Police tape blocks off the crime scene outside a church where a man shot dead four people, including three of his children, before turning the gun on himself, February 28, 2022 in Sacramento, California. A father shot dead three of his own children on February 28 before turning the gun on himself in a US church, police said. A fifth person also died in the shooting in Sacramento, California, though it was not clear if that person was related to what police said was a domestic incident. (Photo by Andri Tambunan / AFP) (Photo by ANDRI TAMBUNAN/AFP via Getty Images)
San Diego, California – San Diego quietly spent more than $37,000 earlier this year on an outside investigation into Police Chief Scott Wahl — but the public may never know what it was about.
Records released under the state’s Public Records Act show the city hired the San Francisco-based Renne Public Law Group in January for what’s described as a “fact-finding investigation.” Over four months, the firm billed $37,400.92, with hourly rates ranging from $125 to $495 for four of its employees. The invoices are heavily redacted, leaving only hints — such as the requirement for a written report by Feb. 28 — that any conclusions were reached.
The work is now over. A San Diego Police Department spokesperson said it’s “not uncommon” for the city to bring in outside firms for independent reviews to ensure impartiality. But the city isn’t saying what prompted the review or what it found, citing attorney-client privilege and California’s strict confidentiality laws for police personnel records.
That’s exactly what worries David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition. “Transparency is the oxygen of accountability,” he said. “The more the city redacts, the more people are left in the dark wondering: is there something here or not? Is there smoke? Is there fire?”
Attorney-client privilege, Loy pointed out, doesn’t actually bar the city from talking — it bars the lawyers from disclosing without the client’s consent. Public agencies can waive that privilege if they choose. In his view, there are times when a public agency should consider doing so in the interest of trust.
Mayor Todd Gloria’s office wouldn’t address the investigation directly, saying only that the mayor has “full confidence” in Chief Wahl. The City Attorney’s Office, which signed the contract, and the police union declined to comment.
Under California law, most police personnel records are shielded from disclosure unless they fall into narrow categories, such as those involving certain uses of force or sustained findings of dishonesty. That means law enforcement officers enjoy broader privacy protections than other public employees — something Loy says is worth rethinking. “They have the power to arrest, to detain, to use force — sometimes to kill in the line of duty,” he said. “Shouldn’t they be held to at least the same standard as other public employees, if not a higher one?”
Whether the city has a legal right to keep the details private isn’t in question. The debate, Loy said, is whether it should. “I have no knowledge of what the chief was alleged to have done or not done,” he said. “But precisely because we don’t know, that creates a lack of trust. The more transparency there is, the more trust there will be. People don’t trust what they can’t see.”
