Principles for Public Safety Employment

invasion of personal privacy. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that public employees do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy over their salaries because the public has the right to know a public entity’s payroll expenditures. The Court held that, absent unique circumstances (such as the name and salary of an undercover officer), a peace officer’s name and salary information is subject to disclosure under the CPRA. 419 In a companion case, Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training v. Superior Court (“POST”), the California Supreme Court held that peace officers’ names, employing agencies, and dates of employment are not exempt from disclosure under either the Penal Code or the CPRA. 420 This information does not fall within any of the Penal Code’s provisions regarding the peace officer personnel records which are confidential. And more recently, there is the Court’s decision in Long Beach Police Officers Ass’n v. City of Long Beach 421 , as discussed above. In addition, the Attorney General, in 2008, issued an opinion letter stating that an agency would generally have to comply with a CPRA request for the names of peace officers involved in a critical incident, such as one in which lethal force was used. 422 The Attorney General opined that the name of a peace officer involved in a critical incident is not categorically exempt under either the CPRA or the Penal Code, but the names would not have to be disclosed if the public interest served in not disclosing the information clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the information, such as where the officer is operating undercover or the incident involves a street gang member and there is a possibility of retribution by other gang members. Significantly, as of January 1, 2019, Senate Bill 1421 (SB 1421) amended Penal Code Section 832.7 to allow disclosure of peace officer records related to officer- involved shootings, serious use of force and sustained findings of sexual assault or serious dishonesty under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). Previously, these records could only be accessed through a Pitchess motion using the judicial process laid out in Evidence Code Sections 1044 and 1045. Now, records relating to the report, investigation, or findings of an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer, records relating to the report, investigation or findings of an incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person results in death or great bodily injury, records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public, and records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by another peace officer or custodial officer, including but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction of evidence or falsifying or concealing of evidence, are not confidential and must be produced in response to a Public Records Act request. 423 Collandrez v. City of Rio Vista 424 After an investigation, the City found a police officer was dishonest and committed misconduct, which included making false reports. The City terminated the police officer and the officer appealed. Prior to his appeal, the

City and the officer reached a settlement and the officer withdrew his termination appeal. The settlement agreement stated that the City would

Principles for Public Safety Employment ©2022 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 123