The California Supreme Court has cleared the path for disclosure of the names of officers involved in Vallejo’s notorious badge-bending practice.

Wednesday’s action comes nearly three months after a state appeals court said that the City of Vallejo can reveal the names of officers bending the badges, a practice done after the killing or wounding of a police shooting victim.

Later that month the City of Vallejo desired a First District Court of Appeal ordering the release of a third-party investigation on the badge-bending.

However, on Wednesday the state high court denied the city’s request for a First District Court of Appeal ordering the release of a third-party investigation on the badge-bending. Associate Justice Joshua Groban was the lone vote in favor of granting review.

The case will return to Solano County courts to review any possible redactions before the names are released to the public.

RELATED: Union says badge bending occurred at Vallejo Police Department, but for a different reason

“The thrust of the Court of Appeal’s opinion is clear: the badge-bending investigation and information about Vallejo officers’ involvement in badge-bending must be released to the public,” Emi Young, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Northern California said in an email to the Times-Herald. “Now that the California Supreme Court has declined to review the case, it will be sent back to the trial court, to make a final determination about specific redactions and records that arguably might be withheld (for instance, preliminary drafts of the badge-bending report).

“We believe, as the California legislature did in adopting SB 1421, that the public can only benefit from transparency around serious allegations of misconduct by their police officers,” Young continued. “This is the only way for members of the community to seek accountability and closure. We will continue to advocate for the public’s right to know until the materials are publicly available.”

Local civil rights attorney Melissa Nold, representing family members of victims from Vallejo, said Wednesday’s news was surprising, but how quickly the ruling came from the state supreme court was.

“It’s definitely good news,” Nold told the Times-Herald on Thursday. “You are asking the court, ‘Do you have an argument?’ and they agreed with the lower courts that there is no argument. Had they not agreed this could have taken months, years.

“But this is a very good sign. While much of the nation currently is leaning a little more right, they are still saying that they are supportive of state laws. Sometimes the pendulum swings, but this time they were saying that any argument is baseless. To put it in baseball terms, it’s like a batter struck out before he even got to the plate. I think the community has been waiting for this for a long time it’s necessary in order to move forward and follow the laws of transparency.”

In June, the court ruled that the records at issue are generally subject to public disclosure under section 832.7, subdivision (b)(1)(A)(i). The court also ruled that the subdivision subdivision (b) has a number of redaction provisions, some of which are mandatory.

An agency “shall redact a record disclosed pursuant to this section” for “any of the following purposes:

To remove personal data or information, such as a home address, telephone number, or identities of family members, other than the names and work-related information of peace and custodial officers.
To preserve the anonymity of whistleblowers, complainants, victims, and witnesses.
To protect confidential medical, financial, or other information of which disclosure is specifically prohibited by federal law or would cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy that clearly outweighs the strong public interest in records about possible misconduct and use of force by peace officers and custodial officers.
Where there is a specific, articulable, and particularized reason to believe that disclosure of the record would pose a significant danger to the physical safety of the peace officer, custodial officer, or another person.

Nold said that what usually happens next is a court date set for both sides to go over what is redacted. This could take anywhere from 30 to 60 days, according to Nold,

Allegations surfaced five years ago that a secretive group of officers within the police department “commemorated fatal shootings with beers, backyard barbecues, and by bending the points of their badges each time they kill[ed] in the line of duty.” Members of this group reportedly called a badge modified in this way a “ Badge of Honor.” A source described the purpose of the practice as “Kind of like a notch on the bedpost. It’s an indicator to each other how many hoodlums they’ve shot. They think it’s funny.”

In a 2021 Times-Herald article, an attorney for the Vallejo Police Officers Association disagreed with this supposed purpose of the practice, claiming it had been done to signify officers “’surviving officer-involved shootings’ and not deaths by their hand.” Solano District Attorney Krishna Abrams described the allegations of badge bending as “rumors” while running for reelection in 2022.

In March of 2022, on the same day the investigation was turned over to Abrams and the Solano County District Attorney’s Office, former Vallejo police officer Michael Kent Tribble testified in court that he and retired officer Dan Golinveaux helped originate the ritual back in 2000 while working for the Concord Police Department.

A protester yells and points at Vallejo Police Department Captain Todd Tribble as a group gathered in front of the new Vallejo Police Department facility as the department was scheduled to hold a ribbon-cutting for the new victim’s services center in May. (Chris Riley—Times-Herald) 

Tribble, who retired in 2021, testified in Solano County Superior Court in Vallejo that the ritual was “a way to signify the fact that we would stand up and do our job.” He said the ritual was not held solely for fatal shootings.

Superior Court Judge Daniel Healy did not agree, calling Komoda’s “victim” claim “insane.”

Tribble’s testimony came in a case involving Dominic Milano, who was fired on by Vallejo officers including Matthew Komoda in 2017. Milano, who survived the shooting, was charged with attempted murder of Komoda.

Reports show that other officers named by Tribble that day included Komoda, David McLaughlin, Sanjay Ramrakha, Mark Galios and Zachary Jacobsen. Jacobsen shot and killed Angel Ramos in 2017. According to those reports, the alleged badge bendings were often done at The Relay Club, a bar in Vallejo.

The appeals court ruling comes as a major victory for the ACLU, which in 2022 submitted a CPRA request to the police department for “all records” in its possession “pertaining to allegations of ‘badge-bending’ by officers involved in on-duty lethal shootings.”

The ACLU has requested records of internal or public complaints alleging a practice of badge bending by Vallejo Police Department officers in response to police-involved shootings, along with  all communications by department employees regarding allegations of badge bending, from Jan. 1, 2010, to 2022 ‘Communications’ includes but is not limited to electronic mail, written letters, press releases, text messages, and social media messages or posts.

Vallejo Mayor Andrea Sorce could not be reached for comment due to the mayor teaching a class according to Erik Rzomp, Executive Assistant to the Mayor.