Q: I am considering volunteering for a local sheriff’s department. I was given a 14 page document by the department to fill out with lots of background information questions. Some questions are more personal than others. I have no issue supplying them BUT I am curious if this ‘volunteer information’ form becomes subject to CPRA requests by the public once I hand it into the sheriff’s department?
I’ve tried to find the information on the website; but there doesn’t seem to be any specific reference to these kind of forms.
Q: I am considering volunteering for a local sheriff’s department. I was given a 14 page document by the department to fill out with lots of background information questions. Some questions are more personal than others. I have no issue supplying them BUT I am curious if this ‘volunteer information’ form becomes subject to CPRA requests by the public once I hand it into the sheriff’s department?
I’ve tried to find the information on the website; but there doesn’t seem to be any specific reference to these kind of forms.
A: The starting point with respect to California’s Public Records Act is that a public record, which includes “any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics,” Gov’t Code section 6252(e), is presumed to be open to the public and must be disclosed unless a specific provision of the Act
or other law exempts them from disclosure.
The PRA contains numerous exemptions – some of them specific, some more general. There is no exemption I could find that applies specifically to applications such as the one you may fill out for purposes of being a sheriff’s volunteer. There is a so-called “catch-all” exemption that agencies often invoke, although this exemption requires a strong showing that on the facts of the particular case, the public interest in withholding the record from public view far outweighs the public interest in releasing the record. Gov’t Code § 6255. This exemption is broad and undefined, and is often improperly invoked by agencies when no other exemption applies. In any case, both the PRA and court decisions interpreting the PRA require the law and its exemptions to be narrowly construed in favor of disclosure.
There is one decision involving applications in which the court determined that two PRA exemptions applied, and thus the agency (in this case, the governor’s office) could withhold those records from public view. That case is factually distinguishable from the situation you describe, though it’s worth a mention here.
In that case, California First Amendment Coalition v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 4th 159 (1998), the court found an exemption specific to correspondence to and from the governor exempted applications for a vacant county supervisor’s seat, and also found the “deliberative process exemption,” which is a variation of the catch-all exemption and also requires a balancing of the public’s interest in disclosure vs. nondisclosure, also applied. Again, this exemption is relatively amorphous, but the court, in finding the governor was not required to disclose the applications, determined that “[d]isclosure would likely reduce the applicant pool and the candor of those who apply.” Id. at 164, 172.
In your situation, given the PRA is intended to foster disclosure of records held by the government, the default should be that the records could be released to an inquiring member of the public, and therefore you may want to make your decision as to whether to fill out the application in the first place in light of this possibility. Even though this particular position is a volunteer position, there’s a public interest in knowing about those who engage with public officials on a regular basis. If there is any information in the application that could be legitimately exempted from disclosure, then that information can be redacted, with the rest of the application released to the public.
And in any case, you should be commended for considering volunteering with the sheriff’s department. I wish you the best of luck.
Bryan Cave LLP is general counsel for the First Amendment Coalition and responds to FAC hotline inquiries. In responding to these inquiries, we can give general information regarding open government and speech issues but cannot provide specific legal advice or representation.