Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver

California's premier full-service law firm with an emphasis on the representation of peace officers in disciplinary, criminal, labor, workers' compensation, personal injury and other civil matters.

  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer

California Court of Appeal Rules that in Most Circumstances, a Law Enforcement Agency May Not Resist a California Public Records Act Request for the Disclosure of the Names of Officers Involved in On-Duty Shootings

February 28, 2012 by David Shirley

by Justin Buffington, Attorney, Rains Lucia Stern, PC

In December 2010, officers from the Long Beach Police Department were involved in the shooting of a 35-year-old man. Following the shooting, a newspaper reporter made a California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) request for the names of the officers involved in the December 2010 shooting, as well as the names of every Long Beach police officer involved in a shooting within the previous five years.

The Long Beach Police Officers’ Association (“LBPOA”) filed an application in superior court for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, requesting that the trial court prevent the release of the requested names. The City of Long Beach (“City”) joined the LBPOA in its opposition to the disclosure of names. The trial court denied the LBPOA’s request for injunctive relief and the LBPOA appealed.

The CPRA provides the public access to information concerning the conduct of the government business. However, not every piece of governmental information must be handed over pursuant to a CPRA request. There are numerous public records that are exempt under the CPRA from disclosure to the public. In relevant part, the CPRA protects from disclosure “personnel, medical or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Further, the CPRA does not require disclosure of records where that disclosure is prohibited by federal or state law, such as with the protections afforded to police officers’ personnel records.

The appellate court examined whether the confidentiality afforded to those items defined as personnel records under Penal Code section 832.8 and the CPRA prevented the disclosure of the requested officers’ names. In a lengthy analysis, the Court determined that, where the officer is not the subject of a complaint and there is no showing of a particularized threat to an officer, neither the CPRA nor the confidentiality afforded to personnel files empowered the City to refuse to honor the CPRA request.

The Court found that officers’ names did not constitute “personal data,” evidence of “employee advancement, appraisal or discipline,” nor “complaints or investigations of complaints,” which are all considered part of a police officer’s personnel file and, thus, protected from release by the CPRA and the Penal Code. Nor did the Court make the determination that the officers’ names were protected by a catchall exemption provided for in the CPRA, which allows withholding of records where the public’s interest in non-disclosure clearly outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure. The Court held that the public’s interest in knowing the names of the officers involved in a fatal shooting significantly outweighed the slight public interest in withholding the records.

However, the Court did leave open the potential for an agency refusing to hand over an officer’s name where that officer is the subject of a complaint related to a shooting. Further, an agency may not have an obligation to disclose an officer’s name, where a showing of a particularized threat to the officer can be made.

Disclaimer: Case law and analysis can change over time. The information in this article is accurate as of the date the article was written and should not constitute legal advice. Always consult with an attorney.

Filed Under: Bulletins Tagged With: justin-e-buffington

Consultation Form

Offices across California to serve you.
Contact us now to schedule a consultation.
Contact form not loading? Click here!
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC publishes this website as a service to our clients and other friends for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice or opinions, and the transmission of information through this website is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between sender and receiver. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

© 2023 Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC. All Rights Reserved. | Disclaimer

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
Do not sell my personal information.
Cookie settingsACCEPTREJECT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT
  • Contact Us

  • News Alerts

Official logo for Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver Logo
  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    ▼
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      ▼
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    ▼
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    ▼
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
Hotline phone numbers. Northern California: 925-609-1699. Southern California: 310-393-1486.