Law enforcement: settlement agreements.

Assembly Member Bryan’s measure ties concerns about opaque settlements to a transparency-driven framework for officer-m misconduct records, arguing that arrangements that require destroying or concealing findings run counter to existing public-records and accountability structures and should be deemed unenforceable. The bill’s findings articulate that such settlements are contrary to law and public policy, and it expresses the intent to affirm reporting, retention, and disclosure requirements that already exist under state law.

The proposal would bar agreements between a law enforcement agency and a peace officer that oblige destruction, removal, concealment, or restricted disclosure of misconduct records, or that require particular findings to be made or withheld. It would extend public-access protections for peace officer records by clarifying which materials must be available under the California Public Records Act and would specify that a broad set of investigative materials—including reports, photographs, video and audio evidence, interview transcripts, autopsy results, and related disciplinary documents—are subject to disclosure when the underlying incident triggers a public-records review. The measure would also specify categories of incidents and findings that are presumptively disclosable, such as firearm discharges, deadly force outcomes, sustained findings of excessive force or failure to intervene, sexual assault findings, dishonesty, prejudice or discrimination, unlawful arrests or searches, and certain other related records. Certain information may be redacted to protect privacy or safety interests, with structured allowances for delaying disclosure in actively ongoing investigations or where overriding public interests apply. The bill also contemplates coordination with other proposed reforms, with operative provisions conditioned on the enactment and sequencing of related bills.

On the oversight and reporting side, the bill would require agencies employing peace officers to report to the commission any events that could affect decertification, including separations, complaints or allegations that could lead to suspension or revocation, civilian oversight findings, civil judgments or settlements, and final dispositions of investigations. It would require an affidavit-of-separation form describing the reasons for separation and whether it related to unresolved charges or investigations, and would authorize subsequent agencies to contact the reporting agency or the commission for additional information. The measure contemplates ongoing access to investigation materials by the commission and, in certain circumstances, preemployment-background investigators, while preserving protections around ongoing investigations and the confidentiality of personnel records. It also prohibits disturbing or destroying records through agreements and provides a severability clause to maintain validity of remaining provisions if any part is invalidated, aligning with a broader objective of public access to information about officer conduct.

Taken together, the measure situates itself within a legal framework that seeks to enhance accountability and record-keeping around officer conduct, while clarifying the balance between public access and privacy or safety considerations. It underscores a policy rationale that emphasizes reporting and disclosure as essential components of transparency in law enforcement, and it aligns with a broader program of oversight, certification, and decertification processes administered by the state. The overarching aim is to codify specific disclosure requirements, restrict settlement terms that obscure misconduct, and strengthen the mechanisms by which information about officer discipline and related investigations is maintained and made available to relevant oversight bodies and the public.