Office of Inspector General v. Superior Court

Good Law
117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 388·189 Cal. App. 4th 695·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1848·38 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2409
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 6, 2010C064178California4,996 words

Opinion

Opinion

Cantil-Sakauye, J.

In August 2009, Phillip Garrido was arrested for kidnapping a young girl, holding her hostage for 18 years, and repeatedly sexually assaulting her, producing two children. For the 10 years prior to his arrest, Garrido was under the parole supervision of California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) which failed to discover either parole violations by Garrido or the existence of his victims. The discovery of the kidnapping victim and her children and the arrest of Garrido and his wife generated extensive media coverage, with considerable focus on CDCR’s parole supervision of Garrido. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted an investigation into CDCR’s parole supervision and concluded CDCR failed to adequately classify and supervise Garrido and missed opportunities to discover the existence of his three victims.

The Sacramento Bee, KCRA-TV, and the San Francisco Chronicle made various requests under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.) to CDCR and OIG for information relating to Garrido’s parole. For the most part, these requests were denied. The Sacramento Bee, KCRA-TV and the San Francisco Chronicle…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.