Ventura Cnty. Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n v. Cnty. of Ventura

• Decision Date: 03 March 2021
• Docket Number: 2d Civ. No. B300006
• Citation: 275 Cal.Rptr.3d 842,61 Cal.App.5th 585
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: VENTURA COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COUNTY OF VENTURA et al., Defendants and Respondents; Claudia Y. Bautista, as Public Defender, etc., Intervener and Appellant.

61 Cal.App.5th 585

275 Cal.Rptr.3d 842

VENTURA COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.COUNTY OF VENTURA et al., Defendants and Respondents;

Claudia Y. Bautista, as Public Defender, etc., Intervener and Appellant.

2d Civ. No. B300006

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6, California.

Filed March 3, 2021

Claudia Y. Bautista, Public Defender, Michael C. McMahon, Senior Deputy Public Defender, for Intervener and Appellant.

Rains Lucia Sterm St. Phalle & Silver, Richard A. Levine and Brian P. Ross, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Leroy Smith, County Counsel, Emily T. Gardner, Assistant County Counsel, for Defendants and Respondents.

David E. Snyder ; Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, James M. Chadwick, Tenaya Rodewald, Palo Alto, Andrea Feathers, Los Angeles, for Amicus Curiae First Amendment Coalition.

Law Offices of Kelly A. Aviles, Kelly A. Aviles, La Verne; Jeff Glasser for Amici Curiae Los Angeles Times Communications, LLC, The Associated Press, and Scripps NP Operating, LLC, publisher of the Ventura County Star.

Allyssa Victory Villanueva, Amy Gilbert ; Peter Bibring, Melanie P. Ochoa, Rekha Arulanantham; Law Offices of Michael Risher, Michael Risher, San Francisco; and Munger, Tolles & Olson, Jacob S. Kreilkamp, Los Angeles, for Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and of Southern California.

PERREN, J.

INTRODUCTION

Senate Bill No. 1421 (SB 1421) went into effect on January 1, 2019. Among other things, it amended Penal Code section 832.7¹ to allow disclosure under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) of records relating to officer-involved shootings, serious use of force and sustained findings of sexual assault or serious dishonesty.² ( § 832.7, subd. (b)(1).) This statute renders the records non-confidential and applies to "any file maintained under [the] individual's name by his or her employing agency." (§ 832.8, subd. (a).) Previously, these records could be accessed only through a Pitchess³ motion pursuant to Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045.

The Ventura County Deputy Sheriffs Association (VCDSA) sued the County of Ventura and Bill Ayub, Sheriff of Ventura County (Sheriff), to enjoin section 832.7 ’s application to records involving peace officer conduct and incidents occurring before January 1, 2019, the statute's effective date. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction.

In the meantime, our colleagues in the First District issued Walnut Creek Police Officers’ Assn v. City of Walnut Creek (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 940, 245 Cal.Rptr.3d 398 ( Walnut Creek ), which rejected the assertion "that applying the 2019 amendments to compel disclosure of records created prior to 2019 constitutes an improper retroactive application of the new law." ( Id. at p. 942, 245 Cal.Rptr.3d 398.) The court found the "argument ... without merit," reasoning that "[a]lthough the records may have been created prior to 2019, the event necessary to ‘trigger application’ of the new law – a request for records maintained by an agency – necessarily occurs after the law's effective date." ( Ibid. see Carlsbad Police Officers Assn v. City of Carlsbad (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 135, 144 & fn. 5, 262 Cal.Rptr.3d 646 ( Carlsbad ).)

The trial court did not follow Walnut Creek . It concluded section 832.7 applies prospectively only, entered judgment for VCDSA and issued a permanent injunction. Claudia Y. Bautista, in her capacity as Public Defender of Ventura County (Public Defender), appeals.⁴

In the absence of a reason to depart from Walnut Creek , and for reasons stated in Becerra v. Superior Court (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 897, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 897 ( Becerra ), we reverse the judgment and dissolve the permanent injunction.

DISCUSSION

Standard of Review

We review statutory interpretation questions de novo. ( Jackson v. LegalMatch.com (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 760, 767, 255 Cal.Rptr.3d 741.) "[O]ur primary goal is to determine and give effect to the underlying purpose of the law. [Citation.] ‘Our first step is to scrutinize the actual words of the statute, giving them a plain and commonsense meaning.’ [Citation.] " ‘If the words of the statute are clear, the court should not add to or alter them to accomplish a purpose that does not appear on the face of the statute or from its legislative history.’ " [Citation.] In other words, we are not free to ‘give words an effect different from the plain and direct import of the terms used.’ [Citations.] However, " ‘the ‘plain meaning’ rule does not prohibit a court from determining whether the literal meaning of a statute comports with its purpose or whether such a construction of one provision is consistent with other provisions of the statute.’ " [Citation.] To determine the most reasonable interpretation of a statute, we look to its legislative history and background." ( Goodman v. Lozano (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1327, 1332, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 219, 223 P.3d 77.)

The Trial Court Erred by Declining to Apply Section 832.7 Retroactively

The briefs filed by the parties and amici curiae raise a number of issues but focus primarily on retroactivity. VCDSA contends SB 1421's statutory amendments do not retroactively divest its members of their prior-acquired right to confidentiality in records documenting conduct and incidents occurring before January 1, 2019. The Public Defender and amici argue otherwise.⁵

The concept of retroactivity is not always easy to apply to a given statute. ( Landgraf v. USI Film Products (1994) 511 U.S. 244, 268, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 ; Quarry v. Doe I (2012) 53 Cal.4th 945, 955, 139 Cal.Rptr.3d 3, 272 P.3d 977.) Courts must consider the nature and extent of the change in the law and the degree of connection between the operation of the new rule and a relevant past event. ( Quarry , at p. 955, 139 Cal.Rptr.3d 3, 272 P.3d 977.) Familiar considerations of fair notice, reasonable reliance and settled expectations offer sound guidance for determining whether a particular application of the statute is retroactive. ( Id. at pp. 955-956, 139 Cal.Rptr.3d 3, 272 P.3d 977.) Generally, a law has retroactive effect when it functions to change the legal consequences of a party's past conduct by imposing new or different liabilities based upon such conduct. ( Id. at p. 956, 139 Cal.Rptr.3d 3, 272 P.3d 977.)

"[T]he critical question for determining retroactivity usually is whether the last act or event necessary to trigger application of the statute occurred before or after the statute's effective date. [Citations.] A law is not retroactive ‘merely because some of the facts or conditions upon which its application depends came into existence prior to its enactment.’ [Citation.]" ( People v. Grant (1999) 20 Cal.4th 150, 157, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 295, 973 P.2d 72 ( Grant ).)

The Public Defender and amici contend the trial court was bound by Walnut Creek . (See Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455, 20 Cal.Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937 ["Decisions of every division of the District Courts of Appeal are binding upon all the ... superior courts of this state"].) VCDSA claims Walnut Creek is non-binding because it was a summary denial of petitions for writ of supersedeas. We agree the decision is procedurally atypical, but the court did analyze and decide the same issue presented here.

In denying the supersedeas petitions, Walnut Creek explained: "The appeals center around amendments enacted this year to Penal Code section 832.7 that expand public access to certain peace officer records maintained by a state or local agency. (See Pen. Code, § 832.7, subd. (b)(1).) Appellants assert that applying the 2019 amendments to compel disclosure of records created prior to 2019 constitutes an improper retroactive application of the new law. For the reasons stated by the trial court, appellants’ argument is without merit. Although the records may have been created prior to 2019, the event necessary to ‘trigger application’ of the new law – a request for records maintained by an agency – necessarily occurs after the law's effective date. ( [Grant , supra ,] 20 Cal.4th [at p.] 157 [83 Cal.Rptr.2d 295, 973 P.2d 72] [‘[T]he critical question for determining retroactivity usually is whether the last act or event necessary to trigger application of the statute occurred before or after the statute's effective date’].) The new law also does not change the legal consequences for peace officer conduct described in pre-2019 records. (See ibid . [application of new law is retroactive ‘only if it attaches new legal consequences to, or increases a party's liability for, an event, transaction, or conduct that was completed before the law's effective date’].) Rather, the new law changes only the public's right to access peace officer records." ( Walnut Creek , supra , 33 Cal.App.5th at p. 942, 245 Cal.Rptr.3d 398.)

In Carlsbad , the trial denied a petition for writ of mandate involving the same issue, concluding that SB 1421 applies to records of events occurring before January 1, 2019. ( Carlsbad , supra , 49 Cal.App.5th at p. 144, 262 Cal.Rptr.3d 646, fn. omitted.) The issue on appeal concerned attorney fees, but the Court of Appeal noted the trial court's ruling was consistent with Walnut Creek . ( Carlsbad , at p. 144, fn. 5, 262 Cal.Rptr.3d 646.)

Although Becerra does not address retroactivity, it broadly construed section 832.7 to "require[ ] disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the [custodian agency] , regardless [of] whether the records pertain to officers employed by [that agency] or by another public agency and regardless [of] whether the [custodian agency] or another public agency created the records." ( Becerra , supra , 44 Cal.App.5th at p. 910, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 897, italics added.) The court emphasized that the CPRA "must be ‘broadly construed’ because its statutory scheme ‘furthers the people's right of access.’ ( Cal. Const., art 1, § 3, subd. (b)(2)." ( Becerra , at p. 913, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 897.) The legislation also ...