Now that Alameda County Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo has signaled his intent to release the Cruz Reynoso task force report and the companion Kroll findings on our infamous UC Davis pepper-spray incident, we can all hope that a more open chapter in this saga is about to begin.

The cloud here, though, is that Grillo has decided to stay his order to release the document until April 2 so that the peace officer’s union will have time to file an appeal. Depending on how far up the legal food chain this one goes, it may be some time before this report sees the light of day.

Then again, perhaps the attorney representing the police union and Officer John Pike will see that his clients’ best interests are served by having the report released sooner rather than later so that public trust in the police can be restored.

No matter how the appeals process ultimately plays out, Judge Grillo’s tentative ruling makes it abundantly clear that both Pike and the union have a decidedly weak hand in this case and aren’t likely to prevail in an appeal at any level.

It appears that Cruz Reynoso dotted every I and crossed every T, which is what one would expect from a former California Supreme Court justice. The same for Kroll.

Very clearly, according to Grillo, there was no rush to judgment by either the Reynoso report or the Kroll report.

Furthermore, according to Grillo, no laws concerning the confidentiality of peace officer personnel files were violated by Reynoso’s group or Kroll as they went about gathering the facts for what apparently is a thorough and detailed — and perhaps devastating — report. While Judge Grillo’s ruling does not list specifics of either the Reynoso or Kroll reports, he does nibble around the edges. In describing the Kroll Report as “extensive and detailed,” Grillo notes that “The report collects and contains facts regarding all aspects of the Incident, from how the administration’s decision-making process worked, to how the administration communicated instructions to the UCDPD, to the content of those instructions, to how the UCDPD planned for clearing the Quad, to how the UCDPD supervised officers at the Quad, to the actions of individual officers at the Quad.”

Furthermore, the judge writes, “The Reynoso report assigns responsibility to the UC Davis administration and to members of the UCDPD. The report considers the various decision points in the Incident and describes how and why those decisions were made by specific individuals. The report then assigns responsibility to specific individuals, including police officers, for various specific decisions. The Reynoso report makes policy recommendations for the UC Davis administration, the UCDPD, for the entire UC system, and for the UC Davis campus community.”

However, neither the Reynoso report or the Kroll report address the issue of disciplinary action.

According to Judge Grillo’s tentative ruling, “It cannot be the law that a public entity cannot collect, compile, and distribute public information about its police department without running afoul of section 832.7.”

Addressing the “strong public policy supporting transparency in government,” Grillo adds, “As police officers paid by the public and authorized by the public to exercise authority over individual members of the public, the Petitioners (Pike and the union) could not reasonably expect the reports of their actions in the news media, the internet, and other public sources of information would be shielded from public scrutiny by a statute whose purpose is to protect the confidentiality of personnel records and information.”

Additionally, Grillo notes that “the Incident has already received substantial publicity and that the Report is replete with footnotes that reference citations to the internet, newspapers, and other forms of media. Starting from a situation where a photo of the Incident has already become an internet meme, there is little potential for incremental harm to the Petitioners from the release of a report that consists largely of information and photographs that have already gone viral.”

However, Grillo writes, “The Regents will suffer substantial harm if they cannot disclose and discuss information and recommendations regarding the incident at issue until the case can be adjudicated on its merits. There is a strong public policy supporting transparency in government.”

Saving his most compelling argument for last, Grillo concludes by quoting from several other cases where the court found “The public interest in the conduct of peace officers is substantial because peace officers hold one of the most powerful positions in our society; our dependence on them is high and the potential for abuse of power is far from insignificant.”

Judge Grillo finished his statement by ruling that “The motion of Plaintiffs to seal portions of the record is DENIED.” No surprise there.

He then wrote “The motion of the Regents to seal portions of the record is DENIED.” Yes, the Regents apparently wanted something sealed as well.

So far, no explanation from anyone in authority as to what it was the Regents wanted sealed, but I suspect we’ll all find out sooner or later.

— Reach Bob Dunning at [email protected]

Comments

comments