California is continuing the police reform efforts it began in 2019, forcing law enforcement agencies to take careful stock of changes made in recent years.
Notable among these are Senate Bill 2, which, among other things, created a police decertification process, and Senate Bills 1421 and 16, which significantly expanded the disclosure of peace officer personnel records.
The push for transparency did not stop there, however, and California law enforcement agencies must be aware of additional legal developments in the legislature and the courts that have taken place since.
Senate Bill 400 became effective Jan. 1, 2025, and builds off Senate Bills 1421 and 16, which amended Penal Code section 832.7 and made certain types of records related to police officer misconduct disclosable under the California Public Records Act.
The new law allows, but does not require, law enforcement agencies to disclose the termination of a peace officer for any of the causes enumerated in Penal Code section 832.7, which includes certain types of “serious misconduct,” such as an officer-involved shooting, use of force that resulted in death or great bodily injury, and sexual assault involving a member of the public. Law enforcement agencies do not need to wait for a CPRA request to make such a disclosure.
However, law enforcement agencies must be mindful of important practical timing considerations in light of the difference between the types of serious misconduct requiring a sustained finding prior to disclosure under the CPRA, and those which do not have the same requirement.
For officer-involved shootings and specified uses of force, pursuant to Senate Bill 400, an agency may disclose the termination without a sustained finding. However, for all other instances of serious misconduct enumerated in Penal Code section 832.7—the use of unreasonable or excessive force or the failure to intervene against another police officer’s use of such force, sexual assault involving a member of the public, certain types of dishonesty, conduct involving prejudice or discrimination on the basis of a protected classification, and an unlawful arrest or search—an agency should be cautious not to disclose the termination until it is determined that the officer has had an opportunity for an administrative appeal.
Besides holding current officers accountable, California has also made its hiring process for peace officers more stringent.
Assembly Bill 655, which went into effect on Jan. 1, 2023, requires that any background investigation of a candidate for a peace officer position assess whether the candidate has or is currently engaged in hate-related activity, such as membership in a hate group, participation in hate group activity, or advocacy of public expressions of hate. Any hate-related activity that took place within the past seven years and after the age of 18 automatically disqualifies a candidate.
In addition to screening candidates for hate-related activity, a law enforcement agency also must investigate any internal or public complaint alleging that a peace officer employed by that agency engaged in hate-related activity within the last seven years.
If the complaint is sustained, termination of employment is mandatory, and any records related to that complaint or its investigation must be made available for public inspection under the CPRA.
Compliance with legislation aimed at ensuring transparency in policing is often contingent upon the timely initiation and completion of an administrative investigation. As law enforcement agencies are undoubtedly well-aware, these timing requirements, known as the statute of limitations, are set forth in the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act.
Unless certain narrow exceptions apply, the statute of limitations to complete an administrative investigation and issue a notice of intent to impose disciplinary action is “within one year of the public agency’s discovery by a person authorized to initiate an investigation of the allegation of an act, omission, or other misconduct.”
Garcia v. State Department of Developmental Services recently clarified that, if additional misconduct is discovered during an ongoing administrative investigation, the one-year statute of limitations is triggered by the date of discovery of the additional misconduct, not by the date the initial administrative investigation is initiated.
Before the one-year statute of limitations is triggered, a law enforcement agency must have also determined that disciplinary action may be taken. Shouse v. County of Riverside clarified that mere rumors of a peace officer’s conduct are not enough. A law enforcement agency must first view that conduct as potential misconduct for the one-year statute of limitations to be triggered.
Law enforcement agencies in California must remain cognizant of their existing and expanding legal obligations to ensure transparency in policing, and to build and maintain trust between peace officers and the communities they serve.
Reproduced with permission. Published July 2, 2025. Copyright 2025 Bloomberg Industry Group 800-372-1033. For further use please visit https://www.bloombergindustry.com/copyright-and-usage-guidelines-copyright/