A&A: What’s the law regarding destruction of public records?

Q: What section of California law deals with retention and destruction of public records?

A: California has several statutes addressing document destruction/retention. With respect to city governments, Government Code Section 34090 requires that the city retain any record that is less than two years old:

  • Unless otherwise provided by law, with the approval of the legislative body by resolution and the written consent of the city attorney, the head of a city department may destroy any city record, document, instrument, book or paper, under his charge, without making a copy thereof, after the same is no longer required.
  • This section does not authorize the destruction of:

(a) Records affecting the title to real property or liens thereon.
(b) Court records.
(c) Records required to be kept by statute.
(d) Records less than two years old.
(e) The minutes, ordinances, or resolutions of the legislative body or of a city board or commission.

  • This section shall not be construed as limiting or qualifying in any manner the authority provided in Section 34090.5 for the destruction of records, documents, instruments, books and papers in accordance with the procedure therein prescribed.  Gov’t Code Section 34090.

Effective January 2010, however, “the legislative body of a city may prescribe a procedure whereby duplicates of city records less than two years old may be destroyed if they are no longer required,” notwithstanding Section 34090. Gov’t Code Section 34090.7.

Other statutory conditions are set forth for destruction of public records by “the city officer having custody” of them:

  • Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 34090, the city officer having custody of public records, documents, instruments, books, and papers, may, without the approval of the legislative body or the written consent of the city attorney, cause to be destroyed any or all of the records, documents, instruments, books, and papers, if all of the following conditions are complied with:
    • (a) The record, paper, or document is photographed, microphotographed, reproduced by electronically recorded video images on magnetic surfaces, recorded in the electronic data processing system, recorded on optical disk, reproduced on film or any other medium that is a trusted system and that does not permit additions, deletions, or changes to the original document, or reproduced on film, optical disk, or any other medium in compliance with Section 12168.7 for recording of permanent records or nonpermanent records.
    • (b) The device used to reproduce the record, paper, or document on film, optical disk, or any other medium is one which accurately and legibly reproduces the original thereof in all details and that does not permit additions, deletions, or changes to the original document images.
    • (c) The photographs, microphotographs, or other reproductions on film, optical disk, or any other medium are made as accessible for public reference as the original records were.
    • (d) A true copy of archival quality of the film, optical disk, or any other medium reproductions shall be kept in a safe and separate place for security purposes.
  • However, no page of any record, paper, or document shall be destroyed if any page cannot be reproduced on film with full legibility. Every unreproducible page shall be permanently preserved in a manner that will afford easy reference.
  • For the purposes of this section, every reproduction shall be deemed to be an original record and a transcript, exemplification, or certified copy of any reproduction shall be deemed to be a transcript, exemplification, or certified copy, as the case may be, of the original.   Gov’t Code Section 34090.5.
  • With respect to recordings of video monitoring and telephone and radio communications:
    • (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 34090, the head of a department of a city or city and county, after one year, may destroy recordings of routine video monitoring, and after 100 days may destroy recordings of telephone and radio communications maintained by the department. This destruction shall be approved by the legislative body and the written consent of the agency attorney shall be obtained. In the event that the recordings are evidence in any claim filed or any pending litigation, they shall be preserved until pending litigation is resolved.
    • (b) For purposes of this section, “recordings of telephone and radio communications” means the routine daily recording of telephone communications to and from a city, city and county, or department, and all radio communications relating to the operations of the departments.
    • (c) For purposes of this section, “routine video monitoring” means video recording by a video or electronic imaging system designed to record the regular and ongoing operations of the departments described in subdivision (a), including mobile in-car video systems, jail observation and monitoring systems, and building security recording systems.
    • (d) For purposes of this section, “department” includes a public safety communications center operated by the city or city and county.

Cal Gov Code § 34090.6. Newly enacted Section 34090.7 further provides that “video recording media, including recordings of ‘routine video monitoring’ pursuant to Section 34090.6, shall be considered duplicate records if the city keeps another record, such as written minutes or an audio recording, of the event that is recorded in the video medium.

However, a video recording medium shall not be destroyed or erased pursuant to this section for a period of at least 90 days after occurrence of the event recorded thereon.”

Finally, another statute makes it a crime to destroy certain records:

  • Every officer having the custody of any record, map, or book, or of any paper or proceeding of any court, filed or deposited in any public office, or placed in his or her hands for any purpose, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years if, as to the whole or any part of the record, map, book, paper, or proceeding, the officer willfully does or permits any other person to do any of the following:
      • a) Steal, remove, or secrete.
      • b) Destroy, mutilate, or deface.
    • c) Alter or falsify.”

        Gov’t Code Section 6200.

One Comment

  • At an unrelated hearing on 12/02/10, I asked the Commissioner to investigation the disappearance of seven (7) documents filed by me on 11/24/10 and noticed for a 12/23/10 hearing. He refused and said “they’ll turnup.” He also denied my TRO for harassment. My $40.00 filing fee check was attached to the documents; which were a Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses and five (5) Separate statements in Support for each of the defendants, and a Judicial Council form Request to Record the 12/02/10 hearing. The limited civil case is Koresko v. Benz Propane, et al, M1502-CL-18515. Any suggestions on how I might proceed civilly or criminally? The case has turned from civilized business litigation to gutter litigation by the benzes and their cohorts – their slick-tongued L.A. attorney included. I am aware of Govet C §6200 et seq. but I want to press this issue with all the force I can muster and go federal if I can because kern county politicians are bought and sold by the benzez and it looks like they cane even reach into the clerks office.

Comments are closed.