Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
Joe BidenCongratulations to our presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden!
 

sl8

(17,129 posts)
72. Did you notice the list of exceptions to that exception?
Sun Jun 30, 2019, 04:59 PM
Jun 2019

There's quite a few exceptions to the exception in section (f). Do you think any of them apply?
I'm thinking in particular of the information they're required to give "to the victims of an incident, or an authorized representative thereof".

From https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=6254
(I excerpted all of section (f))


ARTICLE 1. General Provisions [6250 - 6270.7] ( Article 1 heading added by Stats. 1998, Ch. 620, Sec. 1. )

6254.
Except as provided in Sections 6254.7 and 6254.13, this chapter does not require the disclosure of any of the following records:

[...]

(f) Records of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of, the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, the Office of Emergency Services and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes. However, state and local law enforcement agencies shall disclose the names and addresses of persons involved in, or witnesses other than confidential informants to, the incident, the description of any property involved, the date, time, and location of the incident, all diagrams, statements of the parties involved in the incident, the statements of all witnesses, other than confidential informants, to the victims of an incident, or an authorized representative thereof, an insurance carrier against which a claim has been or might be made, and any person suffering bodily injury or property damage or loss, as the result of the incident caused by arson, burglary, fire, explosion, larceny, robbery, carjacking, vandalism, vehicle theft, or a crime as defined by subdivision (b) of Section 13951, unless the disclosure would endanger the safety of a witness or other person involved in the investigation, or unless disclosure would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation. However, this subdivision does not require the disclosure of that portion of those investigative files that reflects the analysis or conclusions of the investigating officer.

Customer lists provided to a state or local police agency by an alarm or security company at the request of the agency shall be construed to be records subject to this subdivision.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this subdivision, state and local law enforcement agencies shall make public the following information, except to the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation:

(1) The full name and occupation of every individual arrested by the agency, the individual’s physical description including date of birth, color of eyes and hair, sex, height and weight, the time and date of arrest, the time and date of booking, the location of the arrest, the factual circumstances surrounding the arrest, the amount of bail set, the time and manner of release or the location where the individual is currently being held, and all charges the individual is being held upon, including any outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions and parole or probation holds.

(2) (A) Subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 841.5 of the Penal Code, the time, substance, and location of all complaints or requests for assistance received by the agency and the time and nature of the response thereto, including, to the extent the information regarding crimes alleged or committed or any other incident investigated is recorded, the time, date, and location of occurrence, the time and date of the report, the name and age of the victim, the factual circumstances surrounding the crime or incident, and a general description of any injuries, property, or weapons involved. The name of a victim of any crime defined by Section 220, 261, 261.5, 262, 264, 264.1, 265, 266, 266a, 266b, 266c, 266e, 266f, 266j, 267, 269, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 285, 286, 288, 288a, 288.2, 288.3, 288.4, 288.5, 288.7, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, 646.9, or 647.6 of the Penal Code may be withheld at the victim’s request, or at the request of the victim’s parent or guardian if the victim is a minor. When a person is the victim of more than one crime, information disclosing that the person is a victim of a crime defined in any of the sections of the Penal Code set forth in this subdivision may be deleted at the request of the victim, or the victim’s parent or guardian if the victim is a minor, in making the report of the crime, or of any crime or incident accompanying the crime, available to the public in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.

(B) Subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 841.5 of the Penal Code, the names and images of a victim of human trafficking, as defined in Section 236.1 of the Penal Code, and of that victim’s immediate family, other than a family member who is charged with a criminal offense arising from the same incident, may be withheld at the victim’s request until the investigation or any subsequent prosecution is complete. For purposes of this subdivision, “immediate family” shall have the same meaning as that provided in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 422.4 of the Penal Code.

(3) Subject to the restrictions of Section 841.5 of the Penal Code and this subdivision, the current address of every individual arrested by the agency and the current address of the victim of a crime, if the requester declares under penalty of perjury that the request is made for a scholarly, journalistic, political, or governmental purpose, or that the request is made for investigation purposes by a licensed private investigator as described in Chapter 11.3 (commencing with Section 7512) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code. However, the address of the victim of any crime defined by Section 220, 236.1, 261, 261.5, 262, 264, 264.1, 265, 266, 266a, 266b, 266c, 266e, 266f, 266j, 267, 269, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 285, 286, 288, 288a, 288.2, 288.3, 288.4, 288.5, 288.7, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, 646.9, or 647.6 of the Penal Code shall remain confidential. Address information obtained pursuant to this paragraph shall not be used directly or indirectly, or furnished to another, to sell a product or service to any individual or group of individuals, and the requester shall execute a declaration to that effect under penalty of perjury. This paragraph shall not be construed to prohibit or limit a scholarly, journalistic, political, or government use of address information obtained pursuant to this paragraph.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subdivision, commencing July 1, 2019, a video or audio recording that relates to a critical incident, as defined in subparagraph (C), may be withheld only as follows:

(A) (i) During an active criminal or administrative investigation, disclosure of a recording related to a critical incident may be delayed for no longer than 45 calendar days after the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, if, based on the facts and circumstances depicted in the recording, disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation, such as by endangering the safety of a witness or a confidential source. If an agency delays disclosure pursuant to this paragraph, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the agency’s determination that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation and the estimated date for disclosure.

(ii) After 45 days from the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, and up to one year from that date, the agency may continue to delay disclosure of a recording if the agency demonstrates that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation. After one year from the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, the agency may continue to delay disclosure of a recording only if the agency demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation. If an agency delays disclosure pursuant to this clause, the agency shall promptly provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the agency’s determination that the interest in preventing interference with an active investigation outweighs the public interest in disclosure and provide the estimated date for the disclosure. The agency shall reassess withholding and notify the requester every 30 days. A recording withheld by the agency shall be disclosed promptly when the specific basis for withholding is resolved.

(B) (i) If the agency demonstrates, on the facts of the particular case, that the public interest in withholding a video or audio recording clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure because the release of the recording would, based on the facts and circumstances depicted in the recording, violate the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the expectation of privacy and the public interest served by withholding the recording and may use redaction technology, including blurring or distorting images or audio, to obscure those specific portions of the recording that protect that interest. However, the redaction shall not interfere with the viewer’s ability to fully, completely, and accurately comprehend the events captured in the recording and the recording shall not otherwise be edited or altered.

(ii) Except as provided in clause (iii), if the agency demonstrates that the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording cannot adequately be protected through redaction as described in clause (i) and that interest outweighs the public interest in disclosure, the agency may withhold the recording from the public, except that the recording, either redacted as provided in clause (i) or unredacted, shall be disclosed promptly, upon request, to any of the following:

(I) The subject of the recording whose privacy is to be protected, or his or her authorized representative.

(II) If the subject is a minor, the parent or legal guardian of the subject whose privacy is to be protected.

(III) If the subject whose privacy is to be protected is deceased, an heir, beneficiary, designated immediate family member, or authorized legal representative of the deceased subject whose privacy is to be protected.

(iii) If disclosure pursuant to clause (ii) would substantially interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the agency’s determination that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation, and provide the video or audio recording. Thereafter, the recording may be withheld by the agency for 45 calendar days, subject to extensions as set forth in clause (ii) of subparagraph (A).

(C) For purposes of this paragraph, a video or audio recording relates to a critical incident if it depicts any of the following incidents:

(i) An incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer.

(ii) An incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death or in great bodily injury.

(D) An agency may provide greater public access to video or audio recordings than the minimum standards set forth in this paragraph.

(E) This paragraph does not alter, limit, or negate any other rights, remedies, or obligations with respect to public records regarding an incident other than a critical incident as described in subparagraph (C).

(F) For purposes of this paragraph, a peace officer does not include any peace officer employed by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

[...]


If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The only thing I know about the law is from TV shows, but it's obviously a hit job. betsuni Jun 2019 #1
A hit job dating back to 2010? RHMerriman Jun 2019 #2
The current flurry of stories about it is. n/t pnwmom Jun 2019 #4
That seems ... "hurtful"... RHMerriman Jun 2019 #7
No, it's a crock. It was then and it is now. pnwmom Jun 2019 #9
California Public Records Act RHMerriman Jun 2019 #12
That same act includes an exemption for law enforcement investigative records. pnwmom Jun 2019 #18
They are not however required to use said exemption and often don't. Demsrule86 Jun 2019 #37
Show me cases where they haven't. There's a reason for this exemption. pnwmom Jun 2019 #50
Pretty sure you are backing up the argument against Harris. SouthernProgressive Jun 2019 #48
If it's optional, please give me one example, using the whole Internet. nt pnwmom Jun 2019 #51
Example of what? SouthernProgressive Jun 2019 #52
An example of when a prosecutor made public or gave to a private attorney pnwmom Jun 2019 #55
It doesn't fit the narrative some are trying to spin. lapucelle Jun 2019 #54
Did you notice the list of exceptions to that exception? sl8 Jun 2019 #72
Yeah, I saw it. I read it again and I still don't see anything that would change pnwmom Jun 2019 #74
You can defend Harris's decision and argue with the opinions reported in the news stories, but emmaverybo Jun 2019 #16
I'm saying that the issue is a crock. They're attacking Harris for following normal procedure. pnwmom Jun 2019 #19
Oh, o.k. Thanks for clarifying. Some believe prosecutors all over the US are politically cowed emmaverybo Jun 2019 #25
Then show me a case NOT involving the Catholic church where a prosecutor decides not to prosecute pnwmom Jun 2019 #26
Hm. I don't know really. I am sure we will hear more. The Birthers are attacking her so you emmaverybo Jun 2019 #27
What about the charges that she withheld vital information from defendents? I had not idea. Demsrule86 Jun 2019 #28
That opinion piece is problematic, to say the least. lapucelle Jun 2019 #58
Do you have a link to the AP story? N/T lapucelle Jun 2019 #57
She did not decide not to prosecute...the Supreme court ruled and prosecution was not possible... Demsrule86 Jun 2019 #32
Akin to the current flurry of stories about public policy choices in the 1970s? RHMerriman Jun 2019 #64
Harris was seen as the one to watch in 2010 SleeplessinSoCal Jun 2019 #15
Sec. Clinton and Vice President Biden were seen as the ones to watch. RHMerriman Jun 2019 #62
so you ARE ok with talking about the past qazplm135 Jun 2019 #53
Be great if she was talking about Trump's past, wouldn't it? RHMerriman Jun 2019 #61
lol qazplm135 Jun 2019 #63
Fragile - like the little girl who grew up a legacy of two Phds? RHMerriman Jun 2019 #65
boy she really left a mark on you didn't she? qazplm135 Jun 2019 #68
Doing Trump's work for him? RHMerriman Jun 2019 #70
yawn qazplm135 Jun 2019 #71
And your personal example of such, friend? RHMerriman Jun 2019 #73
not getting the vapors qazplm135 Jun 2019 #75
Having a candidate that doesn't knife her fellow Democrats puts me ahead of you... RHMerriman Jun 2019 #77
lol qazplm135 Jul 2019 #96
No problem, comrade ... knife the enemy ... not your allies. RHMerriman Jul 2019 #97
Maybe you should Andy823 Jun 2019 #66
I'm not running for president... RHMerriman Jun 2019 #67
It's an attack by Trump, Biden or maybe both. gldstwmn Jun 2019 #3
It's Not a hit job from Biden.. this is from Biden Cha Jun 2019 #8
I think it's Trumpers. n/t pnwmom Jun 2019 #20
I think so too mcar Jun 2019 #40
And accusing Biden of protecting racists was for the common good? RHMerriman Jun 2019 #13
Looks like it was "hurtful" to someone's campaign. n/t MarcA Jun 2019 #56
Just think if she used the same tactics on Trump... RHMerriman Jun 2019 #60
Why would Biden attack Harris in 2010? And Trump was not the president then. If the more emmaverybo Jun 2019 #14
I think that attorney was attacking Harris because he thought it might work. pnwmom Jun 2019 #21
What attorney? Thought what might work? Yeah, maybe Trump had a hand in the AP story, but emmaverybo Jun 2019 #23
The attorney who was trying to get Harris to hand over public investigative records pnwmom Jun 2019 #24
It is clear that the diocese would provide no records and she know this. Demsrule86 Jun 2019 #36
With her history as a prosecutor,she is not a threat but a liability in my opinion. Demsrule86 Jun 2019 #29
Well many here think her attacks on Biden were scummy and we were told...why you should expect this. Demsrule86 Jun 2019 #33
Maybe we can see the problem with negative campaigning now? treestar Jun 2019 #44
It's a hit job, although I doubt from the right tishaLA Jun 2019 #5
So from the left. Cha Jun 2019 #11
No offense, pwnmom ... I think you should read this ... mr_lebowski Jun 2019 #6
Hallinan is bitter that he was defeated by her, so he has an axe to grind. pnwmom Jun 2019 #10
Her time as AG will be questioned. This and other stories have been on the Internet for months Thekaspervote Jun 2019 #17
This is the one that shocked and surprised me. Demsrule86 Jun 2019 #31
This might be an unpopular stance but here's mine...I DON'T CARE. nt UniteFightBack Jun 2019 #22
This is not a hit job but perhaps overdue vetting brought on by the Biden attacks. Demsrule86 Jun 2019 #30
I can hardly believe the hypocrisy treestar Jun 2019 #43
It's politics, like the busing crap. IluvPitties Jun 2019 #34
Isn't this the argument Trump makes with his executive privilege and all? Demsrule86 Jun 2019 #35
Both the California act and the FOIA have an exemption for prosecution investigation materials pnwmom Jun 2019 #49
Well... Chitown Kev Jun 2019 #38
Kick mcar Jun 2019 #39
Smells like Berners to me, the first major RECENT dredging up was on June 9th by The Intercept Celerity Jun 2019 #41
It's her turn in the barrel already? treestar Jun 2019 #42
She shouldn't apologize. She should educate. Our system of justice is built on fair trials. pnwmom Jun 2019 #47
Victims of priests treestar Jun 2019 #69
No, the story originated with attorneys representing abuse victims. highplainsdem Jun 2019 #45
But the new flurry is coming from Trumpers, I think -- that and people pnwmom Jun 2019 #46
This message was self-deleted by its author crazytown Jul 2019 #91
Yeah, it does appear that The Intercept was the first to dredge this old story up. pnwmom Jul 2019 #92
Deleted reply was meant to be an email crazytown Jul 2019 #93
No problem! pnwmom Jul 2019 #95
I'm more concerned about her arguing to uphold all those convictions in California madville Jun 2019 #59
It's been pretty clear the last few days that she has scared the shit out of somebody EffieBlack Jun 2019 #76
I want to live in a country where politics don't determine whether or not we help abuse victims. 58Sunliner Jun 2019 #78
No, it's not politics that kept her from releasing the documents. It was the opposite of politics. pnwmom Jun 2019 #79
Post removed Post removed Jun 2019 #84
Regardless, under Kamala Harris, not one case against a pedophile priest was ever prosecuted. Did emmaverybo Jun 2019 #80
The statute of limitations was what prevented them. There was a decision by the Supreme Court pnwmom Jun 2019 #81
Well, since Harris won't release files, some of which might contain complaints she could have emmaverybo Jun 2019 #82
You would know for the same reason we've heard of lots of cases -- because the victims pnwmom Jun 2019 #83
Well do you honestly think they could all afford lawyers? Her office would have provided legal emmaverybo Jun 2019 #85
They also could have seen articles, since there were many. Reporters are free. pnwmom Jun 2019 #86
Who knows? She did not prosecute. NT emmaverybo Jul 2019 #87
So you're just theorizing that there could have been cases in the 6 years she was there. pnwmom Jul 2019 #88
I remarked on it as did the article I alluded to. I don't know if any were. Her record will be emmaverybo Jul 2019 #89
Yeah, right, let's pick on her. New cases across the country dried up to a trickle after 2003, pnwmom Jul 2019 #90
Signing off now from further discussion. NT emmaverybo Jul 2019 #94
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Democratic Primaries»This whole thing about Ka...»Reply #72