Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace

substantial hurdles in obtaining disclosure. The publisher argued next that because the civil service commission that considered the peace officer’s disciplinary appeal was not technically his “employer,” Section 832.7’s protections would not apply. The Court rejected that argument as well, reasoning that the protections of Section 832.7 should not turn on the happenstance of whether the appeal system was structured so that a civil service commission rather than an employing agency heard an employee’s administrative appeal. Finally, the newspaper made generalized arguments for access based on the common law and constitutional principles, which the Court rejected. 335 Technically, Copley applies only to requests for administrative appeal materials for peace officers, because the case rests on the Public Records Act, Section 6254’s incorporation of specific laws applicable to peace officer records, such as California Penal Code section 832.7. But Copley’s general reasoning and approach should help with protection of the discipline records for other types of public employees as well, particularly if the employer can locate specific laws restricting disclosure of the type of information in question. In Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach 336 , the California Supreme Court reviewed whether police departments are required to disclose the names of officers involved in shooting incidents while on duty in response to a Public Records Act request. The Court declined to adopt a blanket rule that required or denied the disclosure of the names. Instead, the Court required an assessment based upon the particular facts of each case to determine whether a sufficient particularized showing of threat of harm had been made by the department to prevent disclosure of the names. In that particular case, Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v, City of Long Beach , the Court found that the required showing had not been made and that the names would need to be disclosed. f. Disclose the Names of Peace Officers Involved In a Critical Incident Unless a Particularized Showing of Threat of Harm Has Been Made g. Report Prepared following Officer-Involved Shooting Is Subject to Disclosure Once Peace Officer Personnel Information is Redacted In Pasadena Police Officers Association v. Superior Court337, a California court of appeals court determined that the Pasadena Police Department had redacted too much information before producing a report prepared by an independent consultant in response to a Public Records Act request. The report evaluated the Pasadena Police Department’s investigation of the shooting of an unarmed teenager by two police officers, the adequacy of the department’s training, and also recommended any needed institutional reforms. The report contained information from a criminal investigation as well as an administrative investigation. The court ordered that information related to employee appraisal (e.g., officers’ personnel information and officers statements made in the course of the department’s administrative investigation) were confidential and must be redacted. However, portions of the report unrelated to employee appraisal (e.g., the department’s criminal investigation) were not confidential and should not have been redacted.

Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace ©2019 (c) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 105