Explainer

Under the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”), a state or local agency must generally disclose public records on request unless they are covered by a specific exemption from disclosure. Govt. Code §§ 7922.525, 7922.530.

Among other provisions, the CPRA contains an exemption, in relevant part, for “[r]ecords of complaints to, or investigations conducted by … any state or local police agency … or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes.” Govt. Code § 7923.600(a), formerly § 6254(f).

A law enforcement agency’s own investigatory records, such as its reports, notes & findings about alleged crimes, are generally exempt under § 7923.600. Haynie v. Superior Court, 26 Cal. 4th 1061, 1068-70 (2001). The exemption covers “only those investigations undertaken for the purpose of determining whether a violation of law may occur or has occurred. If a violation or potential violation is detected, the exemption also extends to records of investigations conducted for the purpose of uncovering information surrounding the commission of the violation and its agency.” Id. at 1071.

Therefore, the exemption for “records of investigations” includes only those records generated “as part of a targeted inquiry into any particular crime or crimes.” American Civil Liberties Foundation of Southern California v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 1032, 1042 (2017); see also Register Div. of Freedom Newspapers v. County of Orange, 158 Cal. App. 3d 893, 904 (1984) (where sheriff’s investigation was “conducted at the request of the County’s risk management office primarily for the purpose of ascertaining the facts in much the same way investigations are undertaken by insurance company claim adjustors,” court held exemption did not apply because “investigation was not for law enforcement purposes, but rather to discover the facts upon which to determine the County’s civil liability stemming from the incident”); cf. California ex rel. Div. of Industrial Safety v. Superior Court, 43 Cal. App. 3d 778, 784 (1974) (noting exemption pertains to “the enforcement of penal statutes” & did not apply to agency that “does not compile investigatory files for ‘correctional, law enforcement or licensing purposes’”) (discussing records related to bridge collapse).

One of the records at issue in Haynie was a tape recording of a traffic stop. 26 Cal. 4th at 1067. By analogy, for example, a body camera or other video of a traffic stop or other investigation may also be exempt as an investigatory record.

However, the investigatory records exemption does not protect records described in Penal Code § 832.7(b) or Govt. Code § 7923.625, as discussed in our police transparency guide, such as records relating to an officer discharging a firearm at a person or using force that resulted in death or great bodily injury, or sustained findings of various forms of misconduct.

The investigatory records exception also does not protect documents filled in court by a district attorney. Weaver v. Superior Court, 224 Cal. App. 4th 746, 751 (2014) (“Because they were publicly filed, the charging documents Weaver seeks are not investigatory files exempt from disclosure under the CPRA.”).

Once investigatory records or files become exempt under § 7923.600, they generally remain permanently exempt from disclosure regardless of whether the investigation is closed. Williams v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. 4th 337, 357-62 (1993); Rivero v. Superior Court, 54 Cal. App. 4th 1048, 1051-52 (1997).

Under this exemption, certain “materials that, while not on their face exempt from disclosure” can “nevertheless become exempt through inclusion in an investigatory file.” Williams, 5 Cal. 4th at 354. Once an investigation “has come into being, a document in the file may have extraordinary significance to the investigation even though it does not on its face purport to be an investigatory record and, thus, have an independent claim to exempt status. Examples abound. A commonplace business card may reveal the name and endanger the safety of an informant. Receipts for transportation may tell the astute observer which clues the police have checked and which they have not yet found.” Id. at 356.

That said, “a state or local law enforcement agency shall make public all of the following information, except to the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation:

(a) The full name and occupation of every individual arrested by the agency.

(b) The individual’s physical description including date of birth, color of eyes and hair, sex, height, and weight.

(c) The time and date of arrest.

(d) The time and date of booking.

(e) The location of the arrest.

(f) The factual circumstances surrounding the arrest.

(g) The amount of bail set.

(h) The time and manner of release or the location where the individual is currently being held.

(i) All charges the individual is being held upon, including any outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions, parole holds, and probation holds.”

Govt. Code § 7923.610. This provision has been limited to “current information and records” of “contemporaneous police activity,” although the case law does not precisely define “current” or “contemporaneous.” Kinney v. Superior Court, 77 Cal. App. 5th 168, 177 (2022).

The CPRA also generally requires disclosure of certain information to “the victims of an incident, or an authorized representative thereof,” such as “the names and addresses of persons involved in, or witnesses other than confidential informants to, the incident, the description of any property involved, the date, time, and location of the incident, all diagrams, statements of the parties involved in the incident, [and] the statements of all witnesses, other than confidential informants.” Govt. Code § 7923.605(a), formerly § 6254(f). However, this provision “does not require the disclosure of that portion of those investigative files that reflects the analysis or conclusions of the investigating officer.” Govt. Code § 7923.605(b).

In addition, unless “disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation,” Govt. Code § 7923.615(a)(1), the CPRA requires public disclosure of “certain information derived from” investigatory records, Williams, 5 Cal. 4th at 349, such as “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:

(A) The time, date, and location of occurrence.

(B) The time and date of the report.

(C) The name and age of the victim.

(D) The factual circumstances surrounding the crime or incident.

(E) A general description of any injuries, property, or weapons involved.”

Govt. Code § 7923.615(a)(2). This provision is not limited to “contemporaneous” records. Fredericks v. Superior Court, 233 Cal. App. 4th 209, 233-34 (2015).

If sought for journalistic or other specified purposes, as declared under penalty of perjury, the addresses of persons arrested & crime victims, with a number of exceptions, must be disclosed, “except to the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation.” Govt. Code § 7923.620.

There is also a specialized provision for disclosure of certain information to the victim of an incident or authorized representative thereof, an insurance carrier, or persons suffering bodily injury or property damage or loss in certain circumstances. Govt. Code § 7923.605.