Records involving peace officers

Answer

The provisions of the Penal Code cited in the denial of your request prohibit the disclosure of certain information regarding peace officers. Specifically, section 832.7 states (in part) as follows:832.7.  (a) Peace officer or custodial officer personnel records and records maintained by any state or local agency pursuant to Section 832.5, or information obtained from these records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery pursuant to Sections 1043 and 1046 of the Evidence Code.  This section shall not apply to investigations or proceedings concerning the conduct of peace officers or custodial officers, or an agency or department that employs those officers, conducted by a grand jury, a district attorney’s office, or the Attorney General’s office.Penal Code section 832.8 states as follows:832.8.

As used in Section 832.7, “personnel records” means any file maintained under that individual’s name by his or her employing agency and containing records relating to any of the following:

(a) Personal data, including marital status, family members, educational and employment history, home addresses, or similar information.

(b) Medical history.

(c) Election of employee benefits.

(d) Employee advancement, appraisal, or discipline.

(e) Complaints, or investigations of complaints, concerning an event or transaction in which he or she participated, or which he or she perceived, and pertaining to the manner in which he or she performed his or her duties.

(f) Any other information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

This statute is ambiguous.  However, as you can see, there are three potential exemptions under which the agency might assert that the “list of the positions (job titles), basic responsibilities, and site locations” you requested cannot be disclosed.  This section prohibits disclosure of “employment history,” of “employee advancement,” and of “other information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”  It’s not clear that any of these exemptions apply, and it can be argued that the job titles of peace officers are generally public information, so that no expectation of privacy can be asserted with respect to such information.

However, the statute is not clear, and we are not aware of any definitive authority on this issue.At least one court of appeal recently held that all information contained in or derived from a peace officer personnel file is exempt from disclosure.  (California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training v. Superior Court, 27 Cal..Rptr.3d 108 (2005).)  However, the Supreme Court has granted review in that case, and has not yet issued its opinion.  Other cases disagree.  (See, e.g., City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 111 Cal. App. 4th 883 (2003).)In short, you have a good argument, but there is no absolute requirement of disclosure under current authority.