Bill Text: CA AB1725 | 2023-2024 | Regular Session | Amended
Bill Title: Law enforcement settlements and judgments: reporting.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)
Status: (Engrossed) 2024-08-15 - In committee: Held under submission. [AB1725 Detail]
Download: California-2023-AB1725-Amended.html
|
Amended
IN
Senate
June 05, 2024 |
|
Amended
IN
Assembly
January 03, 2024 |
|
Amended
IN
Assembly
March 13, 2023 |
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE—
2023–2024 REGULAR SESSION
Assembly Bill
No. 1725
| Introduced by Assembly Member McCarty |
February 17, 2023 |
An act to add Section 12525.4 to the Government Code, relating to law enforcement.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1725, as amended, McCarty.
Law enforcement settlements and judgments: reporting.
Existing law requires each law enforcement agency to monthly furnish specified information to the Department of Justice regarding the use of force by a peace officer.
This bill would require municipalities, as defined, to annually post on their internet websites specified information relating to settlements and judgments of $50,000 or more resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, among other information, amounts paid, broken down by individual settlement and judgment, information on bonds used to finance use of force settlement and judgment payments, and premiums paid for insurance against settlements or judgments resulting from allegations of improper police conduct.
settlements or judgments paid by insurance. The bill would also require municipalities to annually post additional information pertaining to settlements and judgments, as specified, irrespective of the amount paid. By increasing requirements for local governments, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would make legislative findings and declarations.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Digest Key
Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: YESBill Text
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) On May 25, 2020, George Floyd was murdered by Minneapolis police when an officer held his knee on his neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds, resulting in his death.
(b) The outcry over this murder has resulted in demands for police reform across the state and the nation.
(c) For decades, Californians have experienced horrific civil rights violations, injuries, and death at the hands of peace officers.
(d) These incidents often result in civil lawsuits and payouts made by cities, counties, and the state to the civilians harmed by the actions of police officers, sheriffs’ deputies, and other peace officers. These settlements and judgments are often agreed to in closed sessions at city council and board of supervisors meetings, and settlements can range from thousands to millions of dollars.
(e) Despite the burden these payouts have on local jurisdictions, there is little publicly available information about the costs to taxpayers of law enforcement liability, the manner in which governments budget for and pay lawsuits involving law enforcement, and the financial impact of these arrangements on law enforcement agency budgets.
(f) Throughout the country, municipalities with
the 20 largest police departments have paid over $2 billion since 2015 in misconduct claims. Of those 20 municipalities, four are located in California. The County of Los Angeles paid $238,300,000, the City of Los Angeles paid $172,200,000, the City and County of San Francisco paid $22,000,000, and the City of San Diego paid $12,500,000.
(g) State law stipulates that individual officers do not pay towards these settlements. Instead, these settlements typically come from the general fund of the municipality involved, or if the law enforcement agency itself pays, then it is part of a specific budget line item set aside for settling officer misconduct litigation. Municipal budgets allocate funds to their law enforcement agencies with the expectation that they will be financially liable for their wrongdoing, year over year.
(h) Cities and counties typically use liability insurance or
general obligation bonds procured by the municipality or state to pay for police settlements. Cities and counties pay annually for liability insurance, which is also used to cover trip-and-fall injuries and workers’ compensation claims, to cover the costs of settlements involving police misconduct, brutality, or death of a civilian by a peace officer.
(i) In 2019, the City of Sacramento paid an insurance company $2,000,000 in taxpayer dollars to secure up to $35,000,000 for settlements and judgments. Among the payouts made in 2019 was the city’s largest ever settlement, involving $5,200,000 for a man who was so brutally beaten by a police officer that he requires intensive, lifelong medical care.
(j) In 2017, the Los Angeles Police Department cost taxpayers $80,000,000
settling lawsuits involving officer misconduct. Similarly, the County of Los Angeles paid out over $50,000,000 in misconduct claims from 2015 to 2016, inclusive, the majority of which were excessive force claims. Shootings alone cost the County of Los Angeles $60,000,000 between 2011 to 2016, inclusive.
(k) During the 2021–22 fiscal year, the County of Los Angeles paid $26,500,000 in judgments, with the two most costly judgments, $53,000,000 and $14,000,000, incurred against the Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement conduct against a civilian. Additionally, the county paid $56,000,000 in settlement costs, for a total of $82,500,000 in settlements and judgments paid. The Sheriff’s Department paid significantly higher than other County of Los Angeles departments in litigation expenses for the 2021–22 fiscal year, costing taxpayers
$73,200,000.
(l) In addition to liability insurance, the board of supervisors or city council can authorize a general obligation bond to pay for these incidents of police misconduct and brutality. These types of general obligation bonds are so common that they are called Police Brutality Bonds by the Wall Street firms who profit from them. These bonds are paid for by taxpayers and take years to pay off due to additional fees and high interest rates.
(m) In 2009 and 2010, the City of Los Angeles issued $71,400,000 in Police Brutality Bonds. Banks and other private firms collected more than $1,000,000 in issuance fees on these two bonds. By the time these bonds are paid off, taxpayers will have handed over more than $18,000,000 to investors, allowing Wall Street to profit from the
death or serious injury of a civilian at the hands of a police officer.
(n) Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to establish transparency requirements surrounding police use of force settlements and judgments against police and
sheriff’s departments.
SEC. 2.
Section 12525.4 is added to the Government Code, to read:12525.4.
(a) (1) On or before February 1 of each year, each municipality shall post on its internet website law enforcement settlements and judgments of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) or more during the previous year, resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving the use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment, broken down by individual settlement or judgment.(2) For each action settlement or
judgment posted, the municipality shall include all of the following information:
(A) The court in which the action was filed. filed, if any.
(B) The name of the law firm representing the plaintiff.
(C) The name of the law firm or agency firm, agency, or other counsel representing each defendant.
(D) The date
the action was filed. or claim was filed in court or with the municipality.
(E) Whether the plaintiff alleged improper police conduct and the type of misconduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment.
(F) If the action or claim has been resolved, the date on which it was resolved, the manner in which it was resolved, and whether the resolution included a payment to the plaintiff by the city, and, if so, the amount of the
payment.
(3) On or before February 1 of each year, each municipality shall post on its internet website all of the following:
(A) The total number of settlements and judgments related to improper police conduct during the previous year irrespective of the settlement or judgment amount.
(B) The total amount of money paid for the cases settlements or judgments identified in subparagraph (A).
(C) The extent to which any payments
were paid by insurance, self-insurance, or a joint powers agreement in which the municipality participates pursuant to Section 990.8.
(C)
(D) The estimated costs budgeted in the current budget for law enforcement misconduct settlements and judgments, if these costs are included in the municipality’s budget.
(D)The actual amount of money paid for law enforcement misconduct settlements and judgments in the fiscal year immediately prior to the budget year identified in subparagraph (C).
(4) If any settlements or judgments identified in paragraph (1) are paid for using municipal bonds, the municipality shall post on its internet website the amount of the bond, the time it will take the bond to mature, interest and fees paid on the bond, and the total future cost of the bond.
(5) The municipality shall also post on its internet website any settlements or judgments identified in paragraph (1) that were paid by insurance, broken down by individual settlement or judgment, and the amount of any premiums paid by the municipality for insurance against settlements or judgments resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving the use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or
imprisonment. judgment.
(b) This section shall not be construed to prohibit or interfere with a person from obtaining documents pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1).
(c) For purposes of this section, “municipality” means a city, county, or city and county with a police department or a sheriff’s department. “Municipality” includes a city, county, or city and county that contracts with a police department or sheriff’s department for its public safety services.
