Williams v. Superior Court
| Decision Date | 07 June 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. S022639,S022639 |
| Citation | 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 882,5 Cal.4th 337,852 P.2d 377 |
| Parties | , 852 P.2d 377, 21 Media L. Rep. 1929 Dick WILLIAMS, as Sheriff, etc., Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of San Bernardino County, Respondent; FREEDOM NEWSPAPERS, INC., Real Party in Interest. |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
Cotkin, Collins & Franscell, Paul N. Paquette, Keith A. Fink and Scott A. Taryle, Los Angeles, for petitioner.
Martin J. Mayer and Irving Berger, Long Beach, as amici curiae on behalf of petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
Helsing & Wray, Mark Wray, Santa Ana, Crosby, Heafy, Roach & May, Peter W. Davis, John E. Carne, Erza Hendon, Thomas R. Burke and Valarie Mark, Oakland, for real party in interest.
Edward M. Chen, San Francisco, Carol Sobel, Los Angeles, Harold W. Fuson, Judith L. Fanshaw, La Jolla, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison and Neil L. Shapiro, San Francisco, as amici curiae on behalf of real party in interest.
This case requires us to interpret the California Public Records Act. (Gov.Code § 6250 et seq. [hereafter CPRA].) 1 The particular provision at issue (§ 6254, subd. (f)) exempts law enforcement investigatory files from the act's general requirement of public disclosure. The underlying dispute arose out of a newspaper's request for access to a county sheriff's records of disciplinary proceedings against two deputies. After reviewing the requested records in camera, the superior court ordered partial disclosure. The Court of Appeal vacated that order and directed the lower court to examine the records a second time, applying criteria set out in the reviewing court's opinion.
We conclude that the Court of Appeal correctly vacated the superior court's order but erred in articulating the scope of the relevant exemption. Therefore, we shall remand the case for further proceedings in accordance with the views set out below.
On August 22, 1990, deputies of petitioner, the Sheriff of San Bernardino County (Sheriff), executed a search warrant for illegal drugs at the home of Daniel Morgan. The event attracted public attention because Morgan, who did not in fact possess drugs, was beaten and severely injured by deputies during the raid. The Sheriff conducted separate administrative and criminal investigations into the incident. The administrative investigation culminated in disciplinary action against two deputies involved in the raid. The criminal investigation led the district attorney to file charges against one of the deputies, who was subsequently tried and acquitted.
Real party in interest the Daily Press, a division of Freedom Newspapers, Inc. (Daily Press), sought information about the disciplinary proceedings under the CPRA. In its letter to the Sheriff, the Daily Press specifically requested any "[r]eports of disciplinary proceedings" and any "[r]ecommendations from a deputy chief's review board." The Sheriff refused the request in its entirety, asserting that all of the records in question were exempt from disclosure as "peace officer personnel records" under Penal Code sections 832.5 and 832.7 and could "only be obtained by motion pursuant to Evidence Code section 1043." 2
The Daily Press responded by calling the Sheriff's attention to Bradshaw v. City of Los Angeles (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 908, 270 Cal.Rptr. 711, which held that Penal Code section 832.7, in accordance with its express terms, applies only to " 'criminal or civil proceeding[s].' " (Bradshaw v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at p. 921, 270 Cal.Rptr. 711, quoting Pen.Code, § 832.7, italics omitted.) The Sheriff, however, still refused to disclose the requested records, arguing that Bradshaw conflicted with other, unnamed Court of Appeal decisions. As an additional justification for refusing disclosure, the Sheriff invoked "privacy interests" on behalf of the personnel in question and cited a provision of the CPRA that authorizes the withholding of records when disclosure "would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." (§ 6254, subd. (c).)
The Daily Press sought review of the Sheriff's decision by initiating a proceeding under the CPRA in the superior court. (See §§ 6258, 6259.) In its petition, the Daily Press offered evidence to show that the records in question actually existed; the Professional Standards Division of the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department had conducted an investigation and prepared a report, the report had been reviewed by a board of deputy chiefs, and the Sheriff, as a result of the investigation, had fired one deputy and placed another on administrative leave. The Daily Press also argued that the statutory provisions on which the Sheriff relied did not justify his refusal to disclose the requested records.
Based on the Daily Press's petition, the superior court issued an order to show cause directing the Sheriff either to disclose the records or to produce them for examination by the court in camera. (See § 6259, subd. (a).) 3 The court's order covered three categories of documents: "(1) All reports and investigatory records concerning the conduct of sheriff deputies during the August 22, 1990 raid at the home and business of Daniel Morgan;" "(2) [a]ll recommendations for discipline against deputies involved in the Morgan raid;" and "(3) [a]ll records of discipline imposed against any deputies involved, including documents showing the reasons for such discipline...."
Despite the order to show cause, the Sheriff initially refused either to disclose the records or to produce them for examination by the court. To explain his refusal, the Sheriff argued that the CPRA's provision for the examination of records in camera (§ 6259, subd. (a)) did not apply to records that the CPRA exempted from public disclosure. The Sheriff asserted that the requested records were expressly exempt from disclosure under section 6254, subdivision (f) (), as investigatory records maintained by a law enforcement agency. 4 Apparently abandoning the position that he had taken in his letters to the Daily Press, the Sheriff did not assert that disclosure was prohibited by Penal Code sections 832.5 and 832.7 or by the CPRA provision addressing "unwarranted invasion[s] of personal privacy" (§ 6254, subd. (c)).
The superior court rejected the Sheriff's argument that it was not entitled to inspect the records in camera and, once again, ordered him to produce them for that purpose. The Sheriff then petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to compel the superior court to set aside its order. The Court of Appeal denied the petition, noting that "[t]he language of ... section 6259 expressly permits the court to conduct an in camera review, 5 and [that] such a review is appropriate wherever materials sought to be protected may be only partially exempt." The court also expressed "concern over the legitimacy of [the Sheriff's] current position that the records are in fact investigatory files under ... subdivision (f)" in view of the Sheriff's having "originally asserted that the records were privileged as personnel records, pursuant to ... section 6254, subdivision (c), and Penal Code section 832.7."
On remand, the superior court ordered the Sheriff to lodge the requested records with the court under seal, together with "a written statement of reasons for exempting any particular information contained in the records." The court also ordered the Sheriff to provide the Daily Press with "an index describing the records being lodged." The index that the Sheriff gave to the Daily Press divided the records into two categories: an "administrative investigation file" consisting of 59 documents and tape recordings, and a "criminal investigation file" consisting of 30 documents. Following the review in camera, the court issued an order granting the Daily Press access [5 Cal.4th 345] to 10 documents in their entirety and to another 28 after the redaction of exempt information. The order denied access completely to 29 documents.
The Sheriff again petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate, arguing that all of the requested records were exempt from disclosure under subdivision (f). The Daily Press also requested relief, arguing that the superior court had committed various procedural errors. Specifically, the superior court's order addressed only 67 of the 89 records listed in the Sheriff's index and did not specify whether particular records came from the administrative or the criminal files. The superior court had also relied, in some instances, on nonstatutory grounds for refusing disclosure. For example, the court had justified the withholding of certain documents with the cryptic term "cumulative." Finally, the Daily Press asked that the Sheriff be ordered to provide a more detailed index of the records in question and that the superior court be ordered to hold a hearing to permit the Daily Press to contest the applicability of subdivision (f). (Cf. § 6259, subd. (a) [].)
The Court of Appeal summarily denied the petition for mandate. We granted review, stayed the order of disclosure, and transferred the case to the Court of Appeal with directions to issue an alternative writ. After briefing and argument, the Court of Appeal issued a written opinion vacating the trial court's order and directing it to conduct further review in camera in accordance with standards set out in the opinion.
In attempting to set standards for determining whether particular records would be exempt from disclosure, the Court of Appeal articulated two limitations on the subdivision (f) exemption that do not appear on the face of the statute.
The first such limitation resulted from the Court of Appeal's decision to incorporate into California law certain evaluative criteria set out in the federal Freedom of Information Act (5...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alameda Cnty. Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n v. Alameda Cnty. Employees' Ret. Ass'n
..."interpretation of statutory language that renders the language useless" is, of course, disfavored. (Williams v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 337, 354, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 882, 852 P.2d 377.) A better reading requires "earned and payable" to refer to the amount of leave time that can be accru......
-
Cmty. Youth Athletic Ctr. v. City of Nat'l City
...records are subject to disclosure unless the Legislature has expressly provided to the contrary.” (Williams v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 337, 346, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 882, 852 P.2d 377; Gov.Code, § 6253, subd. (a).) In Government Code section 6254, specific exceptions to the PRA's policy o......
-
County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County
...assertion of this particular exemption fails." The record supports these findings. (Cf., e.g., Williams v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 337, 355 [19 Cal.Rptr.2d 882, 852 P.2d 377] [a public agency may not "shield a record from public disclosure, regardless of its nature, simply by placin......
-
Reynolds v. Bement
...the employer definition. The best indicator of that intent is the language of the provision itself. (Williams v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 337, 350, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 882, 852 P.2d 377.) As plaintiff acknowledges, the plain language of Wage Order No. 9 defining employer does not expressl......
-
California
...78. Id. 79. Id. § 17508. 80. Id. § 17203. 81. CAL. GOV. CODE § 11180. 82. Id. § 11183; id. § 6254(f); see also Williams v. Superior Court, 852 P.2d 377, 388 (Cal. 1993). 83. CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17203. 84. Id. §§ 17206(b), 17536(b); People v. Custom Craft Carpets, Inc., 206 Cal. Rptr. 1......
-
Chapter 6 Public Disclosure of Information by Emergency Services Agencies
...of state statutes that render their language meaningless in favor of incorporating federal FOIA criteria. See Williams v. Sup. Ct., 5 Cal. 4th 337, 354 (1993).[48] . See 6 U.S.C. § 481, et seq.; see Executive Order No. 13311, 68 Fed. Reg. 45149.[49] . 6 U.S.C. § 133. This also is referenced......
-
Using the California Public Records Act to obtain tax audit files.
...DeukmeJian, 32 Cal. 3d 440, 449, 651 R2d 822, 827, 186 Cal. Rptr. 235, 240 (1982); Williams v. Superior Court (Freedom Newspapers, Inc.), 5 Cal. 4th 337, 852 R2d 377, 19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 882 (1993). (11) Cal. Gov't Code [sections] 6253(a). (12) Cal. Gov't Code [sections] 6252(d); see Cal. Gov'......