SENATE BILL 1421 LITIGATION UPDATE

Zachery Lopes

Attorneys 

Rains, Lucia, Stern, St. Phalle and Silver, PC.

In early 2019, over a dozen lawsuits in as many counties were filed by law enforcement employee associations challenging the intended “retroactive” application of Senate Bill (SB) 1421 — arguing that the law was not intended to allow public disclosure of peace officer personnel file information reflecting conduct that occurred prior to January 1, 2019, SB 1421’s operative date. This effort followed our firm’s appeal directly to the California Supreme Court in December 2018, seeking clarity from the high court on the retroactive application of the new law. The Supreme Court’s denial of that request to weigh in on the issue prior to January 1, 2019, necessitated the avalanche of lawsuits that followed. More than a year later, much of this litigation has made its way through the appellate courts.

Following a Contra Costa County trial court’s denial of the lawsuit by a coalition of associations, the First Appellate District likewise denied the coalition’s request for an immediate injunction pending full briefing in that court of appeal, without issuing a decision on the merits. This decision effectively ended the fight, as the denial caused the employers to apply SB 1421 retroactively and publicly disclose personnel file information accordingly. Effectively, the same result occurred in cases filed by law enforcement associations in Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Barbara, Riverside and San Diego counties.

In contrast, a trial court in Ventura County agreed with a law enforcement association that SB 1421 does not lawfully operate retroactively, thereby precluding the County from publicly releasing personnel file information reflecting conduct occurring prior to January 1, 2019. The trial court’s decision in that case was appealed to the Second Appellate District. That court has not yet issued a decision, as briefing is still open and no oral argument has occurred.

On a somewhat novel issue litigated in San Francisco, the Attorney General’s (AG’s) Office appealed a trial court’s order directing it to publicly release personnel records in its possession, even if those records pertained to peace officers employed by agencies other than the AG’s Office. The AG’s Office argued that SB 1421 only applied to records in an employer’s possession, not the possession of a non-employer law enforcement agency such as itself. In a published opinion, the First Appellate District upheld the trial court’s order, finding that SB 1421 does not limit its disclosure obligations to peace officer employers, but extends to any public agency that maintains peace officer personnel files, “regardless whether they pertain to officers employed by the agency and no matter which agency created them” (Becerra v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco [2020] 44 Cal.App.5th 897, 921). The California Supreme Court is currently considering whether to review the First District’s decision.

Thus, as it stands now, the vast majority of trial courts have concluded that SB 1421 mandates public disclosure of personnel file information reflecting conduct occurring prior to January 1, 2019. The First Appellate District has found the law requires disclosure of pre-January 1, 2019, records, and the Second Appellate District is still considering the matter. The California Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on the merits of the retroactivity issue. And, the First Appellate District has also concluded that the disclosure obligation extends to any public agency that maintains peace officer personnel records, regardless of whether it employs those peace officers.

The next fight coming in this saga is the judicial construction of the various new terms found within SB 1421’s amendments, such as what constitutes “great bodily injury,” what it means for a peace officer to “discharge a firearm at a person” (i.e., does an accidental discharge count?) and the precise meaning of the term “sustained.” Expect these to be considered and decided as they arise on a case-by-case basis.

About the Author
Zachery Lopes is a senior associate with the firm’s Collective Bargaining and Litigation Practice Groups. He also represents clients in legal defense matters and officer-involved critical incidents.