Thread by @DarwinBondGraha

Here's a full recap of what happened in Contra Costa Superior Court today, where five police unions and a sheriffs deputies union attempted to obtain a preliminary injunction to block release of police misconduct records under the new #SB1421 law.

Activists rallied outside the courthouse and questioning the motives of police unions (including officers from Antioch, Richmond, Concord, Martinez, Walnut Creek, Contra Costa Sheriff) who are trying to block application of #SB1421 to records dated pre 1-1-2019.

Before #SB1421, police misconduct files were strictly secret. What the new law does is open up SUSTAINED cases where an officer was found to have committed wrongdoing. Also, it opens all shooting investigations and use of force resulting in great bodily harm.

In court today, Judge Charles Treat first heard from the attorney for the police unions, Timothy Talbot. Talbot argued that #SB1421 can't be applied to pre 1-1-2019 misconduct files because the legislature didn't expressly state this in the bill text.

Talbot also argued that police officers had vested privacy rights afforded by Penal Code Sec. 832.7, and that #SB1421 can only undo this right to privacy prospectively.
All records created prior to the law's effective date remain secret, he insisted.

Judge Treat was critical of the police unions' arguments from the start. “Didn't the legislature think that insufficient access to police, public access to records, was a problem last year?”

One interesting argument made by the police unions' attorney was that an officer investigated for misconduct may have chosen not to pursue a grievance to reverse discipline because the investigation, findings, and discipline were confidential. Now that calculus is undone.

ACLU-NC Attorney Kathleen Guneratne argued that the police unions were advancing 2 false arguments.
1. #SB1421 isn't actually retroactive in the true legal sense, and
2. That the law takes away some kind of vested privacy interest.

Guneratne said truly retroactive laws change consequences for people's past actions, when different rules applied.

But #SB1421 doesn't change legal consequence for cops who commit sexual assault, lie, or kill. Rather, it only makes information about these actions public.

At the end of arguments, Treat ruled against the police unions: "I am going to dissolve the TRO and deny the preliminary injunctions. Now the next thing that's going to happen is an appeal..." #SB1421

But Treat issued a 10-day stay to prevent the cities and county from releasing police misconduct records.

This will allow the police unions to file an appeal and press for an appellate-level injunction.

It looks like #SB1421 will end up back before the CA Supreme Court soon.

Here's the key section of Judge Treat's decision explaining why he thinks the police unions are wrong: #SB1421 applies to older records because the date of police misconduct, or the date the records were produced don't matter.