Davis PD has refused to release report on Picnic Day policing incident

Statement to the Davis City Council on behalf of Davis People Power

By Nora Oldwin

Speaking on behalf of People Power in support of the request to the Davis Police Department to reconsider its refusal to release material pursuant to a PRA in connection with  SB 1421:

On January 1, when SB 1421 became law, we filed a request seeking, among others, the MacGregor Report, which I’ll refer to as the OHS report. Up until January of this year, Police personnel records of misconduct were kept hidden from the public. But Senate Bill 1421 changes that. To respond to issues of lack of community trust in its institutions, this law provides for the mandatory release, upon request, of records related to a sustained finding (after an internal investigation) of misconduct in 3 areas:  dishonesty, sexual assault, or use of force. 1421 took effect January 1 of this year.

As will not fail to surprise, there has been some pushback from police departments across the state to the requirements of this law, and it’s our contention that the refusal to release the requested materials is part of this trend.  The ACLU has filed 400 1421 requests to different departments, 70 of which claim to have none of these types of documents whatsoever. Only 75 of 400 have agreed to produce requested documents. And at least one – the city of Inglewood- immediately destroyed all their records upon the passage of this law. But our community finds itself facing a unique type of pushback. Our police auditor concluded that statements in the press release and other media  to inform the public about the basis for the arrests and criminal charges were- to use his words- “unfounded”,  “clearly inaccurate” “never established”, “not proven” and “misleading”.  Yet, despite community outcry about these statements when they were made, OHS failed to conduct any internal investigation of officer misconduct involving dishonesty. There therefore exists no finding, sustained or otherwise, regarding that clear misconduct. And as justification for its refusal to release records pursuant to 1421, the Davis Police Department points out that there is no “sustained finding of dishonesty”, therefore there is no requirement to comply with our request.

It’s a logical assumption that the press release setting forth facts about the Picnic Day incident was based at least in part on the officers version of what happened.  While OHS undertook an internal investigation into racial profiling and excessive force, that’s all it did: it failed to follow up on the evidence of misconduct involving dishonesty although that evidence plainly merited further investigation and analysis.  Without a clear explanation for what was explored and what was not, a conclusion that can be drawn that the investigation into racial profiling and use of force was, rather than a response to concerns of community safety and trust, more a concern with liability.

The question this particular situation presents is: where there is documented and acknowledged misconduct involving dishonesty in the press, which should trigger application of 1421, but where there exists no sustained finding on that specific issue, due to a faulty and incomplete investigation by the investigative body, should the department be compelled to turn over those records in compliance with what the law clearly contemplates? 

Of the three officers who participated in the picnic day debacle- one officer has left the department, but two of the three officers are still on the force.  As has been established, statements which could be attributed to those officers were found to be unfounded”,  “clearly inaccurate” “never established”, “not proven” and “misleading”  to justify the arrest of the PD5 and provide a basis for charges against them. Although OHS failed in its responsibility to follow this up, we draw the conclusion from the withdrawal of the original press release and the criticisms and suggestions contained in the Gennaco Report, that a sustained finding of dishonesty would have resulted had such an investigation been performed.

 To repeat, one of the reasons for writing and passing 1421 is to foster public trust in our institutions.  Our community is already set on a course of building mutual trust with the police. The rejection of our request may serve to undermine that effort. This is in part because it appears to be based on the failure to characterize the statements at issue as “dishonest” rather than accept the plain meaning of the words used in the Gennaco report which we contend are synonymous and again which include: unfounded”,  “clearly inaccurate” “never established”, “not proven” and “misleading.”

If the justification for refusing to produce records is based on a faulty investigation, or on a deliberate decision not to investigate a particular type of officer misconduct, it may be possible to avoid the requirements of 1421 altogether and the public will never know the truth about the officers who are charged with serving and protecting them. For reasons of the integrity of the process, and to continue building trust between the community and our Police, we urge the council to request that the Police Department reconsider its decision to withhold these requested materials from the public.