Correspondence - Item 30 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Becerra, Alexis From: Tiffany Bailey <TBailey@aclusocal.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 12:27 PM To: eComment Subject: Public Comment Concerning Item No. 30 Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana.Use caution when opening attachments or links. Dear Mayor and City Council, My name is Tiffany Bailey. I am a Senior Staff Attorney and the Deputy Project Director of the ACLU of Southern California's Criminal Justice and Police Practices project. I am providing comment on Item No. 30,the Council's work study session on the Police Oversight Commission Ordinance. The ACLU of Southern California supports the hybrid, audit and investigatory model for oversight that the Police Oversight Commission's Independent Director,Jack Morse Jr., has proposed. While it most beneficial to the Santa Ana community for the Commission to retain full investigatory power,we acknowledge the City's budgetary and capacity constraints and think the proposed hybrid model strikes an appropriate balance by ensuring that investigatory powers are at least retained for officer involved shootings and uses of force resulting in death or great bodily injury. As we noted in prior public comment,we are deeply concerned by amendments to the ordinance's confidentiality section,which seek to attach civil or criminal penalties to potential confidentiality breaches. Once again,this is unnecessary. State law already protects the confidentiality of law enforcement personnel records. We have also seen this problem highlighted in LA with the prosecution of Diana Teran -for which the Court of Appeal issued a writ of prohibition against further prosecutorial proceedings after more than a year of litigation. The proposed attachment of such penalties will set a dangerous precedent and will surely have a chilling effect on oversight. We also encourage the City Council to not move forward with proposed amendments that would require Commissioners to participate in ride alongs and in Santa Ana Police Academy Program courses. While commissioners need to be knowledgeable of law enforcement practices,they are not police officers and should not be receiving formal police academy training. It also undermines independence and oversight when the body that is being overseen is the one telling the overseers what the law is. By requiring SAPID training and a staggering amount of ride-along hours,which Los Angeles' Civilian Oversight Commission makes optional,the distinct lines between the oversight entity and SAPID are blurred. Finally, in the proposed amendments, the City,without justification—whether legal or policy-based—removed the Commission's ability to review and provide recommendations during the negotiations between the City and the Santa Ana Police Officers Association.This power remains deeply important to the community given the current lack of transparency surrounding this process. If this critical power is taken away,the community deserves to know what legal or policy justifications are motivating this decision. In short,we are heartened to hear that the Commission and Council are still considering retaining some investigatory powers and encourage the Council to revert the aforementioned amendments which would serve only to undermine transparency and chill oversight. Thank you, Tiffany Bailey Tiffany Bailey 1