
California keeps a secret list of criminal cops, but says you can’t have it - rrauenza
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/02/26/california-keeps-a-secret-list-of-criminal-cops-but-says-you-cant-have-it/
======
nimbius
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.

~~~
mindslight
You're really describing the _other half_ of the same issue. The larger
picture is that while the private sector is treating any conviction as a
permanent black mark, the good old boys club is doing the exact opposite.

I do agree that a serving your sentence should mean that your sentence has
been served, as opposed to continuing lists and restrictions after you're
supposedly "free". But _if_ we're going to allow that mark to continue in some
form indefinitely, then it should have more effects on people in true
positions of trust (eg police) rather than fewer!

This pattern of double standard rights erosion is happening across the board.
Police enjoy "Garrity rights" whereby they can actually exercise their 5th
amendment rights, whereas a private employee can be compelled to testify
against themselves under threat of being fired. Someone who works for the
government retains their freedom of speech protections, whereas a job in the
private sector can be easily lost due to doxxing by an online lynch mob.

Ultimately, this two class system came about because rights were codified only
as protections from the government, as there is no simple way to draw a line
between freedom of association and negative consequences. But given that we've
gotten to the point where the vast majority of the population _must_ hold down
a job, this needs to change with respect to the general labor market.

~~~
biztos
> Someone who works for the government retains their freedom of speech
> protections, whereas a job in the private sector can be easily lost due to
> doxxing by an online lynch mob.

Doesn't this have more to do with the prevalence of _unions_ in the public
sector?

~~~
gpm
No, I don't think so. The US government(s) isn't allowed to punish employees
for speech outside of work because of the first amendment.

Google suggests that this is the supreme court case that set that precedent:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickering_v._Board_of_Educatio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickering_v._Board_of_Education)

~~~
tingletech
That case seems to be about school teachers.

My Dad was a mail carrier for a time in the US. According to his union
newsletter, he did not all the full free speech rights outside of work as an
average citizen. He was not allowed to talk about work conditions outside of
work. He also did not have the right to strike.

I could have the details wrong, this was in a newsletter I read in the 1980s.
Oddly, I remember exactly were I was sitting when I read this.

~~~
gpm
While the case was brought be a teacher the ruling was not limited to
teachers.

Can't speak to what your union told your dad. There are some limitations about
speech related to work, but that sounds like a more extreme version than I'm
aware of being upheld. Can speak to laws about striking even less.

~~~
tingletech
point being teachers are not federal US Government employees, they work for a
subdivision of the state. A ruling about teachers seems like it might be not
too relevant to Federal workers.

This web pages links to a PDF with a handy flow chart from the ACLU outlining
when Federal employee might have restricted speech
[https://www.acludc.org/en/know-your-rights/know-your-
rights-...](https://www.acludc.org/en/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-
federal-employee-speech-first-amendment)

------
Shivetya
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.

~~~
ams6110
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
> 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?

~~~
mrmuagi
The difference is "hidden from the public" vs "hidden from every human being
every living". If there is a perpetrator/victim, there's at least two people
that can break out of the nd/hush scenario.

And, well I'm a little surprised on the teacher angle (and even firefighter)..
Have teachers really abused children and simply been "reassigned to different
positions with pay"? Is this a common occurrence statistically?

------
__jal
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
> 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".

------
nickles
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-5...](https://law.yale.edu/mfia/case-disclosed/new-yorks-
section-50-shields-law-enforcement-records)

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/03/nyregion/police-
disciplin...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/03/nyregion/police-discipline-
records-garner.html)

[2] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/police-rarely-criminally-
charge...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/police-rarely-criminally-charged-for-
on-duty-shootings-1416874955)

[3] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
watch/wp/2015/04/24/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
watch/wp/2015/04/24/the-police-officers-bill-of-rights)

~~~
gnopgnip
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
> 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-/)

------
acomjean
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/...](https://apps.bostonglobe.com/metro/investigations/spotlight/secret-
courts-in-massachusetts/)

------
turc1656
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-enforce...](http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/law-
enforcement-police-department-employee-totals-for-cities.html)). 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
This isn't just felonies. It includes things like misdemeanor drunk driving.

~~~
natch
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.

------
HillaryBriss
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_S...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States)

------
abtinf
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.

------
erikpukinskis
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
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
You can’t hold anyone accountable unless you can see into their private life.

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

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

------
ahaferburg
How do other states/countries handle this?

~~~
magduf
For industrialized Western nations, far less corruptly.

For countries like Venezuela, probably a lot like the US.

------
SiempreViernes
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?

------
archarios
All cops are crooks anyway so who gives a fuck?

~~~
drdeca
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.

------
ccnafr
Than why is it keeping it in the first place?

------
sarcasmatwork
California IS a sanctuary state......

~~~
dsfyu404ed
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
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/...](http://www.governing.com/gov-data/public-workforce-
salaries/states-most-government-workers-public-employees-by-job-type.html)

[Edit: typo]

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>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.

------
api
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.

~~~
badfrog
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.

~~~
DoreenMichele
The fact that it's currently a secret actually makes them potentially
vulnerable to blackmail. Airing it would remove that threat.

~~~
badfrog
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.

~~~
DoreenMichele
Blackmail requires the existence of a dirty secret. No (dirty) secret = no
blackmail.

I do realize blackmail and bribery are not the same thing.

~~~
penagwin
In either case, it's likely harder to bribe or blackmail a police officer you
found at random vs you know has a criminal record.

(Not stating any political ideas, just following through with the logic of
this discussion)

