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

Particular Danger Required for Maintaining the Confidentiality of Peace Officers’ Names in On-Duty Shooting

June 6, 2014 by Hien Nguyen

By Zachery Lopes, 6/6/14

In an opinion issued on May 29, 2014, the California Supreme Court has declared that, absent particular facts demonstrating a specific danger, the names of officers involved in on-duty shootings are a disclosable public record. The Court’s decision in Long Beach Police Officers’ Association v. City of Long Beach, et al., also creates a concern that the definition of “personnel records” may be read more narrowly in various contexts in the future.

The case arose from a California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) request made by Richard Winston of the Los Angeles Times, seeking the names of two Long Beach police officers involved in a December of 2010 fatal shooting of a suspect, and the names of any Long Beach police officer involved in shootings occurring between January of 2005 through December of 2010.

The City informed the Long Beach Police Officers’ Association (“LBPOA”) of the request, and informed the LBPOA that it would disclose the names unless prohibited by a court. Immediately after this notification, the LBPOA filed an action in Superior Court seeking a court order preventing the City from doing so.

The Superior Court initially granted an immediate temporary restraining order (“TRO”). However, following a later hearing after the Times had intervened and argued against the LBPOA’s sought relief, the Court dissolved the TRO and denied the LBPOA’s (and City’s) request for a permanent injunction. The Court found that the alleged harassment to befall the officers if named was “speculative,” because no “particularized showing” was made of specific harm threatening any specific officer. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s ruling.

After a consideration of the disclosure provisions of the CPRA, the various statutes affording confidentiality rights to peace officers (what the Court referred to generally as “Pitchess statutes”), and prior precedent on the extent of these confidentiality rights, the Supreme Court affirmed both lower courts. The Court readily acknowledged that peace officer “personnel files” are exempt from disclosure under the CPRA. However, it found that the names of officers involved in shootings are not information obtained from personnel files, and thus, do not fall within its exemption.

The LBPOA and City argued that disclosing the names of officers involved in on-duty shootings necessarily links those officers to confidential “personnel file” information, since every on-duty shooting is “routinely investigated by the employing agency,” and the names of any involved officers could only be obtained from these confidential investigatory files.

The Court was “not persuaded.” In uncomfortably broad language, the Court stated “only the records generated in connection with” an officer’s appraisal or discipline “would come within the statutory definition of personnel records.” The Court stated the definition of personnel records cannot be read “so broadly as to include every record that might be considered for purposes” of an officer’s appraisal or discipline, “for such a broad reading of the statute would sweep virtually all law enforcement records into the protected category…”

The Court identified a distinction between “(1) records of factual information about an incident…and (2) records generated as part of an internal investigation of an officer in connection” with that incident. Only the latter is confidential. This conclusion was reached after noting that the “Pitchess statutes” (Penal Code sections 832.7, 832.8) do not expressly make the names of officers involved in shootings exempt, and that uniformed peace officers must display their name or identification number. (Penal Code section 830.10) Thus, generally, “the public has a right to know the identity of an officer involved in an on-duty shooting.”

This public’s “right to know” the names of these officers is “great,” because “such shootings often lead to severe injury or death.” Against this strong right, “vague concerns” about officer safety “are insufficient to tip the balance” towards keeping such names confidential. Thus, “when it comes to the disclosure of a peace officer’s name, the public’s substantial interest in the conduct of its peace officers outweighs, in most cases, the officer’s personal privacy interest.” An officer’s interest in privacy may overcome the public’s right to know, but it would “need to be based on a particularized showing” of harm or danger, which was not made by the City or LBPOA in this case. Here, the Courts found that “a few vaguely worded declarations making only general assertions about the risks officers face after a shooting ” were not enough.

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: zachery-a-lopes

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.