Federated University Police
Officers Association (FUPOA) v. Superior Court
filed July 23, 2013 in the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District
The Court of Appeal ruled
that the University of California must disclose the names of all the
police officers who were involved in a November 2011, UC Davis campus protest,
during which officers were videotaped pepper spraying demonstrators.
The First District Court of
Appeal ruled in favor of Los Angeles Times Communications and The Sacramento
Bee, holding that the FUPOA failed to demonstrate that the police officer's
identities in this case were exempt from disclosure under the California Public
Records Act ("CPRA").
The controversy began in
April 2012, when a task force led by former California Supreme Court Justice
Cruz Reynoso released a report detailing police misconduct during the campus
protest. In the report, the task force
concluded, "The pepper-spray incident . . . should and could have been
prevented." The report did not
recommend any discipline for any police officer, stating it was "not address[ing] the
issue of discipline."
The commission, however,
redacted from the report the names of more than a dozen police officers who
planned, participated in and/or witnessed the incident. This redaction followed an agreement between
the UC Board of Regents and the FUPOA that the names would be kept confidential
due to concerns about the police officers' safety.
In May 2012, the LA Times
and the Sacramento Bee filed a petition with the Alameda County Superior Court
against the UC Regents to disclose the names pursuant to the CPRA. At the Superior Court hearing the newspapers
argued the FUPOA failed to cite proof that any of the officers were likely to
suffer harmful consequences as a result of the disclosure of their names.
The Court of Appeal decision
discussed the strong privacy interest of police officers in their personnel
records. The court concluded that the Pitchess statutes, which were enacted to
protect such records, did not
prevent the disclosure of the police officer's identity in this case. The court stated that the Reynoso report was
not a "de facto investigation" of a citizen complaint, nor is the
report an exempted personnel record.
Following the ruling, the Court of Appeal ordered that the stay remain in effect, allowing the names of the officers to be withheld for 40 days, to permit FUPOA time to decide whether or not to file a petition for review in the California Supreme Court.
There is currently pending
before the California Supreme Court a case where the issue is whether the names
of police officers involved in on-duty shooting incidents are subject to
disclosure under the California Public Records Act. (Long
Beach Police Officers Association v. City of Long Beach (Los Angeles Times
Communication, S200872.) The FUPOA
had earlier requested the Court of Appeal to stay or vacate their case pending
the decision in the Supreme Court in this "related" matter. That request was denied. Since the Court of Appeal decision has been
ordered published, it is expected that the Supreme Court will likely grant
review and stay proceedings until the Long
Beach matter is decided.
