POBRA can't shield police misconduct from public scrutiny
In 1991, the California Supreme Court recognized that "nothing can more swiftly destroy the community's confidence in its police force than its perception that concerns raised about an officer's honesty or integrity will go unheeded or will lead only to a superficial investigation" (Pasadena Police Officers Assn. v. City of Pasadena). Three decades later, the court's pronouncement has proved particularly prophetic as the public has demanded greater scrutiny in the wake of several high-profile incidents involving police misconduct.
But in many instances, state and federal law still poses a hindrance to such scrutiny. At the federal level, the discussion revolves around the doctrine of qualified immunity. But in California, perhaps the biggest impediment to increased scrutiny of policing takes the form of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA), which provides officers with a litany of procedural protections in connection with investigations and the imposition of discipline.
Indeed, despite the California Supreme Court's admonition three decades ago about the importance of adequately investigating complaints about officer honesty or integrity, intermediate appellate courts have at times construed POBRA far too broadly, making it difficult for local public agencies and citizen oversight boards to fully investigate alleged misconduct.