Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training v. Superior Court

This case presents the question whether the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.) requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (Commission) to disclose the names, employing departments, and hiring and termination dates of California peace officers included in the Commission’s database. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment rendered by the superior court, which directed that the records be disclosed, because of the appellate court’s conclusion that this information is obtained from peace officer personnel records which, under Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8, 1 may not be disclosed except under certain statutorily prescribed circumstances. We conclude that the records at issue are not rendered confidential by those two statutes and that the records do not come within any of the exemptions contained in the Public Records Act. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal. Upon remand to the superior court, the Commission may seek to establish that information regarding particular officers or categories of officers should be excised from the disclosed records because the safety or efficacy of the officers would be…

The majority holds that a public agency charged with improving and maintaining the professional qualifications of California’s peace officers must disclose for the years 1991 through 2001 the names, employing agencies, hiring dates, and firing dates of all peace officers in the state. I agree with the majority that the statutes in question require the release of the requested peace officer names. But I do not agree that the relevant statutes permit disclosure of each peace officer’s employing agency or agencies and the dates of each officer’s hiring and termination by that agency or agencies, because in my view that information is “employment history,” which the Legislature has expressly made confidential under Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8.

I

The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) is a state agency that is responsible for statewide training and certifying the qualifications of peace officers. It collects information maintained in a electronic database on virtually every peace and custodial officer in the state. This case arises from a request by the Los Angeles Times to POST for information from that database listing the names, employing agencies,…

As a court, we have a “limited role” in interpreting statutes enacted by the Legislature. (California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of Rialto Unified School Dist. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 627, 632 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 671 , 927 P.2d 1175 ] (California Teachers).) Our role is “not to establish policy” (Carrisales v. Department of Corrections (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1132, 1140 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 804 , 988 P.2d 1083 ]) or to “inquir[e] into the ‘wisdom’ of’ the Legislature’s “policy choices.” (People v. Bunn (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1, 17 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 192 , 37 P.3d 380 ].) It is to “follow the Legislature’s intent, *307 as exhibited by the plain meaning of the actual words of the law, ‘ “ ‘whatever may be thought of the wisdom, expediency, or policy of the act.’ ” ’ [Citation.]” (California Teachers, supra, at p. 632.) In short, we have neither prerogative nor power “to substitute our public policy judgment for that of the Legislature. [Citation.]” (Thomas v. City of Richmond (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1154, 1165 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 442 , 892 P.2d 1185 ].)

In my view, the Legislature’s intent, as exhibited by the plain meaning of the relevant statutory language, was to include the information requested here from…

Davis Wright Tremaine, Kelli L. Sager, Alonzo Wickers IV, Rochelle L. Wilcox, Los Angeles; and Karlene W. Goller, Los Angeles, for Real Party in Interest.

Law Offices of Merrick J. Bobb and Merrick J. Bobb, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.

Levy, Ram & Olson, Karl Olson, San Francisco; Thomas W. Newton; Jon Donnellan; Stephen J. Burns, Sacramento; Harold W. Fuson, Jr., La Jolla; Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, James E. Grossberg; Charles Glasser; DLP Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, James Chadwick, San Francisco; Peter Scheer, San Francisco; Lucy A Daglish and Gregg P. Leslie, for California Newspapers Publishers Association, Hearst Corporation, Contra Costa Newspapers, Inc., McClatchy Company, The Copley Press, Freedom Communications, Inc., dba The Orange County Register, Associated Press, Bloomberg News, San Jose Mercury News. California First Amendment Coalition and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.

Alan L. Schlosser, Mark Schlosberg, San Francisco; Peter Eliasberg, Los Angeles; Law Offices of Amitai Schwartz, Amitai Schwartz, Lisa Sitkin, Emeryville; and Jordan C. Budd, San Diego, for ACLU of…