*1 No. 13961. Dist. Oct. Third [Civ. 1974.] al.,
BLACK PANTHER PARTY et Appellants, KEHOE, JOHN Director, etc., al., et Defendants and Respondents.
Counsel Hiestand, for Sidney Wolinsky Fred J. JoAnn Chandler and M. and Appellants. General, Goode, and M. William J.
Evelle Attorney Deputy Younger, General, Defendants and Respondents. Attorney Opinion Panther and the
FRIEDMAN, P laintiffs are the Black Party Acting P. J. Americans, Older both Council for unincorporated California Legislative of Con- Defendants are the Director of State Department associations. and and Bureau of Collection Investigative sumer Affairs the Chief of their demand for inspection Services. Plaintiffs seek enforcement judicial individuals, unethical or abusive prac- of letters of from complaint charging held these tices The trial court licensed collection agencies. Code, (Gov. Records Act § from disclosure under Public et and denied relief. Plaintiffs seq.) appeal.
Within the of Consumer Affairs are a number agencies which license a wide and businesses. regulate variety professions (See Code, 101.) Bus. & Prof. One of these is the § Bureau of agencies Services, Collection and Investigative which licenses collection agencies. Several statutes deal with citizen which licensees with charge After each wrongdoing. within the receiving complaint licensing agency action; must of its department informed if keep complainant appropri- ate, it may the licensee and with notify meet and confer the licensee and in order mediate the the Director of complainant Consumer complaint; Affairs is also consumers”; with charged from receiving “complaints upon of a the director receipt complaint may notify the licensee and request consumer; relief for the or he may transmit the to an complaint appropriate Code, enforcement or (Bus. 129, 325, 326; regulatory & Prof. agency. §§ see infra.) fn. must director make an annual to the report Governor and Legislature, the number showing of consumer com- disposition (Bus. & Code, plaints. 327.) Prof. § With to licensed col- regard specific lection agencies, any by a collection person aggrieved action agency’s may file a written chief, with the bureau must who refer “all such statements ... . . investigation . .” The chief also report; initiate investigations (Bus. Code, licensees on his own & motion. Prof. § *5 their are of in-
Plaintiffs low allege membership primarily people who are to activities on the of come vulnerable some col- oppressive part Party lection that the Panther a news- publishes weekly Black agencies;1 to interest. community inform the of matters of common paper contend that in the files of written collection against agencies complaints records, the or available for bureau made public inspection department Act, of Code the California Public Records which consists Government by sections 6250 6260.2 through
I Act a Pertinent Records include of the California Public provisions 6250; dec- statement of in Government Code section statutory policy laration of a of of records general right public inspection records, (a); a list 14 of con- of kinds disclosure-exempt these, 6254; with a of in section cluding disclosure provision permissive a (f) to com- reference in subdivision of that section “records of specific Barquis (1972) 7 94 Cal.Rptr. 1See v. Merchants Collection Assn. Cal.3d [101 817]; Czap Valley 1 Cal.App.3d Clara 7 P.2d Credit Bureau Santa 417], Cal.Rptr. specified, numbers to the Government 2Unless otherwise statute section will refer Code. varieties; a residual of confidential category as one of exempt plaints” sections 6256 and Additionally, in section 6255.3 described records a receive a record upon a to pay- “any right copy person” give to institute fee. Section 6258 “any standing judicial ment gives person” or receive a copy enforce right inspect proceedings record. collection demand is limited regarding
Plaintiffs’ complaints extends to con raised lawsuit but the agencies, problem trial court in the The licensing generally. sumer files agencies these com (fn. construed section subdivision (f) supra), inter ambiguous from disclosure. provision requires plaints clauses It contains two describing disclosure-exempt pretation. separate clause variant but each is characterized by language: papers, (a) The first clause “records of or investigations exempts or records of information or by, security procedures conducted intelligence Justice) (who General is head of the state Attorney of” or by agencies. police files”
(b) The second clause such or “any security exempts investigatory correctional, other law enforcement compiled agencies licensing purposes. as the first case on the second of these clauses. Just present pivots so the second
clause files exempts investigatory agencies, police The first clause clause files of investigatory licensing agencies. exempts enacting Legislature, mindful chapter, 3Government Code this section 6250: “In right declares that access information privacy, individuals to finds and concerning necessary a fundamental and people’s conduct business is *6 every person of this state.” “(a) all inspection to at open Public records are Government Code section 6253: during agency every citizen has times hours the state or local and office of record, .” any . . inspect public except provided. as hereafter nothing chapter “. this be construed Government Code 6254: . shall . (f) . to or in require that . . Records of to vestigations disclosure records are: security by, intelligence procedures or conducted or information records Justice, of, any or Attorney and state Department the office of the General and the by any agency, any investigatory security compiled other police or such or files local state Nothing correctional, licensing purposes; . . . or agency or law enforcement local agency opening from its preventing is to be construed as in this section concerning agency public inspection, dis of the unless the administration records by prohibited is law.” closure otherwise withholding agency justify any record Code section 6255: “The shall Government express provisions of demonstrating is under by this making question the record in that by served not public case the interest chapter particular the facts of the or on outweighs the interest served clearly the record of the record.”
651 but clause “records the second does not. exempts complaints,” expressly or letter of not have substance warrant may may enough A complaint A of the licensee. document does status as investigation gain exempt of an file until there is some concrete of an in- part investigatory prospect 194, (Uribe v. (1971) Howie 212-213 vestigation. Cal.App.3d [96 19 493].) per se Thus written is not of an investiga- Cal.Rptr. complaint part drawn, As the of a file. California statute is nondisclosure written tory (Cf. Evans Department v. requires statutory authority. special Transportation (5th 1971) United States Cir. 446 F.2d this Arguably, comes from the in the second authority specification clause of such” “any files. To all investigatory appearances, quoted antecedent, refers to a described its phrase avoidance being purpose unnecessary The words repetition preceding description. “any be such” would did they not embrace the same records surplusage clause. preceding Had draftsman meant to exclude “records of com- clause, from second plaints” he need have only exempted investigatory files without such.” A inserting “any statute should be construed phrase force all its give words and avoid (People v. Gilbert surplusage. 475, (1969) 1 724, Cal.3d 480 580].) P.2d Cal.Rptr. [82 462 phrase such “any files” in the investigatory security second clause of subdivision (f) was as a condensed apparently designed of all the records description clause, described in the first records of including complaints.
II Textual is not analysis should be enough. Statutory ambiguities resolved to objective exhibited the entire promote legislative enact (See ment. Merrill v. Motor Vehicles (1969) 71 Cal.2d 907, 33]; Ingram 458 P.2d Justice Court Cal.Rptr. [80 69 Cal.2d 1391].) 36 A.L.R.3d Cal.Rptr. P.2d Government files hold massive collections which are divisible roughly into business revelations. decisional law Statutory private on record disclosure reveals two fundamental if somewhat compet- societal ing concerns—prevention secrecy government protection of individual “The .to privacy. know” a rubric which often people’s right *7 disclosure claims. The accompanies to know” demands ex- “right of recorded A posure official action. narrower but interest is the important of individuals whose affairs are privacy recorded in personal government files. Societal concern for on focuses minimum of privacy exposure per- sonal information collected for The governmental California purposes. alone,” courts have of with the “to let equated be right right privacy 652 of interest in dissemination must be balanced
which against information demanded democratic processes.4 after the modeled Records Act was apparently The California Public Act (5 of U.S.C. known as the Freedom Information 1966 federal statute statutes form 552), selected These disclosure with differences. although § and for the demands of an area of confluence conflicting public exposure resolve the conflict. The formulae often fail to Statutory personal privacy. affects activities to know” which records “right documenting data officials with less force to and returns of personal reports applies The latter fall within the may spotlight citizens. too by private supplied which of disclosure needs. information private persons Although personal action, it have may not itself reveal official government sharp supply relevance to into official conduct.5 inquiries Act Public Records (fn. supra)
In section 6250 the California as disclosure as well concern individual legislative privacy bespeaks dual concern business.” The same the conduct of “concerning people’s of 14 (f) the act. Subdivision of section 6254 one appears throughout section, subdivisions of that all from the general describing exemptions disclosure In these designed requirement. large part, exemptions or documents come into govern whose data protect privacy persons (c) mental For possession. example, exempts personnel an medical files “the of which would constitute unwarranted (d) invasion of financial informa Subdivision privacy.” protects personal and securi tion under financial institutions supplied legislation regulating data, (e) ties sales. Subdivision such matters plant production protects market and are obtained confidence from per “which crop reports son.” 441]; Publishing (1953) v. 228 P.2d Carlisle 4Gill Hearst Co. 40 [253 Cal.2d 405]; Publications, (1962) Cal.Rptr. see Fawcett Inc. 745 Cal.App.2d [20 Packard, Brenton, (1964); generally, Society The Naked Privacy Invaders Miller, Privacy (1964); Westin, (1967); the Com Personal Privacy and Freedom Society puter Age: Challenge Technology an a New Information-Oriented. Accuracy 1089; Karst, Legal (1969) Over the Files”: Controls Mich.L.Rev. “The 342; Accessibility (1966) Contemp. L. Harri Data 31 & Prob. Stored Personal son, (Rand Privacy Bibliography Age: An Annotated Computer The Problem in the 1967). Corp. 305], 5See, Superior Two e.g., Cal.App.2d 685 P.2d Samish v. Court Act, legislative years following Records California the 1968 enactment the Public many privacy leave championed “. . . who have cause committee observed: right privacy public’s and the statutory personal where boundary unclear government complexity workings meet. Those who know the to know the of its government practice always will that these values do not policy records realize Cal. State Assem. Statewide Information (Final remain and distinct.” separate Report, Com., 1970).) J. Sess. Assem. Policy (Reg. p. Appendix
The objectives of Public Records Act thus include of preservation islands of the broad seas of enforced disclosure. privacy upon Recognition of as a distinct privacy confirms our textual statutory goal fully interpreta- (f). tion of section subdivision Both citizens and the complaining have an interest in of of confidentiality complaints wrongdoing to the of prior formal enforcement inception or disciplinary proceedings. Effective enforcement of laws to no small extent penal depends upon readiness of citizens to of crime. often complain alleged Complainants demand The of anonymity. com- exposure discourages prospect and inhibits effective enforcement. effective plaints Similarly, of policing licensed on citizens’ readiness to occupations heavily depends complain of wrongdoing by licensees.6
In the formulation of statutory a disclosure of citizen policy governing concern extends to the as well as the complaints, public alleged wrongdoer lost, victim. has been alleged Many a life reputation many damaged, unfounded accusations of an has ethical interest wrongdoing. in protecting private from “crank” reputations against notoriety emanating or malicious accusations. for broad argue construction favoring
a strict construction against confidentiality. Neither the federal nor Cali act fornia directs broad some or narrow interpretation inter provisions of others.7 pretation We discern no mandate in the interpretive California law other than unreserved fulfillment of the statutory objectives. Cali fornia Public Records disclosure, Act evidences a legislative policy yet one which is (§ 6250.) mindful of individual privacy.
The first clause (f) of subdivision concrete to gives recognition these concerns to from policy exempting complaints police agencies disclosure. Identical concerns with characterize licens lodged Construed in the ing agencies. statutory second light objectives, clause of (f) embraces same kinds records in the hands as does the first clause in relation to licensing agencies police agencies. States, supra, 6In Evans Transportation v. at United F.2d Act, page the court signing observed of Information the federal Freedom stated; complain President had “A his citizen must be able in confidence * * * provide Government I this rec sponsors information. know bill ognize these important provide interests and intend to both the need categories protect need certain access information of Government information.” congressional plan held a liberal disclosure 7A federal court has that the “creates requirement, only by specific exemptions narrowly limited construed.” which are be 935, 938; (Bristol-Myers (D.C. 1970) Company v. F.T.C. 424 F.2d Getman (D.C. 1971) N.L.R.B. F.2d *9 654 construction phrase as as syntax, well impels
Statutory objective, of consumer files” to embrace records such investigatory “any by maintained for licensing purposes as records investigations as well Affairs. Consumer agencies 212-213, Howie, at supra, cite Uribe 19 Cal.App.3d pages v. There the court held informa- of their claim to disclosure. in support when as material only files became “investigatory” tion (See concrete and definite. of enforcement became proceedings prospect F.T.C., Plain- Company supra, v. 424 F.2d at Bristol-Myers p. also in the hands of the Bureau of Collec- many out that tiffs point are not the of current subject investigations. tion and Services Investigative Uribe, but a routine report was not a complaint In the record question but because its content a file. It could not gain exemption is, and if it became which it that when part because of use to was put, Here, content, in- their documents very of an file. investigatory their exemp- as “records entitled exemption complaints”; dependently an file. tion not creation of investigatory dependent upon
III disclosure, immune from constitutional Plaintiffs assert a right They the Public Records Act. enumerated statutory exemptions as the First Amendment bottom their constitutional claim applied upon state via the Fourteenth Amendment. only The freedom of the First Amendment encompass guarantees of available knowl to “the communicate but rights spectrum peripheral (1965) v. L.Ed.2d (Griswold Conn. 381 U.S. 482 edge.” [14 513-514, an between First 1678].) 85 S.Ct. There is undoubted connection files, those Amendment freedoms and access to government especially Nevertheless, which record illuminate official decisions judicial action. have not of access.8 In yet constitutional for this assigned ground test, a recent claim major federal Court upheld government Supreme on into constitutional secrecy statutory grounds without possible inquiry (EPA (1973) counterclaims. Mink U.S. L.Ed.2d 93 410 73 [35 827].) the “case no S.Ct. A stated that concurring opinion simply presents (Id. 136].) constitutional at at claims.” L.Ed.2d p. 94p. grounds possible suggested 8A number writers have constitutional theories Right (1959) Hennings, People’s Know claims: Constitutional Law: 667; Parks, Right Principle: Applying Open to Know A.B.A.J. Government 1; Comment, (1957) Access Under the Constitution Geo.Wash.L.Rev. Official A Neglected Constitutional 27 Ind.L.J. 209. Right Information:
Access to records is doubtless a fundamental interest of government Legislative judicial this interest vigor protecting may citizenship. a have role in delineation of a constitutional of played postponing a access. This delineation await future clash of demands for may with of executive secrecy, claims both on constitutional posited grounds. Warren, (See Secrecy: Ally (1974) Governmental Corruption’s A.B.A.J. rate, At have any been unable to uncover plaintiffs any apparently for the judicial authority that the First Amendment proposition precludes reasonable demarcation of of legislative islands nondisclosure. a
If access to citizenship functioning democracy requires general gov- files, ernment limited but interests also demand genuine restricted areas of nonaccess. Decisional law on the the subject accepts assumption a statute calling general disclosure define may re- validly reasonably nondisclosure, stricted areas of that the latter are provided justified by genuine concerns. One public policy concern is the of citizens privacy whose information into gets files. government
Overbroad claims to disclosure threaten the may individual privacy citizens noted, and accelerate the advent of the Orwellian state. As we have (f) subdivision (fn. supra) section 6254 a reflects genuine legislative concern the of citizen privacy has balanced complaints. Legislature interests and competing demarcated a limited area of nondis- permissive closure. First Amendment considerations do not this limited area preclude of legislative choice. find no We constitutional Government invalidity Code (f). section
IV a claim basis for disclosure—that the Bureau special of Collection and Services discloses Investigative routinely complaints the affected collection We sustain this claim. agencies.
Included in the record on a issued the is form” appeal “complaint bureau, for the of the the com- prepared signature complainant, revealing name, address and the with a together description complaint, plainant’s “A this be made statement: communication prepared copy available to the In a utilized in the trial licensee concerned.” declaration evidence, court of the the bureau chief of part acknowledged “common with the disclose licensee com- practice” for the The dec- plainant’s permission purpose permitting response. laration no issued made mention of the form prepared bureau; did not reconcile with privacy complainant’s alleged option licensee; to the form’s unconditional of revelation prepared warning form state
failed to whether complainant’s prepared completion into was a the collection alleged fixed inquiry agency’s prerequisite wrongdoing. omit concerning trial court entered of fact which findings finding licensees. The
the bureau’s the affected practice revealing complaints because, this as we the Public silence on score view findings’ significant, Act, licensees Records affected disclosing practice destroys the otherwise confidentiality permitted by privilege *11 (f). subdivision observed,
As we have 6254 lists 14 of disclosure- section categories 2, (fn. to 6254 material. the last sentence of section exempt According its supra), these not records do an from prevent opening exemptions agency (unless it). last sentence to some other statute forbids public inspection scheme, we section as view the endows agency legislative of the 14 to override statutory exemptions with authority discretionary when 14 some interest favors disclosure. The dominating exemp- public tions, thén, are but not nondisclosure they permissive, mandatory; permit do not its dis- disclosure. exercises prohibit agency When permissive closure follows. authority, public inspection
The defendant state to collection assert agencies authority give agencies access to citizens’ The claim and to access to deny plaintiffs. really one of to The Public Records in selective disclosure. power indulge Act but 14 that claim. After impliedly firmly listing permissible negates disclosure, 3, ante) that its (fn. from declares exemptions section 6254 do provisions concerning not from its records “any prevent agency opening the administration of the to agency inspection.” public dis nonselective inspection public necessarily implies general,
The term with not one citizen favor officials closure. It public implies its status a record loses to When disclosures denied another. en (a), section becomes available for public inspection, of these By provisions, it. force every with a inspect dows citizen Public Rec confidential. The records completely completely public choose the recipients pick ords Act denies officials any power public 9 elect copies of disclosure. defendants supply When “investigatory disclosure exempts from 9The Act federal Freedom of Information by law extent available to the purposes except files for compiled enforcement law 552(b)(7).) provision the (5 this § Under party a agency’s agency.” other than an U.S.C. investigation person or firm under investigatory material (Hawkes v. Revenue Internal requires publicly to Cir. available. it make the material 1973) 362 F.Supp. 787, 794-795; (D.D.C. v. (6th 1972) Volpe Service 467 Ditlow F.2d 175, 178.) 1321, 1325; 315 Hardin Act, C. Kenneth Professor Commenting on the federal Freedom of Information
657 for records available become public the complaints collection agencies, inspection. public
V 3, supra) authority (fn. to section 6255 defendants Finally, point statutory exemption a residual nondisclosure. That provides interest served where, case “on facts particular served interest clearly the record outweighs making of the record.” by disclosure interests, initially by
Section entails balancing Superior Court (see, Procunier then court reviewing agency, e.g., 529]; Yarish v. Nelson (1973) 35 Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.3d [110 205]). Its remand 902-903 Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. demon- a clear overbalance the side casts the burden of confidentiality on de- this burden stration To fulfill confidentiality. upon proponent fendants invoke the of the Business and Professions Code which provisions *12 to the of Affairs authorize of Consumer licensing agencies Department take consumer in an to and with licensees resolve up complaints attempt mediate disputes.10 public Davis observes: “The sole is what be made or not Act’s concern with must public. provides private parties The to some and with- made holding formation is to made available ‘to the tion Act never for disclosure U.S.C., provision says § main of that in- 552] from others. The section public’ be provision and the central of subsec- (c) [id., (3)] (a) ‘any requires availability person.’ subsec. of to records (( consequence legislative departure customary practices “One from the of normal is having knowing special to those a reason for and withhold
people, who often disclose Act, from who do . . information is either those not. . the Ur.cle Sam’s [U]nder public. requires protected made or not Act it be from all made never to except special those who have a for it. need consequence limiting public’ of Act’s to disclosures ‘to the provisions “Another the any balancing party one person’ preclude private and ‘to is to the of the interest of against balancing private party. another . . . the Act such is the interest of a [U]nder ” (Davis, parties equal satisfying ‘any person.’ All inappropriate. Administrative the words 3A.4, 120-121.) (1970 § Supp.) pp. Law Treatise disclosure, against exemptions protect required At “The not point another he states: 3A.5, (Id., against p. § disclosure.” (c): [licensing subdivision “The 10Business and Professions Code shall, notify agency] person against it the whom appropriate, when the board deems may relief complaint, request appropriate is made of the nature of the the complainant meet confer with the and the licentiate complainant, the and Nothing be complaint. mediate in this subdivision shall construed as in order to charged by modify any requiring any board to set or to fee a licentiate.” authorizing ór duty be of 325: “It shall from the director [of Professions Code section Business and ...(c) concerning viola complaints consumers Consumer tions receive Affairs] by relating professions any to businesses and licensed of of this code provisions regulations promulgated pursuant thereto . . . .” department, and of the (a): “Upon receipt of Code section and Professions Business statutes, These out, as defendants manifest a point legislative policy licensees as an encourage voluntary by alternative to compliance formal Disclosure which discipline. regulated firm conform helps person enforcement of the law agency’s serves understanding goals Service, (See law supra, enforcement. Hawkes v. Internal Revenue 795.) Thus, F.2d at interests, in the p. end is balancing served by mediation of Consumer policy Affairs and its licensing agencies.
Physical to licensees delivery consumer copies complaints an essential means to that (fn. supra) end. The mediation statutes do not call for delivery, but authorize notification physical only “of nature- complaint.” licensing agencies may readily conduct mediation without a investigation universal or selective practice furnishing accused licensees with It consumer is unrealistic copies complaints. contend otherwise. The interest in that does not practice outweigh all) (clearly or at interest in encouraging pro- visional assurances of confidentiality. 6255, moreover,
Section does not authorize the selective disclosure as- serted defendants. The Public Records Act is logically cohesively designed carry out its broad disclosure and its narrower goal objective Defendants’ privacy. claim of “clear” overbalance in favor of confiden- tiality their accompanies selective disclosure to the accused practice licensees and nondisclosure to all others. That serves to practice discourage because it defeats assurances of provisional confidentiality *13 6254, which section (f), subdivision offers to citizens. The last complaining sentence of section 6254 denies officials the to favor one public power with disclosures denied to another. Section no 6255 more authorizes citizen selective disclosure than does section 6254. Neither statute withholds from one citizen what another citizen is to see. Neither the permitted permits custodian to balance “the interest of one the against private party cit., interest (Davis, 9, of another op. supra.) fn. private party.” VI (§ 6258) The Public Records Act confers on “any standing per son” to seek to his to injunctive relief enforce access declaratory records. As a matter of law defendants’ consumer furnishing practice the to affected licensees was a in complaints material factor the decision the lawsuit. The trial court but entered omitted a on findings finding complaint pursuant notify Section the may director Consumer [of Affairs] against complaint whom the person is made of the nature of the complaint request relief for the consumer.” appropriate issue is error. find on a material reversible Failure factor. that material 1971) 3139.) It is that (2d ed. Witkin, p. appropriate (4 Cal. Procedure of defendants’ dis- demand the light reconsider plaintiffs’ court trial ad- with statutory interpretation and in conformity closure practices in this vanced opinion. of the courts. In Act jurisdiction utilizes Public Records equity
The (Loma the interest of general considers public. its decree equity shaping Airlines, Inc. 61 Cal.2d Club American Portal Civil issue is one of law 548].) Because the 394 P.2d Cal.Rptr. defend- including these agencies, agencies, licensing a number affecting their disclosure ants, policies have an reappraise should opportunity that court should defendants The trial provide of this light opinion. opportunity. the trial and the cause remanded to court for
The is reversed judgment further proceedings.
Janes, J., concurred. REGAN, J. dissent. The facts are not in have I dispute. plaintiffs the Bureau of access all con- made demand on Collection Agencies with bureau collection agencies. sumer filed licensed complaints against is re- to the consumer access stated Plaintiff’s purpose so Panther can this information the Black quired they newspaper, publish the collection and seriousness number rating according agencies the complaints. make available to them all request plaintiffs against
collection was refused the Bureau of Collection and agencies Investiga- tive Services on that the with ground together investigative complaints, thereto, records; material are not that such is appurtenant specifically from disclosure under Code section Government (f). The chief advised that where a has deputy further plaintiffs *14 resulted in formal the to those documents disciplinary proceedings, relating are a matter record and proceedings are available to public plaintiffs. the because many disclose the does not complaints The bureau and are submitted confidence they indicate of those filing complaints to the collection agency the contents of the disclosing that before obtain the they the allegations, expressed of response purposes bureau From the experience, of the complainant. previous written consent in a com- information contained disclosure of learned that the premature the licensee the was in afforded while the progress investigation plaint evidence, and that consumer are opportunity suppress many complaints and false malicious.
Government Code section 6253 that “Public records are provides open at all the office hours the times state or local inspection during agency record, and has a citizen as here- every right inspect any public except after provided.”1 documents, records,
Government Code section 6254 lists various and that are other items from disclosure under the Public Records Act. exempt is issue whether consumer collection controversy complaints against (f) under which agencies section exempt provides subdivision that “Records of to or conducted or records investigations by, complaints of, information or the office of the At- intelligence security procedures Justice, General or torney any state local or such or police files agency, any investigatory security by any compiled correctional, or other state local law enforcement agency licensing . not, . .” are from If can disclosure. purposes exempt requirement the bureau withhold these consumer from under the plaintiffs alternative in Government section provision Code 6255 which provides that “The shall agency justify record any by demonstrating withholding that the record is under of this question exempt express provisions or that on the facts of the chapter case the interest served particular the record making public clearly outweighs interest served by disclosure of the record.”
The trial determined court that consumer’s were from (f), under Govern- ment Code.
Business Professions Code section 6925 provides any person file aggrieved may with the Bureau of Collection and Services Investigative a written statement acts of misconduct or violations of collection alleging which shall be referred agencies by the chief of the bureau for investiga- tion and Section 6947 of Business and Code lists report. Professions various acts which a collection from Section agency doing. prohibited 6863 of the Business and Professions Code authorizes the chief enforce such rules and be reasonable or for the regulations may necessary pro- tection wilful violation of rules and public. regulations The. established for the conduct of a licensee is sufficient for the revoca- ground Legislature’s enacting 1The purpose declaration Public Records Act is found in enacting Government Code section states “In this chapter, which that: Legislature, privacy, mindful of of individuals to finds and declares that *15 concerning the access information conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental every person necessary and in this state.” Code, (Bus. & Prof. §§ action. or other disciplinary tion his license Affairs, the named one of the Director of Consumer 6930.) Additionally, be he considers to defendants, is to transmit any complaint authorized enforcement law a violation of law appropriate a valid charge legal to undertake Attorney appropriate General or request agency, Code, 326.) (Bus. & Prof. § action. an a initiates
Thus, the above consumer’s complaint under provisions, which could result the bureau a collection agency investigation the' license after an administrative hearing the revocation of agency’s (Gov. Code, Act. 11500 et in the Administrative Procedure § provided in- would be written consumer’s Presumably complaint original seq.) if the initial investiga- file of the bureau. Even cluded in investigatory basis until tion that there is no foundation or for complaint, establishes reached, is, this is the bureau section 6925 conclusion pursuant Code, so that file too matter investigating Business Professions within the of govern- would be considered an file investigatory meaning (f). ment Code section information
It has been that an file exists whenever said investigatory or whether determining is collected for actively passively purpose or or whether not a license should be revoked disciplinary proceedings (53 be should initiated. Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. disclosure, Bu- that the basis namely, urging special disclose
reau of Services Investigative routinely Collection to the affected statement accompanying collection agencies, points “A of this communication the bureau’s form” stating, copy “complaint that concludes be made available to the licensee concerned.” majority of disclosure-exempt Government Code section 6254 lists categories material; they not mandatory; that such permit exemptions permissive, it; and, exercises its that when the agency disclosure but do not prohibit Code, (Gov. follows. authority, inspection permissive com- (f).) subd. cannot so conclude. The disclosing I practice § an necessary affected licensees is integral procedure prop- plaints can this state in the filed. How else erly investigate complaint charges indi- an an unlawful upon the claim of practice perpetrated agency process checked, which necessi- in each case vidual unless the factual situation tates, effect, with the made of the licensee charge against a confrontation its the record to lose of itself cause it. Such should not practice The mere at inspection. status and become available point false, should true containing of a consumer filing charges, thereof. trigger publication *16 if it
Even be deemed that consumers’ do not fall within the 6254, (f), I believe the bureau has sus- exemption tained its burden in the nondisclosure of justifying the consumers’ com- it plaints receives that by interest served showing not by making the record public clearly interest served outweighs by of the record. claims,
As the bureau it would be a deterrent to those who have a if legitimate knew that their complaint they was be made complaint (See Superior Chronicle Pub. Co. v. public. Court 54 Cal.2d 567-569 637].) Moreover, 354 P.2d Cal.Rptr. to disclose a con [7 sumer’s an alleges offense violation a rule or law which later is to be unfounded is proven to the unjust agency subject complaint. case,
In the instant
interest served
the con
by
making
sumers’ complaints
public clearly outweighs
interest served
Court,
disclosure of
(See
the record.
Chronicle Pub.
v. Superior
supra,
Co.
I would affirm judgment. Court was denied Respondents’ petition hearing Supreme Richardson, J., December 1974. did not therein. participate