INGLEWOOD – A judge has ruled in favor of the ACLU of Southern California in its long-running petition for access to use-of-force and officer misconduct records within the Inglewood Police Department., saying there had been “systematic violations” of the California Public Records Act.
Torrance Superior Court Judge Gary Y. Tanaka heard arguments Nov. 12 on the ACLU’s affirmative motion for summary judgment on Nov. 12, took the issues under submission and ruled in the organization’s favor on Thursday, finding there are no triable issues.
“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.”
At times the department disclosures were incomplete and on numerous occasions the IPD violated the time frames for disclosure of records set forth in the CPRA, according to Tanaka.
Tanaka granted the ACLU’s causes of action for declaratory relief for violation of the California Public Records Act and for injunctive relief against violations of the same law.
“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 petition sought the information under the CPRA and Senate Bill 1421, which was enacted in 2018 by the state Legislature and enables the public to access peace officer records concerning uses of force and police misconduct that had been previously unavailable.
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.
In a previously submitted sworn declaration, Assistant City Attorney Derald Brenneman said he reviewed the ACLU’s January 2019 records request.
“I confirmed that some records potentially responsive to (the ACLU’s) CPRA request should be temporarily withheld because they concerned incidents that are subject to a pending criminal, civil or administrative investigations, and on that basis (the city) is withholding certain records until either a statute of limitations has run, or when the matters are no longer pending, such as when the district attorney has decided whether or not to pursue criminal charges,” Brenneman wrote.
But in a separate July 2023 ruling that also was in favor of the ACLU, Judge Curtis A. Kin said the organization had demonstrated that the IPD “has not been sufficiently diligent to obtain the requested records.”
Kin also ruled that if the IPD’s records indicate that a document sought cannot be found despite the department’s best efforts, the ACLU should be notified that the record is no longer within the IPD’s possession. The judge additionally found that the ACLU was entitled to know the destruction dates of any records they sought, but were destroyed.
