Antioch Police union’s attorney shares concerns about release of officers’ names in text scandal
“some of the text communications between a relatively small number of officers reflected attitudes or beliefs which are not shared by the vast majority of APOA members.” – Statement from RLS Principal Attorney Mike Rains
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023, Mike Rains, the attorney for the Antioch Police Officers’ Association, of the Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver law firm, issued the following statement in response to the release of names of officers in the scandal involving racist and other offensive texts. (See related articles here and here)
“This Office serves as General Counsel to the Antioch Police Officers’ Association (APOA) and its individual members. We represent many, but not all, of the officers whose names were released by a Superior Court Judge as having involvement in text messaging which she criticized and declared “unworthy of (legal) protection.” As we will discuss below, we have serious concerns about the manner in which both the names of the officers and two separate reports prepared by an Inspector in the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office came to be public records before the law in California, codified in Penal Code section 832.7, declared them to be subject to public disclosure. We also have serious concerns as to whether the text messages themselves, which were originally obtained by authorities in connection with a criminal investigation of only a portion of the Officers who were named by the judge, and which do not constitute criminal conduct, formed the basis of an administrative investigation, in potential violation of California’s Electronic Communications and Privacy Act (Penal Code section 1546).
We are hopeful that the investigation will be thorough and objective and will determine culpability where it is deserved.
We understand the public scrutiny of police officers throughout the nation and acknowledge that revelations of text messaging such as that reported in this case can provoke emotional and even sometimes hateful responses. Nevertheless, police officers, even when accused of potential misconduct, should be afforded basic and fundamental rights of due process. We insist such rights be provided, even to persons who have committed the most grotesque and horrific crimes imaginable — why shouldn’t police also be afforded constitutional rights? Such rights ensure that investigators, prosecutors, and judges abide by existing laws before adjudicating anyone as “guilty,” and pronouncing judgment and sentence before a response from the “accused” is sought or considered.
We also hope the investigation will not disparage each officer and seek to end their career as a law enforcement officer, simply because they became the uninvited recipient of texts sent by others or responded with sarcasm.
With those observations as a backdrop, we can say, on behalf of the entirety of the APOA membership, that some of the text communications between a relatively small number of officers reflected attitudes or beliefs which are not shared by the vast majority of APOA members. Those officers, and many whose names were recited by the judge, have now suffered the injustice and indignity of condemnation simply because they work at the same agency as those whose communications were offensive. Since our office represents thousands of police officers in the State of California, we understand the impact messaging of the type engaged in by a relatively small number of these officers can have on the public’s perceptions of law enforcement officers everywhere, even though we are reminded constantly by our clients everywhere that they do not support the rhetoric, and do not share the apparent mindset of those responsible for the rhetoric.
We are aware that the police chief has retained an “outside” investigator to interview each and every officer whose name appeared in any of the text messages in question. Those officers have been named as subjects, whether the officer was simply one of numerous recipients of a “group text” and did not respond, or whether the officer took an active role in the messaging. We are hopeful that the investigation will be thorough and objective and will determine culpability where it is deserved. We also hope the investigation will not disparage each officer and seek to end their career as a law enforcement officer, simply because they became the uninvited recipient of texts sent by others or responded with sarcasm.
the attachments to this post: