![](\"https:\/\/www.megalextoria.com\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/05\/clets_4.png\")
<\/p>\nPolice in California have your data literally at their fingertips.<\/p>\n
They can sit at a computer terminal or in their squad car and check your DMV records, your criminal records, your parking citations, any restraining orders you\u2019ve filed or have been filed against you. They can search other state databases and even tap into the FBI\u2019s trove. If you\u2019ve got a snowmobile, they can look up that registration too. Much of this personal data they can access through a smartphone app.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Is there a name for this information network?<\/b> Yes, it\u2019s really boring: the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS). Most people pronounce it \u201cClets.\u201d<\/p>\n
Do police abuse their access to CLETS? <\/b>You betcha. For example, they\u2019ve used it to stalk their ex-partners<\/a>, gain advantage in custody proceedings<\/a>, and screen potential online dates<\/a>. In one of the worst incidents, an officer allegedly attempted to leak records on witnesses to family of a convicted murderer<\/a>. According to the latest data, 2016 was a record-breaking year: California hit a statewide, all-time high for police discipline involving CLETS; meanwhile the Oakland Police Department broke an all-time record for individual law enforcement agencies.<\/p>\n Is anybody doing anything about CLETS misuse?<\/b> Yes and no. Certainly EFF has been making noise about privacy violations involving CLETS. The government, not so much.<\/p>\n For years, we\u2019ve pushed for better data to track when California cops misuse CLETS data. We have filed request after request for misuse data under the California Public Records Act. We\u2019ve sent letters, met with staff, assisted journalists, and spoken up during public meetings to demand state officials overseeing these databases take some sort of action. This is the third report we\u2019ve published on misuse<\/a> data<\/a>.<\/p>\n Yet state officials have made zero progress in addressing widespread database misconduct. No hearings on misuse have been held, no disciplinary actions have been taken, and the horror stories continue to mount.<\/p>\n Who are these state officials?<\/b> Get ready for another boring acronym: the CLETS Advisory Committee (CAC). Yes, CAC is an acronym containing an acronym. Most people pronounce it \u201cCack.\u201d<\/p>\n CAC was created by the California legislature decades ago to oversee CLETS as part policy body, part disciplinary board. \u00a0It comes under the California Department of Justice and works hand in hand with CADOJ\u2019s Criminal Justice Information Services department. \u00a0CAC has 11 members<\/a>, with more than half being appointed by special interest groups that lobby for law enforcement and municipalities. That means CAC is controlled by groups that are predisposed to support\u2014not punish\u2014their members.\u00a0 As a result, the body has gone out of its way to pass policies that police ask for<\/a>, while simultaneously taking a largely hands-off approach to discipline.<\/p>\n It used to be that CADOJ and CAC investigated violations, but several years back they handed off that responsibility to the individual agencies that subscribe to CLETS.\u00a0 Nowadays each of those agencies is required to file disclosures about each investigation they conduct, including an annual summary for CAC to review. Then CAC decides whether further administrative action is necessary<\/p>\n Or at least that\u2019s how it\u2019s supposed to work. CAC has not even looked at the misuse data in years, and consequently, they\u2019ve taken no action whatsoever against anyone or any department\u2014not even a \u201cdon\u2019t do it again\u201d warning letter.<\/p>\n What\u2019s even worse is that they\u2019ve been remarkably lax about whether agencies need to file anything about CLETS violations at all. This year some of the state\u2019s largest law enforcement agencies failed to file the mandated paperwork. Meanwhile, agencies that do report often list investigations as \u201cpending,\u201d but never follow-up with the eventual outcome as required.<\/p>\n So, when EFF obtained the latest round of misuse data, we knew it would be bad. But we also knew it would be incomplete\u2014the tip of a very large, blue iceberg.<\/p>\n Download the 2016 CLETS misuse data.<\/a>\u00a0 Previous data available: 2011-2014 (zip)<\/a> and 2015 (xls)<\/a>.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Police agencies disclosed that a total of 159 misuse investigations were launched in 2016. Of those, 117 investigations found that police had in fact abused CLETS. Another 39 cases were listed as pending conclusion. That means there were only a small number of cases\u2014potentially in single digits\u2014where an investigation cleared the officer.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s focus on those 117 cases of confirmed misuse. They represent a 14.5% increase over misuse in 2015, and a 50% increase over 2011.<\/p>\n In 27 cases, the misuse was so severe that the offending police officer either resigned or was terminated. Three cases resulted in a misdemeanor conviction, and three cases resulted in a felony conviction.<\/p>\n In 24 cases, no action was taken to discipline the offending officer at all. In 28 cases, the result was \u201ccounseling.\u201d Another 21 mystery cases were listed as \u201cother\u201d action having been taken, leaving the public in the dark.<\/p>\n First, there was the Oakland Police Department, who for the first time since we\u2019ve been collecting data, actually turned in their disclosures. That\u2019s the good news.<\/p>\n The bad news is that they reported 17 cases of CLETS misuse\u2014the highest number for any agency in at least seven years. These are likely related to the ongoing, expansive scandal<\/a> in which at least one OPD officer is accused of providing CLETS records to a teenage sex worker whom he\u2014and many other officers\u2014allegedly sexually exploited.<\/p>\n The head of OPD\u2019s internal affairs department filed the hard copy of the disclosure with CADOJ. However, when we called OPD\u2019s public affairs division, a spokesperson challenged the numbers, staying that only 1 misuse case was found in 2016, while the remaining 16 are still pending. That\u2019s still bad and possibly even worse, if it turns out OPD provided wildly inaccurate data to CADOJ.<\/p>\n The Yuba County Probation Department\u2014a very small agency in central-northern California\u2014also drew our attention. In 2015, they broke the record with 15 violations of CLETS policy, all of which resulted in only \u201ccounseling\u201d for the officers who broke the rules. CADOJ ignored our request for a public hearing on this. Facing no action to deter further violations, Yuba reported another six cases of misuse in 2016\u2014again with counseling as the only outcome.<\/p>\n What was missing from the data also jumped out at us. The Los Angeles Police Department for the seventh year in a row filed no misuse disclosures with the state. \u00a0Typically, the San Diego County Sheriff\u2019s Office conducts more investigations into CLETS misuse than any other agency. This time, they did not file anything at all.<\/p>\n Will this be the year CADOJ and the CLETS Advisory Committee finally steps up to protect our privacy? Probably not.\u00a0 In December, CADOJ failed to produce historical misuse statistics as requested by CAC, so the committee agreed to postpone discussion until its next meeting. However, since CAC reduced its meetings to the statutory minimum of two per year, it won\u2019t meet again until this summer. The year will be half over and, if the trend continues, many, many more people will have had their privacy invaded by misbehaving police.<\/p>\n One thing you can count on: EFF will continue to pressure these state officials, and if we can\u2019t get them to do their jobs, then it\u2019s time for the legislature to find someone else who can.<\/p>\n EFF has fielded a lot of questions recently about CLETS as legislators consider S.B. 54, the California Values Act<\/a>. The bill, among other measures to protect immigrants, would limit the federal government\u2019s access to California\u2019s law enforcement databases for the purposes of immigration enforcement. CLETS would clearly fall into that category.<\/p>\n During the bill-making process, S.B. 54 was amended to allow immigration officials to access criminal history information via CLETS. EFF is very concerned that this CLETS provision would create a backdoor to the very data the bill was designed to protect. While S.B. 54 may still protect some Californians\u2019 data accessible through CLETS from immigration officials, implementation of those protections would require an oversight body with the motivation to enforce the law.<\/p>\n That oversight body would be\u2014you guessed it\u2014the same CLETS Advisory Committee that refuses to take any action on database abuse by police officers. In fact, several of the organizations that have seats on CAC\u2014including the California Peace Officers\u2019 Association and the California State Sheriffs\u2019 Association\u2014are actively lobbying against S.B. 54.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.megalextoria.com\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/05\/clets_3.png\")
<\/em><\/center>Screen grabs from official CLETS training videos. Source: Lemoore Police Department<\/a><\/i><\/p>\n<\/h3>\n
What the Misuse Data Told Us<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.megalextoria.com\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/05\/clets_2.png\")
<\/center>When we opened the data file, two agencies immediately jumped out as repeat offenders.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.megalextoria.com\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/05\/clets_5.png\")
<\/center><\/p>\nOversight on Hold<\/h3>\n
A Note on CLETS and the California Values Act\u00a0<\/b><\/h3>\n