California Public Records Act request

[tcmcdk]

I have filed a Public Records Act request with a local law enforcement agency in California. I am seeking a document regarding a 1981 quadruple homicide. The agency denied my request on the basis that the matter remains an ongoing investigation, claiming (accurately) that law enforcement is exempt form releasing such records. The issue is that the specific record I am seeking—a 30-page report providing details about a specific suspect—has been accessed by a handful of private citizens, with its contents appearing on at least one public website. In other words, the agency is trying to pick and choose who gets access to the report. There is a case on point: Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, 62 Cal. 4th 1176, 1183 (2016). But the law enforcement agency is essentially saying, "Too bad." Any remedies besides filing suit?

 

[zddoodah]

The issue is that the specific record I am seeking—a 30-page report providing details about a specific suspect—has been accessed by a handful of private citizens, with its contents appearing on at least one public website.

Accessed how? Did the "handful of private citizens" in question submit records requests that were substantively identical to your requests? If yes, how do you know?

If the contents of the record are already publicly available, then what is the purpose of the request?

In other words, the agency is trying to pick and choose who gets access to the report.

When you pointed out to a representative of the agency from which you made the request that others had "accessed" the record in question and queried why your request was denied when their requests were (seemingly) approved, what response did you receive?

There is a case on point: Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, 62 Cal. 4th 1176, 1183 (2016).

How is it that you think this case is on-point? In Ardon, the plaintiff (Ardon) had sued the City of Los Angeles and sought (via discovery request) certain documents. The City withheld the documents from production on the ground that the documents were protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or were work product. The trial court determined that the City's claim of privilege was correct. Years later, Ardon filed a public records request seeking to obtain documents relating to the case, and the City inadvertently produced some of the privileged documents. The issue before the California Supreme Court was whether the inadvertent production constituted a waiver of privilege that would allow Ardon to retain and use the records and distribute them to others. The Court held that the inadvertent production of the records did not constitute a waiver of the privilege. How is that "on point" with your issue? You included a page cite to page 1183 of the decision, but that page is simply a discussion of how the Court construes statutory language in the context of the statute's underlying purpose. The Court specifically noted that it was "doubtful the Legislature intended to enact a statutory scheme that would prevent government agencies from minimizing the damage caused by the inadvertent disclosure of private and confidential information. Nor is it likely the Legislature intended to adopt a rule that inadvertent disclosure requires confidential information to be made generally available to the public." I don't see how anything in the Ardon case is relevant to your situation.

Any remedies besides filing suit?

If you can't convince the agency that you should receive the records, then no.

 

[quincy]

I have filed a Public Records Act request with a local law enforcement agency in California. I am seeking a document regarding a 1981 quadruple homicide. The agency denied my request on the basis that the matter remains an ongoing investigation, claiming (accurately) that law enforcement is exempt form releasing such records. The issue is that the specific record I am seeking—a 30-page report providing details about a specific suspect—has been accessed by a handful of private citizens, with its contents appearing on at least one public website. In other words, the agency is trying to pick and choose who gets access to the report. There is a case on point: Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, 62 Cal. 4th 1176, 1183 (2016). But the law enforcement agency is essentially saying, "Too bad." Any remedies besides filing suit?

Here is a link to the case that you cited, for the benefit of others:

https://casetext.com/case/ardon-v-city-of-l-a-2

Are you trying to argue that there was a selective disclosure of the documents to which you are being denied access rather than an inadvertent disclosure of privileged material?

It sounds like your remedy is to file suit which, if the case is still open and active, you are likely to lose.

 

[adjusterjack]

the specific record I am seeking—a 30-page report providing details about a specific suspect—has been accessed by a handful of private citizens, with its contents appearing on at least one public website.

The document is already available to you.

Just download it from wherever it's at.

No need to make a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[quincy]

If the information tcmcdk seeks is indeed privileged information that was disclosed by a local law enforcement agency in error, about a suspect in a crime, he probably should not further publicize this information. To do so could compromise the still-active case and/or defame a named suspect not charged with the crime. The information remains privileged even after an inadvertent disclosure.

If tcmcdk only wants the information to conduct his own citizen’s investigation and does not intend to republish this information, it certainly seems easiest to access the information from the site where it already appears, to use solely for his research. He must handle with care the reputation of anyone named as a suspect in the documents. He would be smart to speak to an attorney if he wants to use it for any other purpose than personal research, however.

 

[Zigner]

I wonder how the OP knows that the information that has been previously published was provided by the agency that the OP is dealing with now.

 

[quincy]

I wonder how the OP knows that the information that has been previously published was provided by the agency that the OP is dealing with now.

Good question. It could have come from one of the parties or an unscrupulous agency worker or someone else.

 

[tcmcdk]

Accessed how? Did the "handful of private citizens" in question submit records requests that were substantively identical to your requests? If yes, how do you know? The citizens in question verbally asked and were subsequently handed copies. How do I know? At least one of the recipients boasts about it.


If the contents of the record are already publicly available, then what is the purpose of the request? To get my own copy, since previous recipients are not willing to make copies for me.




When you pointed out to a representative of the agency from which you made the request that others had "accessed" the record in question and queried why your request was denied when their requests were (seemingly) approved, what response did you receive? The representative (the actual sheriff) has not responded.




How is it that you think this case is on-point? In Ardon, the plaintiff (Ardon) had sued the City of Los Angeles and sought (via discovery request) certain documents. The City withheld the documents from production on the ground that the documents were protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or were work product. The trial court determined that the City's claim of privilege was correct. Years later, Ardon filed a public records request seeking to obtain documents relating to the case, and the City inadvertently produced some of the privileged documents. The issue before the California Supreme Court was whether the inadvertent production constituted a waiver of privilege that would allow Ardon to retain and use the records and distribute them to others. The Court held that the inadvertent production of the records did not constitute a waiver of the privilege. How is that "on point" with your issue? You included a page cite to page 1183 of the decision, but that page is simply a discussion of how the Court construes statutory language in the context of the statute's underlying purpose. The Court specifically noted that it was "doubtful the Legislature intended to enact a statutory scheme that would prevent government agencies from minimizing the damage caused by the inadvertent disclosure of private and confidential information. Nor is it likely the Legislature intended to adopt a rule that inadvertent disclosure requires confidential information to be made generally available to the public." I don't see how anything in the Ardon case is relevant to your situation. The First Amendment Coalition has advised me it is relevant (though it makes a disclaimer it is not actual legal advice.)




If you can't convince the agency that you should receive the records, then no.

Accessed how? Did the "handful of private citizens" in question submit records requests that were substantively identical to your requests? If yes, how do you know?

If the contents of the record are already publicly available, then what is the purpose of the request?




When you pointed out to a representative of the agency from which you made the request that others had "accessed" the record in question and queried why your request was denied when their requests were (seemingly) approved, what response did you receive?




How is it that you think this case is on-point? In Ardon, the plaintiff (Ardon) had sued the City of Los Angeles and sought (via discovery request) certain documents. The City withheld the documents from production on the ground that the documents were protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or were work product. The trial court determined that the City's claim of privilege was correct. Years later, Ardon filed a public records request seeking to obtain documents relating to the case, and the City inadvertently produced some of the privileged documents. The issue before the California Supreme Court was whether the inadvertent production constituted a waiver of privilege that would allow Ardon to retain and use the records and distribute them to others. The Court held that the inadvertent production of the records did not constitute a waiver of the privilege. How is that "on point" with your issue? You included a page cite to page 1183 of the decision, but that page is simply a discussion of how the Court construes statutory language in the context of the statute's underlying purpose. The Court specifically noted that it was "doubtful the Legislature intended to enact a statutory scheme that would prevent government agencies from minimizing the damage caused by the inadvertent disclosure of private and confidential information. Nor is it likely the Legislature intended to adopt a rule that inadvertent disclosure requires confidential information to be made generally available to the public." I don't see how anything in the Ardon case is relevant to your situation.




If you can't convince the agency that you should receive the records, then no.

 

[tcmcdk]

Here is a link to the case that you cited, for the benefit of others:

https://casetext.com/case/ardon-v-city-of-l-a-2

Are you trying to argue that there was a selective disclosure of the documents to which you are being denied access rather than an inadvertent disclosure of privileged material? Yes.

It sounds like your remedy is to file suit which, if the case is still open and active, you are likely to lose.

 

[tcmcdk]

The document is already available to you.

Just download it from wherever it's at.

No need to make a mountain out of a molehill.

The poster has added their own comments. As a result, it is difficult to determine what was contained in the original case file and what the poster has added.

 

[tcmcdk]

If the information tcmcdk seeks is indeed privileged information that was disclosed by a local law enforcement agency in error, about a suspect in a crime, he probably should not further publicize this information. To do so could compromise the still-active case and/or defame a named suspect not charged with the crime. The information remains privileged even after an inadvertent disclosure. Except it was intentionally disclosed because the agency figured there was no harm in having certain citizens having copies of the case file.

If tcmcdk only wants the information to conduct his own citizen’s investigation and does not intend to republish this information, it certainly seems easiest to access the information from the site where it already appears, to use solely for his research. He must handle with care the reputation of anyone named as a suspect in the documents. He would be smart to speak to an attorney if he wants to use it for any other purpose than personal research, however.

 

[quincy]

Does this have to do with the unsolved Keddie murders?

There can be harm that comes from publicly naming suspects in a murder case so, if the documents that were released (inadvertently or otherwise) did not have suspect names redacted, defamation lawsuits could result from their disclosure, against both the law enforcement agency and any citizen who does not handle the case files carefully.

I understand in the Keddie case that two of the original suspects are now dead, so they obviously cannot sue. But if the police have other suspects who are not dead, and who they are still investigating, web sleuths/citizen detectives can compromise the case and defame any named individuals by publishing the case notes.

What quadruple murder is it that you want information on and what is your reason for wanting it?

 

[tcmcdk]

Does this have to do with the unsolved Keddie murders?

There can be harm that comes from publicly naming suspects in a murder case so, if the documents that were released (inadvertently or otherwise) did not have suspect names redacted, defamation lawsuits could result from their disclosure, against both the law enforcement agency and any citizen who does not handle the case files carefully.

I understand in the Keddie case that two of the original suspects are now dead, so they obviously cannot sue. But if the police have other suspects who are not dead, and who they are still investigating, web sleuths/citizen detectives can compromise the case and defame any named individuals by publishing the case notes.

What quadruple murder is it that you want information on and what is your reason for wanting it?

Indeed, the Keddie homicides. And for publication.

 

[quincy]

Indeed, the Keddie homicides. And for publication.

I strongly recommend that you do not use the name or names of any suspect or suspects not arrested or charged with the crimes. It is probably the case that the documents released already were not properly redacted, if there were individuals named in those documents (other than the two original suspects who are now dead).

Although there are numerous articles and discussions and podcasts and even a (mostly-fictional) movie about the murders, you would be smart to review any information you intend to publish with an attorney in your area to better ensure you stay within the law.

Reputations are valuable. You do not want to publish anything that can harm the reputation of someone by stating or implying that person has any involvement with the crimes.

 

[zddoodah]

Please don't respond within the quote box. It makes it hard to tell what's what.

If the contents of the record are already publicly available, then what is the purpose of the request?

To get my own copy, since previous recipients are not willing to make copies for me.

OK, but you wrote that the "contents [of the report in question] appear[] on at least one public website." Why can't you simply download or print your own copy from one of those websites?

Regardless, your question has been answered.