"The thrust of the Court of Appeal's opinion is clear: the badge-bending investigation and information about Vallejo officers' involvement in badge-bending must be released to the public,"
"Now that the California Supreme Court has declined to review the case, it will be sent back to the trial court, to make a final determination about specific redactions and records that arguably might be withheld (for instance, preliminary drafts of the badge-bending report)."
"We believe, as the California legislature did in adopting SB 1421, that the public can only benefit from transparency around serious allegations of misconduct by their police officers,"
"This is the only way for members of the community to seek accountability and closure. We will continue to advocate for the public's right to know until the materials are publicly av"
The California Supreme Court declined to review a case involving disclosure of officer names tied to Vallejo's badge-bending practice, allowing the appeals court ruling to stand. A prior First District Court of Appeal determination supported release of the names and a third-party investigation into badge-bending. Associate Justice Joshua Groban was the lone justice who would have granted review. The case returns to Solano County trial court to determine any permissible redactions before public release. The ACLU emphasized that SB 1421 supports transparency for accountability and closure. A union contends badge-bending occurred for a different reason.
Read at The Mercury News
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]