Peace officers: confidentiality of records.

Assembly Member Sharp-Collins and Senator Arreguín advance a proposal to formalize civilian oversight of the sheriff’s office by enabling oversight boards and a county inspector general to access confidential peace-officer personnel records during investigations, while binding those records to strict confidentiality and allowing closed-session review. The core change expands who may review sensitive personnel files and related agency records in oversight contexts and adds subpoena authority to compel testimony and production of documents, paired with an independent inspector general to support oversight functions. The measure also anchors these new oversight capabilities in existing confidentiality protections and contemplates interactions with companion reforms that would adjust how public records are disclosed.

The bill would empower a county to create a civilian sheriff oversight board, appoint a chair, and grant the board access to personnel records needed to carry out oversight duties. The board’s access would be subject to confidentiality requirements that align with established confidentiality provisions in the penal code, and the board would be able to issue subpoenas for witnesses and records, with civil-contempt mechanisms for enforcement. A parallel provision would authorize a county to establish an office of the inspector general, who would have independent subpoena authority and access to the same confidential materials, also subject to confidentiality constraints. The measure states that the use of these powers should not obstruct the sheriff’s investigative functions, and it contemplates closed sessions for confidential review of records under appropriate legal standards.

In addition, the bill proposes changes to the confidentiality-and-disclosure framework governing peace-officer and custodial-officer records, expanding the subset of records that may be publicly accessible under the public-records regime in carefully delineated circumstances. It enumerates categories of incidents and findings whose records, discussions, and related materials could be released, including incident reports, findings of force-related cases, sexual-assault findings, dishonesty findings, prejudice or discrimination findings, and unlawful-arrest or unlawful-search findings, along with associated investigative materials and disciplinary records. The bill preserves redaction rules to protect personal information and safety concerns, sets timing constraints for when records must be provided, and allows delays during active investigations with specified procedural safeguards. It also provides conditions under which records may be withheld or redacted and outlines cost considerations for disclosures.

The proposal ties these changes to sequencing with companion reform measures, such that the operative status of the new disclosure provisions would depend on the enactment and timing of those related measures. A separate administrative provision delineates the conditions under which different versions of the amendments would become operative, and it explains that if the sequencing conditions are not met, certain provisions may not take effect. Taken together, the measure seeks to balance increased transparency and accountability with privacy and safety considerations, while expanding the governance toolkit available to civilian oversight bodies and county inspectors general. The anticipated implementation implications include the need for robust data-handling protocols, staff and training requirements for oversight entities, potential county-level budget considerations, and ongoing coordination with existing confidentiality and public-records laws.