A Sigh of Relief in California

In California today, people of sense breathe a sigh of relief when the Legislature adjourns for the year. In public safety, particularly, that body now passes much harmful legislation and very little that helps.

Christine Mai-Duc and Alejandro Lazo report in the WSJ that anti-police activists are disappointed that the Legislature adjourned without passing much in the way of what they call “police reform.” We can all exhale now.

That is not to say that some legislation isn’t needed. Law enforcement unions generally have been too successful in protecting police officers from discipline with the result that too many bad apples remain in the barrel. This excess is now coming back to haunt the good officers (i.e., the vast majority) as viral video from a handful of incidents devastates the public support that they need to do they jobs well.

But can responsible legislation be written and enacted to deal with these issues in a well-considered way that does not do more harm than good? I don’t believe so. Not in the present environment and not in California.

From the WSJ article:

Sen. Steven Bradford, a Democrat from Gardena, authored a bill to create a formal process for taking away the certification of eligibility for police officers accused of misconduct. California is one of only five states with no such process, according to the Northern California branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, making it easier for such officers to move from one department to another.

Yes, that does sound like a situation that needs to be addressed. So what happened?

“Every one of my colleagues who looked me in the eye the last few months and said, ‘Yes, we need this bill,’ caved,” Mr. Bradford said Tuesday. “ ‘Oh, I spoke to my sheriff, oh, I spoke to my police chief.’ ”

Poor Senator Bradford. It’s all law enforcement’s fault that his sterling, well-crafted bill was killed, right? Guess again.

David E. Mastagni, an attorney who represents the Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association and the Peace Officers Research Association of California, said the bill’s decertification framework would take away too many due-process rights from officers.

A provision requiring that a person with personal or family experience with police violence preside on a commission to make decertification recommendations was another key reason the bill was a non-starter, said Mr. Mastagni. “How on earth can somebody in that situation be objective?” he said.

How on earth could a person who actually wanted to reach a solution write such a provision into the bill? Did Senator Bradford actually want to make things better, or did he just want the issue for posturing and “virtue signalling”? How about if we require that a majority of the commission be comprised of police officers who have been wrongly accused and exonerated? Would Senator Bradford and his activist supporters agree to that?

Next year, perhaps, things will have cooled down enough to have some rational discussions. For now, no action is the best we can hope for.