Privacy Issues in the Workplace

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 substantial hurdles in obtaining disclosure. The publisher argued next that because the civil service commission that considered the peace officer’s disciplinary appeal was not technically his “employer,” Section 832.7’s protections would not apply. The Court rejected that argument as well, reasoning that the protections of Section 832.7 should not turn on the happenstance of whether the appeal system was structured so that a civil service commission rather than an employing agency heard an employee’s administrative appeal. Finally, the newspaper made generalized arguments for access based on the common law and constitutional principles, which the Court rejected. 361 Technically, Copley applies only to requests for administrative appeal materials for peace officers, because the case rests on the Public Records Act, Section 6254’s incorporation of specific laws applicable to peace officer records, such as California Penal Code section 832.7. But Copley’s general reasoning and approach should help with protection of the discipline records for other types of public employees as well, particularly if the employer can locate specific laws restricting disclosure of the type of information in question. In Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach 362 , the California Supreme Court reviewed whether police departments are required to disclose the names of officers involved in shooting incidents while on duty in response to a Public Records Act request. The Court declined to adopt a blanket rule that required or denied the disclosure of the names. Instead, the Court required an assessment based upon the particular facts of each case to determine whether a sufficient particularized showing of threat of harm had been made by the department to prevent disclosure of the names. In that particular case, Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v, City of Long Beach , the Court found that the required showing had not been made and that the names would need to be disclosed. f. Disclose the Names of Peace Officers Involved In a Critical Incident Unless a Particularized Showing of Threat of Harm Has Been Made g. Report Prepared following Officer-Involved Shooting Is Subject to Disclosure Once Peace Officer Personnel Information is Redacted In Pasadena Police Officers Association v. Superior Court 363 , a California court of appeals court determined that the Pasadena Police Department had redacted too much information before producing a report prepared by an independent consultant in response to a Public Records Act

Privacy Issues in the Workplace ©2019 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 108