The First Modification Coalition is urging the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors to reject Sheriff Christina Corpus’ request to shut her August elimination listening to to the general public.
The nonprofit group argues that barring the general public and press from the proceedings would violate the First Modification proper of entry to judicial and quasi-judicial hearings. In a letter to the board, the group warned that approving a closed listening to might expose the county to authorized motion and monetary legal responsibility.
“Barring the press and public from the Removal Hearing as Sheriff Corpus has requested would violate the First Amendment right of access to public proceedings, undermine a panoply of compelling public interests in administering the Removal Hearing transparently, and needlessly shut San Mateo citizens out of a key phase of a process they voted to begin in Measure A,” the coalition wrote.
The listening to is scheduled for Aug. 18–29. It follows the board’s June vote to take away Corpus from workplace — an authority granted to them by voters in a March particular election. The choice was based mostly on findings from a closed-door pre-removal listening to carried out by Chief Probation Officer John Keene, who served because the listening to officer.
In filings submitted June 27, Corpus’ authorized group argued the listening to needs to be closed “to avoid public dissemination of materials exempt from disclosure.” They cited provisions beneath the Peace Officers Invoice of Rights, which shields sure data involving officers beneath investigation.
Nevertheless, the First Modification Coalition mentioned these protections don’t apply on this case, because the data at difficulty belong to the county, not particular person peace officers.
“(Citing the Peace Officers Bill of Rights) does not justify closing the Removal Hearing,” the First Modification Coalition mentioned, arguing that state regulation requires proceedings to take away an elected official be open to the general public, just like a court docket trial. It additionally famous that Corpus is an elected official, due to this fact privateness protections shouldn’t apply.
“Neither statute cited by Sheriff Corpus can override the First Amendment right of access that precludes blanket sealing or closure, especially given the total absence of evidence demonstrating a need for either,” the group added.
An earlier pre-removal listening to was additionally held behind closed doorways at Corpus’ request. Her attorneys had beforehand challenged the elimination course of in court docket, arguing that the board’s actions are unconstitutional, however a choose denied their request for a brief restraining order.
Paperwork from the pre-removal listening to have been made public after Corpus’ authorized group did not ask the court docket to seal their submitting associated to the request for a brief restraining order, in keeping with the county. Because of this, the court docket launched supplies that included particulars concerning the closed-door proceedings.
“In this country, it is a first principle that the people have the right to know what is done in their courts,” the First Modification Coalition acknowledged. “We hope that, especially given the County’s and Sheriff Corpus’s stated interest in moving forward as transparently as possible, litigation will not be necessary.”
Neither Corpus nor the county has responded to requests for remark.
