Inglewood could face stiff penalty for public records act violations

LOS ANGELES (CN) — A Los Angeles Superior Court judge said on Wednesday he was likely to order the city of Inglewood to begin post certain records of police misconduct on a website, as a punishment for repeatedly violating the California Public Records Act.

During a hearing at Torrance Superior Court, Inglewood attorney Victor King urged the judge to reconsider.

“This is unprecedented relief they’re asking for,” said King, who argued that the small city, with a population of just over 100,000, would have to spend time and money to heavily redact hundreds of police reports every year, post them online and maintain the website “ad infinitum.”

He added: “That is a waste of taxpayer money.”

Most police records in California are not public and do not have to be disclosed. In 2018, the state Legislature made an exception for four kinds of documents: those dealing with police use of force that led to death or serious injuries; police shootings at a person; sustained findings of sexual assault by law enforcement; and sustained findings of dishonesty in the reporting, investigation or prosecution of a crime or investigation of misconduct.

Weeks before the new law went into effect on New Year’s Day 2019, the Los Angeles Times reported that Inglewood had destroyed hundreds of documents that were about to be made eligible for public disclosure.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a number of large Public Records Act requests with police departments all over the state, seeking newly discoverable records. Some departments complied, some didn’t.

But according to the ACLU, Inglewood’s stonewalling was especially egregious, and the nonprofit sued the city in 2021, after it learned that the city was planning to destroy even more records. A judge issued a restraining order, blocking the city from the planned destruction. In 2023, a different judge ordered Inglewood to turn over the documents requested by the ACLU and others.

In August, the ACLU filed a motion for summary judgment, writing, “Defendants routinely and systematically violate the law when responding to requests for peace officer records — delaying responses and records production beyond the specific time mandates required by statute and improperly withholding records.”

It asked the judge to issue an injunction ordering the city to post any of the documents made obtainable by law to its “internet website and, in response to a request for a public record posted on the internet website, directing a member of the public to the location.”

On Wednesday, King insisted that the violations weren’t all that bad, and hardly systemic.

“There were 30 [Public Records Act requests] that were allegedly mishandled — 30, over six years,” King said. “That’s five every year. There is a triable fact as to whether this was a systematic violation, or human error.”

“The city did a poor job, admittedly, but the remedy isn’t to invest in the cost of redacting hundreds of police reports and putting them on the internet forever,” he said.

ACLU staff attorney**** Stephanie Padilla assured the judge that the evidence showed that Inglewood’s violations were systemic, and that the city had not complied with roughly 70% of all public records act requests. Madelyn Coles, an associate with Latham & Watkins, also representing the ACLU, added that the relief wasn’t so extreme or even unprecedented.

“This is something that dozens of cities do,” Coles said. “It’s not unheard of. This is proportionate.”

She added: “Without having the defendant put these documents online, we’re just going to have to come back to the court over and over.” She pointed out that Inglewood hadn’t even bothered to offer an alternative injunction.

King said there were plenty of alternatives out there, included a service that allows cities to post documents to databases that aren’t publicly available, but can be accessed by certain people that are given permission — if, say, they file a Public Records Act request. Coming up with an alternative plan, King said, was the subject of a hearing scheduled for February.

“I’m not in any way saying I know for a fact city won’t have to do anything,” King said. “But let’s have a hearing on it. Let’s propose alternatives.”

The judge did not issue a final ruling, and did not indicate when he would do so.

Follow @hillelaron