Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace

factual investigation and did not provide legal advice. The case involved a discovery dispute and was not the California Public Records Act. However, it is likely that the same analysis would apply to allow a public agency to rely on the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine in refusing to disclose an attorney prepared investigation report. Public agencies must carefully evaluate any requests for investigation and disciplinary documents. With the exception of police officer personnel records which are subject to some additional protection under the law, a public agency may be required to release such documents. The California Supreme Court has limited access to records of police investigations except for certain information about crimes and arrests. The court rejected news media arguments that the state public records law must follow federal (Freedom of Information Act) disclosure standards. Under federal standards, an investigative record must be released unless it would interfere with enforcement or a fair trial, violate privacy, identify a confidential informant or endanger someone’s life. In City of Hemet v. Superior Court , 333 the court held that a police department internal investigation report relating to allegations of police misconduct was protected from disclosure under the Public Records Act as records the disclosure of which was exempted or prohibited by the confidentiality provisions of Penal Code section 832.7. Finally, the Public Records Act mandates that a party who prevails in a lawsuit pursuant to the Act is entitled to attorneys’ fees. 334 Consequently, public agencies should consider seeking consent for disclosure of possibly confidential records prior to refusing such Public Records Act requests. administrative appeal from discipline were exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act. In Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court , a San Diego newspaper’s publisher sought to obtain information regarding a deputy sheriff’s administrative appeal of his termination. The County of San Diego and San Diego Civil Service Commission refused to make full disclosure of the records, and the California Supreme Court ultimately upheld their decision. The Court observed that Government Code Section 6254(k) of the CPRA protected “[r]ecords, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law . . . .” One such state law, the Court observed, is California Penal Code section 832.7(a), which provides that certain “[p]eace officer or custodial officer” records and “information obtained from these records [ ] are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery pursuant to Sections 1043 and 1046 of the Evidence Code.” The statute applies to “personnel records,” which California Penal Code section 832.8 defines as “any file maintained under [an officer's] name by his or her employing agency and containing records relating to,” among other things, “[p]ersonal data” and “[e]mployee advancement, appraisal, or discipline.” The publisher argued that by its terms Section 832.7’s protection applied only to requests made in civil and criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court rejected the argument, reasoning that the statutory framework did not support the anomalous result that the public could freely request discipline records under the Public Records Act, whereas civil and criminal litigants faced e. Peace Office Administrative Appeal from Discipline The California Supreme Court determined that records relating to a peace officer’s

Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace ©2019 (c) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 104