The police officer convicted in the death of George Floyd had 18 misconduct complaints, should the U.S media question the constitutionality of police complaint legislation and practices with U.S. Constitutional open court and UN “positive measures”?

The police complaints Executive Order by USA President Joe Biden does not guarantee public access for substantiated complaints OR de-identified transparency for unsubstantiated complaints (in some jurisdictions, that is 98% of all complaints), the federal executive order is not binding on the states.

A 2022 National Conference of State Legislatures report, found that “at least 11 states required creation of public means of sharing decertification or disciplinary information”. Are 39 USA state legislation unconstitutional because they restrict transparency of officer identified sustained and de-identified unsustained complaint records beyond court tests for publication bans?

This constitutional question will be discussed at a Transparency Institute Webinar https://transparencyresearch.org/events/ . The Webinar is also an opportunity for federal, state & municipal governments and police forces to learn how to increase their ranking on a Transparency Research “TR” Police Complaint & Compliment Ranking Sheet for 228 police complaints best practices.

USA Constitution 1st Amendment “freedom of speech, or of the press”

Importance of Constitutional Question 1: Policing is an honourable profession, some police officers have paid the ultimate price to protect the public. A Canadian court found that the press freedom of expression constitutional right, is justification to strike legislation that restricts access to police complaint administrative tribunals records beyond court publication ban tests. No USA court has answered this constitutional question.

Open court includes media equality under law open court benefits which include: truthfulness of parties, witnesses and adjudicators. The USA & Canadian constitutions stipulate open court criminal proceedings, some international treaties (not self-executing in USA courts) stipulate open court civil proceedings. The court decision below implies that; although administrative tribunals are regulated by statutes, they are akin to courts adjudicating controversies between parties, the executive government lacks jurisdiction to change the judicial government publication ban tests.

Constitutional Question 1: https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Toronto-Star-v.-AG-Ontario-20180427.pdf
does not permit permit statutory redactions of police complaint tribunal records beyond court tests for publication bans, is this Canadian court decision a compatible with USA Constitution 1st Amendment “freedom of speech, or of the press”, 4th Amendment rights against an “unreasonable search” of police officers, 14th Amendment “protection” from police use of force ?

 USA Constitution 4th Amendment “unreasonable search”

Importance of Constitutional Question 2: There is no express USA constitutional right to privacy, however 4th Amendment “unreasonable search” has been interpreted as privacy. When there is no legislated prohibition of disclosure; USA courts identified police officer privacy rights re: medical, mental health, intimate, political, reproductive rights, familial and marital relations, personal information privacy, public and private actors and or duties, integrity or length of investigations, compared misconduct personnel records to criminal history records of civilians, removed privacy for sustained complaints.

Constitutional Question 2: A South Carolina appellate court interpreted the Open Records Act “unreasonable invasion of privacy” as a prohibition of the disclosure of officer identified unsustained police complaint records; the court was not asked to determine if an early warning system like online public disclosure of de-identified unsustained police complaint records are an “unreasonable invasion of privacy”?

USA Constitution 14th Amendment “protection” of “life, liberty, or property”

Importance of Constitutional Question 3: Some access to information legislation include a risk of significant harm provision that override other exemptions like personnel information. The police right to forcibly take a life, is a risk of harm. A University of Chicago & Invisible Institute research found that officers with at least 10 complaints generated 64% of complaints, the risk of harm from mishandling one complaint is significant, as in the above-mentioned 18 prior complaints case, it can incite loss of life misconduct from the same or another officer.

Constitutional Question 3: Upon media reports of repeat offenders and closed complaints that were reopened due to a media report; is there a 14th Amendment “protection” of “life, liberty, or property” “due process” risk of significant harm positive obligation to deter police misconduct through a public online transparent database for officer identified sustained and de-identified unsustained police complaint records?

USA Constitution 14th Amendment “equal protection”

Importance of Constitutional Question 4: In some jurisdictions, if the disproportionate effects of legislation on visible minorities are so notorious that the courts can take judicial notice of a publicly known fact, the anti-discrimination burden of proof is reversed on the state.

Constitutional Question 4: Upon the disproportionate effect of police misconduct on racialized communities, do laws that restrict police complaints transparency beyond court tests for publication bans, violate the intent of 14th Amendment “equal protection” from police use of force?