In Becerra v. Superior Court (First Amendment Coalition), published January 29, 2020, the First District Court of Appeal, Division 3 affirmed a trial court decision ordering the California Department of Justice and California Attorney General to disclose police officer related records under Penal Code section 832.7 in response to a California Public Records Act request. In 2018, the Legislature amended section 832.7, part of the statutory scheme that governs production of police officer records, to provide that notwithstanding Government Code section 6254, subdivision (f) (which exempts law enforcement investigation records from production under the CPRA), peace officer or custodial officer personnel records and records maintained by any state or local agency shall not be
confidential and shall be made available for public inspection under the CPRA if the records relate to officer discharge of firearm or use of deadly force against a member of the public; a sustained finding that an officer committed sexual assault; or a sustained finding of dishonesty by an officer relating to a crime or the misconduct of another officer. Various real parties sought records under the statute held by the Department of Justice and Attorney General's office over the course of three to five years. The Department refused to produce the records. The trial court granted a writ of mandate directing the respondents to produce all requested records except those the court deemed could be withheld or redacted. The respondents sought appellate writ relief challenging the order.
The appellate court rejected the respondents' argument that Penal Code section 832.7 did not apply to records the Attorney General and Department of Justice held that had been created by other law enforcement agencies. A review of the statutory language, the statute's purpose, and the policy that CPRA exemptions are construed narrowly compelled the conclusion that the statute applies to all responsive records a state or local agency holds regardless of origin. The appellate court agreed with the respondents' argument, however, that the "catch-all" exemption to the CPRA under Government Code section 6255 applies to production under section 832.7. Under that exemption, otherwise non-exempt records are exempt from production under the CPRA if the public interest in the records remaining confidential outweighs the public interest in disclosing the records. Finally, the appellate court applied the catch-all exemption in this case, and concluded that the respondents had produced insufficient evidence establishing a clear overbalance on the side of confidentiality. The court remanded the case to the trial court, and held that its ruling did not prevent the respondents from making a showing in the trial court as to any of the requested records upon a proper showing by the respondents.
Comments