Pasadena Police Officers Ass'n v. Superior Court
192 Cal. Rptr. 3d 486
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- In March 2012 Pasadena police officers Griffin and Newlen shot and killed unarmed Kendrec McDade, prompting criminal, federal civil-rights, departmental (CID and IA), and administrative reviews. The City later retained the Office of Independent Review Group (OIR) to prepare an August 2014 report evaluating the incident and recommending institutional reforms.
- The OIR Report (70 pages) was sought under the California Public Records Act (PRA) by the Los Angeles Times and community interveners; the Pasadena Police Officers Association (PPOA) and the officers sought to enjoin disclosure.
- The superior court held the Report is a public record but ordered redaction of portions that it found contained confidential peace officer personnel information under the Pitchess statutes (Pen. Code §§ 832.5–832.8; Evid. Code §§ 1043, 1045) and Gov. Code § 6254(k).
- Petitioners sought writ relief arguing the entire Report (or more of it) is exempt as personnel records; interveners and media argued the public interest favored disclosure and that the court over-redacted.
- The Court of Appeal denied the petition, affirmed that parts of the Report derived from personnel/admin-investigation materials are protected, but found the trial court’s redactions overbroad because OIR analyses of PPD policies, administrative-review critiques, and reform recommendations are not Pitchess-protected and must be disclosed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the OIR Report is a public record under the PRA | PPOA: Report is effectively a personnel file and thus exempt | City/Interveners: Report is a public agency writing evaluating PPD operations and should be disclosed | Court: Report is a public record; presumptively disclosable under the PRA |
| Whether the Pitchess protections render the entire Report exempt | PPOA: Entire Report contains or derives from personnel records and is confidential | Interveners/City: Only discrete portions that disclose personnel/appraisal/discipline material are protected | Court: Portions derived from administrative personnel records are exempt, but the entire Report is not protected |
| Whether disclosure/previous public filings waived the Pitchess privilege | Interveners: Officers’ deposition excerpts and petitioners’ filed brief waived confidentiality | PPOA/City: Any waiver must be express; review by officers and confidential disclosure to officers does not waive privilege | Court: No express waiver; public disclosures of non-personnel material do not eliminate privilege for protected personnel information |
| Whether the superior court’s redactions were correct in scope | PPOA: Trial court redacted too little; more protection needed | Interveners/Times: Trial court redacted too much, hiding PPD critiques and recommendations | Court: Trial court correctly found some material privileged but its redactions were overbroad; on remand, additional non-privileged analytical and policy material must be released |
Key Cases Cited
- Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.4th 1272 (Cal. 2006) (disciplinary records are privileged even when generated or held by an outside entity)
- Commission on Peace Officer Standards & Training v. Superior Court (CPOST), 42 Cal.4th 278 (Cal. 2007) (Pitchess protection limited to information enumerated in Penal Code § 832.8; not all data derived from personnel files is categorically exempt)
- Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach (LBPOA), 59 Cal.4th 59 (Cal. 2014) (Pitchess statutes narrowly construed; only records reflecting appraisal/discipline qualify as personnel records)
- Fagan v. Superior Court, 111 Cal.App.4th 607 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (information obtained from personnel files retains confidentiality absent express waiver despite later use in criminal/civil actions)
- Berkeley Police Assn. v. City of Berkeley, 167 Cal.App.4th 385 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (reports/proceedings that functionally are complaint investigations may be Pitchess-protected)
- Davis v. City of San Diego, 106 Cal.App.4th 893 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (reports derived almost entirely from personnel/complaint records are themselves personnel records)