City of Hemet v. Superior Court

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 824·37 Cal. App. 4th 1411·44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 532·44 Cal. Rptr. 532·95 Daily Journal DAR 11542
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 24, 1995E015439California8,255 words

Opinion

Opinion

McKINSTER, J.

In this matter we issued an alternative writ of mandate to consider whether real party, the Press-Enterprise newspaper, is entitled to obtain certain records from petitioner, the City of Hemet (City), under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.) The trial court ordered disclosure of certain records; however, we conclude that real party is not entitled to the records under the CPRA, and will issue the writ as prayed.

Statement of the Case

Chuck Steadman, a police sergeant for the City, became concerned over drug use at the high school attended by his children. He collected certain information, and eventually faxed to school officials a list of students he believed to be involved in the use and/or sale of drugs. The faxed memorandum also reported that a deputy sheriff was aware of the dmg use but did not prevent or disclose it because one of the students had a photograph of the deputy smoking marijuana and threatened to publicize it.

This action by Sergeant Steadman became the subject of some public interest when the memorandum, which had been intended for the sole use of a vice-principal, was circulated or shown to other persons. The City…

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.