Two-step process redacts identifying information as required by new state law

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta released Race-Blind Charging Guidelines that address the specific statutory requirements listed in Assembly Bill 2778 (D-McCarty) and Penal Code Section 741, as well as provide prosecutors practical guidance as to how to implement the requirements. The guidelines outline a new two-step process for evaluating charging, including how to redact identifying information, how to document charging decisions, when a crime is excluded from this process, and the requirements to collect and make available for research anonymous data. The guidelines are intended to help reduce the potential for unconscious bias to influence the initial charging decision in legal cases, in accordance with the spirit, law, and goals of PC 741.

“Unconscious bias has no place in the criminal justice system and should not play a role in charging,” Bonta said. “Unfortunately, we know the criminal justice system is not infallible and charging decisions are vulnerable to unconscious bias. This is a reality we cannot ignore and must work to correct. These guidelines will help prosecutors perform their duties in accordance with California law and most importantly, help promote a more fair and equitable charging process for all individuals.”

Studies have shown that unconscious bias may infect decisions within the criminal justice system, despite the best intentions of the parties involved. The guidelines will assist all California prosecution agencies in implementing this new process by January 1, 2025. It includes nine critical components to reduce unconscious bias:

1. Redaction of Cases Received from Law Enforcement Agencies and Suspects Criminal History Documentation: Prosecution agencies are required to review initial charging decisions based on information, including police reports and suspect criminal history documentation, from which all direct means of identifying the race of suspect(s), victim(s), and witness(es) race is removed.
2. Race-Blind Initial Charging: Prosecution agencies are required to follow a two-step process for charging cases: a “race-blind initial charging evaluation” based on redacted reports and then an “ordinary charging evaluation” based on the unredacted reports and all available evidence. The initial charge evaluation is intended to perform a gate-keeping and recording function prior to the actual charging process. It contemplates an initial evaluation on whether to file any charges, without specifying what charges might be filed. The more thorough second review will be used to determine individual charges or decide charges with certainty. 
3. Redaction Process for Initial Charging Evaluation: Each prosecution agency must create a redaction process for the materials used in the initial charging evaluation. It must be performed by personnel not association with evaluating or charging the case and may either be done manually or through automation as long as the process ensures correct redaction.
4. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools for Redaction: If an AI system is used, it must be validated before implementation that appropriate safeguards are in place to prevent unauthorized access to sensitive information.
5. Second Review for Charging: After completion of the race-blind initial charging evaluations, the case shall proceed to a second, complete review for charging. This would include a review of unredacted reports and all available evidence, which may include additional materials, such as video footage, photographs, and complete witness statements, that reveals race but must be reviewed to assess whether the requisite elements have been met to warrant the filing of criminal charges. This is the “ordinary charging evaluation” and must be performed by the same prosecutors who performed the initial charging review.
6. Documentation of Charging Decision: Prosecution agencies are required to follow a two-step process for charging cases: a “race-blind initial charging evaluation” based on redacted reports and then an “ordinary charging evaluation” based on the unredacted reports and all available evidence. The initial charge evaluation is intended to perform a gate-keeping and recording function prior to the actual charging process. It contemplates an initial evaluation on whether to file any charges, without specifying what charges might be filled. The more thorough second review will be used to determine individual charges or decide charges with certainty. 
7. Inability to Conduct Race-Blind Initial Charging Evaluation: If a prosecution agency was unable to put a case through a race-blind initial charging evaluation, the reason for that inability must be documented and retained by the agency.
8. Collection of Data and Availability for Research Purposes: Each county in which a prosecution agency resides must, on a usual basis, collect the data resulting from the race-blind initial charging evaluation process, except as such information is protected by privilege including, but not limited to, that found in Penal Code section 1054.6. Each county must ensure that the data is collected, stored, and transmitted in a way appropriate to protect sensitive information.
9. Exception to the Race-Blind Process: The prosecution agency may exclude the crimes listed at the Penal Code section 741, subdivision (c) from the race-blind charging process. Each prosecution agency may further remove or exclude certain classes of crimes or factual circumstances from a race-blind initial charging evaluation and shall keep a list of the exclusion and their reason for review.

Attorney General Bonta, is committed to fighting for racial justice. In May of 2021 he established the Racial Justice Bureau which, among other things, supports the California Department of Justice’s broader mandate to advance the civil rights of all Californians by assisting with new and ongoing efforts to combat hate and bias. This year, the Attorney General has also engaged with local leaders through roundtables through hate crime roundtables in Bakersfield, Fresno, Anaheim and Irvine.  

More broadly, the Attorney General is deeply committed to responding to the needs of historically marginalized and underrepresented communities and, last year, also launched the Office of Community Awareness, Response, and Engagement to work directly with community organizations and members of the public as part of the effort to advance justice for all Californians.

A copy of the Guidelines can be found here.

560 law enforcement agencies made 4,575,725 stops

Black individuals were searched at a rate 1.66 times the rate of White individuals

By California Attorney General’s Office

The California Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (Board) today, Wednesday, Jan. 3, 2024, announced the release of its annual report on police stops across California. The report analyzes millions of vehicle and pedestrian stops conducted in 2022 by 560 law enforcement agencies in California — a major expansion from the 58 participating agencies in the previous report — under the Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA). In addition to providing an in-depth look into policing in 2022, the Board’s report contains a wide array of best practice recommendations related to policing, with a particular focus on the impact of pretext stops, law enforcement interactions with youth, civilian complaint processes, police union effects on law enforcement accountability, and trainings on racial and identity profiling. Overall, the findings from the latest RIPA report are consistent with the disparities observed in prior years’ data with respect to perceived race, age, and disability status.

Acting Police Chief Joe Vigil said the Antioch Police Department participated in providing data for the report.

“California is leading the nation in identifying and addressing racial and identity profiling,” said Andrea Guerrero, Co-Chair of the RIPA Board and Executive Director of Alliance San Diego. “This report marks a major milestone as the first to include stop data from law enforcement agencies across the entire state. The scale of data that California is collecting allows us to say definitively that profiling exists — it is a pervasive pattern across the state. We must now turn to the hard work of ending profiling by bringing all the stakeholders to the table to ascertain and change the policies and the practices that enable it. I’m proud to work alongside community and law enforcement leaders on the RIPA Board who are having the tough conversations needed to bring about change. Public safety depends on all of us, and we invite all stakeholders to join the RIPA Board on our path to progress.”

“The annual collection of the RIPA stop data is making California communities safer by directing thoughtful and reflective reform,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Over the last several years, we’ve collected and analyzed information on more than 16 million police encounters in our state. In turn, with the support of our staff at the California Department of Justice, the RIPA Board has continued to issue key recommendations for our law enforcement agencies to promote transparency and take critical steps to enhance, and in some cases, repair the public trust.”

The information collected under RIPA includes data on peace officers’ perceptions of the demographics of stopped individuals, such as race or ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, and disability. The Board collects this information to determine whether disparities can be found across demographic groups. The Board uses several well-established methodologies to analyze stop data to determine if bias may exist. 

Some of the key findings from the Board’s report include:

• Number of Stops: A total of 4,575,725 stops were conducted by 560 agencies from January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022.
• Population Comparison: Overall, the disparity between the proportion of stops and the proportion of residential population was greatest for Black individuals, who were stopped 131.5 % more frequently than expected.
• Search Rates: Black individuals were searched at a rate 1.66 times the rate of White individuals. Although stopped individuals perceived to be Black or Hispanic/Latino were searched at a higher rate relative to individuals perceived to be White, officers discovered contraband or evidence during stops in which they conducted searches at a lower rate for individuals perceived to be Black or Hispanic/Latino.
• Actions Taken: Officers reported not taking any reportable action during 75% of stops and taking actions during 25% of stops. Of all the racial or ethnic groups, stopped individuals whom officers perceived to be Native American had the highest rate of being searched (22.4%) and handcuffed (17.8%). Stopped individuals whom officers perceived to be Black had the highest rate of being detained curbside or in a patrol car (20.2%) and ordered to exit a vehicle (7.1%). Individuals perceived to be transgender men/boys also had actions taken towards them during half of their stops (50.0%).

In addition to the data analysis, the Board issues best practice recommendations that law enforcement agencies, the Legislature, local policymakers, the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), community members, and advocates should consider when implementing evidence-based and data-driven policy reforms geared to eliminate racial and identity profiling and improve law enforcement and community relations. Examples of the Board’s recommendations from the report include:

• Ending all pretextual stops and searches by taking actions such as ending consent or supervision searches as well as limiting law enforcement roll in the enforcement of traffic laws; 
• Prohibiting the collection of field interview cards and entries into CalGang or any agency database in absence of an arrest;
• Adopting internal policies that prohibit law enforcement agencies and district attorneys from pursuing criminal charges for standalone resisting arrest without other citable offenses;
• Prioritizing a care-first model, reducing unnecessary criminal justice intervention or law enforcement response in favor of a community-based response for youth with disabilities and youth experiencing mental health crises;
• Considerations related to the efficacy of school police and law enforcement contacts, such as identifying specific student conduct or statutory violations that require disciplinary action that should be handled by school staff, and for which law enforcement officers should not be involved;
• Calling for further research on how Police Officer Bills of Rights and provisions or agreements with unions affect police accountability; 
• Amending Penal Code section 832.5 to include a standardized definition of “civilian complaint”;
• Reviewing all available video footage and incorporating root cause analysis into complaint investigations; and
• Seeking community and Board input early in POST’s course development process and integrating feedback into the course curriculum before finalizing the course. 

For more on RIPA and other criminal justice data, members of the public are encouraged to visit OpenJustice, a data-driven initiative that works to increase access to criminal justice data and support the development of public policy.

A copy of the report announced today is available here. More information about the Board is available here.

Effort “to bring back a local voice in community planning” co-sponsored by Brentwood Councilwoman

By Daniel Payne, Our Neighborhood Voices

This past week the Our Neighborhood Voices initiative received a title and summary from the office of Attorney General Rob Bonta that is false, misleading and likely to create prejudice against the initiative.

The title and summary provided by Bonta’s office falsely claims that the measure “automatically” overrides the state’s affordable housing laws. It does no such thing. It gives communities the power to shape local growth in a way that better meets affordable housing requirements – and it restores the ability of local communities to negotiate even higher affordable housing rates, which one-size-fits-all laws passed in Sacramento have taken away.

Brentwood District 1 Councilmember Jovita Mendoza is one of the three co-sponsors of the initiative which has been endorsed by the Contra Costa County city councils of Brentwood and Clayton, as well as Oakley Vice Mayor Randy Pope.

In 2021, Bonta’s own office issued a title and summary for the first draft of this initiative that did not include this misleading language. It correctly stated that the Our Neighborhood Voices initiative would return land-use and zoning decisions back to local communities – instead of forcing top-down mandates on cities that damage neighborhoods and only benefit for-profit developers.

In fact, the Our Neighborhood Voices initiative will increase the chances of more affordable housing being built according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. In their report, the LAO states that the initiative “May enable additional flexibility for affordable housing development.” This is exactly the intent of the initiative – to help local cities choose which state housing laws work best for them and modify them in ways that will make them more successful.

The only substantial changes in the new version of the initiative submitted to Bonta’s office this year was the addition of a provision that exempts 100% affordable housing projects at 80% of AMI, and a repeal of Article 34 of the California Constitution that makes it more difficult to create affordable housing.

Yet Bonta’s office still added the argumentative and prejudicial language that the initiative would “automatically override” affordable housing laws.

“Bonta’s claim that our initiative would ‘automatically override’ affordable housing laws is clearly and provably false,” Brentwood City Councilmember and initiative proponent Jovita Mendoza said. “Our initiative would allow cities to choose where and how new housing projects get built, instead of forcing them to comply with blanket mandates from Sacramento that give for-profit developers a blank check to gentrify and destroy our communities.”

The laws that the Attorney General’s office is apparently referring to are not even correctly called “affordable housing” laws. Sacramento politicians have given developers the ability to override local communities and governments to build luxury housing with affordable requirements so low that these new projects contribute to displacement and gentrification.

A law like SB9, which eliminated single family zoning in California, is being challenged in court because it was passed on the premise that it WILL create affordable housing, but clearly will not. “There is nothing in laws like SB9 that would get us anywhere close to the number of new affordable units that the state says we need,” said Kalimah Priforce, an Emeryville City Councilmember and advocate for BIPOC homeownership. “Instead, we will continue to see projects that are largely unaffordable to most working families, communities of color, or other Californians who need housing most. ‘Trickle down housing’ doesn’t work – and we certainly shouldn’t be relying on debunked theories to guide important housing decisions in our state.”

“Without a fair and accurate title and summary, our initiative cannot go forward on the 2024 ballot,” explained Susan Candell, Lafayette City Councilmember and proponent of the Our Neighborhood Voices initiative. “We are weighing our options to sue, although such a delay will run out the clock for an initiative like ours – which relies on volunteer efforts to qualify. But our fight for local democracy will go forward – and we won’t stop until we restore our right to have a say in the future of our own communities.”

“In fact this politicized attack against our initiative is just further evidence that Sacramento will continue to put developer profits over the needs of our communities – unless we stand up and fight back. And while we focus our efforts on seeing that this misleading language is changed, we will continue to grow our grassroots coalition and fight back for our neighborhood voice,” said Redondo Beach City Councilmember and supporter of the initiative Nils Nehrenheim.

Learn more about the Our Neighborhood Voices coalition and how you can get involved at www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com

Today’s commitment by CVS, Walgreens, Teva, and Allergan is an important milestone in California’s efforts to address the opioid epidemic

OAKLAND – June 9, 2023 — California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced four multi-billion opioid settlements with pharmacies CVS and Walgreens and manufacturers Allergan and Teva are moving forward. The settlements are together worth up to $17.3 billion and address the companies’ role in the opioid crisis. The Walgreens and CVS deals are the first multistate settlements to hold chain retail pharmacies to answer for their role in the crisis. Today’s announcement is an important milestone in California’s efforts to address an epidemic that has destroyed communities and ripped apart families.

“We’ve made historic strides forward in our fight for justice and relief for Californians hurt by the opioid crisis,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Nothing can bring back the lives lost or erase the suffering caused by this crisis, but we are making sure those who caused it and profited from it are held to account for their greed and willful misconduct. These hard-fought and hard-won settlement funds will be critical in supporting victims and getting them the help they need to recover. I am proud of the work put in by my team and by our partners across the nation in making these wins possible.”

Opioid manufacturers Allergan and Teva have committed to move forward with settlements for up to $2.37 billion and $4.25 billion, respectively, to resolve allegations that, among other things, the companies deceptively marketed opioids by downplaying the risks of addiction and overstating their benefits. If the settlements are approved by the court, California may receive up to approximately $375 million from the Teva settlement and up to approximately $205 million from the Allergan settlement. The settlements with the opioid manufacturers also include strong injunctive relief that prohibits opioid-related marketing by Teva while Allergan is prohibited from selling opioids for the next 10 years.

Chain pharmacies CVS and Walgreens also committed to moving forward with national settlements worth up to $5 billion and $5.7 billion, respectively, to resolve claims that the companies ignored signs of prescription abuse and failed to prevent drug diversion. If approved by the court, California may receive up to approximately $470 million from the CVS settlement and up to $510 million from the Walgreens settlement. CVS and Walgreens have also agreed to injunctive relief that requires the pharmacies to monitor, report, and share data about suspicious activity related to opioid prescriptions. A final agreement with Walmart, worth up to $3.1 billion, is not being announced today; however, that settlement is expected to move forward in the coming weeks.

Since the first wave of the opioid epidemic hit the United States in 2000, it has taken hundreds of thousands of lives, torn families apart, and eroded the social fabric of communities. Its toll has continued to grow year after year. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that in 2021, more than 80,000 people may have died of overdose deaths involving opioids in the U.S., and over 11,200 of those deaths took place in California.

The opioid manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies who helped fuel the crisis through their unlawful practices and profited from it are at the center of Attorney General Bonta’s fight for justice and relief.  To date, the California Department of Justice has secured approximately $50 billion in nationwide settlements and expected settlements, including with opioid manufacturers Johnson & Johnson, Mallinckrodt, and Purdue Pharma L.P. and the Sackler family; distributors Cardinal Health, McKesson, and AmerisourceBergen; and consulting firm McKinsey & Company.

• In March of 2022, Attorney General Bonta announced a $6 billion conditional settlement with Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family over their alleged deceptive and illegal marketing and sales practices, in an agreement that would also allow the family’s name to be removed from buildings, scholarships, and fellowships.
• In February 2022, a bankruptcy court confirmed a plan that would allow an agreement between certain states, including California, and Mallinckrodt, the largest generic opioid manufacturer in the United States, to move forward. That settlement includes an expected $1.6 billion payment by the company to a trust that would benefit public and private opioid-related claimants.
• In July 2021, Attorney General Bonta announced a $26 billion settlement, which was finalized in Spring 2022, with Johnson & Johnson, which manufactured and marketed opioids, and Cardinal Health, McKesson, and AmerisourceBergen, the nation’s three major pharmaceutical distributors. It was the second largest multistate agreement in U.S. history, and its terms bar Johnson & Johnson from being involved in selling or promoting opioids for a decade and require the distributors to monitor, report, and share data about suspicious activity related to opioid sales.
• In February of 2021, the Attorney General announced a $573 million settlement with one of the world’s largest consulting firms, McKinsey & Company. The settlement resolves California’s investigation into the company’s role in advising opioid companies (including OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma) in the promotion and sale of their drugs.

These settlements are expected to bring in billions in funding for California communities, which will, among other things, be used to:

• Increase support for substance-use disorder facilities and improve infrastructure for treatment.
• Address the needs of communities of color and vulnerable populations, including those who are unhoused.
• Strengthen availability of Naloxone (also known as NARCAN) or other FDA-approved overdose reversal drugs.
• Double down on interventions for drug addiction in vulnerable youth and supporting those in the juvenile justice system with treatment options.
• Improve training and resources for law enforcement and first responders regarding appropriate practices and precautions when dealing with fentanyl or other drugs, including with regard to addressing the needs of criminal justice-involved persons with opioid-use disorder and mental health issues.
• Implement best practices for outreach, diversion, and deflection.
• Support job creation programs to help connect those recovering from substance use disorders with gainful employment and pathways to financial stability.
• Improve data-sharing and management systems to detect suspicious activity, including with regard to the prescription of controlled substances.

An estimated 577 million robocalls sent to California phone numbers on National Do Not Call Registry 

Including Social Security, Medicare and employment scams

SACRAMENTO – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, as part of a bipartisan coalition of 49 attorneys general, announced a lawsuit against Arizona-based Avid Telecom for allegedly initiating and facilitating billions of unlawful robocalls in California and around the country. Those robocalls included Social Security Administration scams, Medicare scams, and employment scams; two robocall examples can be found here and here. Today’s complaint is the result of efforts by the nationwide Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force, which Attorney General Bonta helped launch last year and is charged with taking legal action against telecommunications companies that perpetuate robocall traffic.

“As the People’s Attorney, I’ve been laser focused on protecting consumers since taking office, and stopping unwanted robocalls is an important bipartisan and nationwide effort,” said Attorney General Bonta. “In addition to being a daily annoyance, robocalls can and do cause real financial damage. I’m taking Avid Telecom to court for delivering not hundreds, or thousands, or millions of robocalls — but billions of robocalls. Our coalition alleges that Avid Telecom has violated federal and state laws, and we are confident that we will prevail.” 

From December 2018 to January 2023, Avid Telecom sent or attempted to transmit over 24.5 billion calls to consumers. More than 90% of those calls lasted under 15 seconds, strongly indicating that they were likely robocalls. Further, Avid Telecom sent or transmitted over 7.5 billion calls to telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, an estimated 577,879,156 of those calls were to telephone numbers in California. Registering for the National Do Not Call Registry allows consumers to legally opt out from receiving telemarketing calls, but robocallers regularly fail to respect such legal prohibitions.

In the multistate coalition’s complaint, among other misconduct, Attorney General Bonta alleges that Avid Telecom:

• Violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits any person from making a call using an automatic telephone-dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to any cellular telephone;
• Violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule, which prohibits abusive and deceptive acts or practices by “sellers” or “telemarketers”; 
• Violated the Truth in Caller ID Act, which prohibits the transmission of misleading or inaccurate caller-ID information;
• Violated California’s Unfair Competition Law, which prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts and practices, by transmitting a colossal number of illegal robocalls into California. 

In filing today’s complaint, Attorney General Bonta joined the attorneys general of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia.

A copy of the lawsuit can be found here.

Robert Sedlar of Grand View Financial LLC which operated in the counties of Contra Costa, San Diego, San Mateo, Alameda, San Joaquin, Placer, Solano, Mendocino, San Francisco, El Dorado, and Sacramento. 

OAKLAND —  California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced Friday, May 12 the former president of a purported mortgage “investment” company, Robert Sedlar, has been convicted of 100 felony counts for operating a mortgage fraud scheme throughout California. The scheme resulted in a combined loss of over $7 million. The victims, including people who were elderly and in financial distress, sought mortgage relief services from Grand View Financial LLC in the counties of Contra Costa, San Diego, San Mateo, Alameda, San Joaquin, Placer, Solano, Mendocino, San Francisco, El Dorado, and Sacramento. The operators of Grand View Financial—Steven Rogers, Robert Sedlar, and Audrey Gan—were previously indicted by a grand jury in the Sacramento Superior Court for conspiracy, grand theft, elder abuse, filing false or forged documents in a public office, and engaging in a prohibited act as a foreclosure consultant. Steve Rogers and Audrey Gan entered guilty pleas before trial, and Robert Sedlar, president of the company, proceeded to trial in March 2023 on all counts. Today, Robert Sedlar was found guilty of Conspiracy as well as multiple counts of Filing a False Document, Grand Theft, Elder Abuse, and Prohibited Acts by a Foreclosure Consultant. He will be sentenced on July 21, 2023.

“Let this be a strong warning to anyone seeking to steal people’s hard-earned money: We will find you, and we will hold you accountable,” said AG Bonta. “Individuals who prey on vulnerable communities to enrich themselves will be held accountable by the California Department of Justice. My office will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to identify and prosecute those who disregard the rule of law.”

Between 2015 and 2019, the defendants conspired to steal money and homes from distressed homeowners using a company called Grand View Financial LLC. The company advertised assistance to desperate homeowners facing foreclosure. The defendants promised consumers that if they transferred title of their house to Grandview Financial and paid money, the company would eliminate the mortgage lien and deed the home back to the homeowner, clear of any liens. During this time, the defendants filed false court documents, false documents with the county recorders offices, and false bankruptcies that stalled the foreclosures but did nothing to eliminate the liens, all while collecting funds from the victims. Every single victim lost their home as a result.  

The indictment and arrests are the result of a joint investigation by the California Department of Justice, Fraud and Special Prosecutions Section and White Collar Investigation Team; the United States Office of Inspector General, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; the United States Office of Inspector General, Federal Housing Finance Agency; the United States Trustee Program; the United States Marshals Service; the Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office; and the El Dorado County District Attorney’s Office. 

A copy of the charges can be found here.

By PIO Ashley Crandell, Antioch Police Department Community Engagement Unit

On May 10, 2023, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched a civil rights investigation into the Antioch Police Department. Chief Steven Ford welcomes this investigation and pledges full cooperation with DOJ officials, just as we have done with the joint FBI-Contra Costa DA investigation already taking place. We understand the importance of ensuring our policies, procedures, and practices are in line with expectations of 21st Century Policing.

In furtherance of our commitment toward meaningful reform, the Antioch Police Department is pleased to announce that we have joined other progressive policing agencies across the United States (and globally) in pledging to enhance trust and collaboration between police and the community we serve. The pledge is part of an initiative called the Trust Building Campaign which was started by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the world’s largest and most influential professional association for police leaders. In joining the Trust Building Campaign, the Antioch Police Department has pledged to implement 25 key policies and leading practices within a 36-month period.

As we complete the Trust Building Campaign pledge, the Antioch Police Department will prioritize actions encouraging positive community-police partnerships within six focus areas (bias-free policing, use of force, leadership and culture, recruitment, hiring, and retention, victim services, and community relations). These areas and their associated key practices are designed to promote safe, effective interactions, create strategies to prevent and reduce crime, and improve the wellbeing and quality of life for all.

In a world where information is spread so quickly, it is critical, now more than ever, that law enforcement have the trust of the community that they will provide truth, transparency, and justice.

Through the Trust Building Campaign, the IACP is committed to addressing these, and other issues, on a national and international level.

Statement from Chief Steven Ford:

“We are excited to announce this partnership with the IACP Trust Building Campaign. This initiative aligns with our Strategic Plan goals that we have been progressively implementing during our Public Safety Partnership and emphasizes our commitment to advancing public safety practices through community engagement, transparency, and bias-free policing. We look forward to collaborating with our community stakeholders, justice partners, and industry experts to ensure success in meeting the goals of this campaign.”

For more information about the Trust Building Campaign, visit the IACP’s website at https://www.theiacp.org/iacp-trust-building-campaign.

25 Key Policies and Promising Practices

1. Establish a policy on bias-free policing.

2. Increase transparency and accountability of police use of force. Publish use of force and complaint process policies.

3. Provide officers with training and coaching on cultural responsivity.

4. Train officers on the unique makeup and needs of their communities based on country of origin, religious and cultural practices, etc. which may conflict with local laws.

5. Adopt the elements of the National Consensus Policy on Use of Force into the agency’s policies and procedures. Publish use of force policy

6. Provide regular training on the agency’s use of force policy. Training should include scenario-based exercises that incorporate de-escalation techniques.

7. Document all use of force beyond handcuffing in agency records. Review these records on an annual basis to identify trends that need to be addressed in policy and training.

8. Participate in the National Use of Force database.

9. Establish an agency policy or statement that recognizes the sanctity of life and the importance of preserving human life during all encounters. Adopting the IACP Oath of Honor will meet this requirement.

10. Participate in accreditation, certification, or credentialing process that has an independent organization that reviews an agency’s policies and procedures.

11. Ensure training and policy reflect a culture of equity, diversion, inclusion, accountability, and that promote procedural justice for community members and employees alike.

12. Establish an employee wellness program that includes both physical and mental health.

13. Conduct a culture assessment of the organization, with steps taken to address areas of concern.

14. Provide body armor to officers and require the wearing of soft body armor while on uniformed patrol.

15. Embrace the guardian officer rather than the warrior mindset in recruiting and training.

16. Establish minimum educational standards or equivalency requirements that can be met by prior life experience. Provide officers with the opportunity for advanced education and training opportunities.

17. Verify potential hires with the national decertification database before hiring experienced officers.

18. Include measures of problem-solving, trust-building, and cultural responsivity in metrics of officer performance.

19. Train officers in Trauma-Informed Responses.

20. Train officers on best practices, resources, and tools for communicating with community members who do not speak English or whose ability to communicate is impaired.

21. Establish partnerships to provide for mental health, substance abuse, and youth deflection/diversion resources in their community.

22. Educate communities on the dynamics of policing and set reasonable expectations for their police. Establish shared expectations of the role police have in the community and solicit review and input from the community on agency policies and procedures.

23. Establish a clear and timely complaint process that does not require written or sworn statements to submit. Complaint processes and policies should be accessible to all.

24. Conduct a regular recurring survey of the community to measure the level of trust in the police.

25. Establish written strategies to engage with youth and marginalized groups in the community to develop positive relationships with police officers and how to interact safely with police.

Review comes amidst allegations of bigoted text messages and other potentially discriminatory misconduct 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced initiating a civil rights investigation into the Antioch Police Department (APD). The investigation will seek to determine whether the law enforcement agency has engaged in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing amid deeply concerning allegations relating to bigoted text messages and other potentially discriminatory misconduct. If, through this investigation, the Attorney General’s Office determines that unlawful activity or practices took place, the office will also determine what potential actions are needed to ensure comprehensive corrective action takes place at APD.  (See related articles here and here)

“It is our job to protect and serve all of our communities,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Police departments are on the front lines of that fight every day as they work to safeguard the people of our state. However, where there are allegations of potentially pervasive bias or discrimination, it can undermine the trust that is critical for public safety and our justice system. It is our responsibility to ensure that we establish a culture of accountability, professionalism, and zero tolerance for hateful or racist behavior, on or off duty.”

Under the California Constitution and California Civil Code section 52.3, the Attorney General is authorized to conduct civil investigations into whether a law enforcement agency has engaged in a pattern or practice of violating state or federal law. As opposed to a criminal investigation into an individual incident or incidents, a pattern or practice investigation typically works to identify and, as appropriate, compel the correction of systemic violations of the constitutional rights of the community at large by a law enforcement agency. With regard to the Antioch Police Department, the Attorney General has made no determinations at this time about specific complaints, allegations, or the agency’s overall policies and practices. The Attorney General’s independent investigation of APD is separate from ongoing or potential administrative or criminal investigations at the local and federal levels.

As interaction and cooperation with the community is at the core of law enforcement’s work to provide public safety and create public trust, the Attorney General encourages anyone with information relevant to this investigation to contact the California Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Enforcement Section at Police-Practices@doj.ca.gov. Members of the public may also send information to the California Department of Justice in other languages. During the course of the investigation, attorneys and special agents at the California Department of Justice will work diligently to consider all relevant information, including from community members and organizations, local officials, oversight entities, Antioch Police Department, and individual officers.

Attorney General Bonta is committed to strengthening trust between local law enforcement and the communities they serve as one key part of the broader effort to increase public safety for all Californians. In February, Attorney General Bonta launched an investigation into allegations of excessive force at the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. Last year, the Attorney General assumed responsibility for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s investigation related to contracts awarded to a local nonprofit. He worked with authorities in San Francisco to help ensure the continuation of local oversight efforts related to officer-involved shootings, in-custody deaths, and severe uses of force. Attorney General Bonta also opened a pattern or practice investigation into the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office. In 2021, the Attorney General launched an independent review of the Torrance Police Department and secured a stipulated judgment against the Bakersfield Police Department requiring an extensive range of actions to promote public safety. Attorney General Bonta also established the Racial Justice Bureau within the Civil Rights Enforcement Section to, among other things, help address issues of implicit and explicit bias in policing.