Posted October 15, 2007

Governor Vetoes Senate Bills on Interrogation, ID and Informants

          On October 13, 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed three bills that would have affected police procedures and criminal trials. These bills were widely opposed by public safety officials and groups.

          SB 511 would have mandated tape recording custodial interrogations in homicide and serious felony cases. SB 609 would have limited the use of "in-custody" informant testimony if not independently corroborated. SB 756 would have led to the use of sequential "double-blind" ID procedures and would have placed severe restrictions on the use of "roll-by" field show-up ID procedures.

          In rejecting these measures, which had passed both the Senate and Assembly, the Governor expressed a preference for allowing local investigators the flexibility to adapt their investigative techniques to the demands of the situation.

Posted August 28, 2007

California Supreme Court Rules that POST Commission Records on Officers are Subject to Public Disclosure

Commission on POST v. Superior Court, 2007 DJDAR 13089

          The Los Angeles Times made a Public Records Act request for records of all peace officers hired in California between 1991 and 2001, including names, DOB, termination dates and reasons for leaving. POST asserted that the records were exempt from disclosure because they contained personnel information, and because disclosure could endanger officers and their families. In a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court has held that the records are not exempt and must be disclosed.

          Said the court: "We conclude that the privacy and safety interests of peace officers in general do not outweigh the public's interest in the disclosure of the information sought by the Times."

          The court returned the case to the Superior Court to allow POST to demonstrate that some classes of officers (such as undercover investigators) would be jeopardized by release of their identities.

Posted July 31, 2007

O'Connell v. Stockton (2007) DJDAR 11377.

California Supreme Court Invalidates Local Vehicle Forfeiture Ordinance

          A number of counties and cities, including the City of Stockton, have enacted ordinances allowing the seizure and forfeiture of vehicles used to solicit drug sales and acts of prostitution. By a 4-3 vote, the California Supreme Court has ruled that such ordinances are invalid, because state law has preempted the field of penalties for these crimes:

          "The illicit commercial activities—prostitution and trafficking in controlled substances—that are the focus of the City's vehicle forfeiture ordinance are matters of statewide concern that our Legislature has comprehensively addressed through various provisions of this state's Penal and Vehicle Codes, leaving no room for further regulation at the local level."

          Local jurisdictions should examine their vehicle forfeiture ordinances and practices in light of O'Connell, and also in light of Miranda v. City of Cornelius, Oregon (9^th Cir. 2005) 429 F.3d 858, 864 and People v. Williams (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 756, 762 (holding that vehicle impounds may violate the Fourth Amendment, even though authorized by state law or local ordinance, as briefed in an earlier LawWatch posting).