A bill to be introduced in December in the state Assembly would require district attorneys to recuse themselves from police misconduct cases if they have accepted campaign contributions from police unions that represent the accused officer.
The bill will be introduced by Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland.
Bonta said he will introduce the bill on the first day of the new legislative session.
“This is about trust in law enforcement, and trust in the independence of our elected prosecutors,” Bonta said in a statement.
“We must cure the conflict of interest that gives, at minimum, the appearance the police are not held accountable due to the proximity and political influence of law enforcement associations and unions,” he said.
But at least one police union is not on board.
“If passed, this draft legislation would silence the voices of thousands of officers,” said Barry Donelan, president of the Oakland Police Officers’ Association.
It “is clearly a violation of their First Amendment right to free speech,” Donelan added.
“What’s next?” Donelan said. “Should we force local school board members to recuse themselves from decisions involving a teacher because the teacher’s union contributed to that school board member’s campaign? Where do
you draw the line on who gets to have a voice and who doesn’t?”
Bonta said in response, “This criticism of the bill is off the mark. This bill is very narrowly tailored and hyper-focused specifically and solely on publicly-elected prosecutors who have unique and heightened ethical
duties as attorneys (and members of the state bar) and prosecutors of individuals for violations of our criminal law.
“They are endowed with the authority to make important and powerful decisions relating to criminal justice when it comes to allegations of on-duty police misconduct,” Bonta added.
He said, “Nothing in this law would prevent a police union from exercising its right to engage in political speech by donating to any campaign or candidate, including District Attorneys and the Attorney General.
And a district attorney and the attorney general would still be able to accept campaign contributions, Bonta said.
The conflict of interest would occur when a district attorney, “accepts, solicits, or directs, or has accepted, solicited, or directed, a direct financial campaign contribution from a law enforcement agency or a law enforcement association connected to the law enforcement officer,” the draft bill says.
If a district attorney recuses herself from a case, the state attorney general would be responsible for prosecuting the case, and if the attorney general has a conflict of interest, then a special prosecutor would handle the case, according the draft legislation.
A district attorney would not face criminal charges if he did not recuse himself, but he may be in violation of ethics rules and rules surrounding professional conduct. Discipline for any violation would be
determined by the state bar.
At Thursday’s briefing, one former and three current district attorneys expressed their support for the proposed bill, including San Francisco’s Chesa Bouldin, Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton, San Joaquin County District Attorney Tori Verber Salazar and former San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon.
Gascon is now assistant chief of the Los Angeles Police Department and is running for district attorney in Los Angeles.
“There are four of us here today,” Becton said. “There should be more.”
She said all 58 district attorneys from across the state should have been there supporting the proposed bill.
The sponsor of the bill is the Prosecutors Alliance of California, which provides education, support and training to prosecutors and their staff.
22 comments
More sickness from the left. They just keep coming.
If Becton supports it, I oppose it. Soros is an enemy of the state (America).
Somebody is voting for these people. If it’s you, take a deep breath, take a step back and ask yourself, what the hell am I doing!
Been saying that all along. People are worried about police brutality. It’s the DA and dirty Judges that move the case to courts and convictions. They’re all complicit and tend to believe each other’s lies. The whole system is corrupt. Those judges who hide behind their silly robes know when the DA or police officers are lying and They go along with them. Just nodding their heads and collecting checks. Sad bunch of folks.
Those protesters need to protest the judges and DA’s cause the lot can’t pass a simple smell test.
Same as those judges that approve warrants from lying police officers. Happens daily, yet their is no accountability for dirty judges.
Look at it. If your a criminal judge you depend on DA’s and police to big in customers/criminals. Of course they’ll favor da’s and police as that is their only income.
Have you ever met a judge that was full of their own arrogance? Zero.
So Judges are paid per case rather than a salary? Got it…
Where do you get your information? This makes absolutely no sense. You give judges far too much power.
@pdl
Information. Thanks I’m glad you learned something. I stated opinions. The information was in the contents not something copied.
I gave judges too much power?
Seriously!
Judges put people in Jail. Are you nuts. Nothing more powerful than enslaving a human for a determined time.
How about a bill that says a politician in CA state legislature can’t vote on a bill if they’ve taken campaign contributions from a group or person bill might have an effect on.
I would support that too, @og
Then it’d just take one single taxpayer to donate to a campaign in order to stop any voting on any bill which would increase taxes, fees, oversight, restrict liberties thereof, or pass any laws.
That’d be truly glorious.
Which is why it would never happen.
In the meantime, jump on the anti-cop bandwagon as the government uses a seemingly anti-government sentiment to actually grow the government power.
if a CA dem wants it, it must be a perversion of the truth.
just follow CA dem weiner’s work, making pedophiles happy
There is really only one way to be sure that the DAs don’t accept campaign donations,and that is to eliminate public union donations to candidates. No recusal necessary.
Better yet, get rid of public unions altogether and eliminate this problem forever.
I’m down they’re all greedy and self serving, let’s start with the teachers union first…
Followed next by SEIU….
or…how about another angle….Police unions will contribute to a District Attorney as a way of endorsing that candidate…and letting the public know who they think has law and order on their agenda….and will follow the law…..if you silence the police how will you know about persons like the current DA who is so soft on crime and not willing to file almost any misdemeanor unless the bad guy has a prior criminal record….
“Prosecutors Alliance of California” is a small group of elected DAs that represent the far left and received large campaign donations from George Soros. None of them would ever receive endorsements from law enforcement, so of course they support this bill.
CCCDA Becton, who never worked a day in her life as a prosecutor, was appointed to the position by the CCC Board of Supervisors, and then elected as the “incumbent” a short time later. She campaigned as a centrist, but then veered far left after she was elected. Until prosectors refuse to prosecute crime, voters outside of the legal system don’t really understand how important the position is to their everyday lives.
LOL Diana Becton, oh boy. What a mush head.
Supported by Becton, Chelsea, and Gascon…
To quote Randy Jackson: That would be a no for me, dog.
Chuckie the troll-
With you 100% on this one.
I also can not understand if so many of us are saying they do not vote for these issues and leftist-socialist running running for office-how the hell are they continually getting into office and controlling the media, protestors, destruction of all taxpayers and law abiding citizens property without any recourse or jail time.
Think before you vote everyone.
Ever notice how people who scream the loudest demanding accountability generally have none?
At least 54 have common sense, maybe…
Salary? Of course. Better clarity to my point. How many cases do they process a day? It’s a metric. However many cases versus how many judges. Less cases = less judges employed. Simple Capitalism. If a judge wants to keep their job they “ need to be” whatever the community demands (tough on crime). Keep the criminals coming, we’ll put them in jail and all is happy…as they are reducing crime.
Right? Crime goes down consistently cause of good da’s and judges. No. They’re a machine caught in their own greed.
Comments are closed.