Assemblyman Jose Solorio voted earlier this year for a bill mandating the neutering of our dogs. Tuesday he essentially neutered himself when, as Chairman of the Public Safety Committee, he refused to allow a vote on Senate Bill 1019.
This legislation was described by O.C. Register editorial writer Steven Greenhut as an, “important bill to protect the public from law-enforcement special interests.” It was supposed to improve “public oversight of police abuse.”
According to a San Francisco Chronicle article, “The bill would have overturned an August 2006 ruling in which the Supreme Court said the public did not have a right to see personnel records of law enforcement officers who challenge disciplinary actions taken against them.”
Predictably, the police unions opposed the measure. So of course Solorio and his “committee gave police officer unions “exactly what they want
I say good for Solorio! The ACLU and other bleeding heart groups have given too much power the bad guys and I’m glad Jose supports our cops! For once a politician is doing the RIGHT thing! We need to protect the police and their privacy.
Poster 1,
This was not about protecting cops – it was about covering up for BAD COPS – and Solorio did what he did because he was afraid of the police union.
He ought to be ashamed of himself. He was always a lightweight, but now we know he is also a sellout in Sacramento – just like he was in Santa Ana. That has not changed.
You guys should have voted for Armando in the primary! Or El Trabuco in the general.
#1:
Can you define “bleeding heart group” ? What DOES that mean? Just a propagandistic catchphrase substituting for a semblance of a thought process, eh?
We hear on a daily basis about the repressive regimes of Iraq, Iran, Cuba, yet somehow we believe there should not be public transparency in review of police abuse? Such transparency INCREASES public trust and respect for police and the credibility of police organization. What do you propose #1, a total police state in which the public , which is allegedly served by the police, is powerlessly subservient to the police? Bet you are a big fan of Dick Cheney, George Bush, Joseph Goebbels and Adolph Hitler. Look at history and see what is being wrought.
Solorio is pandering to the police because he will need their mailers, money and endorsement in 2008. Another example of how politicians are screwing us and pandering to special interests contrary to the public interest. Congratulations , Assemblyman Solorio: Sleazebags 1, Public Interest 0.
Poster 3,
Amen! I just got my ACLU card in the mail last week…
Hmmmmm. . . . “Solorio neuters himself” . . . Doesn’t that presuppose the existence of cajones in the first place?
Art,
You, Greenhut and others seem to forget that Correa voted against it as well. Why aren’t you going after him? Or is it a policy of only attack the friends of Miguel Pulido and look the other way when other electeds do the same thing.
Cmon, be consistent and call out Correa for his no vote.
I agree with #1. The Hon. Solorio did the right thing standing by our police officers. To me it’s like standing up for or military. It’s the right thing to do. These victims rights activists groups think Gangbangers and other killers have more rights than cops. This is the Rodney King crowd. They want more rights for prisoners in jails. These people suffer from a victims mindset and will defend the crooks at the expense of our brave men and women in uniform. Way to go Jose! Count me as a supporter and I’ll work to get you re-elected. We will remember your work to keep our streets and cops safe.
Poster 6,
There is a BIG difference, and I am not talking about their respective statures.
Correa VOTED. Do I agree with the way he voted? No. But he VOTED.
Solorio, on the other hand, did not even allow the measure to be voted on in his committee. He pulled a Pulido and hid under the desk.
Solorio is an embarrassment. Correa is a man – and while I may not always agree with him, I always respect him. How can anyone respect Solorio after this disaster?
I’m not a fan of either Solorio or Correa, but they made the correct decision with this issue.
Crooks, I mean defendants, already have the right to request a police officer’s personnel file. The formal request is made via their attorney. A judge, or multiple judges view the officer’s personnel file to determine if there are grounds to release the information or not.
Their is NO reason why ANYONE should be able to view the personnel records of a police officer at ANY time without cause.
Can the police enter the private domain of a citizen without a warrant or search/seizure as part of probation/parole? No.
The police need to have a judge approve this in order to infringe on your privacy. Either that or you’ve already been convicted of a crime that warrants the need for probation/parole with search/seizure terms.
Why should their be “transparency” into an employee’s personnel file without cause? If there’s a legal reason to disclose the past wrongdoings of an officer, the courts will authorize such.
Don’t get me wrong, there are bad cops out there, but the vast majority of them are performing their jobs day in and day out with the best of intentions (and putting their butts on the line to do it). Certainly even good cops make mistakes, they are human afterall.
However, encroaching on their personal rights by allowing “transparency” into a police officer’s personnel files is not the answer. Bad cops hang themselves over time. Let the system continue to rid the bad apples of law enforcement by doing it legally and without malice.
#7:
I guess I would have to nominate you as a prime example of a failed education system in civics and government, and image of the moral vacuity of the Bush Administration. You throw around catchphrases and empty thoughts, attempting to mask their sheer lack of truth and reason under a cloak of patriotism.
FIRST: You state “To me it’s like standing up for or (sic) military. It’s the right thing to do. ” Who does NOT stand up for keeping our military safe? Most likely you are trying to criticize those “liberal” Americans (67%) who want to get our troops out of Iraq. Hell, 72% of the military on the ground in Iraq polled by STARS AND STRIPES in MARCH 2006 were for troop withdrawal within a year (i.e March 2007, four months ago.)
SECOND: “These victims rights activists groups think Gangbangers and other killers have more rights than cops.” You offer the logic of the Nazi stormtrooper: “Only those who deserve it will be punished (shot, killed, maimed).” The police work for the people. The people have certain civil rights that are not to be abridged by the police. Police officers’ official conduct must be a matter of public accountability, especially in the case of lethal force and brutality. Your reasoning deprives the public of ensuring accountability of their government and their police. Lack of such accountability is the first step toward a police state.
Simply put: Why should a police officer NOT be publicly accountable for his or her actions? What are they hiding? Please – answer these questions? How does what the proposed legislation provide any threat to a police officer who is not breaking the law under color of authority of their badge, the power of which derives its authority from the very people you wish to be deprived of knowledge regarding the conduct of the police?
Stopped a young woman driver and sexually assaulted and killed her?
#10 – I would like to respond to your questions. Also, a friendly suggestion. Do not fall into the trap of word games between other authors. You lose credibilty. Let their own words form their credibility; even if it makes you upset. Focus on the issue at hand.
Question #1 – Why should a police officer NOT be publicly accountable for his or her actions?
I’m going to assume that by “publicly accountable” you mean the officer’s name, age, etc. be released to media outlets so the officer can be scrutinized by the media’s readers/viewers. Don’t we already do that with officers who’s actions are deemed egregious?
Look at the current case involving Ex-Deputy Webb from the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Office. Lets look at another recent case where a Riverside County Sheriff’s Deputy Graves’ off-duty conduct was released to the press. I can cite literally hundreds of cases where an officer’s actions were made public and he/she was “held accountable.” These are just two cases in the past week.
Bottom line – WE ALREADY DO THIS!
The difference between the current policies/laws and what this legislation is seeking to do is simple. Currently there’s a legal process/procedure to disclose this information. The current legislation is seeking for there to be no due process and allow for there to be “transparency” without cause. Ultimately allowing public opinion to form its own perception of reality. If you truly believe that the police are “hiding” somehting now; just wait! If this legislation passes and the public doesn’t agree with what is released by the police, then what’s next?
If this proposed legislation becomes law, I can invision the public’s response to the publicized results… Clearly the police are behind a much larger conspiracy to pull the wool over the public’s eyes. I’m being sarcastic, but honestly, the people who support this legislation are NEVER going to be satisfied with the legal processes that exist until such processes fabricate and, or embelish the wrongdoings of police officers and make those findings public.
Question #2 – What are they hiding?
I’m going to assume this is a rhetorical question as your writings indicate a belief that the police are actually hiding something. However, let me attempt to answer; although I’m sure you’re not going to agree.
They are not hiding anything!
The police want to rid their ranks of bad apples as much as supporters of this legislation do. The difference is how each side of this issue believes how the process will do just that. The police want to follow the law when trying to terminate an employee. The supporters of this legislation want to circumvent the legal process and publicly humilate police officers without due process. That’s the difference.
Quetion #3 – How does what the proposed legislation provide any threat to a police officer who is not breaking the law under color of authority of their badge, the power of which derives its authority from the very people you wish to be deprived of knowledge regarding the conduct of the police?
#10, you should really take a better look at this legislation. It’s not just color of authority issues that are at stake. A police officer’s personnel file contains personal information that was collected during the background process before he/she was a police officer. Then there is documentation during the academy. Then documentation from training. Then records during probation and continuing for the rest of the officer’s career. These files contain off-duty conduct (good and bad) that may have NO RELEVANCE to what an individual might be seeking to disclose. We are talking about literally hundreds of pages of personnel records for one officer.
Why should all of this information be released when there is no relevance to the case being “investigated” by a citizen? No need to answer – there is not a LEGAL reason. This is a fundamental component of our legal system.
Again, there is already a system in place that allows the courts to view the records and determine if there is relevance to the complaint; not a private citizen who is looking to humilate an officer because they feel wronged.
I’m not sure if your last question was composed this way or if there was a technical issue that cut information off. I won’t answer because I’m not quite sure what needs to be addressed.
Your last question read, “Stopped a young woman driver and sexually assaulted and killed her?”