Traffic Citations and the CPRA
Q: I have questions in two areas of the CPRA: 1. Are traffic citations written by local police agencies records that can (have been) released under CPRA? I’m not an attorney so I’m not sure if these documents would constitute a record of an “arrest” per se since the violator has, in essence, been detained and released on the spot or if they would be considered part of an “investigative” file. If you believe that they can and or have been released in the past I’m assuming one would word the request such that any confidential information (driver’s license, address info etc.) can be redacted. Any experience in this area?
A: Your questions seem to go to whether the Public Records Act grants an exemption to certain types of records. As you are apparently already aware, Cal. Gov. Code sec. 6254 contains a list of types of records that are not subject to the disclosure requirements of the CPRA.
(1) Traffic citations: We are not aware of traffic citations being treated as the equivalent of “arrest records,” which, at least in part, are required to be disclosed under Sec. 6254()f)(1) (requiring disclosure of the name, occupation, and physical description of “every individual arrested,” as well as information about the circumstances surrounding the arrest, but not the arrest “records” themselves, see Williams v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 337, 348, 360-361). However, Sec. 6254(f) does provide that a state or local police agency must disclose certain information about their investigation of an “incident,” including the “names and addresses of persons involved,” witnesses, description of property involved, the date, time and location, and statements of parties and witnesses to the victims, except to the extent disclosure of these records would “reflect the analysis or conclusions of the investigating officer.” It appears that traffic citation reports, or at least much of the information that would be contained in them, would fit this description, and therefore would be subject to disclosure under the CPRA. See also Vallejos v. California Highway Patrol, 89 Cal. App. 3d 781, 787 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979) (holding that “the entire contents” of certain accident reports were to be disclosed).
(2) Source Document for Cal-Gang Database: Although we are not familiar with the Cal-Gang Database, or the procedure for submitting names, it seems possible that at least some of the information contained in the source document you are seeking would be subject to disclosure under the sections described above, either as an “incident” report or information contained in an arrest record. Again, this is subject to the exception for records that would “reflect the analysis or conclusions of the investigating officer.”
(3) Daily Field Activity Report: As with traffic citations, from your description of these reports it would appear that at least part of the information contained in them, if not the reports themselves, would be subject to disclosure under Sec. 6254(f).
Finally, you asked about what to do if agencies do not respond adequately to your request. The CPRA requires an agency that is withholding records to justify its decision “by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of [the CPRA] or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.” Cal. Gov. Code Sec. 6255(a). If you made your request in writing, the response must be in writing as well. Sec. 6255(b).
Beyond this, the CPRA provides the right for any person to start court proceedings to enforce the right to inspect records. Sec. 6258. The court of “competent jurisdiction” is typically the superior court for the county in which the agency at issue is located, or where the records are located. Sec. 6259(a). While we do not maintain sample complaints, the attached document is an example of a verified petition in a public records act case. Finally, if a plaintiff is successful in showing that the agency was not justified in failing to disclose the records, the court “shall award costs and reasonable attorney fees.” Sec. 6259(d).