AB 1388 amends Penal Code sections 832.7 and 13510.9 to limit confidentiality around peace officer personnel records and to forbid settlement terms that require agencies to destroy, conceal, or alter records of misconduct. The bill adds specific categories of sustained findings and use-of-force investigations to the list of records that must be made available under the California Public Records Act, establishes redaction and delay rules, and requires agencies to report personnel events and investigation outcomes to the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST).
This matters for law enforcement employers, labor representatives, civil litigants, journalists, oversight bodies, and future hiring agencies: it removes a commonly used tool for keeping misconduct out of personnel files, changes what background screens will reveal, and creates operational and legal obligations around record retention, disclosure timelines, and reporting to POST.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires public access to investigative reports and records for specified categories of officer misconduct and use-of-force incidents, and it invalidates any employment or separation agreement that directs an agency to destroy, remove, conceal, or otherwise limit disclosure of misconduct records. It also strengthens POST’s reporting and record-retention regime by mandating agency notifications, affidavits of separation, and POST access to investigatory materials.
Who It Affects
All California law enforcement agencies and custodial employers, individual peace officers whose files fall within the newly disclosable categories, POST (the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training), civilian oversight bodies, journalists, and employers performing preemployment background checks.
Why It Matters
By outlawing secrecy provisions in settlements and expanding which personnel records are publicly inspectable, the bill shifts the default toward transparency in misconduct cases, alters what background investigations will uncover, and creates new administrative work for agencies and POST to collect, redact, and publish records.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1388 makes two parallel changes: it narrows the scope of officer personnel confidentiality and it forbids settlement language that hides misconduct. For confidentiality, the bill amends Penal Code section 832.7 so that records relating to certain incidents—discharge of a firearm at a person, uses of force causing death or great bodily injury, sustained findings of unreasonable or excessive force or failure to intervene, sustained findings of sexual assault of a member of the public, dishonesty tied to investigations or prosecutions, discrimination or prejudice in officer conduct, and unlawful searches or arrests—are not treated as confidential personnel records and must be made available under the California Public Records Act.
Those disclosures explicitly include investigative reports, audio/video, interview transcripts, autopsies, materials provided to prosecutors, and related disciplinary records.
The bill sets out how agencies may redact and when they may delay disclosure. Redactions are limited to personal contact information, identifiable third parties, confidential medical or financial information, whistleblower identities, or narrow safety concerns; agencies may delay release for active criminal or administrative investigations but must provide written bases and estimated release dates.
The statute provides concrete timing rules: an initial 60-day permissible delay tied to criminal inquiries, continued delay only with periodic written justifications (180-day intervals) and, except in extraordinary circumstances, an 18-month outer cap after the incident for delayed disclosure. Separately, agencies have 45 days to provide records when they are subject to disclosure requests, subject to the lawful delay mechanics.On settlements and separations, the bill amends Penal Code section 13510.9 to require agencies to report certain personnel events and findings to POST (employment changes, complaints that could trigger suspension/revocation, oversight findings, final dispositions, and civil judgments or settlements) and to execute and retain an affidavit-of-separation describing the reason for separation under penalty of perjury.
Crucially, subdivision (e) prohibits agencies from entering into agreements that require destruction, concealment, or particularized limiting of misconduct records or that restrict disclosure in ways inconsistent with state law; any clause that does so is declared void and unenforceable. POST must keep the information in an accessible form for employing and prospective agencies and for the subject officer, with narrow exceptions where disclosure would jeopardize safety or an investigation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds specific categories—firearm discharge at a person; use of force causing death or great bodily injury; sustained findings for excessive force or failure to intervene; sustained findings of sexual assault of a member of the public; dishonesty tied to criminal reporting/investigation; discriminatory conduct; and unlawful search or arrest—to the records that must be made available under the California Public Records Act.
Agencies must respond to public-records requests for these records no later than 45 days, though they may delay disclosure for active criminal investigations (initially up to 60 days) and, with written justifications at 180-day intervals, in limited circumstances up to an 18-month cap unless extraordinary circumstances are shown.
Section 13510.9 requires agencies to report to POST within a set timeframe specified by the commission any employment separations, complaints that could lead to decertification, oversight findings, final dispositions, and civil judgments or settlements; POST must retain and share these records with employing or prospective agencies and the subject officer (with narrow safety exceptions).
The bill makes void and unenforceable any agreement in which an agency agrees to destroy, remove, conceal, or otherwise restrict disclosure of a misconduct investigation record, or to direct particular findings or stall investigations; such contract terms are declared contrary to law and public policy.
Agencies must execute an affidavit-of-separation signed under penalty of perjury describing the reason for any officer’s separation and must allow the separated officer to submit a written response; the affidavit is retained by POST and used in preemployment checks and decertification proceedings.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative findings on secrecy in settlements
This section states the Legislature’s view that settlement and separation clauses designed to conceal officer misconduct are contrary to public policy and existing law. It frames the bill’s purpose: to affirm existing reporting and retention obligations and to declare that concealment provisions undermine accountability. Practically, it provides the statutory rationale that supports later provisions voiding such clauses.
Which personnel records become public
This amendment lists the specific types of incidents and sustained findings that are removed from routine personnel confidentiality and must be disclosed under the California Public Records Act. It clarifies the scope of disclosable materials—investigative reports, media evidence, interview transcripts, disciplinary documents, and materials submitted to prosecutors—and ensures that records tied to resignations before an investigation’s conclusion are included. For compliance officers and records managers, this section defines the core content that agencies must treat as presumptively public.
Permitted redactions, delay rules, and timelines
This portion narrows permissible redactions to personal contact data, identities of victims/witnesses/whistleblowers, and specific legally protected information, and it establishes an orderly delay process for active investigations: an initial 60-day delay for criminal probes with continuing delays only on written justification at 180-day intervals and an 18‑month outer limit except in exceptional cases requiring clear and convincing evidence. It also imposes a 45-day target for producing records after a CPRA request, subject to those justified delays—details that drive operational scheduling and legal risk for agencies responding to records requests.
POST reporting duties and affidavit-of-separation requirement
This section expands and operationalizes reporting to POST: agencies must report key personnel events, oversight findings, final dispositions, and civil outcomes in a form the commission specifies and must preserve investigation materials for a minimum period. It requires agencies to complete an affidavit-of-separation, signed under penalty of perjury, explaining the reason for an officer’s separation; it allows the separated officer to submit a written response. The affidavit and related reports become part of POST’s accessible record for hiring and decertification checks.
Voidability of settlement terms that conceal misconduct
Subdivision (e) explicitly prohibits an agency from entering into agreements that require destruction, concealment, specific findings, or restrictions on disclosure inconsistent with state law (including §832.7 and related statutes). Any clause inconsistent with that prohibition is declared void and unenforceable. This is the operational mechanism the bill uses to remove contractual secrecy as a tool for keeping misconduct out of records accessible to POST or the public.
Severability, operative conditions, and constitutional findings
Section 4 contains a standard severability clause. Section 5 sets conditional operative clauses tying alternative amendments of §832.7 to whether companion bills (AB 847 or AB 1178) become law and whether this bill is enacted last—an implementation detail that affects which version of §832.7 governs if multiple bills pass. Section 6 states findings required by the state constitution that the act furthers public access, which are necessary when changing open‑meetings or public record rules for local entities.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Members of the public and victims: they gain access to investigative reports, video/audio, and disciplinary records in the enumerated categories, increasing transparency about serious misconduct and use-of-force incidents.
- Journalists and watchdog organizations: clearer, statutory pathways and narrower redaction standards improve the ability to obtain records and to document patterns of misconduct across agencies.
- Civil plaintiffs and their attorneys: access to previously sealed investigative materials and settlement information strengthens discovery and may affect settlement leverage and litigation strategy.
- Civilian oversight boards and future employers: POST’s retained records and affidavit-of-separation provide oversight bodies and hiring agencies with documentary evidence for reviews and background checks.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local law enforcement agencies and records departments: they must process more public-records requests, perform limited but often time-consuming redactions, draft written delay justifications at recurring intervals, and retain additional documentation—creating staffing and budget pressures.
- Municipal governments and county counsels: increased litigation risk from compelled disclosures, FOIA litigation, and challenges to prior settlements may raise counsel costs and potential liability for past contract terms.
- Individual officers and police unions: officers will face wider public exposure of sustained findings and separations; unions will confront collective-bargaining and privacy disputes over what can be disclosed and when.
- POST (the commission): the commission must receive, store, control access to, and, where appropriate, withhold or share sensitive records—imposing technical, security, and procedural demands on the agency.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate aims against each other: the public’s and victims’ interest in transparent records about serious officer misconduct versus the needs of law enforcement and individuals for privacy, safe operations, and the integrity of active investigations; the statute tilts toward disclosure but leaves discretionary safety exceptions and delay mechanisms that will be tested in practice.
AB 1388 creates a clear transparency baseline, but it raises practical and legal implementation questions. First, the bill voids contractual secrecy provisions, yet preexisting settlements that included nondisclosure or record‑destruction clauses may still be in effect; courts will likely be asked to interpret whether those provisions are retroactively unenforceable and how to unwind records previously destroyed or sealed.
Second, the operational rules (45‑day production target, 60‑day initial delay, written justifications at 180‑day intervals, and an 18‑month cap) provide structure but will stress smaller agencies that lack dedicated records teams; inconsistent application across jurisdictions could produce litigation over whether an agency’s written justification sufficiently explained the delay or demonstrated the “extraordinary circumstances” threshold. Third, the balance the bill strikes around redactions and safety—allowing withholding where disclosure poses a specific threat to physical safety—leaves significant factual discretion to agencies and judges, opening contested lines over undercover operations, witness protection, and personnel privacy.
Finally, the statute gives POST broad authority to collect and share otherwise confidential criminal-history and investigatory materials for hiring and decertification purposes, which raises questions about access controls, data security, and the standards POST will apply when withholding information from the subject officer to protect ongoing investigations or safety. Agencies and POST will need implementing regulations, form affidavits, and clear internal policies to translate the statutory mandates into consistent practice, and litigation is likely to define the outer bounds of permitted redactions and the practical effect of voiding settlement clauses.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.