Rivero

Rivero v. Superior Court of S.F.

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 338·54 Cal. App. 4th 1048·63 Cal. Rptr. 2d 213·97 Daily Journal DAR 5527·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3165
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 30, 1997A075959California4,320 words

Opinion

Opinion

Corrigan, J.

Here we hold that neither the California Public Records Act (CPRA) (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.) nor the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (Ordinance) (S.F. Admin. Code, ch. 67) compels disclosure of district attorney criminal investigation files. Section 25303 prevents a county board of supervisors from obstructing the investigatory and prosecutorial functions of a district attorney. Applying the ordinance as petitioner here urges would constitute such an obstruction.

Facts and Procedural History

In 1994, San Francisco District Attorney Arlo Smith received information leading to the investigation of a local official for failing to account properly for public funds. The district attorney’s office maintained a confidential file of its investigation, which ended with a decision “not to prosecute for lack of evidence of any criminal wrongdoing.” According to the deputy in charge, the office “closed its file on the matter.”

On October 18, 1995, Francisco Jose Rivero, a former police officer who had instigated the investigation, presented a written request for the complete investigation file. Rivero cited the CPRA and the Ordinance. He referred to a deputy city attorney’s…

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.