalism, police misconduct, public records, reporting, transparency, xavier becerra
Reader Comments
The First Word
“They absolutely do know their place. Their place is in reporting information the public needs to know. The press has always been the watchdog keeping an eye on government and others in power. This is enshrined in the constitution.
And yes, we all need to know about the bad cops. Keeping this information in the dark will only perpetuate the problem.
made the First Word by Gary
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"Don't snitch."
Troublemakers need to be rooted out. Those journalists don't know their place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Every Nation eats the Paint chips t Deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We back to you attacking the press, and general smack talk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, troublemakers like bad cops and, apparently, AG Becerra, do need to be rooted out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They absolutely do know their place. Their place is in reporting information the public needs to know. The press has always been the watchdog keeping an eye on government and others in power. This is enshrined in the constitution.
And yes, we all need to know about the bad cops. Keeping this information in the dark will only perpetuate the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They do. That's why they're publishing the list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're right, troublemakers need to be rooted out. Hence the list of convicted cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LawDirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They hate us for our freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"It is not illegal"
That link would have been better if it went to a story proving your point, rather than one simply saying the same thing (actually, it says it's "likely" inconsistent with court precedent). In other words, a legal citation where a court supported this view. I believe you, but I'd like to see how strongly courts agreed in the past, and how similar the situations are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "It is not illegal"
Here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "It is not illegal"
Someone should really ask him, on the record, if he's at all familiar with that case, and if so why he think his claims are going to withstand legal scrutiny when the gorram government couldn't keep much more sensitive information from being published.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "It is not illegal"
That link would have been better if it went to a story proving your point, rather than one simply saying the same thing (actually, it says it's "likely" inconsistent with court precedent).
Literally the same sentence that says "likely inconsistent" includes the most relevant court precedent "the famed pentagon papers case" (AKA New York Times Co. vs United States). This has a fairly good overview of the legal landscape if you want more detail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "It is not illegal"
Thanks! I thought the sentence refered to the Espionage Act prosecution of Ellsberg, but it really meant the NYT publication case which is indeed a strong precedent. Publishing information provided by the government (though inadvertently) has got to be on better legal ground than publishing information someone released without permission. I see no subsequent jurisprudence weakening that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "It is not illegal"
Here is one, with the same facts. Not so much a ``story'' proving the point, just some important case law of which you may not be aware. [link] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/491/524/#tab-opinion-1958043 (Florida Star v. BJF, 491 U.S. 524)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous post to PasteBin
Get it done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only people Becerra is more interested in protecting than bad cops are illegal aliens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The only people Becerra is more interested in protecting than bad cops are illegal aliens."
Oh, got your back does he? BTW -which planet are you from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He Knows
This Judge knows the damage that takes place when you prove state witnesses unreliable. A single bad drug lab agent was able to invalidate years worth of convictions. Just wait till you prove a traffic cop lies, or people in jail find proof that the cops that put them away are all liars.
The number of cases about to be re-opened would be a triple whammy to the state. An impossible number of criminal cases and civil fines would be forced back to court, followed by lawsuits from all the jails as populations drop below 95%. Finally, all the reparations for jailing innocent people who now get their life back and can claim money from wrongful conviction suits.
California might become an actully nice state to live in for once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just noise...
"...chose to publish the confidential information of Californians despite being alerted by the Department of Justice that doing so was prohibited by law.”
What law? He doesn't bother to cite it, even though he MUST "know" which law(s) prohibit such release.
Also, I suspect the list is only "semi" public record - when they release more names, look up the case number in the court records. Most of them are probably "sealed" to protect the guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just noise...
I found the section of California code most relevant to this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real reason why he is trying to hide records
The AG knows exactly how horrible the police have been to the people of CA and knows that if these accurate records got out, numerous lawsuits would quickly bankrupt the state. They have violated so many rights and covered it up over and over that everyone is culpable. There needs to be light brought to bear on the bad cop problem in this country and if CA has to be first, so be it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There IS a law on the books
California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 11143:
Since the reporters haven't been arrested yet I'm guessing that the Attorney General knows that the law would be overturned on appeal and would rather keep it on the books so it can be used to threaten other people at a later date. Either that or he wants to avoid the Streisand Effect of actually arresting them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There IS a law on the books
Yeah, if a law like that could survive legal challenge and be used to stop leaks of sensitive/damning information I have no doubt the USG would have put it on the books decades ago, so I strongly suspect that you're right, he's not trying to charge them under it because he wants to keep it as a threat to use on others and not get it struck down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There IS a law on the books
I would say that even if this law did stand up to a legal challenge, this clause would make it inapplicable here. The journalists weren't bribing doctors into giving away HIPPA-protected patient records, or publishing confidential NSA wiretaps, or buying a stolen Krabby Patty formula. They submitted an FOIA request for an official government document. That's as "authorized by law" as it gets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There IS a law on the books
Right. But notice that first sentence says "except those specifically referred to in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code..."
Section 1070: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/evidence-code/evid-sect-1070.html
VERY FIRST SECTION: " A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed"
So, yeah, I'd say that the reporters here are "excepted" out of 11143 (which is still unconstitutional).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wouldn't a nice headline talking about how the AG cares more about hiding bad acts by police than public safety solve this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I suspect it could damage their case in any potential court proceeding that could come out of this, but otherwise I fully agree with you.
They need to start asking the hard questions:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Almost everyone is corrupt, and our government is just a reflection of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meet the new boss ...
... same as the old boss.
Former California AG Kamala Harris made a whole career out of protecting bad cops and bad prosecutors. Maybe this Becerra's bucking for her Senate seat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hello every one.I saw comments from people who already got their loans from pure heart loans and then I decided to apply under there recommendations and just few hours ago I confirmed in my own personal bank account a total amount of $40,000 which I requested for. this is real a great news i am advising every one who needs real loan to apply true their via mail (Johnsonloanfirm32@gmail. com) I am happy now that I have gotten the loan I requested for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“I suspect it could damage their case in any potential court proceeding that could come out of this, but otherwise I fully agree with you.
They need to start asking the hard questions: