California Public Records Act

From Sunshine Review

Jump to:navigation, search

Contents

WikiFOIA
Find your State
Sunshine Laws
Open Records laws
Open Meetings Laws
How to Make Records Requests
Sunshine Headlines
Across the Country or by State
Major Records Requests
Sunshine Legislation
2010
Sorted by State, Year and Topic
Sunshine Litigation
Sorted by State, Year and Topic
Sunshine Nuances
Private Agencies, Public Dollars
Deliberative Process Exemption

The California Public Records Act (CPRA) is a series of laws designed to guarantee that the public has access to public records of governmental bodies in California. Statutes 6250 - 6270 define the law.

When the law was passed, the California legislature prefaced it by saying, "...access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state".

The California Open Meeting Act (also cited as the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act or the Ralph M. Brown Act) legislates the methods by which public meetings are conducted. Statutes 11120-11132 define the law.

To learn more about how to make a public records request in this state, please see: California FOIA procedures

[edit] Recent news

See also: California transparency headlines

[edit] Transparency blocking

More transparency blocking news from across the country.

[edit] Litigation

More FOIA litigation news from across the country.

[edit] Legislation

More FOIA legislation news from across the country.

[edit] Sunshine Guardians

Other Sunshine Guardians from across the country.


[edit] Relevant legal cases

See also: Court cases with an impact on state FOIA

Here is a list of lawsuits in California. For more information go the the page or go to California sunshine lawsuits.
(The cases are listed alphabetically. To order them by year please click the icon to the right of the Year heading)

Lawsuit Year
Adler v. City Council of Culver City 1960
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. Deukmejian 1982
American Federation of State etc. Employees v. Regents of University of California 1978
Bakersfield City School Dist. v. Superior Court 2004
Black Panther Party v. Kehoe 1974
Braun v. City of Taft 1984
CBS Broadcasting v. Superior Court 2001
CBS Inc. v. Block 1986
California State University, Fresno Assn., Inc. v. Superior Court 2001
Californians Aware v. Orange Unified School District 2006
Chronicle Publishing Company v. Superior Court 1960
Citizens for a Better Environment v. Dept. of Food & Agriculture 1985
City & County of San Francisco v. Superior Court 1951
City of Hemet v. Superior Court 1995
Cohan v. City of Thousand Oaks 1994
Coronado Police Officers Association v. Carroll 2003
County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court 1993
Desert Sun v. Palm Springs Desert Resorts Convention and Visitors Authority 2005
Dixon v. Superior Court 2009
Epstein v. Hollywood Entertainment Dist. II Business Improvement Dist. 2001
International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union v. Los Angeles Export Terminal, Inc. 1999
Lorig v. Medical Board 2000
Mushet v. Department of Public Service of City of Los Angeles 1917
Register Div. of Freedom Newspapers Inc. v. County of Orange 1984
Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Board of Supervisors 1968
San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court 1983
State Board of Equalization v. Superior Court 1992
Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court 1991
Versaci v. Superior Court 2005
Williams v. Superior Court 1993


To read up on other California lawsuits or research new public records lawsuits see: Findlaw.com's California Case listings.

[edit] Proposed changes to the law

[edit] 2010

See also: Proposed reforms in state sunshine laws, 2010

Here is a list of transparency legislation for California in 2010:

RatingBillCurrent StatusProgressInformation
BBAssembly Bill 1682Current Status:No.pngZ (05/04/2010, Killed by committee)
Legislationbar.png
       ballotpedia:California State Assembly Noshort.png Fillwhiteshort.png Fillwhiteshort.png Fillwhiteshort.png Fillwhiteshort.png Fillwhiteshort.png Fillwhiteshort.png Fillendshort.png
0

AB 1682 introduced by Assemblywoman Norma Torres would alter the California Public Records Act to exempt the addresses of individuals arrested and accused of crimes and the home addresses of victims of crimes and instead release the name of their home city. [1]

AASenate Bill 218Current Status:No.pngZ (Vetoed by Gov. 10/11/2009, Stricken from Senate 1/19/2010)
Legislationbar.png
       ballotpedia:California State Senate Committeeshort.png Yesshort.png ballotpedia:California State Assembly Committeeshort.png Yesshort.png Yesshort.png Noshort.png Fillendshort.png
0

SB 218 is a bill proposed by Senator Leland Yee which would remove the exemption currently in case law established by California State University, Fresno Assn., Inc. v. Superior Court for auxiliary organizations designed to promote state and local schools. It would redefine the definition of public body within the laws to include these state and local axillary organizations which fundraiser and invest in specific state schools and univerities. It would however protect the anonymity of donors, unless those donors receive a direct material benefit from their donation. [1]


[edit] 2009

See also: Proposed reforms in state sunshine laws, 2009

The bill has received wide criticism, particularly for failing to define the term 'improper' with any specificity.[9] The California Newspapers Publishers Association wrote a letter to Assemblywoman Wilmer Amina Carter expressing their opposition to the bill and stating their position that "public access decisions must be made based on the law's presumption of access" and that "agencies must never be allowed to determine whether or not to comply with a request based on whether the request is for a use approved by the agency (i.e., a good use)".[10]

[edit] Transparency report card

A 2008 study, BGA - Alper Integrity Index, conducted by the Better Government Association and sponsored by Alper Services, ranked California #19 in the nation with an overall percentage of 55.30%. [12]

A 2007 study, Graded state responsiveness to FOI requests, conducted by BGA and the NFOIC, gave California 53 points out of a possible 100, a letter grade of "F", and a ranking of 17 out of the 50 states.[13]

A 2002 study, Freedom of Information in the USA, conducted by IRE and BGA, ranked California's law as the 21st best in the country, giving it a letter grade of "C-".[14]

[edit] Features of the law

[edit] What records are covered?

[edit] Exemptions

Statute 6254 outlines a number of exemptions to the California Public Records Act

In addition to statute 5254, statute 6255 of the CPRA provides a catch all exemption, stating that "The agency shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this chapter or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record". The question of what defines public interest has come up in many court cases, the most notable of which include:

[edit] What agencies are covered?

[edit] What agencies are not covered?

[edit] Who may request records?

See also List of who can make public record requests by state

Anyone can request public documents in California. "[E]very person has a right to inspect any public record". [17]

[edit] Must a requestor state a purpose?

Whatever the motivation of a person may be in requesting records under CPRA, it is irrelevant in determining whether the records must be provided to that person.[18]

[edit] How can records be used?

The CPRA does not say anything about the uses to which public records may be put after being obtained through CPRA.

CPRA, however, does have an "investigatory records exemption" which says that a person who requests the address of an individual who has been arrested, or the current address of the victim of a crime, must declare under penalty of perjury that the request is made for a journalistic, scholarly, political or governmental purpose, or is sought for investigatory purposes by a licensed private investigator. The requester must also declare that the information obtained pursuant to this subsection will not be used directly or indirectly to sell a product or service.

[edit] Fees for records

The CPRA allows government agencies to charge "fees covering direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee if applicable."

[edit] Search fees

[edit] Fee waivers

Government agencies may reduce or waive fees under the CPRA provision that allows agencies to develop ways to provide greater access than CPRA's minimum standards.

[edit] Extensive and burdensome searches

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. Deukmejian declared that the cost incurred by any department of separating exempted material from non-exempted material represents a detriment to the public interest of the smooth and efficient flow of government. This detriment can be weighted against the benefit to the public of the release of the records when considering whether to deny records requests based on statute 6255 of the California Public Records Act

[edit] Open meetings

To read more about open meetings laws in California, please see:California Open Meeting Act

"It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business and the proceedings of public agencies be conducted openly so that the public may remain informed."[20]

[edit] Notable requests

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] References

Sunshine Review
Collaboration tools
Toolbox