Peace officers: confidentiality of records.

Assembly Member Pacheco, working with colleagues Alanis, Nguyen, Michelle Rodriguez, and Blanca Rubio, frames a measure to reform how peace officer and custodial officer records are treated under California’s public records framework, weaving in a new court consideration about undercover status when assessing whether disclosing a record would pose a danger to safety. The proposal also contemplates coordinating its effect with companion reforms, so the operative changes depend on how other related measures move through the Legislature.

At the core, the bill preserves a baseline of confidentiality for peace officer personnel records while creating a broad set of records that would be subject to public disclosure under the public records act. The disclosable categories cover records relating to incidents such as firearm discharges at a person, use of force resulting in death or serious injury, sustained findings of excessive force, and sustained findings of failure to intervene; sexual assault findings; sustained findings of dishonesty in reporting or investigation; findings of prejudice or discrimination; and unlawful arrests or searches. There are transitional rules for incidents that occurred before a given date, and the bill specifies the scope of materials that must be released, including investigative reports, evidence, transcripts, autopsy reports, and disciplinary documents. The measure also outlines redaction standards intended to protect personal privacy, whistleblowers, and witnesses, while permitting redactions for safety concerns deemed specific, articulable, and particularized. It preserves existing discovery mechanics and Pitchess procedures, and it adds procedural elements such as notifying the complainant within a defined period after disposition and allowing non-identifying, aggregated data about complaints.

The bill deploys multiple amendment tracks to a central provision governing confidentiality and disclosure, with operative provisions to activate only if companion bills are enacted and sequencing requirements are met by a specified date. In practice, that sequencing creates a conditional pathway: if the companion reforms pass and are enacted in the prescribed order, the new public-records provisions would take effect; if not, the changes may not become operative. The measure also clarifies that agencies may delay disclosure during active investigations under defined timelines, subject to periodic judicial review and sealing mechanisms, and it emphasizes that no new statewide funding is created by the bill. The framework thereby ties transparency and safety considerations to a structured process that engages courts, agencies, and civilian oversight where applicable, while maintaining existing rights to discover information under current law.