Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records Police topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances AB 1178 to protect undercover officers’ identifying information in records disputes; press groups urge caution
Summary
AB 1178, a bill directing courts to consider undercover status when deciding whether to redact peace-officer identifying information from public records, advanced from the Senate Public Safety Committee to Appropriations on June 10.
The Senate Public Safety Committee advanced Assembly Bill 1178 on June 10; the bill asks courts to consider undercover status and duties when deciding whether identifying information of peace officers can be redacted from records disclosed under law.
Assemblymember Pacheco, the bill author, said AB 1178 corrects a drafting error in the public-records scheme and clarifies that courts should evaluate requests to redact an undercover officer’s personal identifying information to protect ongoing investigations and officer safety. The committee adopted technical amendments clarifying that courts evaluate the appropriateness of redactions rather than performing redactions themselves.
Matt Seiberling of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs said AB 1178 is not a blanket exemption from disclosure for law enforcement misconduct files but a narrowly tailored measure to ensure collateral exposure of undercover officers does not compromise operations or safety. He said the bill preserves disclosure of records showing sustained misconduct while allowing consideration of officer safety in redaction determinations.
News organizations and civil-rights groups — including the California News Publishers Association and the ACLU of Northern California — opposed the bill. They said existing law (including post-SB 1421 reforms) already requires agencies to justify non-disclosure and that AB 1178 would shift duties to courts in a way that could tip the balance toward non-disclosure. An ACLU staff attorney argued the bill could force a court to consider undercover status even if a public agency did not raise it, effectively asking courts to assist agencies in withholding records and undermining the public’s constitutional right of access.
Committee members expressed sympathy for officer-safety concerns and for transparency advocates’ arguments. Vice Chair Ciarro (vice chair name in transcript rendered as Ciarto) spoke in favor, saying undercover officers and their families face serious risks if identities are exposed. The committee passed the bill to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
