California Supreme Court Clears Way for Disclosure of Vallejo Police Officers’ Names

High Court Upholds Appeals Court Ruling

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The California Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared the way for public disclosure of the names of Vallejo police officers involved in fatal and nonfatal shootings, rejecting arguments from the city and its police union that the records should remain confidential.

The ruling upholds a June decision by the 1st District Court of Appeal, which said the public has a right to know the identities of officers under state law. Only Justice Joshua Groban voted to hear Vallejo’s appeal.

Badge-Bending Practice Exposed

The case stems from a 2020 disclosure by a former Vallejo police captain, who revealed that some officers bent one tip of their seven-pointed badge after shooting a suspect. The captain said he was fired for reporting the practice.

The Vallejo Police Officers Association later confirmed the tradition, describing it not as a celebration of shootings but as recognition that officers survived dangerous encounters.

A department-commissioned investigation by former Sonoma County Sheriff Robert Giordano found the practice had continued for as long as 17 years. Giordano concluded it was not intended to glorify shootings, but he also reported that six of the 14 officers involved were found to have engaged in “conduct unbecoming an officer.” None were disciplined.

Legal Battle Over Disclosure

When the Vallejo Police Department refused to release the officers’ names, the American Civil Liberties Union sued. The city argued the information was part of confidential personnel files, a view upheld last year by Solano County Superior Court Judge Stephen Gizzi.

The appeals court reversed that decision, citing a 2019 state law authored by Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, that requires disclosure of records involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer. Another Skinner bill, effective in 2022, expanded the requirements to include cases involving illegal arrests and acts of discrimination.

Justice Kathleen Banke, writing for the appeals court, said lawmakers viewed California as “one of the most secretive states in the nation in terms of openness when it comes to officer misconduct and uses of force.”

The Supreme Court’s order now makes that ruling binding across all trial courts in the state.

Court Will Decide Exceptions

While most names must be released, the appeals court said some may be withheld if disclosure would pose a significant danger to an officer’s safety. Gizzi will make those determinations when the case returns to his court.

ACLU attorney Emi Young praised the decision. “We believe, as the California Legislature did … that the public can only benefit from transparency around serious allegations of misconduct by their police officers,” Young said. “This is the only way for members of the community to seek accountability and closure.”

Young said the ACLU will also push for the release of Giordano’s full investigation report, which could become public within months.