242 Cal. App. 4th 475
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- CHP 180 forms document when the sheriff’s department stores or impounds a vehicle and include owner names and addresses, vehicle info, tow reason, inventory, and release notes; data often originates from DMV via CLETS.
- Anderson-Barker (through counsel) requested all electronically stored CHP 180 forms from Jan 1, 2012 to present under the CPRA; County refused citing privacy exemptions and asserted manual redaction of ~215,000 records was burdensome.
- Trial court granted the writ compelling production without redaction, finding exemptions in Gov. Code §6254(k) inapplicable; County petitioned appellate court for extraordinary writ relief.
- Appellate court reviewed whether CHP 180 forms are exempt from disclosure under §6254(k) because the information originates from DMV records and is protected by state law (Gov. Code §6254.1; Veh. Code §1808.21) and federal law (Driver’s Privacy Protection Act).
- Court analyzed waiver (Gov. Code §6254.5) and whether routine disclosure to tow companies or drivers waived confidentiality; concluded disclosures to tow companies are lawfully required and do not waive exemptions.
- Court declined to order redaction because County did not request redaction relief and had opposed redaction below as unduly burdensome; ultimately ordered trial court’s disclosure order vacated and petitioner awarded costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CHP 180 forms must be disclosed under CPRA | Anderson-Barker: forms are public and not exempt; data provided to tow companies/owners means no confidentiality | County: forms include DMV-derived personal info exempt under Gov. Code §6254.1 and Veh. Code §1808.21 and DPPA, so §6254(k) applies | Held: §6254(k) applies; CHP 180 forms (owner addresses/names) are exempt from disclosure as a matter of law |
| Whether DMV-derived addresses on CHP 180 are disclosable because they are "mailing" versus "residence" addresses | Anderson-Barker: subdivision (b) allows mailing addresses to be disclosed; some CHP 180 addresses may be mailing addresses | County: subdivision (a) bars residence addresses; subdivision (b) restricts mailing-address release to purposes related to collection (e.g., identifying ownership) | Held: Both residence and mailing addresses are protected here because release is not for the DMV’s collection purpose; thus §1808.21 bars disclosure |
| Whether County waived confidentiality by providing CHP 180 info to tow companies or drivers | Anderson-Barker: County routinely disclosed addresses to tow companies and drivers, so it waived exemptions under §6254.5 | County: disclosures to tow companies are required by law to enable notice to owners; disclosures to drivers not established | Held: No waiver. Disclosure to tow companies is required by law and falls within §6254.5(b) exception; no unlawful waiver shown |
| Whether records could be produced with redactions | Anderson-Barker: If addresses are exempt, county could redact names/addresses and produce records | County: Manual redaction of 215,000 records is unduly burdensome; County did not request redaction relief here | Held: Court did not order redaction because County did not seek redaction relief and had opposed it; redaction issue not resolved in County’s favor here |
Key Cases Cited
- Powers v. City of Richmond, 10 Cal.4th 85 (reviewability of CPRA disclosure orders)
- Axelrad (County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court), 82 Cal.App.4th 819 (appellate standards for CPRA review)
- City of Hemet v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.App.4th 1411 (standard of review on factual issues)
- CBS, Inc. v. Block, 42 Cal.3d 646 (§6254(k) incorporates other statutory prohibitions)
- Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.4th 1272 (CPRA balancing and statutory construction)
- Kehoe (Black Panther Party v. Kehoe), 42 Cal.App.3d 645 (privacy interest under CPRA)