Q: I am having difficulty obtaining the autopsy records from the reported mass shooting in Thousand Oaks on November 7-8, 2018. My understanding is Autopsy Records are public records in the State of California. How do I force the Medical Examiner’s hand? I’ve been asking about these since November. They don’t even cite an exemption from the PRA.
A: The California Public Records Act (CPRA) sets forth the rules and procedures governing information disclosures made by public agencies, including coroner’s offices. Public records are open to inspection by members of the public unless they are exempt from disclosure by express exemptions codified in the Act. Cal. Gov. Code § 6253.
It sounds like you have inquired about the autopsy records, but if you have not yet done so, you should make a written request. When a public agency receives a written request for public records, it has ten days to determine whether the request seeks copies of disclosable records, and to either disclose them or to cite an applicable exemption and its reasoning why that exemption applies. Cal. Gov. Code § 6253(c). Sample text for drafting your request can be found on the First Amendment Coalition’s website here.
Because a coroner’s report is a writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared by a state or local agency, it is a record within the meaning of the California Public Records Act (“PRA”). There do not appear to be any California published cases addressing the disclosure of coroner’s records under the PRA.
However, in a case addressing the ability of a criminal defendant to obtain a copy of an autopsy report in order to prepare his defense, a California Court of Appeal held that, because California law requires coroners to investigate cause of death and keep records of the investigation, and the predecessor statute to the current Public Records Act made records open to the public, “[a]n autopsy report is a record that the coroner is required to keep and is therefore a public record which a citizen may inspect.” Walker v. Superior Court, 155 Cal. App. 2d 134, 139 (1957). This case has been followed by several other cases confirming the admissibility of coroner’s reports over hearsay objections, based on their status as “public records.” People v. Clark, 3 Cal. 4th 41, 158 (1992); People v. Wardlow, 118 Cal. App. 3d 375, 388 (1981); People v. Williams, 174 Cal. App. 2d 364, 390-91 (1959).
The statutory and case law generally supports a right of access to coroners’ reports. Nevertheless, please be aware that courts have become increasingly sensitive to concerns about personal privacy, and both private parties and public agencies now routinely invoke the California Constitution’s privacy provision as a justification for non-disclosure.
As a result, the entirety of a coroner’s report should be available for public access, subject to potential privacy concerns and the provisions of California Government Code section 27491.8.
Note that the CPRA contains a very broad exemption for police investigatory records. Specifically, Cal. Gov. Code § 6254(f) exempts “[r]ecords of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of…any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes.” The coroner’s office might invoke this exemption in denying any request for records created as part of a murder investigation. Note that the investigatory records exemption applies to investigatory records even after an investigation has concluded. Williams v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. 4th 337, 356 (1993).
However, you likely have a good argument based on the authorities cited above that, as to the office of the Medical Examiner (if not the investi
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner 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. No attorney-client relationship has been formed by way of this response.