Citations
- 54 Cal. App. 4th 1048
Full opinion text
Opinion
CORRIGAN, J.
Here we hold that neither the California Public Records Act (CPRA) (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.) nor the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (Ordinance) (S.F. Admin. Code, ch. 67) compels disclosure of district attorney criminal investigation files. Section 25303 prevents a county board of supervisors from obstructing the investigatory and prosecutorial functions of a district attorney. Applying the ordinance as petitioner here urges would constitute such an obstruction.
Facts and Procedural History
In 1994, San Francisco District Attorney Arlo Smith received information leading to the investigation of a local official for failing to account properly for public funds. The district attorney’s office maintained a confidential file of its investigation, which ended with a decision “not to prosecute for lack of evidence of any criminal wrongdoing.” According to the deputy in charge, the office “closed its file on the matter.”
On October 18, 1995, Francisco Jose Rivero, a former police officer who had instigated the investigation, presented a written request for the complete investigation file. Rivero cited the CPRA and the Ordinance. He referred to a deputy city attorney’s statement in federal court that a complete investigation had been conducted and no wrongdoing had been found.
Smith answered Rivero promptly, conceding that the investigation was closed but denying the request. He asserted that investigation files were exempt from disclosure and that the exemption continued after the investigation ended. He noted Rivero’s federal court action against the city and suggested that the request was related to that civil action. He left open the possibility that he would comply with a more limited request.
On November 2, 1995, Rivero filed a complaint against Smith in superior court under the CPRA and the Ordinance for release of the investigation file. Smith answered and moved for summary judgment on the ground the file was exempt from disclosure. The court granted summary judgment, and this petition followed. We granted a request by the California First Amendment Coalition; the Society of Professional Journalists, Northern California Chapter; and the First Amendment Project to file a brief amici curiae in support of Rivero.
CPRA
“CPRA, adopted in 1968 (Stats. 1968, ch. 1473, § 39, pp. 2945-2948), acknowledges the tension between privacy and disclosure; ‘In enacting this chapter, the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.’ (Gov. Code, § 6250.) CPRA provides that ‘[pjublic records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as hereafter provided. . . .’ (Gov. Code, § 6253, subd. (a).) CPRA then provides various exemptions, including ‘[personnel, medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy . . .’ (Gov. Code, § 6254, subd. (c)), [and] certain investigatory and security files (Gov. Code, § 6254, subd. (f); (City of Richmond v. Superior Court (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1430, 1433 [38 Cal.Rptr.2d 632].)
Section 6254, subdivision (f) provides that “[r]ecords of complaints to, or investigations conducted by . . . the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes . . .” shall be exempt from disclosure, except that certain information must be disclosed to victims, insurance companies, and persons harmed by certain crimes. Subdivision (f)(1) and (2) provides, however, for disclosure to the public of certain information about arrests and about citizens’ complaints and requests for assistance. The disclosure exemption extends indefinitely, even after an investigation is closed. (See Williams v. Superior Court, supra, 5 Cal.4th at pp. 355-362.)
The CPRA also permits a state or local agency “[e]xcept as otherwise prohibited by law” to “adopt requirements for itself which allow greater access to records than prescribed by the minimum standards set forth in” the CPRA. (§ 6253.1.)
San Francisco’s Sunshine Ordinance
The Ordinance is presented in four articles, the first of which states the legislative findings and purpose of the Ordinance. The second article governs public access to meetings, the third authorizes access to governmental information, and the fourth provides for a task force and designates responsibility for implementing the Ordinance.
The findings and purpose are stated broadly: “. . . [U (a) Government’s duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. [*]D (b) Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people’s business. This ordinance will assure that their deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the people’s review. [<]Q (c) . . . Violations of open government principles occur at all levels, from local advisory boards to the highest reaches of the State hierarchy. [<]Q . . . [