CBS, Inc. v. Block

• Decision Date: 09 October 1986
• Citation: 230 Cal.Rptr. 362,42 Cal.3d 646,725 P.2d 470
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 725 P.2d 470 CBS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Sherman BLOCK, as Sheriff, etc., et al., Defendants and Appellants. L.A. 32029.

Page 362

230 Cal.Rptr. 362

42 Cal.3d 646, 725 P.2d 470

CBS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Sherman BLOCK, as Sheriff, etc., et al., Defendants and Appellants.

L.A. 32029.

Supreme Court of California In Bank.

Oct. 9, 1986.

Jack B. Purcell, Herbert M. Schoenberg, Los Angeles, Bruce J. Teicher, Oakland, and Ira L. Kurgan, Santa Monica, for plaintiff and appellant.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Rex S. Heinke, Kurt L. Schmalz, Harold W. Fuson, Jr., Donald L. Zachary, William A. Niese, Los Angeles, Jeffrey S. Klein, Santa Monica, Cooper, White & Cooper, Neil L. Shapiro and Maria L. Joseph, San Francisco, as amici curiae on behalf of plaintiff and appellant.

DeWitt W. Clinton, Co. Counsel, and Gary E. Daigh, Deputy Co. Counsel, Los Angeles, for defendants and appellants.

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Charles C. Kobayashi abd Ted Prim, Deputy Attys. Gen., Sacramento, Adrian Kuyper, Co. Counsel (Orange), and Arthur C. Wahlstedt, Jr., Asst. Co. Counsel, Santa Ana, as amici curiae on behalf of defendants and appellants.

BIRD, Chief Justice.

Are the press and public prohibited from obtaining the information contained in the application for and the license to possess a concealed weapon under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq., hereafter the PRA or the Act) even though this information was open to public inspection from 1957-1968 and the Public Records Act did not specifically exempt this information from disclosure? ¹

I.

This case arose when CBS, Inc. (CBS) filed a request under the PRA, in July of 1983, to inspect and copy the applications submitted to and licenses issued by the Los Angeles County Sheriff authorizing the possession of concealed weapons. CBS sought the information in connection with an investigation of possible abuses by officials in the exercise of their statutorily delegated discretion to issue licenses for concealed weapons. (See Pen.Code, § 12050.)

According to the reporter's transcript and the court records it appears that only 33 concealed weapon licenses were issued in Los Angeles County. There are approximately seven million residents of Los Angeles County.

All of the applications made were for a renewal. For the majority of these, no reason for issuance was given or a one sentence explanation--"Needed for protection of life and property"--was used.

The sheriff refused to release any of the applications or licenses. In response, CBS filed a motion for a preliminary injunction ² detailing the reasons it desired the requested material. The hearing on CBS's motion was held in August of 1983. After reviewing the records in camera, the trial judge noted that the reasons stated for desiring a license were essentially "pro forma" and, therefore, ordered disclosure of most of the licenses then in effect with the proviso that the home addresses of the licensees be deleted. The court denied CBS's request for copies of the applications. Both sides have appealed.

II.

The question presented by this appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting partial relief to CBS on its motion for disclosure under sections 6258 and 6259.

Section 6259 provides in pertinent part: "Whenever it is made to appear by verified petition to the superior court of the county where the records or some part thereof are situated that certain public records are being improperly withheld from a member of the public, the court shall order the officer or person charged with withholding the records to disclose the public record or show cause why he should not do so. The court shall decide the case after examining the record in camera, if permitted by subdivision (b) of section 915 of the Evidence Code, papers filed by the parties and such oral argument and additional evidence as the court may allow. [p] If the court finds that the public official's decision to refuse disclosure is not justified under the provisions of Section 6254 or 6255, he shall order the public official to make the record public. If the judge determines that the public official was justified in refusing the make the record public, he shall return the item to the public official without disclosing its content with an order supporting the decision refusing disclosure." (Emphasis added.)

Although section 6258 speaks in terms of injunctive relief (see, ante, p. 374, fn. 2 of 230 Cal.Rptr., p. 471 fn. 2 of 725 P.2d) and the application contemplated by the statute may be one for a preliminary injunction, there is nothing "preliminary" about the trial court's order here. ³ As the italicized phrase of section 6259 indicates, the Act does not provide for a trial on the merits. These conclusions are buttressed by the 1984 amendment to section 6259, effective as to actions filed on or after January 1, 1985, which provides that such orders are not appealable, but are subject to immediate writ review.

Sections 6250 to 6265, which govern disclosure of public records, provide little guidance on the question of the standard of review on appeal. The cases are similarly silent on this point. However, the analysis in this court's decision in American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. Deukmejian (1982) 32 Cal.3d 440, 186 Cal.Rptr. 235, 651 P.2d 822 (hereafter ACLU ) clearly indicates that the standard is one of independent review. In thatdecision, this court reexamined the records, balanced the burdens and costs of disclosing the requested information, and affirmed in part the trial court's judgment requiring disclosure of nonexempt information. (ACLU, supra, 32 Cal.3d 440, 443-444, 186 Cal.Rptr. 235, 651 P.2d 822.) Accordingly, this court must conduct an independent review of the trial court's statutory balancing analysis. Factual findings made by the trial court will be upheld if based on substantial evidence.

III.

Government files hold huge collections of information. These files can be roughly divided into two categories: (1) records detailing public business and official processes; and (2) records containing private revelations. Statutory and decisional authority on public record disclosure reveals two fundamental and frequently competing societal concerns that result from the commingling of public and personal information. ⁴

Implicit in the democratic process is the notion that government should be accountable for its actions. In order to verify accountability, individuals must have access to government files. Such access permits checks against the arbitrary exercise of official power and secrecy in the political process. ⁵ However, a narrower but no less important interest is the privacy of individuals whose personal affairs are recorded in government files. ⁶

When the PRA was enacted in 1968, " '[t]he Legislature had long been attempting to "formulate a workable means of minimizing secrecy in government." ' " (San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 762, 772, 192 Cal.Rptr. 415; quoting ACLU, supra, 32 Cal.3d 440, 457, 186 Cal.Rptr. 235, 651 P.2d 822.) The PRA was modeled on the federal Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq.; Cook v. Craig (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 773, 781, 127 Cal.Rptr. 712) and was passed for the explicit purpose of "increasing freedom of information" by giving the public "access to information in possession of public agencies" (Los Angeles Police Dept. v. Superior Court (1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 661, 668, 135 Cal.Rptr. 575). Maximum disclosure of the conduct of governmental operations was to be promoted by the Act. (53 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 136, 143 (1970).)

Two exceptions to the general policy of disclosure are set forth in the Act. Section 6254 lists 19 categories of disclosure-exempt material. These exemptions are permissive, not mandatory. The Act endows the agency with discretionary authority to override the statutory exceptions when a dominating public interest favors disclosure. ⁷ (Black Panther Party v. Kehoe (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 645, 656, 117 Cal.Rptr. 106.)

In addition to these express exceptions, section 6255 establishes a catch-all exception that permits the government agency to withhold a record if it can demonstrate that "on the facts of a particular case the public interest served by not making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record." ⁸ (Emphasis added.)

Defendants contend that they have met the burden of proving that the records of applications and licenses for concealed weapons fall within the catch-all exception. They argue that releasing this information will allow would-be attackers to more carefully plan their crime against licensees and will deter those who need a license from making an application.

Defendants' concern that the release of the information to the press would increase the vulnerability of licensees is conjectural at best. ⁹ The prospect that somehow this information in the hands of the press will increase the danger to some licensees cannot alone support a finding in favor of nondisclosure as to all. A mere assertion of possible endangerment does not "clearly outweigh" the public interest in access to these records. Moreover, section 6257 specifically provides that "[a]ny reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt by law." Thus, any information on the applications and licenses that indicate times or places when the licensee is vulnerable to attack may be deleted. ¹⁰ The fact that parts of a requested document fall within the terms of an exemption does not justify withholding the entire document. (Northern Cal. Police Practices Project v. Craig (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 116, 123-124, 153 Cal.Rptr. 173.)

Defendants' contention that disclosure would discourage the filing of applications is also unpersuasive. This court respects the people's right to know and will not limit that right based on an inchoate fear that some will violate the law rather than have their name disclosed.

Next, defendant...