California Driver’s License Numbers and the CPRA

Answer

As you may know, California’s Public Records Act provides that all documents created, owned, or maintained by a public agency are presumptively available for public inspection unless one of the PRA’s exemptions applies.  Govt. Code § 6253(a).  One of the exemptions built into the PRA is for “personnel, medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”  Govt. Code § 6254(c).  It is not clear, however, whether this exemption would apply to driver’s license information for licensed businesses, as such records would not necessarily be “personnel, medical, or similar files,” and the disclosure of the information would not necessarily constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.  The PRA also has a “catch-all” exemption that authorizes the withholding of records if “on the facts of the particular case [the agency demonstrates that] the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.”  Govt. Code § 6255(a).

I am not aware of any specific authority on whether driver’s license information for licensed businesses must be made available or redacted from public records.  Striking a balance between individual privacy and public access to government records is rarely easy, and questions like yours are the subject of frequent debate.  A 1986 Attorney General opinion concluded that CHP motor carrier records related to the transportation of hazardous materials — including license and permit information — were not exempt under the PRA.  69 Ops. Atty. Gen. Cal. 129 (June 18, 1986).  The considerations in that case, however, including the importance of access to information about those transporting hazardous materials, might not be present with respect to business licenses.  Similarly, in CBS, Inc. v. Block, 42 Cal. 3d 646 (1986), the Supreme Court of California decided that the broadcasting company CBS should be able to inspect applications for licenses to carry concealed weapons and actual licenses issued.  While recognizing the privacy interest of individuals in their personal information, the court concluded that in the case of information voluntarily supplied for the privilege of carrying a concealed weapon, such privacy interest did not outweigh the public’s interest in ensuring that public officials acted properly in issuing the licenses. Id.  The court said that “[i]f the press and the public are precluded from learning the names of concealed weapons’ licensees and the reasons claimed in support of the licenses, there will be no method by which the public can ascertain whether the law is being properly applied or carried out in an evenhanded manner.” Id. at 656.  Again, this reasoning might not apply with equal force to information about licensed businesses.