Privacy Issues in the Workplace

e. Peace Officer Administrative Appeal from Discipline The California Supreme Court determined that records relating to a peace officer’s administrative appeal from discipline were exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act. In Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court , a San Diego newspaper’s publisher sought to obtain information regarding a deputy sheriff’s administrative appeal of his termination. The County of San Diego and San Diego Civil Service Commission refused to make full disclosure of the records, and the California Supreme Court ultimately upheld their decision. The Court observed that Government Code Section 6254(k) of the CPRA protected “[r]ecords, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law . . . .” One such state law, the Court observed, is California Penal Code section 832.7(a), which provides that certain “[p]eace officer or custodial officer” records and “information obtained from these records [ ] are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery pursuant to Sections 1043 and 1046 of the Evidence Code.” The statute applies to “personnel records,” which California Penal Code section 832.8 defines as “any file maintained under [an officer's] name by his or her employing agency and containing records relating to,” among other things, “[p]ersonal data” and “[e]mployee advancement, appraisal, or discipline.” The publisher argued that by its terms Section 832.7’s protection applied only to requests made in civil and criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court rejected the argument, reasoning that the statutory framework did not support the anomalous result that the public could freely request discipline records under the Public Records Act, whereas civil and criminal litigants faced 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. 363 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 364 , 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

Privacy Issues in the Workplace ©2021 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 111