There are good reasons for many of the protections provided under CA law, not the least of which is personal safety. I cannot speak as to the state of those law in most other states, only in CA. I do not defend malfeasance at all and have both investigated and recommended the termination of officers who have been guilty of violating law or policy. But, having completely transparent personnel records can be a disaster both for an officer's career (even if cleared of all wrongdoing), and his or her personal safety as there tends to be a good amount of personal data included in those records. Officers involved in high profile incidents often have their careers ended even if ultimately found to have committed no wrongdoing. The public outcry is often too great to resist even if there was no legal or policy violation. The media perception becomes the reality and a career is over. Releasing heretofore confidential info to include past accusations and other personal info as many public access activists in CA are seeking, would serve only to further cool the ardor of officers out here. As it stands, the perception of career survival (with pension reform must now extend to 34 years or more) now relies largely on keeping one's head low and doing as little as possible.

I agree that bad officers should be terminated. I don't know of any officers that might say otherwise. But, since an accusation can be just as good as a sustained complaint in the public's eyes, I still support the general concept of confidentiality of personnel records. As part of the consent decree LAPD originally entered into more than a decade and a half ago, officers who suffered a mere accusation - even if later determine to be unfounded - were denied promotions and transfers; this was euphemistically known as "where there's smoke, there's fire" even without any proof or sustained allegations. The criminal element discovered that the threat of complaints was good for retaliation, so complaints flew ... and when the courts overturned the possibility of civil or criminal action for a false allegation against officers, complaints skyrocketed. It chilled proactive actions by the LAPD for some years and crime rose. To some degree we see that chill recurring state and nation wide when slanted headlines compel agencies to cast their people aside for political expediency.

Oh, and those law enforcement records CAN be accessed through legal process (Pitchess), so it's not like they are forever concealed without an avenue to reveal them. Fortunately, Pitchess allows for an in camera review by a court prior to the release so as to determine if there is actually something relevant in the record that might concern the legal matter at hand.

It would seem a no-brainer that officers engaged in clear lies should lose their jobs since these become Brady issues and render officers incapable of effectively performing their duties. Most crimes should also be grounds for termination. Sadly, there have long been tales of NYPD and many other east coast departments maintaining personnel whose actions would warrant termination or even prosecution elsewhere. When I was first considering entering into law enforcement, I had considered moving to my wife's hometown, Philadelphia. But, after a conversation with some of her family who both lived and worked there (one IN law enforcement) I was told that it was not the best place to be working as an honest cop. It was more than depressing to hear such a thing, yet I know that such cultures still exist here and there even if I have never worked within such a culture.