BRIAN R. MARVEL
PORAC President

Safeguarding Our Privacy in an Era of Transparency

As we enter October, I want to address a pressing issue that affects every one of us: the balance between public accountability and the privacy rights of peace officers. Last month, UC Berkeley and Stanford University unveiled a groundbreaking yet concerning database in collaboration with media outlets CalMatters, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and KQED. Dubbed the “Police Records Access Project,” this centralized repository aggregates over 1.5 million pages of records related to police misconduct and use-of-force incidents from departments statewide (tinyurl.com/yesr4szd).

This isn’t entirely new information. The data stems from disclosures mandated by Senate Bill 1421 (2018; tinyurl.com/4vbjtevb) and Senate Bill 16 (2021; tinyurl.com/4y2y399b), which opened peace officer personnel records to Public Records Act (PRA) requests. However, what sets this database apart is its unprecedented accessibility — one-click searches that compile scattered records into a single, user-friendly platform. For the first time, journalists, activists and the public can easily cross-reference incidents, keywords, names, counties and agencies, potentially heightening the risk of doxxing and harassment by bad-faith actors misusing this information.

I urge every officer to take proactive steps. Start by collaborating with your local agency to understand exactly what was released in their PRA responses. Ask how management notifies personnel when names appear in disclosures — this varies by department and can be inconsistent. Moreover, I strongly recommend personally reviewing the database. Search for your name or related cases, and scrutinize the content for any improper inclusions, such as non-public details or redaction failures. If something seems amiss, document it thoroughly. PORAC lacks standing to litigate individual cases, so any legal challenges must originate from your department or personal counsel, though this message is not formal legal advice.

This database arrives amid a troubling wave of court decisions that further erode protections for peace officer personnel records. Let’s break down a few key rulings to illustrate the trend:

• In Santa Ana Police Officers Association et al. v. City of Santa Ana (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 296, the Court of Appeal clarified that Penal Code section 832.7 and Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045 don’t allow private lawsuits for damages over unauthorized releases. Instead, remedies are limited to administrative appeals or writs of mandamus, narrowing our options for recourse.
• Similarly, Schneider v. Superior Court (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 613 mandated full disclosure of Brady material from personnel files, bypassing traditional Pitchess motion limitations. This prioritizes defendants’ rights over officers’ privacy, potentially exposing unrelated personal information in criminal proceedings.
• Lastly, Banuelos v. Superior Court (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 542 ruled that protective orders don’t apply to Pitchess disclosures made public under Penal Code § 832.7(b)(1)(C), allowing freer dissemination of such information.

Officers are now facing a heightened risk of doxxing, harassment or career sabotage from the anti-police activists. This database only adds to the slew of websites with officers’ images and other identifying information related to them, so they can terrorize the officers and their family members.

At PORAC, our core mission remains unwavering: protecting you and the communities we serve. At the statewide level, PORAC is actively evaluating legislative solutions to protect the rights and privacy of law enforcement personnel. We are also exploring legal grounds to challenge improper disclosures or the creation of databases like this one, including potential violations of privacy protections. A key focus is advocating for legislation that mandates advance notice to officers before personnel records are released, providing sufficient time to review the information and ensure it is compliant.

Looking ahead, we’re vigilant about emerging threats like AI tools that could mine this data for patterns, amplifying biases. We are also actively monitoring for additional media coverage pertaining to the information within the database, and we will defend our members and our profession against biased, unfair or inaccurate use of these records. This remains a top priority for our leadership and PORAC’s lobbying and communications teams. We’ve overcome challenges together before, from pension reforms to body-cam policies; we’ll prevail here.

Axon Draft One

Speaking of AI, if you haven’t seen it, Axon has been leveraging generative AI and body-worn camera audio to produce draft report narratives in seconds, called Draft One. Recognizing its potential and risks, PORAC partnered with PORAC’s Legal Defense Fund (LDF) to host Axon for an in-person presentation and Q&A with our LDF panel attorneys. Our goal? Ensure this technology rolls out with clear safeguards and accountability for everyone involved. We anticipate having a model policy for meet-and-confer sessions later in the year. This exclusive access empowers PORAC members to shape AI’s future in California policing and contribute our knowledge and experiences nationally.

I have seen our profession evolve and improve over the last 26 years I have been in law enforcement, and I anticipate that AI will exponentially increase changes in the coming years. I urge you to explore Draft One and join us in advocating for policies that balance efficiency with accountability. I want to thank Axon, LDF and our panel attorneys for driving this important dialogue.