Denied request for identities of homicide victims four years after the crime

Answer

It would seem likes names would fall into the narrow category of information that is required to be disclosed about police investigations under Government Code § 6254(f).

As you may be aware, the Public Records Act contains a general exemption for police investigatory records; however, certain information is required to be disclosed related to police incidents, specifically, “the time, substance, and location of all complaints or requests for assistance received by the agency and the time and nature of the response thereto, including, to the extent the information regarding crimes alleged or committed or any other incident investigated is recorded, the time, date, and location of occurrence, the time and date of the report,the name and age of the victim, the factual circumstances surrounding the crime or incident, and a general description of any injuries, property, or weapons involved.”  Gov’t Code § 6254(f)(2) (emph. added).

Of course, the code section goes on to list crimes where the victim’s name does not have to be released, either at the request of the victim or, if the victim is a minor, his or her parents, but it seems these exemptions mostly relate to sex crimes.  I did not see any such exemption for homicide.  And even if the homicide victims also were victims of, let’s say, rape, and the parents of the victim requested the name not be released, the code section provides, “When a person is the victim of more than one crime, information disclosing that the person is a victim of a crime defined in any of the sections of the Penal Code set forth in this subdivision may be deleted at the request of the victim, or the victim’s parent or guardian if the victim is a minor, in making the report of the crime, or of any crime or incident accompanying the crime, available to the public in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.” Id.

I doubt that someone who is no longer alive would fall into these exemptions at all, but even if the individual were a victim of both incest, for example, and was also murdered, it seems that at the very least, the fact of the murder, and the identity of the murdered, would be required to be released per 6254(f)(2).

I should note, too, that police departments are only required to release “contemporaneous” information under Government Code § 6254(f)(2).  See, e.g., Cnty. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 18 Cal. App. 4th 588, 599 (1993).  If these homicides are still under investigation, then it would seem that this “contemporaneous” requirement is met.  Id. at 595-96 (the court suggests that the “contemporaneous” requirement may be met where the arrestee is in custody, or, if not in custody, the arrestee is still under investigation and/or may be charged (or already has been charged) with a crime).

If these are closed or cold cases, then the police department may refuse to release the names based on the fact that these crimes occurred four years ago.  That said, even if these cases are closed, it would not seem that it would be hard to find and release the names of these homicide victims to you, as this is probably not information contained in a file in deep storage someplace.  In County of Los Angeles, the reasoning behind limiting disclosure to contemporaneous information was that it was intended to both facilitate the release of current information regarding crimes and arrests to the public and members of the press, and to prevent any undue financial burden by requiring police to search for information from past crimes. Id. at 599-600.

It does not seem like it would be an undue burden for the police department to find the names of the four victims.  In any event, the names of the victims should have been released at the time the crimes originally occurred.

You might want to ask the police department for clarification as to why information that is otherwise required to be released under the Public Records Act is being withheld.

As for your question regarding the case file, once materials have become exempt (because they are an “investigatory file” under 6254(f)), they remain exempt into perpetuity.  Williams v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. 4th 337, 355 (1993).

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.