undercover

California police officers accused of misconduct are already shielded by some of the strictest confidentiality laws in the country, but state lawmakers are considering adding more layers of secrecy this week.

The state Legislature is weighing Assembly Bill 1178, which press advocates and police watchdogs said would drastically expand the number of officers whose personnel records were exempt from public disclosure, essentially gutting police transparency bills passed in 2018 and 2021.

Last-minute changes to the bill last week would have allowed law enforcement agencies to deny requests for public records related to any officer who has worked an undercover assignment within the last two years, received a death threat in the last 10 years or anyone who has been assigned to a state or federal task force.

The office of Assemblywoman Blanca Pacheco (D-Downey) said the bill was initially “very narrowly targeted” to protect the identifies of active undercover officers who did not commit misconduct and are not under investigation but were present during wrongdoing by others.

Pacehco’s spokeswoman, Alina Evans, said the bill was amended in the state Senate at the request of the state Department of Justice, and Evans said the bill will not move forward if it is reinserted.

Asked for details about why the California Department of Justice pushed for the amendment, a spokesperson for state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said: “We regularly provide technical assistance on legislation, but we can’t comment on any specific discussions with legislative offices or committees.”

Opponents contend that the proposal’s original language could still allow undercover officers to have their names kept secret even if they are involved in a fatal shooting or accused of serious misconduct, but Evans said their names would still be subject to disclosure, just like any other officer’s would be under the current law.

The last-minute lobbying push around Pacheco’s proposal is one of several late bids to water down pro-transparency bills that have been introduced this year, said Shayla Wilson, policy and advocacy advisor for La Defensa, a criminal justice reform advocacy group.

“At a time when public trust in law enforcement continues to dwindle, further redactions in police misconduct records is not the right move,” she said. “Generally the public is unaware of how often these [police misconduct] violations happen, or how egregious they are.”

Transparency advocates have sought to expand public access to police personnel files, as well as records related to civilian oversight bodies and misconduct litigation. Efforts to open access to misconduct records have repeatedly run into aggressive opposition from police unions, one of the most powerful political forces in the Capitol.

LAPD officers conduct an operation on Slauson Avenue in July.

(Luke Johnson / Los Angeles Times)

The unions and their allies have argued that California’s confidentiality rules protect officer safety and privacy — and prevent so-called doxxing incidents, in which personal information about officers is spread online.

LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell did not respond to several attempts for comment through a spokesperson. The Police Commission, the department’s civilian watchdog, said in a statement that it supports Pacheco’s legislation.

“There is valid concern for the safety of officers whose assignments require anonymity as well as employees who have been subject to death threats — and their families. The Commission does believe that transparency is important but feels it is crucial to strike a balance between the public’s right to know and the safety of officers and their families,” the statement said.

The commission’s statement did not cite specifics but noted, “there have been times when the disclosure of records has provided safety concerns for officers and by default an [undue] level of access to their families, including their minor children.”

The proposed changes to state law come amid ongoing litigation over the publication of thousands of mugshot-style photos of LAPD officers obtained by an L.A.-based journalist and the watchdog group Stop LAPD Spying Coalition.

The journalist, Ben Camacho, obtained the images via a California Public Records Act request and published them on a searchable website called Watch the Watchers. The site describes itself as a transparency tool for people to identify officers who have committed misconduct.

But shortly after the site went live in March 2023, LAPD officials announced that they had inadvertently released photos of officers who worked undercover. The disclosure led to a tangle of legal cases, including a claim filed by the city of L.A. against Camacho and his organization trying to claw back the pictures.

Last June, the city settled the suit, agreeing to pay the legal bills for Camacho and Stop LAPD Spying. In the process, the city has backed away from initial claims that many of the officers whose photos were released were put in danger because they worked undercover. Police unions also sued over the photos, making similar arguments about the safety of officers being compromised, but their claim against the LAPD was dropped in April.

The Los Angeles Times was among the outlets to join a coalition of news organizations that spoke out against the city’s lawsuit against Camacho, arguing that forcing him to return the photos “would set a dangerous precedent that will undermine the news media’s ability to freely disseminate lawfully obtained information to the public.”

Los Angeles City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto is among those who has lobbied California lawmakers to weaken the state’s public records law. In the summer of 2023, she proposed a change that would allow government agencies to decline future public records requests that seek “images or data that may personally identify” employees.

A POLICE force sent undercover cops jogging to expose vile catcallers who target women on their runs.

Two officers from Surrey Police hit the streets in sportswear to show how often women get harassed while running – and, unsurprisingly, they were “catcalled within minutes”.

4

4

4

The operation, first reported by LBC, saw undercover officers jogging through known harassment “hotspots” in Reigate, Surrey during the evening rush hour.

Specialist units were close by, ready to step in if the women faced abuse, Surrey Police said.

The two officers were “targeted within minutes” by a man in a large truck who “honked at them and made gestures out the window”, according to LBC.

“These behaviours may not be criminal offences in themselves, but they need to be addressed,” a spokesperson for the force said.

Inspector John Vale said: “One of our officers was honked at within ten minutes – then another vehicle slowed down, beeping and making gestures just 30 seconds later – that’s how frequent it is.

“Someone slowing down, staring, shouting – even if it’s not always criminal – it can have a huge impact on people’s everyday lives and stops women from doing something as simple as going for a run.

“We have to ask: is that person going to escalate? Are they a sexual offender? We want to manage that risk early.”

PC Abby Hayward, who went undercover, said this kind of sexual harassment was a daily reality for women – and leaves her feeling “diminished” and “uncomfortable”.

She said: “This behaviour is either a precursor to something more serious or it’s ignorance, and it’s fixable.

“That’s where our interventions come in: to stop potential repeat offenders or help people understand that what they’re doing isn’t OK.”

Surrey Police said its ‘Jog On’ campaign – launched just four weeks ago – has led to 18 arrests, including for sexual assault and theft.

Inspector Vale said: “We know that this kind of harassment is significantly under reported thanks to a study carried out by Surrey County Council this year, which revealed that of 450 female residents surveyed, 49 per cent never reported.

“To date, we have made a number of interventions following reports of harassment of our plain clothes runners. 

“In these cases, it was deemed appropriate to provide education around anti-social behaviour.

“For repeat offenders or where the behaviour is more serious, we will robustly pursue all criminal justice outcomes. 

“We recognise this is a significant worry for women and girls, and we’ll continue to patrol running routes throughout Redhill.”

He continued: “This type of harassment isn’t just being experienced by communities in Reigate and Banstead, but communities across the whole of Surrey, and it’s unacceptable.

“We have female officers and staff members who have been the subject to such behaviour when off duty. 

“The message I would like to impart to perpetrators is this; your actions will not be tolerated. 

“Please reflect and ask yourself ‘is this how you would treat or want your partner, mother, sister to be treated?”

“The next time you see a female jogger, just think, they could be a police officer with colleagues nearby ready to stop you. Your behaviour is not welcome in Surrey.”

The campaign faced criticism from the Free Speech Union, who called it a “bizarre social psychology experiment” and urged police to “stop hunting pre-crimes”.

Other forces have also taken steps to tackle the sexual harassment of women runners by men.

In 2022, the Met Police launched a buddy system, with officers accompanying a women’s running club in London.

84 per cent of women have been harassed while jogging, according to a 2021 survey by Runner’s World.

4

Andras Rado, head of communications at Wizz Air, has opened up about the quiet checks boarding agents carry out when they spot a passenger who might’ve spent a little too long at the airport Spoons

Tipsy passengers are subject to a secret process to determine whether or not they should be allowed to fly.

Andras Rado, head of communications at Wizz Air, has opened up about the quiet checks boarding agents carry out when they spot a passenger who might’ve spent a little too long at the airport Spoons.

“We will be flying 75 million passengers this year, and so for sure we will have some issues. We have a procedure that is not known to passengers,” Andras told The Mirror.

“It is not a secret that we’re doing it—they just don’t know how we do it. The cabin crew screen passengers. They have certain criteria to watch, then they watch it. An example is how the passenger greets you back. Do they greet you back? There are signs that a person is already drunk.”

READ MORE: Wizz Air announces major change for passengers affected by flight delays and cancellations

If a passenger is judged to be too pickled, flight crews ask the captain whether they should be allowed to board. “The captain makes the final decision.”

When asked whether Wizz Air would support Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary’s calls to introduce a two-drink limit at airports, Andras said: “I don’t think you can control how many whiskies people drink at the airport. Onboard we can control. If we see they are intoxicated, we stop serving them.”

The PR man also noted that Wizz Air is less impacted by drunken, disorderly customers than some other airlines. “We don’t have any problems with passenger diversions. We don’t have the same issue. It’s a different demographic. If you look at our London Gatwick–Jeddah flights, I spoke to a crew member on Wednesday, and she said how respectful our passengers are.”

The Mirror also spoke with a former Wizz Air pilot about how the process of stopping drunk passengers from boarding typically unfolds.

“If they do not create trouble, sometimes it’s better to keep them drinking. Some passengers may become unruly if they want to drink. It doesn’t apply if they show up already drunk. It’s the captain’s call. I try to use common sense, but I never experienced any pressure from the company either way,” the pilot explained.

READ MORE: Heathrow Airport to demolish terminal and boost passenger numbers by 10 millionREAD MORE: Wizz Air warns new law will increase prices and create ‘absolute zoo’ at airport

Addiction specialist Martin Preston, from private rehab clinic Delamere, has explained why the effects of alcohol kick-in quicker and often stronger when drinking onboard a plane.

“The reason for this is not because the alcohol content is higher in drinks on the plane, but that alcohol is absorbed into your bloodstream more quickly, as a result of cabin pressure and lower levels of oxygen in your blood,” he said.

This means that consumers may feel more intoxicated than they normally would be if they were drinking on land. From sleep disruption to fainting, Martin has revealed what happens to the body when you drink on a plane – and they can really dampen those holiday highs.