Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace

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. f. Disclose the Names of Peace Officers Involved In a Critical Incident Unless a Particularized Showing of Threat of Harm Has Been Made In Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach 338 , 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. 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 Court339, 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. The California Attorney General has opined 340 that Penal Code section 832.7(a) does not authorize a district attorney, for the purpose of complying with Brady , to directly review the personnel files of peace officers who will or are expected to be prosecution witnesses to determine whether any Brady issues apply. However, to “facilitate compliance with Brady ,” the CHP may lawfully release to the district attorney’s office the names of officers against whom findings of “dishonesty, moral turpitude, or bias have been sustained, along with the date of the earliest such conduct.” The district attorney may then use this information to comply with Brady requirements. h. Release to DA of List of Officers against Whom Findings of Dishonesty, Moral Turpitude or Bias Have been Sustained

Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace ©2021 (c) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 107