Inglewood will destroy 20 years of police shooting records ahead of new transparency law

Civil rights leaders are demanding that the city of Inglewood rescind its decision to destroy case files for nearly 150 police shootings and other critical incidents ahead of a new law that would have made those records public for the first time.

Until recently, Inglewood retained records related to officer-involved shootings for 25 years. Earlier this month, the City Council voted to reduce that time frame to five years and then voted to destroy the older records.

Activists see it as an intentional effort to avoid the accountability promised by Senate Bill 1421, a new law that allows the public to obtain personnel and investigatory records for officers involved in shootings, sexual assault and misconduct.

‘Living, breathing cases’

“These cases aren’t old, they’re still living, breathing cases that still have questions that demand answers,” said Earl Ofari Hutchinson, president of the Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable. “Family members are still trying to get answers as to why.”

Some of Inglewood’s files dated back to 1991. The council’s decision allows for the destruction of cases closed prior to Dec. 31, 2012.

The records slated for destruction include four fatal officer-involved shootings over a four-month period in 2008. In one instance, officers shot a homeless man 40 times. In another, Officer Brian Ragan shot postal worker Kevin Wicks after responding to the wrong apartment.

Ragan also was involved in the fatal shooting of Michael Byoune roughly a month before, and in the beating of Rene Melendez just days before he killed Wicks. The officer was cleared by the department for the shootings, but later fired in 2010 for copying internal affairs documents, according to a lawsuit in which the white officer alleged discrimination. That case was thrown out by a judge.

Police policies ‘outdated’

A U.S. Department of Justice review launched as a result of the 2008 incidents found the majority of Inglewood Police Department policies and procedures were “outdated.”

On Jan. 1, the families of those individuals could have received answers to long-standing questions, Hutchinson said. Did Inglewood conduct thorough enough reviews of those cases? Did the deaths spur any changes in the department? Were officers punished appropriately?

SB 1421 does not specify a time period, meaning many of the officer-involved shooting records could have been released.

A San Bernardino County sheriff’s union is preemptively challenging the law and arguing that it should only apply to incidents after Jan. 1, 2019.

According to a staff report, Inglewood plans to destroy nearly 150 case files, primarily related to officer-involved shootings, internal affairs investigations and use-of-force reviews. The City Council approved the destruction as part of a consent-calendar vote at its last meeting of the year. A recording of the meeting on the city’s Facebook account appears to be missing that portion of the session.

The city’s resolution states the police chief and city attorney determined the records are “obsolete, occupy valuable space, and are of no use to the Police Department.”

Mayor: Action is routine

Inglewood Mayor James T. Butts Jr. described the decision to destroy the records as routine.

“The City of Inglewood’s retention policy now mirrors the state-required minimum for records retention,” Butts said in an email.

Butts told the Los Angeles Times, which broke the story over the weekend, that he did not know if the records had been destroyed yet. Butts indicated he was not likely to bring the topic back for review.

“The premise that there was an intent to beat the clock is ridiculous,” he told The Times.

Hutchinson said he is hopeful the City Council will reconsider the destruction after the holidays, assuming the records have not been destroyed by then.

“It sets a dangerous and a bad precedent,” Hutchinson said.

Undermines accountability

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, called Inglewood’s actions “disturbing.” The decision undermines accountability, sets a terrible precedent and harms the ability for researchers to study these cases, Chemerinsky said.

Inglewood’s decision to reduce its retention policy from 25 years to five years just a month before the new law takes effect undermines any claim that the City Council decision was simply routine.

“It seems so clear this is being done in response to a California statute that is trying to increase accountability when deadly force is used,” Chemerinsky said.

Inglewood and other cities should see the records as opportunities for studying trends and learning from mistakes.

“Knowledge is always better than ignorance,” Chemerinsky said.