The grand jury measure was proposed by Senator Holly Mitchell following the cases of Mike Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and Eric Garner in New York City, where both grand juries declined to indict the officers involved.
Many concerned citizens have voiced their outrage over the secrecy involved in grand jury trials, which provide no opportunity for oversight of prosecutors or how they present their cases and evidence.
A bill analysis by Senator Loni Hancock stated that when prosecutors are facing pressure from the community to file charges and from law enforcement not to file, the use of a grand jury provides a way for them to “pass the buck, using grand jurors as pawns for political cover.”
The law, formerly bill SB-227, aims to make police brutality cases more transparent and allow for more accountability.
“One doesn’t have to be a lawyer to understand why SB 227 makes sense,” Mitchell said in a statement regarding the measure. “The use of the criminal grand jury process, and the refusal to indict as occurred in Ferguson and other communities of color, has fostered an atmosphere of suspicion that threatens to compromise our justice system.”
Law enforcement heavily opposed the measure, for obvious reasons.
The second law, formerly SB 411, was proposed by Senator Ricardo Lara, and aimed to further clarify that the public has every right to record the activities of law enforcement, so long as they have a right to be in the area and they are not interfering.
“Today, California makes it unequivocal – you have the right to record,” Senator Lara wrote in a statement.
“With the stroke of a pen, Gov. Brown reinforces our 1st Amendment right and ensures transparency, accountability and justice for all Californians," Lara continued. "At a time when cell phone and video footage is helping steer important national civil rights conversations, passage of the Right to Record Act sets an example for the rest of the nation to follow.”
