Pittsburg, Ca., police officer Michael Sibbitt was about to testify in a murder trial when a lieutenant from his department told the court that the officer had resigned more than a year earlier during an investigation into whether he had falsified reports and used excessive force. The 2015 revelation had a sweeping effect, the Los Angeles Times reports. Nineteen convictions secured with help from two officers were dismissed after prosecutors learned of the misconduct investigation. The incident rocked the criminal justice system in the San Francisco suburb and showed how information from officers’ confidential disciplinary files can change the outcome of cases if courts are made aware of the material.
The case was unusual because the lieutenant took it upon himself to reveal the officer’s background. Most of the time, getting this information into court is a convoluted process that often leaves judges, attorneys and jurors in the dark about misconduct by officers who take the stand in criminal proceedings. “It’s one of the more stark examples of why we need to have more transparency about police officers’ backgrounds,” says Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor who teaches at Loyola Law School. Internal records of police misconduct are confidential in California, but state law allows judges to order police agencies to bring personnel files to court if an officer’s credibility is formally challenged. In 21 states, records of significant police discipline are public. In many others, prosecutors and defendants are able to access them, eliminating the need for a judge’s private review. California is the only state in which even prosecutors cannot directly access the personnel file of a police witness. State lawmakers are weighing a proposal this month that would allow the public to see some law enforcement misconduct records.