Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach
59 Cal. 4th 59
| Cal. | 2014Background
- In December 2010 two Long Beach police officers fatally shot Douglas Zerby after he pointed an object resembling a gun; the object was a garden-hose nozzle. The Los Angeles Times requested under the CPRA the names of the officers involved in the Zerby shooting and the names of officers involved in shootings from Jan. 1, 2005 to Dec. 11, 2010.
- The Long Beach Police Officers Association (Union) sought injunctive relief to prevent disclosure, alleging safety and privacy risks to officers and their families; the City joined the Union in opposing disclosure.
- The trial court issued a temporary restraining order, struck portions of the Union president’s declaration, and ultimately denied a preliminary/permanent injunction without prejudice for lack of a particularized showing of danger to specific officers; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
- The California Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the appellate judgment, holding that (absent a particularized showing) officer names involved in on-duty shootings are generally disclosable under the CPRA.
- The majority distinguished between factual incident records (generally disclosable) and internal investigatory/personnel records protected by the Pitchess statutes; it held the Times sought names (factual information) not necessarily linked to protected personnel files.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Union/City) | Defendant's Argument (Times) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether names of officers involved in on-duty shootings are protected from disclosure under the Pitchess statutes and CPRA exemptions | Names are part of personnel/disciplinary-related records and disclosure would enable harassment/retaliation; public safety interest in nondisclosure outweighs disclosure | Names are factual incident information not within statutory personnel categories; public interest favors disclosure | Held: Generally disclosable; Pitchess protection applies when a name is linked to confidential personnel/investigatory material, but mere involvement in a shooting does not automatically create that link |
| Whether Gov. Code §6254(c) (privacy exemption) bars disclosure absent particularized showing | §6254(c) protects officers here because disclosure would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy and pose safety risks | Public interest in oversight of police conduct outweighs privacy; generic safety assertions are insufficient | Held: §6254(c) does not bar disclosure in this case without particularized, officer-specific evidence of likely harm |
| Whether Gov. Code §6254(f) (law enforcement investigatory records) mandates nondisclosure | Disclosure of names would reveal investigatory records and could endanger officers/investigations | Requested information is not investigatory records but factual incident data; §6254(f) inapplicable | Held: §6254(f) inapplicable to the Times’ request for officer names as factual incident information unless those names are part of protected investigatory files |
| Whether the CPA catchall (§6255) allows blanket nondisclosure based on generalized safety concerns | Broad balancing under §6255 favors nondisclosure because generalized safety risks clearly outweigh public interest | §6255 requires case-by-case balancing and generalized fears cannot clearly outweigh public interest | Held: §6255 balancing favors disclosure absent particularized evidence showing nondisclosure clearly outweighs disclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 531 (Cal. 1974) (established limited discovery of peace officer complaint records and prompted statutory confidentiality framework)
- Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.4th 1272 (Cal. 2006) (names may be protected when linked to confidential disciplinary/personnel matters)
- Commission on Peace Officer Standards & Training v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 278 (Cal. 2007) (database of officers’ employment information disclosable where not within statutorily enumerated personnel categories)
- Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1065 (Cal. 2006) (discussing §6255 catchall balancing test)
- CBS, Inc. v. Block, 42 Cal.3d 646 (Cal. 1986) (mere assertion of possible endangerment insufficient to justify nondisclosure)
- Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 1325 (Cal. 1991) (accepted general security declaration as sufficient in balancing privacy/safety against disclosure)
- International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 319 (Cal. 2007) (recognized categories of officers whose identities may be withheld for safety/efficacy reasons)
- New York Times Co. v. Superior Court, 52 Cal.App.4th 97 (Cal. Ct. App.) (earlier appellate view that officer names are categorically disclosable; disapproved insofar as inconsistent with later precedents)