64 Cal.App.5th 751
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Plaintiffs (All of Us or None – Riverside Chapter, Jane Roe, Phyllis McNeal) sued Riverside County Superior Court and the court clerk alleging improper maintenance and public disclosure of criminal records: failure to destroy marijuana-related records (Health & Safety Code §11361.5), permitting public searches by date of birth and driver’s license, unlawful disclosure of local criminal history (Pen. Code §13300 et seq.), and state constitutional privacy invasion.
- The trial court sustained demurrers to the Rule 2.507 and Penal Code causes of action without leave to amend, denied plaintiffs’ summary adjudication on the §11361.5 and privacy claims, granted defendants’ summary judgment on multiple claims, and entered judgment for defendants.
- On appeal the court reversed the demurrer as to Rule 2.507 (searches by DOB / driver’s license), affirmed the demurrer as to §§13302–13303 (penal enforcement), and found defendants violated §11361.5 obliteration requirements.
- The appellate court held plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the §11361.5 claim and remanded for appropriate declaratory/injunctive relief.
- The privacy claim (state constitutional right) was held not susceptible to resolution for either party as a matter of law and remanded for further factfinding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether allowing public searches of the court’s electronic criminal index by an individual’s date of birth or driver’s license number violates Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.507 | Permitting searches by DOB or driver’s license turns the index into a tool to identify individuals and thus violates Rule 2.507(c)’s exclusion of DOB and driver’s license number | Rule 2.507 only bars publication of those data fields; allowing users to input known DOB/DL to filter results is not a rule violation | Reversed trial court: Rule 2.507 forbids allowing public searches by DOB or driver’s license number; plaintiffs adequately pleaded a claim and demurrer was erroneously sustained |
| Whether plaintiffs may enforce Penal Code §§13302–13303 by civil action against the court for disclosing local summary criminal history information | Defendants’ public search functionality exposes local summary information and thus violates §§13302–13303 | Penal provisions cannot be enforced by private civil action against a public entity; the court may not be criminally liable | Affirmed trial court: plaintiffs conceded §§13302–13303 are penal and cannot be enforced in this civil action; demurrer properly sustained |
| Whether Riverside Superior Court’s obliteration/redaction practices comply with Health & Safety Code §11361.5 (marijuana-record destruction) | Court’s procedures (partial redaction, Sharpie crossing-out, sealing/backlogs) do not effect permanent obliteration nor “prepare the record again so it appears the arrest/conviction never occurred” | Sealing, prioritized redaction, and Sharpie redaction satisfy the statute; practical limits and staffing justify method and timing | Reversed trial court: undisputed evidence shows noncompliance with §11361.5 (must obliterate entries “pertaining to” qualifying marijuana charges and reprepare records so they appear the arrest/conviction never occurred); plaintiffs entitled to judgment on this cause of action |
| Whether the alleged violations (Rule 2.507 and §11361.5) give rise to a state constitutional privacy violation as a matter of law | The statutory and rule breaches seriously invade privacy interests (practical obscurity destroyed; rap-sheet creation) and so plaintiffs are entitled to summary adjudication | Either no serious invasion occurred as a matter of law or the underlying statutory/rule bases are invalid | Trial court properly denied plaintiffs’ MSJ but erred granting defendants’ MSJ; privacy question of seriousness is factual and must be decided on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors XXVI, LLC, 195 Cal.App.4th 1602 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (standard of review and leave-to-amend analysis for demurrer rulings)
- Rossa v. D.L. Falk Construction, Inc., 53 Cal.4th 387 (Cal. 2012) (rules-of-court interpretation principles akin to statutory construction)
- Westbrook v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.App.4th 157 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (electronic case management confidentiality and risk of compiling local criminal histories)
- Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 7 Cal.5th 1171 (Cal. 2019) (statutory interpretation; give words their ordinary meaning in context)
- Matthews v. Becerra, 8 Cal.5th 756 (Cal. 2019) (privacy-invasion requires serious invasion in nature, scope, and impact)
- Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Assn., 7 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994) (elements of state constitutional privacy claim)
- People v. Whalum, 50 Cal.App.5th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (broad reading of phrase “pertaining to” in health-and-safety context)
- Int’l Fed. of Prof. & Tech. Eng’rs, Local 21 v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 319 (Cal. 2007) (section 13300 generally limits distribution of criminal-history information)
- Hooper v. Deukmejian, 122 Cal.App.3d 987 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) (remedial statute interpretation and legislative policy considerations)