INGLEWOOD – A judge has ordered the Inglewood Police Department to publish certain police records on the City’s website in a ruling in favor of an organization who sought its release.
The lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in December 2021, came after they filed a Public Records Act request with the Inglewood Police Department which resulted in the records not being turned over.
Torrance Superior Court Judge Gary Y. Tanaka heard arguments Nov. 12 on the ACLU’s affirmative motion for summary judgment and issued his 13 page ruling on Nov. 20.
“Plaintiffs have established systematic violations of the CPRA,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiffs have also demonstrated that defendants routinely failed to provide any documents at all to certain requestors.”
In an additional blow to the Inglewood Police Department, the court overruled the 30-page declaration of Lt. Scott Collins, who is designated to receive and respond to public records requests by the public which he routinely denies.
“Summary judgment on (the ACLU’s) declaratory and injunctive relief claims is appropriate because the undisputed facts show that (the city and Police Department) have a pattern and practice of failing to comply with their statutory obligations under the California Public Records Act,” the judge wrote.
The ACLU’s Los Angeles Superior Court petition seeks the information under the California Public Records Act and Senate Bill 1421, which was enacted in 2018 by the Legislature and enables the public to access peace officer records concerning uses of force and police misconduct that had been previously unavailable.
The Inglewood City Council voted to destroy the records prior to SB 1421 being enacted in Dec. 2018. The court determined the City had no basis for denying the request.
Among the records sought by the ACLU’s petition were those involving allegations of use of excessive force, even if that allegation was not sustained; findings that an officer failed to intervene against a colleague using force that is unreasonable or excessive; and statements, writings, online posts and other communications involving prejudice or discrimination against a person on the basis of race, religion or physical or mental disability.
“Petitioner/Plaintiff met its burden to show that Plaintiff’s causes of action have merit by showing that each element of the causes of action can be established and that there is no defense thereto. Defendant has not met his burden to provide specific facts to show that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the causes of action.”
The court also determined the City failed to adhere to the California Public Records Act ten-day deadline and on “numerous occasions Defendants [City] violated the time frames for disclosure of records set forth in the CPRA”.
“Defendants also withheld documents beyond the 18-month time frame without a determination of meeting the factors for withholding under Penal Code 832.7(b). Plaintiffs have also demonstrated that Defendants routinely failed to provide any documents at all to certain requestors.”
The court also determined that, “occasionally, Defendants made a response that no records exist without making a reasonable attempt to obtain the records, and, later, other information will arise to establish that the documents exist. Plaintiffs establish that Defendants have failed to enact adequate staffing and policies to ensure compliance with Section 832.7 including digital recordkeeping. (UMF, 20-33.) In opposition, Defendants have not meaningfully disputed these facts with competent evidence.”
The Inglewood City Clerk’s office has one of the highest turnover rates in city hall with the recent release of two employees in the office, one of which was responsible for receiving and responding to public records requests as indicated on the city clerk’s website.
The City’s lawyers urged the Court to deny the ACLU’s motion because “granting the motion would create “bad policy” because not every person mentioned in the evidence submitted by Plaintiff regarding Defendants’ failure to comply with the CPRA brought this litigation.”
The court thought otherwise noting, “public policy would be fostered by enforcing the CPRA even to other individuals who may have not been named in this lawsuit but were otherwise affected by the actions of the Defendants.”
The City routinely blocks requestors emails from city servers to deny releasing records under the California Public Records Act.
Judge Tanaka’s ruling is a win for ALL individuals seeking public records from the city of Inglewood.
All parties are due back in court Feb. 4, 2026, for the court to determine injunctive relief.
City News Service contributed to this report.
