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
Democratic Primaries
In reply to the discussion: This whole thing about Kamala Harris and the Catholic Church is an obvious hit job. [View all]sl8
(17,129 posts)72. Did you notice the list of exceptions to that exception?
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§ionNum=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 individuals 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 victims request, or at the request of the victims 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 victims 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 victims immediate family, other than a family member who is charged with a criminal offense arising from the same incident, may be withheld at the victims 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 agencys 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 agencys 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 viewers 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 agencys 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.
[...]
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
97 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
This whole thing about Kamala Harris and the Catholic Church is an obvious hit job. [View all]
pnwmom
Jun 2019
OP
The only thing I know about the law is from TV shows, but it's obviously a hit job.
betsuni
Jun 2019
#1
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
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
Having a candidate that doesn't knife her fellow Democrats puts me ahead of you...
RHMerriman
Jun 2019
#77
Why would Biden attack Harris in 2010? And Trump was not the president then. If the more
emmaverybo
Jun 2019
#14
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
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
Her time as AG will be questioned. This and other stories have been on the Internet for months
Thekaspervote
Jun 2019
#17
This is not a hit job but perhaps overdue vetting brought on by the Biden attacks.
Demsrule86
Jun 2019
#30
Both the California act and the FOIA have an exemption for prosecution investigation materials
pnwmom
Jun 2019
#49
Smells like Berners to me, the first major RECENT dredging up was on June 9th by The Intercept
Celerity
Jun 2019
#41
She shouldn't apologize. She should educate. Our system of justice is built on fair trials.
pnwmom
Jun 2019
#47
Yeah, it does appear that The Intercept was the first to dredge this old story up.
pnwmom
Jul 2019
#92
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
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
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