Annotations of California caselaw re California Public Records Act and police records

City of Hemet v . Superior Court 37 Cal App 4^th, 44 Cal Rptr 2^nd (4^th Dist., 1995). Police internal affairs investigative files privileged against CPRA release by Penal Code 832.5,.7,.8.

Uribe v.Howie 19 Cal App 3^rd, 96 Cal Rptr 493 (4^th Dist., 1971). Reports of pesticide application not "trade secrets", "crop reports", or "compiled for investigatory purpose" and hence not privileged against CPRA release. Mere possibility that information may be used in investigatory/disciplinary context does not make a record an investigatory record.

State Div. Of Industrial Safety v. Superior Court, County of Los Angeles 43 Cal App 3^rd 778, 117 Cal Rptr 726 (2^nd Dist., 1974). "Investigatory files" exemption applies only where there is a "concrete and definite prospect of [such] criminal law enforcement". Federal agency interpretation of FOIA not persuasive without federal court review.

Williams v. Superior Court 5 Cal 4^th 341, 19 Cal Rptr 2^nd 882 (Cal.1993). Subdivision (f) "Investigatory files" exemption does not incorporate FOIA's criteria. Subdivision (f) exemption does not end when underlying investigation ends.

Northern California Police Practices Project v. Craig 90 Cal App 3^rd 116, 153 Cal Rptr 173 (3^rd Dist., 1979). Some CHP training/policy materials exempt from CPRA disclosure as "security" information; but agency and trial court had a duty to segregate exempt from non-exempt information within document, and release all non-exempt information.

Bradshaw v. City of Los Angeles 221 Cal App 3^rd 912, 270 Cal Rptr 711 (2^nd Dist., 1990).Penal Code 832.5 and 832.7 apply only to internal police investigations, not to quasi-judicial police commission hearings; police departments retain discretion to disclose information in disciplinary files.

City of Richmond v. Superior Court 32 Cal App 4^th 1433, 38 Cal Rptr 2^nd 632 (1^st Dist., 1995). Penal Code 832.7 creates a privilege for peace officer personnel records, which are consequently exempt from disclosure under CPRA.

Black Panther Party v. Kehoe 42 Cal App 3^rd 645, 117 Cal Rptr 106 (3^rd Dist., 1974). Public records otherwise exempt from CPRA disclosure lose exemption if they are publically disclosed to any party.

County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court 18 Cal App 4^th 588, 22 Cal Rptr 2^nd 409 (2^nd Dist., 1993). Exception to law enforcement exemption for arrest data only applies to requests made at or near the time of arrest; it cannot be used to gain disclosure of historical (10 years back) arrest records.

Berkeley Police Ass'n v. City of Berkeley 76 Cal App 3^rd 931, 143 Cal Rptr 255 (1^st Dist., 1977). Promise of confidentiality does not estop police department from releasing internal affairs files to civilian review commission. Individual officers do not have standing to assert privilege to withhold documents as privileged.

Younger v. Berkeley City Council 45 Cal App 3^rd 825, 119 Cal Rptr 830 (1^st Dist., 1975). Berkeley City Council may not grant public access to state arrest records; Penal Code 11100-11105 provides exclusive procedure for access to state arrest records, except for law enforcement agencies, and preempts municipal law which would grant access to state records.

City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court 41 Cal App 4^th 1083, 49 Cal Rptr 2^nd 35 (2^nd Dist., 1996). City may not withhold deposition transcripts for litigation which has concluded; pending litigation exemption does not apply, "privilege" exemption does not apply, and there is no invasion of a right to privacy.

North County Parents v. Dept. of Education 23 Cal App 4^th 144, 28 Cal Rptr 2^nd 359 (4^th Dist., 1994). Agency may only recover duplication costs, not handling/inspection/retrieval costs; agency has discretion to charge reduced fee or no fee.