Crime & Safety

Police Chief Defends Purge Of Fremont Records

"Record retention policies are approved and set by the City Council...This project predated Senate Bill 1421."

Fremont Police Chief Kimberly Petersen addresses criticism of department's purge of documents.
Fremont Police Chief Kimberly Petersen addresses criticism of department's purge of documents. (City of Fremont)

FREMONT, CA — Fremont Police Chief Kimberly Petersen is defending the department's purge of old records as standard procedure, and not an effort to circumvent a new law requiring that records documenting police misconduct be released to the public.

KQED reported that "the city of Fremont quietly destroyed a large archive of papers, cassettes and computer files documenting over four decades of internal affairs investigations and citizen complaints."

Peterson responds, "It is standard practice for government agencies to purge records in accordance with internal policies, as well as State and Federal laws. Record retention policies are approved and set by the City Council and available to the public."

Find out what's happening in Fremontfor free with the latest updates from Patch.

Furthermore, she reports that the department initiated a complete review of records in 2015.

"This project predated Senate Bill 1421," said Peterson in the statement to the community, "which was not proposed as legislation until February, 2018, and signed in September, 2018. In 2017 and again in 2018, we recommended modifications to our retention policy using State law as a baseline to bring consistency to our records management program."

Find out what's happening in Fremontfor free with the latest updates from Patch.

Peterson said the department actively engages with the community through numerous programs and has responded to requests for information.

The chief gives this summation of Senate Bill 1421 and the four instances when files must be made available to the public:

1) An incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer;
2) An incident in which the use of force by a peace officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury;
3) Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made that a peace officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; and
4) Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding of dishonesty by a peace officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence.

"All other internal affairs investigations or personnel records remain confidential files under current law," according to Peterson.

Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.