POST's 2025 Decertification Report: 42,000+ Allegations, But Decertification Remains Rare – What Officers Need to Know

The 2025 Peace Officer Standards and Accountability Division (POSAD) Annual Report offers California peace officers and their labor organizations a clear window into the ongoing implementation of Senate Bill 2's decertification framework. Released by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), this comprehensive document details the volume of misconduct allegations processed, the outcomes of reviews, and the practical realities of certification actions since the program's expansion in 2023. For unions and their members, the report underscores both the challenges of heightened scrutiny and the relatively low rate of ultimate certification loss, while highlighting areas where proactive steps can help safeguard careers.

POST now holds authority to investigate and act on nine categories of serious misconduct, ranging from dishonesty and physical abuse to sexual assault, bias demonstration, and failure to intercede. The report reveals that since inception, POST has received nearly 42,000 reports of alleged serious misconduct from agencies, including about 18,000 retroactive or "lookback" cases covering incidents from early 2020 through early 2023. Public complaints have also surged, exceeding 3,000 submissions involving more than 1,700 officers.

A significant portion of these case involve retroactive reporting. Of the roughly 17,900 lookback allegations consolidated into unique cases, POST closed more than 15,500 by the end of 2025. Authority for retroactive action remains limited to three categories: dishonesty, sexual assault, and excessive deadly force causing death or serious injury. In total, 203 cases resulted in revocation, suspension, or ineligibility findings, though many fell outside those narrow retroactive grounds.

The Peace Officer Standards and Accountability Division currently manages over 7,100 open cases, with around 3,500 under POST investigation and nearly 9,000 still pending agency-level internal affairs completion. Among closed cases where agencies completed investigations and POST conducted independent review, more than two-thirds were initially reported as not sustained, exonerated, or unfounded. POST notes minimal discrepancy between agency findings of non-sustained allegations and its own conclusions. This is expected given the higher clear and convincing standard applied to decertification cases, as opposed to the preonderance of the evidence standard typically applied in dsiciplinary matters. Sustained findings from agencies appear in about 24 percent of pending POST cases, marking them as priorities for deeper scrutiny.

Public complaints show even lower rates of severe outcomes. Roughly 41 percent of public submissions have closed, with about 85 percent of those determined not to involve serious misconduct. Non-jurisdictional or non-actionable matters account for most of the remainder, and only around 1 percent of closed public complaints led to certification action. Overall, public complaints have triggered certification consequences in just 0.4 percent of instances.

The advisory board and commission review process remains deliberate. By late 2025, the board held seven hearings on 22 cases, recommending suspension or revocation in all but two, with the commission generally upholding disciplinary recommendations. Appeals from officers have declined, dropping to 31 percent of notices sent, compared to higher rates in earlier years. Cases involving DUI violations under the "acts that violate the law" category often see higher appeal rates and more frequent stipulated settlements, allowing officers to retain certification under probationary terms with monitoring and rehabilitation requirements.

These statistics reflect a system still processing a massive initial influx while closing cases at an increasing pace. The vast majority of allegations do not result in decertification, yet the potential consequences remain serious for those that meet the clear and convincing evidence threshold in defined serious misconduct categories.

For peace officers and their unions, the report carries important practical lessons. Thorough documentation during incidents, prompt cooperation with agency investigations, and adherence to departmental policies remain essential to reducing exposure. Officers facing allegations should engage experienced representation early to navigate agency inquiries and any subsequent POST proceedings. Unions play a vital role in educating members about reporting obligations, ensuring fair investigations, and advocating during appeals or stipulated resolutions.

The low overall rate of certification revocation demonstrates that the process, while rigorous, does not automatically equate to career-ending outcomes in most instances. Nevertheless, the continued volume of reports and public complaints signals that scrutiny will persist. Staying informed about POST guidelines, participating in ongoing training, and fostering strong union support networks help mitigate risks and protect the rights of those who protect us all.

Announcing: Partner Kathleen N. Mastagni Storm Appointed to Wildlife Technology Research and Development Review Advisory Board

    Congratulations to Mastagni Holstedt A.P.C. Partner, Kathleen N. Mastagni Storm, who was appointed as an Advisory Board Member for the Wildlife Technology Research and Development Review Advisory Board by California Assembly Member, Robert Rivas, who represents District 29. 

    Established in 2021 by California Senate Bill 109, the Office of Wildfire Technology Research and Development ("OWTRD") serves as the central organizing axis within the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to study, test, and advise regarding procurement of emerging technologies and tools to more effectively prevent and suppress wildfires within the State. 

    The Advisory Board is tasked with reviewing the Office and serving OWTRD as an advisory entity. The Board is made up of nine members, including representatives from state agencies, the fire service, academia, and other stakeholders. 

    Following her appointment to the Board, Kathleen shares: 

"For twenty years, I've fought to protect and empower California firefighters and first responders who risk everything to keep our communities safe. This role allows me to continue that commitment by helping advance innovative technologies that will make their work safer, more effective, and ultimately save more lives—it’s a privilege to give back in this meaningful way." 

    At Mastagni Holstedt A.P.C., Ms. Mastagni Storm dedicates her practice to labor and employment law, with a focus on representing public safety professionals, including firefighters and first responders. As an attorney who has dedicated her career to representing first responders, she brings a uniquely informed legal and practical perspective to her appointment. Her firsthand experience advocating for emergency personnel has given her a deep understanding of the operational realities they face and the critical importance of effective equipment and resources. The Firm congratulates her on this well-deserved honor and looks forward to her continued contributions! 

 

California Supreme Court Clarifies Limits on Declaratory Relief and Records Preservation Under the California Public Records Act

 A recent decision from the California Supreme Court offers important guidance for public safety agencies and the officers they employ regarding obligations under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). In City of Gilroy v. Superior Court (2026) __ Cal.5th __, the Court addressed whether declaratory relief remains available after all nonexempt records have been produced and whether agencies must preserve records they have properly withheld as exempt while a request is pending.

The case arose from requests by a nonprofit legal services organization for Gilroy Police Department body-worn camera footage related to homeless encampment cleanups. The City withheld certain footage under the investigatory records exemption, produced other responsive nonexempt material, and ultimately followed its standard one-year retention policy for routine body-camera video. Some older footage had already been automatically deleted before the requests specifically identified body-camera video as the target.

The Supreme Court held that declaratory relief is available under the Public Records Act to address an agency’s past conduct in responding to a request, even when the matter would otherwise appear moot because all existing nonexempt records have been disclosed. Such relief serves the CPRA's purpose of clarifying rights and obligations and deterring future violations that could affect public access.

At the same time, the Court unanimously affirmed that the CPRA imposes no independent duty on agencies to preserve records they have claimed are exempt from disclosure. The Act is a disclosure statute, not a records-retention statute. Agencies remain free to follow applicable retention schedules established by statute or local policy, including the one-year retention period commonly applied to routine body-worn camera footage that is not evidentiary. The Court rejected arguments that a three-year preservation obligation should be read into the CPRA based on the general statute of limitations.

This ruling carries direct practical significance for public safety employees and the agencies that represent them. Body-worn camera footage, drone surveillance video, and other recordings frequently contain sensitive information about officers, tactics, or members of the public. When such material is properly withheld under an exemption, such as the investigatory exemption or Pitchess, the agency is not required to retain it indefinitely simply because a Public Records Act request has been received. Routine destruction in accordance with law does not, by itself, violate the Act.

The decision may also provide for declaratory relief to determined disputed interpretations of CPRA disclosures that affect employee organizations or their members, such as disputes over the scope and interpretation of disputed disclosures under Senate Bill 1421 and related statutes governing peace officer records. Under this decision, disputes over past disclosed can potentially be adjudicated to obtain prospective determinations affecting future requests. Agencies may continue to apply deletion policies with confidence that compliance with statutory retention periods will not expose them to liability under the Public Records Act for records properly claimed as exempt.

As always, each Public Records Act request and retention decision must be evaluated on its specific facts. Officers or agencies facing novel or aggressive requests for personnel-related materials, body-camera footage, or drone surveillance video are encouraged to consult experienced counsel promptly to ensure both compliance with disclosure obligations and protection of legitimate privacy interests.

David E. Mastagni Testifies Against SB 747 on Behalf of PORAC Before the Senate Judiciary Committee

On January 13, 2026, David E. Mastagni appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee to deliver testimony on behalf of the Peace Officers Research Association of California in opposition to Senate Bill 747, referred to as the No Kings Act by its proponents. This legislation, authored by Senator Scott Wiener, aims to establish a new state cause of action for individuals deprived of their constitutional rights under color of any law, mirroring the framework of federal Section 1983 claims but extending potential liability to a broader range of actors, including federal officers. Proponents argue that the bill addresses accountability gaps in cases where federal remedies, such as those under Bivens actions, prove inadequate, particularly in areas like immigration enforcement and election interference. However, as Mr. Mastagni emphasized in his testimony, the measure in its current form introduces unnecessary duplication and risks undermining established legal balances without meaningfully enhancing protections.

Building upon our prior post examining SB 747 and its potential implications for public safety personnel, Mr. Mastagni's testimony highlighted PORAC's core concerns with the bill's redundancy and its unintended consequences for California public employees. He explained that the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act already provides a robust mechanism for addressing constitutional violations, offering broader coverage than Section 1983 by encompassing interference through threat, intimidation, or coercion, even outside the color of law. This existing statute renders SB 747 superfluous, as it effectively allows suits against federal officers in their individual capacities where appropriate. Mr. Mastagni stressed that Supremacy Clause immunity would likely continue to protect federal actors operating within their authority, leaving the bill's practical impact confined largely to state and local employees who are already accountable under multiple frameworks.

A central theme of the testimony focused on the dangers of duplicative liability for California public servants. Mr. Mastagni articulated that by codifying a new cause of action akin to Section 1983 without adequate safeguards, SB 747 would layer additional exposure onto peace officers, teachers, social workers, and other state workers who currently face accountability through Section 1983 and the Bane Act. Such overlap not only invites increased litigation and potential inconsistencies in legal standards but also threatens to chill the essential duties of these professionals, deterring them from performing their roles effectively amid heightened fears of personal financial ruin. He underscored that this expansion fails to advance genuine accountability, as federal sovereign immunity doctrines, as affirmed in cases like Cheng v. Speier, 609 F. Supp. 3d 1046 (N.D. Cal. 2022) would often preempt claims against federal officers even if brough in their individual capacities because courts look to the "real party in interest." Where the suit challened the performance of official duties, the United States would liekly be deemed the real party in interest. 

To address these issues while maintaing the bill's intent to close legitimate gaps in constitutional remedies, PORAC's proposed amendments to the bill. These amendments would exempt any public employee (whether federal, state or local) already subject to liability under Section 1983 or Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, thereby preventing redundant lawsuits and ensuring uniform treatment across federal, state, and local actors. Additionally, the amendments would reverse the bill's savings clause, rendering the entire measure inoperative if a court determines that sovereign immunity bars its application to federal officers. 

State and local public employees were sept into this bill due to the author's cocerns that including onyl federal employees would discriminate against federal employees. However, these amendment comport with the principles of intergovernmental immunity, as articulated in United States v. Washington, by promoting equity though application of evenhanded standards without discriminating based on governmental status. In fact, these modifications would transform the bill into a bona fide mechanism for filling accountability gaps and ensuring all public employee are subject to identical accountablity for Consittutional violations.  

PORAC recognizes the importance of ensuring accountability for constitutional violations where federal remedies fall short, but insists that any reform must treat all public employees fairly and avoid burdensome redundancies. “PORAC supports closing genuine gaps in constitutional accountability,” said Brian R. Marvel, PORAC President. “But we must do so in a way that treats all public employees fairly, avoids redundant and burdensome litigation, and fully complies with federal law. The proposed amendments achieve that balance.”

The testimony, which can be viewed in the embedded video below, reflects PORAC's commitment to advocating for reasoned legislation that protects both civil rights and the professionals entrusted with public safety.

Senate Bill 747 advanced through additional Senate proceedings despite California law enforcement opposition and on January 27, 2026, the California State Senate passed the bill on a 30-10 party-line vote, sending it to the Assembly for consideration. T

For further coverage, see the Los Angeles Times articles by Dakota Smith quoting Mr. Mastagni and PORAC representatives: Lawsuits against ICE agents would be allowed under proposed California law and After Minneapolis shootings, California advances a bill allowing lawsuits against federal agents.

A Cautionary Tale: Refusal of Recommended Surgery Leads to Denial of Deputy's Disability Retirement

    In a significant decision for public safety employees seeking disability retirement benefits, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, has upheld the denial of a deputy sheriff's application for service-connected disability retirement. The ruling in Alberto Mendoza v. Board of Retirement of the Ventura County Employees' Retirement Association (2025) 94 Cal.App.5th 1234 emphasizes the critical importance of complying with recommended medical treatments, even when personal fears or anecdotal concerns lead to hesitation. This case serves as a cautionary reminder that an unreasonable refusal to undergo advised procedures can bar access to essential retirement protections under the County Employees Retirement Law (CERL) and related doctrines.

    The Appellant, a Ventura County Deputy Sheriff assigned to the Todd Road Jail Facility, sustained two work-related back injuries. The first occurred on December 30, 2014, when he slipped on stairs, causing lower back discomfort. The second followed on May 27, 2015, during an altercation with an inmate who kicked him in the waist. Diagnostic imaging revealed degenerative disc disease at the L5-S1 level, along with a disc herniation and extrusion abutting the right S1 nerve root. Multiple physicians, including the Qualified Medical Evaluator Dr. Robert H. Fields and treating doctors Dr. Brian Grossman and Dr. Sam Bakshian, unanimously recommended surgical intervention, citing a high likelihood of successful outcomes—estimated at 90 percent for good to excellent results given the deputy's youth and overall health.

    Despite authorization from the County of Ventura and repeated urgings from his medical team, the deputy declined the procedures. His refusal stemmed from fears informed by colleagues' negative experiences with back surgery and online research, which Dr. Fields characterized as based on "bad information." Over time, his condition deteriorated, as evidenced by subsequent MRIs showing progression of the discopathy. By 2017, more extensive surgery, such as a spinal fusion, was deemed necessary, but even then, he wavered before ultimately deciding against it. In 2018, another evaluator noted improvement to the point where surgery was no longer indicated, but the deputy's ongoing disability persisted, attributed in part to his non-compliance with home exercises and other conservative measures.

    The deputy applied for service-connected disability retirement in May 2016, invoking Government Code sections 31720 et seq. The Ventura County Employees' Retirement Association Board denied the application following an administrative hearing, finding that his permanent incapacity resulted not from the industrial injuries themselves but from his unreasonable refusal to submit to recommended treatment. The trial court denied his petition for a writ of administrative mandate, and the appellate court affirmed, relying on the common law doctrine of avoidable consequences as articulated in Reynolds v. City of San Carlos (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 208 and Labor Code section 4056. The latter provides that no compensation is payable where disability is caused, continued, or aggravated by an unreasonable refusal to undergo medical or surgical treatment, provided the risk is inconsiderable relative to the injury's seriousness based on expert advice.

    The court rejected the deputy's argument that the doctrine should not apply because, unlike in Reynolds, the recommended surgeries would not have enabled his return to full duty as a deputy sheriff. Instead, it held that the principle extends to situations where timely treatment might have prevented the worsening of the condition, even if the window for effective intervention has closed due to delay. As the court explained, a retirement board may reasonably conclude that the employee's inability to work stems from their own choices rather than the work-related injury alone.

    For California public safety unions and their members, peace officers and firefighters alike, this ruling underscores both the protections and pitfalls inherent in the disability retirement system. On the beneficial side, it reinforces the expectation that employers and retirement boards must base denials on substantial evidence of unreasonableness, considering factors such as the treatment's success rate, risks, and the employee's informed decision-making process. Employees facing similar dilemmas can leverage this to advocate for comprehensive medical counseling and second opinions, potentially strengthening their claims if refusal is deemed reasonable under the circumstances.

    However, the risks are substantial. Refusing treatment perceived as low-risk and high-reward could forfeit not only retirement benefits but also compound physical suffering through condition progression. In high-stakes professions where injuries are commonplace, this decision incentivizes prompt compliance with medical recommendations to preserve eligibility for tax-advantaged disability pensions. It also highlights the interplay between workers' compensation and retirement systems, where delays in one arena can adversely affect the other.

    Looking ahead, this ruling may influence future litigation by empowering retirement boards to more rigorously scrutinize applications involving treatment non-compliance. Public safety employees might see increased pressure from employers to pursue aggressive interventions, potentially leading to disputes over what constitutes "unreasonable" refusal—especially in cases involving psychological barriers like fear or cultural mistrust of surgery. Unions should consider negotiating enhanced support mechanisms, such as peer counseling or alternative treatment options, to mitigate these risks. Moreover, with the opinion now certified for publication, it establishes binding precedent statewide, likely prompting retirement associations in other counties to adopt similar stances.

    Public safety professionals dedicate their careers to protecting communities, often at great personal cost. Decisions like Mendoza remind us that safeguarding one's own health through informed, timely action is equally vital to securing the benefits earned through that service. For personalized guidance on disability retirement claims or related matters, members are encouraged to consult with experienced labor counsel.