Preview
1 XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
2 SARA J. ROMANO
Supervising Deputy Attorney General ELECTRONICALLY
3 MICHAEL G. LAGRAMA
Deputy Attorney General
F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
4 State Bar No. 252734 County of San Francisco
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 06/11/2020
5 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 Clerk of the Court
Telephone: (415) 510-3584 BY: RONNIE OTERO
Deputy Clerk
6 Fax: (415) 703-5843
E-mail: Michael.Lagrama@doj.ca.gov
7 Attorneys for Respondent
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
CIVIL DIVISION
11
12
13 MICHAEL BRODHEIM, Case No. CPF-20-516978
14 Petitioner,
OPPOSITION TO MOTION AND
15 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
16 AUTHORITIES
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
17 CORRECTIONS AND Date: June 24, 2020
REHABILITATION, Time: 9:30 a.m.
18 Dept: 303
Respondent. Judge: Hon. Ethan Schulman
19 Action Filed: January 7, 2020
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Oppn. To Mot. & Petn. For Writ of Mandate; Mem. of P’s & A’s (CPF-20-516978)
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
3 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Statement of Facts ........................................................................................................................... 7
4
Legal Standard ................................................................................................................................ 8
5 Argument ........................................................................................................................................ 8
6 I. The Right to Disclosure of Public Records Under the PRA Is Not Absolute
Given Countervailing Privacy Rights. .................................................................... 8
7 II. Identifiable Inmate Race and Ethnicity Data Was Properly Withheld Under
Section 6254, Subdivision (k) of the PRA, Which Incorporates Statutory
8 and Regulatory Disclosure Prohibitions.................................................................. 9
9 A. The Sought Data Constitutes Criminal Offender Record
Information Under the Penal Code, and Thus, CDCR Was Barred
10 From Releasing It. ..................................................................................... 10
B. Identifiable Inmate Race and Ethnicity Data Constitutes Personal
11 Information Under the Information Practices Act, and Thus, It Was
Also Properly Withheld Under CCR § 3261.2.......................................... 12
12
III. Under Section 6254, Subdivision (c) of the PRA, the Identifiable Inmate
13 Race and Ethnicity Data Was Also Properly Withheld Because Disclosing
It Constitutes an Unwarranted Invasion of Privacy. ............................................. 13
14 IV. CDCR Also Properly Withheld the Data Under Section 6255, Subdivision
(a) of the PRA, Where the Public Interest in Preserving Privacy Rights
15 Clearly Outweighs the Minimal Public Interest In Disclosure. ............................ 17
16 V. Nor Does Brodheim Have a Separate Constitutional Right to Identifiable
Inmate Race and Ethnicity Data............................................................................ 18
17 VI. Brodheim Fails to State a Basis for Mandate Relief. ............................................ 18
18 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Oppn. To Mot. & Petn. For Writ of Mandate; Mem. P’s & A’s (CPF-20-516978)
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 Page
3 CASES
4 Black Panther Party v. Kehoe
(1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 645.........................................................................................8, 15, 16, 18
5
6 City of San Jose v. Superior Court
(1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1008 ............................................................................................. passim
7
Copley Press Inc. v. Superior Court
8 (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1272 ...............................................................................................................8
9 Housing Auth. of the County of Sacramento v. Van de Kamp
(1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 109.................................................................................................10, 12
10
L.A. United School Dist. v. Superior Court
11
(2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 222 ............................................................................................. passim
12
Loder v. Municipal Court
13 (1976) 17 Cal.3d 859 ..........................................................................................................11, 12
14 Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach
(2014) 59 Cal.4th 59 ...................................................................................................................9
15
Morris v. Harper
16 (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 52 ...........................................................................................................8
17
Porten v. Univ. of S.F.
18 (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 825...................................................................................................14, 16
19 Sander v. State Bar of Cal.
(2013) 58 Cal.4th 300 (Sander I) ........................................................................................14, 15
20
Sander v. State Bar of Cal.
21 (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 651 (Sander II) .....................................................................................15
22
Timmons v. McMahon
23 (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 512...................................................................................................8, 18
24 White v. Davis
(1975) 13 Cal.3d 757 ..........................................................................................................14, 16
25
Younger v. Berkeley City Council
26 (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 825.............................................................................................10, 11, 12
27
28
3
Oppn. To Mot. & Petn. For Writ of Mandate; Mem. P’s & A’s (CPF-20-516978)
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
2 Page
3 STATUTES
4 California Public Records Act (PRA) ..................................................................................... passim
5 Civil Code
6 § 1798 et seq. ..............................................................................................................7, 9, 12, 18
§ 1798.3, subd. (a) .....................................................................................................................13
7 § 1798.24 .............................................................................................................................12, 13
§ 1798.24, subd. (t)(1)(A)-(C)...............................................................................................7, 16
8 § 1798.75 ...................................................................................................................................12
9 Civil Procedure Code
§ 1085, subd. (a) ....................................................................................................................8, 18
10
11 Government Code
§ 1798.24, subd. (t)(1)(C) ...........................................................................................................8
12 § 1798.24, subd. (t)(a)(A) ...........................................................................................................8
§ 1798.24, subd. (t)(a)(B)............................................................................................................8
13 § 3261.7, subd. (c)(3). .................................................................................................................9
§ 6250 ........................................................................................................................................13
14 § 6254, subd. (c) ................................................................................................................ passim
15 § 6254, subd. (k) ............................................................................................................... passim
§ 6255, subd. (a) ..............................................................................................................6, 17, 18
16 § 6259, subd. (d) .......................................................................................................................18
§ 6260 et seq. ..............................................................................................................................8
17 § 6276 ......................................................................................................................10, 11, 12, 13
§ 6276.12 .............................................................................................................................10, 11
18
§ 6276.34 .............................................................................................................................12, 13
19
Information Practices Act ....................................................................................................... passim
20
Penal Code
21 § 1203.05, subd. (a) ...................................................................................................................11
§ 11075 et seq. ..........................................................................................................................10
22 § 11075, subd. (a) ..........................................................................................................10, 11, 17
§ 11076 ......................................................................................................................9, 10, 11, 17
23
§ 11105 et seq. ..........................................................................................................................10
24 § 11105, subd. (b) .....................................................................................................................11
§ 11141 ......................................................................................................................................12
25 § 11142 ......................................................................................................................................12
§ 13101 ......................................................................................................................................11
26 § 13102 ..........................................................................................................................10, 11, 17
§ 13125 ................................................................................................................................11, 14
27
§ 13200 et seq. ..........................................................................................................................10
28 § 13202 .............................................................................................................................. passim
4
Oppn. To Mot. & Petn. For Writ of Mandate; Mem. of P’s & A’s (CPF-20-516978)
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
2 Page
3 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
4 California Constitution Article I
§ 1 ........................................................................................................................................13, 17
5
6 United States Constitution
First Amendment .......................................................................................................................18
7
OTHER AUTHORITIES
8
California Code of Regulations, title 15
9 § 3261.2 .......................................................................................................................6, 9, 12, 13
§ 3261.2, subds. (d) ...................................................................................................................13
10 § 3261.2, subd. (e) .....................................................................................................................13
11 § 3488 ..........................................................................................................................................7
§ 3488, subd. (a) ........................................................................................................................16
12 § 3488, subd. (b) .......................................................................................................................16
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Oppn. To Mot. & Petn. For Writ of Mandate; Mem. of P’s & A’s (CPF-20-516978)
1 INTRODUCTION
2 Michael Brodheim seeks a writ of mandate compelling the California Department of
3 Corrections and Rehabilitation to disclose the race and ethnicity of about 3,200 current and
4 former inmates under the California Public Records Act (PRA). He specifically demands that this
5 data be provided in a manner that reveals these individuals’ race or ethnicity along with their
6 name, or in identifiable form. But Brodheim fails to show that CDCR has a clear and present
7 ministerial duty to release this data in the manner requested, or that he has a clear and present
8 beneficial right to the performance of any duty, as necessary to obtain mandate relief.
9 Identifiable inmate race and ethnicity data was properly withheld under the PRA’s
10 disclosure exceptions; namely sections 6254, subdivisions (c) and (k), and 6255, subdivision (a),
11 of the Government Code. 1 The PRA’s exceptions apply here because this data constitutes
12 criminal offender record information not subject to disclosure under the Penal Code. This data
13 also constitutes personal information not subject to disclosure under California Code of
14 Regulations, title 15, section 3261.2 (CCR § 3261.2), which reflects privacy protections accorded
15 to current and former inmates under the Information Practices Act.
16 Releasing the individuals’ race and ethnicity data in identifiable form also constitutes an
17 unwarranted invasion of their personal privacy because this information was collected for a law
18 enforcement purpose. As a result, the data cannot simply be used for another purpose or
19 disclosed to a third party, such as to Brodheim who wishes to publish it. The privacy rights of the
20 3,200 individuals further greatly outweigh the public interest in disclosure, as the public interest
21 here is minimal because Brodheim has an alternative means of acquiring the data. Brodheim can
22 obtain the sought data through CDCR’s research oversight committee, which will ensure that the
23 personal information of current and former inmates is protected from improper use and
24 dissemination. Finally, the public interest in preserving constitutional and statutory privacy rights
25 greatly outweigh the minimal public interest here in disclosure via the PRA, where Brodheim
26 simply refuses to seek the data through CDCR’s research oversight committee so that the right to
27 privacy can simultaneously be protected.
28 1
All further statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise specified.
6
Oppn. To Mot. & Petn. For Writ of Mandate; Mem. of P’s & A’s (CPF-20-516978)
1 Accordingly, because CDCR does not have a ministerial duty to provide the data to
2 Brodheim in the manner he requests and he otherwise has no beneficial right to identifiable
3 inmate race and ethnicity data, the motion and petition for writ of mandate should be denied.
4 STATEMENT OF FACTS
5 Brodheim is a current graduate student seeking to research whether there are racial
6 disparities in the state’s parole decisions. (Petn. at p. 2.) In September 2019, Brodheim
7 submitted a PRA request to the Board of Parole Hearings seeking 16 categories of information
8 about the individuals who appeared for parole hearings between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019.
9 (Id. at Exh. B.) The information sought included their names, controlling offenses and sentences,
10 and race and ethnicity. (Ibid.) The Board provided Brodheim with some of the requested data,
11 including the names of about 3,200 individuals who appeared for parole hearings during the
12 specified time period. (Id. at p. 4.) The Board, however, did not have a database containing the
13 race and ethnicity of these individuals. (See ibid.) Brodheim thus submitted a separate PRA
14 request to CDCR seeking the race and ethnicity of each of the 3,200 individuals. (Petn. at Exh.
15 D.) Brodheim specifically sought the race or ethnicity of each person by their name, or in
16 identifiable form. (Ibid.) To protect the privacy rights of these individuals, however, CDCR
17 withheld the data in the manner requested by Brodheim. (Id. at Exh. E.) Instead, CDCR offered
18 to provide Brodheim with “ethnicity summary numbers broken down by Black, White, Hispanic
19 and Others,” but Brodheim declined the data in this form. (Id. at Exh. G.)
20 CDCR also invited Brodheim to submit a research proposal to CDCR’s research oversight
21 committee, which is responsible for releasing personal information of current and former inmates
22 in accordance with the privacy protections under the Information Practices Act. (Petn. at Exh. H;
23 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3488; Civ. Code, § 1798 et seq.) Through this committee, Brodheim
24 may obtain all the data points he needs for his research (including race and ethnicity data in
25 identifiable form), while also protecting the privacy rights of the 3,200 individuals whose
26 personal information he seeks. (Civ. Code, § 1798.24, subd. (t)(1)(A)-(C).) In accordance with
27 the Information Practices Act, Brodheim would have to submit to the committee a plan on how to
28 protect the requested personal information from improper use and disclosure, and a plan for
7
Oppn. To Mot. & Petn. For Writ of Mandate; Mem. of P’s & A’s (CPF-20-516978)
1 destroying or returning the personal information after completing his research project. (Id. at §
2 1798.24, subd. (t)(a)(A), (B).) Brodheim would also have to provide the committee with written
3 assurances that the personal information would not be reused or disclosed to any other party, or
4 otherwise used in a manner not approved by the committee. (Id. at § 1798.24, subd. (t)(1)(C).)
5 Rather than submit a research proposal to CDCR’s research oversight committee to acquire the
6 sought data, Brodheim initiated this mandate proceeding. (Petn.)
7 LEGAL STANDARD
8 A writ of mandate will lie only to “to compel the performance of an act which the law
9 specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085,
10 subd. (a).) To establish a claim for mandate relief, the petitioner must show that respondent failed
11 to perform a “‘clear, present, [and] ministerial duty’” under law, and that the petitioner has a
12 clear, present and beneficial right to the performance of that duty. (Timmons v. McMahon (1991)
13 235 Cal.App.3d 512, 517, citation omitted; Morris v. Harper (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 52, 62
14 [holding that a ministerial duty is “‘an act that a public officer is required to perform in a
15 prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority’”], citation omitted.)
16 ARGUMENT
17 I. THE RIGHT TO DISCLOSURE OF PUBLIC RECORDS UNDER THE PRA IS NOT
ABSOLUTE GIVEN COUNTERVAILING PRIVACY RIGHTS.
18
19 The PRA provides for the disclosure of public records maintained by state and local
20 agencies. (Gov. Code, § 6260 et seq.) But the “right of access to public records under the [PRA]
21 is not absolute.” (L.A. United School Dist. v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 222, 238
22 (LAUSD), citing Copley Press Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1272, 1282.) Indeed, the
23 PRA “bespeaks legislative concern for individual privacy as well as disclosure ‘concerning the
24 conduct of the people’s business.’” (Black Panther Party v. Kehoe (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 645,
25 652 (Black Panther Party).) To this end, the PRA contains specific disclosure exemptions
26 “designed to protect the privacy of persons whose data or documents come into government
27 possession.” (Ibid. [“The objectives of the Public Records Act thus include preservations of
28 islands of privacy upon the broad seas of enforced disclosure”].)
8
Oppn. To Mot. & Petn. For Writ of Mandate; Mem. of P’s & A’s (CPF-20-516978)
1 As the following analysis details, several PRA disclosure exemptions apply here to protect
2 the privacy rights of the 3,200 individuals whose personal information Brodheim seeks.
3 II. IDENTIFIABLE INMATE RACE AND ETHNICITY DATA WAS PROPERLY WITHHELD
UNDER SECTION 6254, SUBDIVISION (K) OF THE PRA, WHICH INCORPORATES
4 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY DISCLOSURE PROHIBITIONS.
5 Under section 6254, subdivision (k) of the PRA, a state agency is not required to release
6 information or public “[r]ecords, the disclosure of which is exempt or prohibited pursuant to
7 federal or state law[.]” 2 In effect, the PRA “incorporates other [disclosure] prohibitions
8 established by law.” (Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach (2014) 59 Cal.4th
9 59, 61, internal quotations and citations omitted.)
10 Here, as explained below, inmate race and ethnicity data in identifiable form constitutes
11 criminal offender record information not subject to disclosure under the Penal Code. (Pen. Code,
12 §§ 11076, 13202.) This data also constitutes personal information not subject to disclosure under
13 CCR § 3261.2, which reflects privacy protections accorded to current and former inmates under
14 the Information Practices Act. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3261.2 3; Civ. Code, § 1798 et seq.)
15 Given these statutory and regulatory disclosure prohibitions, CDCR properly withheld the sought
16 data under section 6254, subdivision (k) of the PRA.
17 2
This section provides in full: “Except as provided in Sections 6254.7 and 6254.13, this
chapter does not require the disclosure of any of the following records . . . (k) Records, the
18 disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not
limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege.” (Gov. Code, § 6254, subd. (k).)
19 3
This provision reads in full: “(a) Only an employee designated by the institution head
shall inform the media regarding a facility incident or newsworthy event. (b) Except as provided
20 by applicable federal and state law, no person shall disclose any protected health information that
identifies an individual without a valid written authorization from the individual. (c) Information
21 pertaining to a Division of Juvenile Justice ward shall not be released to the media or the public,
except as provided in subsection 3261.7(c)(3). (d) Information derived from a person’s Criminal
22 Identification and Investigations Report shall not be provided to the media or to the public. (e)
Including the limitations of (c) and (d) above, the only inmate or parolee data which may be
23 released without a valid written authorization from the inmate/parolee to the media or to the
public includes the inmate’s or parolee’s: (1) Name. (2) Age. (3) Birthplace. (4) Place of
24 previous residence. (5) Commitment information obtained from their adult probation officer’s
report. (6) Facility assignments and behavior. (7) General state of health, given in short and non-
25 medical terms such as good, poor, or stable. (8) Cause of death. (9) Sentencing and release
actions. (f) The only employee data which may be released to the media or to the public by other
26 than the employee concerning their involvement in a facility incident or newsworthy event
includes: (1) Name. (2) Civil service classification. (3) Age. (4) Work assignment. (5) Length
27 of service with the department and/or current division or unit. (6) Past work assignments. (7)
Role or function in a newsworthy event. (g) Information endangering an employee or concerning
28 an employee who is a crime victim shall not be released to the media.”
9
Oppn. To Mot. & Petn. For Writ of Mandate; Mem. of P’s & A’s (CPF-20-516978)
1 A. The Sought Data Constitutes Criminal Offender Record Information
Under the Penal Code, and Thus, CDCR Was Barred From Releasing It.
2
3 CDCR was compelled to withhold the identifiable inmate race and ethnicity data because it
4 constitutes criminal offender record information. As codified in the Penal Code, the Legislature
5 has established “a comprehensive legislative scheme or pattern of criminal record dissemination
6 which preempts . . . general legislation such as the Public Records Act.” (Younger v. Berkeley
7 City Council (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 825, 832, emphasis added.) The Penal Code strictly governs
8 the collection and dissemination of criminal offender record information, and imposes criminal
9 penalties for its unauthorized dissemination and possession. (Pen. Code, §§ 11075 et seq., 11105
10 et seq., 13200 et seq.; Housing Auth. of the County of Sacramento v. Van de Kamp (1990) 223
11 Cal.App.3d 109, 112 (Van de Kamp) [holding “the Legislature has narrowly defined the instances
12 in which [criminal offender record] information may be disseminated”].) The term “‘criminal
13 offender record information’ means records and data compiled by criminal justice agencies for
14 the purposes of identifying criminal offenders” and documenting their criminal history. (Pen.
15 Code, §§ 11075, subd. (a), 13102.) A person’s race or ethnicity is among the basic personal
16 identification data that a criminal justice agency, such as CDCR, must collect as criminal offender
17 record information. (Id. at §§ 13125, 13101, subd. (a).)
18 Indeed, the PRA specifically provides that “criminal offender record information” may be
19 withheld given the restrictions on the dissemination of such information under the Penal Code.
20 (Gov. Code, §§ 6276, 6276.12, citing Pen. Code, §§ 11076, 13202.) Penal Code section 11076
21 specifically provides that criminal offender record information “shall be disseminated, whether
22 directly or through any intermediary, only to such agencies as are, or may subsequently be,
23 authorized access to such records by statute.” (Pen. Code, § 11076, emphasis added.)
24 Additionally, Penal Code section 13202 states that a public agency or bona fide research body
25 may obtain criminal offender record information for criminal justice research “provided that any
26 material identifying individuals is not transferred, revealed, or used for other than research or
27 statistical activities and reports or publications derived therefrom do not identify specific
28 individuals[.]” (Id. at § 13202, emphasis added.) In short, under the Penal Code’s
10
Oppn. To Mot. & Petn. For Writ of Mandate; Mem. of P’s & A’s (CPF-20-516978)
1 “complementary and interlocking” provisions, only certain agencies or persons may access
2 criminal offender record information. (Loder v. Municipal Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 859, 876;
3 Younger v. Berkeley City Council, supra, 45 Cal.App.3d at pp. 830-833 [invaliding city ordinance
4 that allowed individuals to access their own arrest records because it conflicted with Penal
5 Code].)
6 Here, Brodheim seeks identifiable race and ethnicity data of about 3,200 current or former
7 inmates. (Petn.) But because CDCR collected this data along with the individuals’ criminal
8 history for the purpose of identifying them, it constitutes criminal offender record information not
9 subject to disclosure under the Penal Code. (Exh. 1, Decl. by. J. Campbell at ¶¶ 4-5; Pen. Code,
10 §§ 11075, subd. (a), 13102.) To obtain and verify this information, CDCR staff reviewed several
11 sources. (Exh. 1 at ¶ 5.) They reviewed the individuals’ Life Cycle and Criminal Identification
12 and Information rap sheet, which was generated and provided by the California Department of
13 Justice through its California Law Enforcement Telecommunications Systems database. (Ibid.)
14 Case records staff also reviewed the individuals’ probation reports, abstracts of judgment, and jail
15 records to confirm their race and ethnicity and criminal history data. (Ibid.; see Pen. Code,
16 § 1203.05, subd. (a) [probation reports are confidential and not publicly available after 60 days
17 from the date judgment is pronounced].) This data was then inputted into CDCR’s electronic
18 database (Strategic Offender Management System, or SOMS), so that correctional staff could
19 readily identify the inmates. (Exh. 1 at ¶ 5.) Thus, the sought data constitutes basic criminal
20 offender record information that CDCR was required to collect for identification purposes, and
21 the Penal Code precluded its disclosure. (Pen. Code, §§ 11076, 13101, 13125, 13202.) And
22 sections 6276 and 6276.12 of PRA specifically provide that such information may be withheld
23 given the dissemination restrictions under the Penal Code. (Gov. Code, §§ 6276, 6276.12, citing
24 Pen. Code, §§ 11076, 13202.)
25 Indeed, Brodheim is not an agency employee authorized under the Penal Code to receive
26 criminal offender record information for the purpose of “fulfilling employment, certification, or
27 licensing duties.” (Pen. Code, §§ 11105, subd. (b), 11076.) And releasing the sought data in the
28 manner requested by Brodheim would reveal the identities of the 3,200 individuals, in
11
Oppn. To Mot. & Petn. For Writ of Mandate; Mem. of P’s & A’s (CPF-20-516978)
1 contravention of Penal Code section 13202. (Id. at § 13202 [barring release of any criminal
2 offender “material identifying individuals” or otherwise revealing their identities].) Releasing the
3 data to Brodheim, therefore, could subject the responsible CDCR employee to criminal liability.
4 (Id. at §§ 11141, 11142 [it is a misdemeanor for any person authorized to receive criminal
5 offender record information to knowingly furnish such information to a person not authorized to
6 receive it].) Brodheim could also be held criminally liable for the unauthorized receipt or
7 possession of such data. (Id. at § 11143 [it is a misdemeanor for an unauthorized person to
8 receive or possess criminal offender record information].) In short, criminal offender record
9 information is “virtually treated as contraband,” as only authorized agencies or persons can
10 receive and exchange such information. (Loder v. Municipal Court, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 873.)
11 Further, as the court held in Younger v. Berkeley City Council, “the restrictions upon the
12 release of [criminal offender record information] are so carefully set out in the Penal Code . . .
13 that it is inconceivable that the general terms of the Public Records Act were intended to render
14 them void.” (Younger v. Berkeley City Council, supra, 45 Cal.App.3d at p. 832; Van de Kamp,
15 supra, 223 Cal.App.3d at p. 116 [holding that “nondisclosure of criminal records is the general
16 rule,” “exceptions [under the Penal Code] are to be narrowly construed,” and “all doubts are
17 resolved against disclosure”].) Consequently, under section 6254, subdivision (k) of the PRA,
18 CDCR properly withheld the sought data as constituting criminal offender record information.
19 B. Identifiable Inmate Race and Ethnicity Data Constitutes Personal
Information Under the Information Practices Act, and Thus, It Was Also
20 Properly Withheld Under CCR § 3261.2.
21 CCR § 3261.2 provides a separate basis for nondisclosure of the sought data under section
22 6254, subdivision (k) of the PRA. This PRA disclosure exemption, as specified under sections
23 6276 and 6276.34 of the PRA, applies to “[p]ersonal information” under the Information
24 Practices Act when subject to “prohibitions against disclosure by state agencies[.]” (Gov. Code,
25 §§ 6276, 6276.34, citing Civ. Code, §§ 1798.24, 1798.75.)
26 Here, CCR § 3261.2 constitutes an agency regulatory prohibition on the disclosure of
27 personal information, as this regulation embodies privacy protections granted to current and
28 former inmates under the Information Practices Act. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3261.2; Civ.
12
Oppn. To Mot. & Petn. For Writ of Mandate; Mem. of P’s & A’s (CPF-20-516978)
1 Code, § 1798 et seq.) This Act provides that a state “agency shall not disclose personal
2 information in manner that would link the information disclosed to the individual to whom it
3 pertains[.]” (Civ. Code, § 1798.24.) Under this Act, personal information includes a person’s
4 social security number, home address, and “physical description,” such as the person’s race or
5 ethnicity. (Id. at § 1798.3, subd. (a).)
6 Pursuant to the Information Practices Act’s privacy protections, CCR section 3161.2
7 limits what categories of personal information about current and former inmates can be disclosed
8 to the public. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3261.2, subds. (d), (e).) While CCR § 3161.2
9 authorizes CDCR to disclose these individuals’ names when inquired by the public, it does not
10 list or otherwise authorize CDCR to release other personal information, such as these individuals’
11 social security numbers or their race and ethnicity. (Ibid.) Under CCR § 3261.2, therefore,
12 CDCR withheld disclosure of the sought data to protect the personal information of the 3,200
13 individuals concerned. (Ibid.) Because CCR § 3261.2 constitutes an agency prohibition on the
14 release of personal information, it is specifically authorized under sections 6276 and 6276.34 of
15 the PRA. (Gov. Code, §§ 6276, 6276.34.) Given this regulatory disclosure prohibition, CDCR
16 properly withheld the data under section 6254, subdivision (k) of the PRA.
17 III. UNDER SECTION 6254, SUBDIVISION (C) OF THE PRA, THE IDENTIFIABLE INMATE
RACE AND ETHNICITY DATA WAS ALSO PROPERLY WITHHELD BECAUSE
Preview
1 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California 2 SARA J. ROMANO Supervising Deputy Attorney General ELECTRONICALLY 3 MICHAEL G. LAGRAMA Deputy Attorney General F I L E D Superior Court of California, 4 State Bar No. 252734 County of San Francisco 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 06/11/2020 5 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 Clerk of the Court Telephone: (415) 510-3584 BY: RONNIE OTERO Deputy Clerk 6 Fax: (415) 703-5843 E-mail: Michael.Lagrama@doj.ca.gov 7 Attorneys for Respondent 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 CIVIL DIVISION 11 12 13 MICHAEL BRODHEIM, Case No. CPF-20-516978 14 Petitioner, OPPOSITION TO MOTION AND 15 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 16 AUTHORITIES CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 17 CORRECTIONS AND Date: June 24, 2020 REHABILITATION, Time: 9:30 a.m. 18 Dept: 303 Respondent. Judge: Hon. Ethan Schulman 19 Action Filed: January 7, 2020 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Oppn. To Mot. & Petn. For Writ of Mandate; Mem. of P’s & A’s (CPF-20-516978) 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Statement of Facts ........................................................................................................................... 7 4 Legal Standard ................................................................................................................................ 8 5 Argument ........................................................................................................................................ 8 6 I. The Right to Disclosure of Public Records Under the PRA Is Not Absolute Given Countervailing Privacy Rights. .................................................................... 8 7 II. Identifiable Inmate Race and Ethnicity Data Was Properly Withheld Under Section 6254, Subdivision (k) of the PRA, Which Incorporates Statutory 8 and Regulatory Disclosure Prohibitions.................................................................. 9 9 A. The Sought Data Constitutes Criminal Offender Record Information Under the Penal Code, and Thus, CDCR Was Barred 10 From Releasing It. ..................................................................................... 10 B. Identifiable Inmate Race and Ethnicity Data Constitutes Personal 11 Information Under the Information Practices Act, and Thus, It Was Also Properly Withheld Under CCR § 3261.2.......................................... 12 12 III. Under Section 6254, Subdivision (c) of the PRA, the Identifiable Inmate 13 Race and Ethnicity Data Was Also Properly Withheld Because Disclosing It Constitutes an Unwarranted Invasion of Privacy. ............................................. 13 14 IV. CDCR Also Properly Withheld the Data Under Section 6255, Subdivision (a) of the PRA, Where the Public Interest in Preserving Privacy Rights 15 Clearly Outweighs the Minimal Public Interest In Disclosure. ............................ 17 16 V. Nor Does Brodheim Have a Separate Constitutional Right to Identifiable Inmate Race and Ethnicity Data............................................................................ 18 17 VI. Brodheim Fails to State a Basis for Mandate Relief. ............................................ 18 18 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Oppn. To Mot. & Petn. For Writ of Mandate; Mem. P’s & A’s (CPF-20-516978) 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page 3 CASES 4 Black Panther Party v. Kehoe (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 645.........................................................................................8, 15, 16, 18 5 6 City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1008 ............................................................................................. passim 7 Copley Press Inc. v. Superior Court 8 (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1272 ...............................................................................................................8 9 Housing Auth. of the County of Sacramento v. Van de Kamp (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 109.................................................................................................10, 12 10 L.A. United School Dist. v. Superior Court 11 (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 222 ............................................................................................. passim 12 Loder v. Municipal Court 13 (1976) 17 Cal.3d 859 ..........................................................................................................11, 12 14 Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach (2014) 59 Cal.4th 59 ...................................................................................................................9 15 Morris v. Harper 16 (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 52 ...........................................................................................................8 17 Porten v. Univ. of S.F. 18 (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 825...................................................................................................14, 16 19 Sander v. State Bar of Cal. (2013) 58 Cal.4th 300 (Sander I) ........................................................................................14, 15 20 Sander v. State Bar of Cal. 21 (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 651 (Sander II) .....................................................................................15 22 Timmons v. McMahon 23 (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 512...................................................................................................8, 18 24 White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757 ..........................................................................................................14, 16 25 Younger v. Berkeley City Council 26 (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 825.............................................................................................10, 11, 12 27 28 3 Oppn. To Mot. & Petn. For Writ of Mandate; Mem. P’s & A’s (CPF-20-516978) 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) 2 Page 3 STATUTES 4 California Public Records Act (PRA) ..................................................................................... passim 5 Civil Code 6 § 1798 et seq. ..............................................................................................................7, 9, 12, 18 § 1798.3, subd. (a) .....................................................................................................................13 7 § 1798.24 .............................................................................................................................12, 13 § 1798.24, subd. (t)(1)(A)-(C)...............................................................................................7, 16 8 § 1798.75 ...................................................................................................................................12 9 Civil Procedure Code § 1085, subd. (a) ....................................................................................................................8, 18 10 11 Government Code § 1798.24, subd. (t)(1)(C) ...........................................................................................................8 12 § 1798.24, subd. (t)(a)(A) ...........................................................................................................8 § 1798.24, subd. (t)(a)(B)............................................................................................................8 13 § 3261.7, subd. (c)(3). .................................................................................................................9 § 6250 ........................................................................................................................................13 14 § 6254, subd. (c) ................................................................................................................ passim 15 § 6254, subd. (k) ............................................................................................................... passim § 6255, subd. (a) ..............................................................................................................6, 17, 18 16 § 6259, subd. (d) .......................................................................................................................18 § 6260 et seq. ..............................................................................................................................8 17 § 6276 ......................................................................................................................10, 11, 12, 13 § 6276.12 .............................................................................................................................10, 11 18 § 6276.34 .............................................................................................................................12, 13 19 Information Practices Act ....................................................................................................... passim 20 Penal Code 21 § 1203.05, subd. (a) ...................................................................................................................11 § 11075 et seq. ..........................................................................................................................10 22 § 11075, subd. (a) ..........................................................................................................10, 11, 17 § 11076 ......................................................................................................................9, 10, 11, 17 23 § 11105 et seq. ..........................................................................................................................10 24 § 11105, subd. (b) .....................................................................................................................11 § 11141 ......................................................................................................................................12 25 § 11142 ......................................................................................................................................12 § 13101 ......................................................................................................................................11 26 § 13102 ..........................................................................................................................10, 11, 17 § 13125 ................................................................................................................................11, 14 27 § 13200 et seq. ..........................................................................................................................10 28 § 13202 .............................................................................................................................. passim 4 Oppn. To Mot. & Petn. For Writ of Mandate; Mem. of P’s & A’s (CPF-20-516978) 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) 2 Page 3 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS 4 California Constitution Article I § 1 ........................................................................................................................................13, 17 5 6 United States Constitution First Amendment .......................................................................................................................18 7 OTHER AUTHORITIES 8 California Code of Regulations, title 15 9 § 3261.2 .......................................................................................................................6, 9, 12, 13 § 3261.2, subds. (d) ...................................................................................................................13 10 § 3261.2, subd. (e) .....................................................................................................................13 11 § 3488 ..........................................................................................................................................7 § 3488, subd. (a) ........................................................................................................................16 12 § 3488, subd. (b) .......................................................................................................................16 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 Oppn. To Mot. & Petn. For Writ of Mandate; Mem. of P’s & A’s (CPF-20-516978) 1 INTRODUCTION 2 Michael Brodheim seeks a writ of mandate compelling the California Department of 3 Corrections and Rehabilitation to disclose the race and ethnicity of about 3,200 current and 4 former inmates under the California Public Records Act (PRA). He specifically demands that this 5 data be provided in a manner that reveals these individuals’ race or ethnicity along with their 6 name, or in identifiable form. But Brodheim fails to show that CDCR has a clear and present 7 ministerial duty to release this data in the manner requested, or that he has a clear and present 8 beneficial right to the performance of any duty, as necessary to obtain mandate relief. 9 Identifiable inmate race and ethnicity data was properly withheld under the PRA’s 10 disclosure exceptions; namely sections 6254, subdivisions (c) and (k), and 6255, subdivision (a), 11 of the Government Code. 1 The PRA’s exceptions apply here because this data constitutes 12 criminal offender record information not subject to disclosure under the Penal Code. This data 13 also constitutes personal information not subject to disclosure under California Code of 14 Regulations, title 15, section 3261.2 (CCR § 3261.2), which reflects privacy protections accorded 15 to current and former inmates under the Information Practices Act. 16 Releasing the individuals’ race and ethnicity data in identifiable form also constitutes an 17 unwarranted invasion of their personal privacy because this information was collected for a law 18 enforcement purpose. As a result, the data cannot simply be used for another purpose or 19 disclosed to a third party, such as to Brodheim who wishes to publish it. The privacy rights of the 20 3,200 individuals further greatly outweigh the public interest in disclosure, as the public interest 21 here is minimal because Brodheim has an alternative means of acquiring the data. Brodheim can 22 obtain the sought data through CDCR’s research oversight committee, which will ensure that the 23 personal information of current and former inmates is protected from improper use and 24 dissemination. Finally, the public interest in preserving constitutional and statutory privacy rights 25 greatly outweigh the minimal public interest here in disclosure via the PRA, where Brodheim 26 simply refuses to seek the data through CDCR’s research oversight committee so that the right to 27 privacy can simultaneously be protected. 28 1 All further statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise specified. 6 Oppn. To Mot. & Petn. For Writ of Mandate; Mem. of P’s & A’s (CPF-20-516978) 1 Accordingly, because CDCR does not have a ministerial duty to provide the data to 2 Brodheim in the manner he requests and he otherwise has no beneficial right to identifiable 3 inmate race and ethnicity data, the motion and petition for writ of mandate should be denied. 4 STATEMENT OF FACTS 5 Brodheim is a current graduate student seeking to research whether there are racial 6 disparities in the state’s parole decisions. (Petn. at p. 2.) In September 2019, Brodheim 7 submitted a PRA request to the Board of Parole Hearings seeking 16 categories of information 8 about the individuals who appeared for parole hearings between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019. 9 (Id. at Exh. B.) The information sought included their names, controlling offenses and sentences, 10 and race and ethnicity. (Ibid.) The Board provided Brodheim with some of the requested data, 11 including the names of about 3,200 individuals who appeared for parole hearings during the 12 specified time period. (Id. at p. 4.) The Board, however, did not have a database containing the 13 race and ethnicity of these individuals. (See ibid.) Brodheim thus submitted a separate PRA 14 request to CDCR seeking the race and ethnicity of each of the 3,200 individuals. (Petn. at Exh. 15 D.) Brodheim specifically sought the race or ethnicity of each person by their name, or in 16 identifiable form. (Ibid.) To protect the privacy rights of these individuals, however, CDCR 17 withheld the data in the manner requested by Brodheim. (Id. at Exh. E.) Instead, CDCR offered 18 to provide Brodheim with “ethnicity summary numbers broken down by Black, White, Hispanic 19 and Others,” but Brodheim declined the data in this form. (Id. at Exh. G.) 20 CDCR also invited Brodheim to submit a research proposal to CDCR’s research oversight 21 committee, which is responsible for releasing personal information of current and former inmates 22 in accordance with the privacy protections under the Information Practices Act. (Petn. at Exh. H; 23 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3488; Civ. Code, § 1798 et seq.) Through this committee, Brodheim 24 may obtain all the data points he needs for his research (including race and ethnicity data in 25 identifiable form), while also protecting the privacy rights of the 3,200 individuals whose 26 personal information he seeks. (Civ. Code, § 1798.24, subd. (t)(1)(A)-(C).) In accordance with 27 the Information Practices Act, Brodheim would have to submit to the committee a plan on how to 28 protect the requested personal information from improper use and disclosure, and a plan for 7 Oppn. To Mot. & Petn. For Writ of Mandate; Mem. of P’s & A’s (CPF-20-516978) 1 destroying or returning the personal information after completing his research project. (Id. at § 2 1798.24, subd. (t)(a)(A), (B).) Brodheim would also have to provide the committee with written 3 assurances that the personal information would not be reused or disclosed to any other party, or 4 otherwise used in a manner not approved by the committee. (Id. at § 1798.24, subd. (t)(1)(C).) 5 Rather than submit a research proposal to CDCR’s research oversight committee to acquire the 6 sought data, Brodheim initiated this mandate proceeding. (Petn.) 7 LEGAL STANDARD 8 A writ of mandate will lie only to “to compel the performance of an act which the law 9 specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085, 10 subd. (a).) To establish a claim for mandate relief, the petitioner must show that respondent failed 11 to perform a “‘clear, present, [and] ministerial duty’” under law, and that the petitioner has a 12 clear, present and beneficial right to the performance of that duty. (Timmons v. McMahon (1991) 13 235 Cal.App.3d 512, 517, citation omitted; Morris v. Harper (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 52, 62 14 [holding that a ministerial duty is “‘an act that a public officer is required to perform in a 15 prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority’”], citation omitted.) 16 ARGUMENT 17 I. THE RIGHT TO DISCLOSURE OF PUBLIC RECORDS UNDER THE PRA IS NOT ABSOLUTE GIVEN COUNTERVAILING PRIVACY RIGHTS. 18 19 The PRA provides for the disclosure of public records maintained by state and local 20 agencies. (Gov. Code, § 6260 et seq.) But the “right of access to public records under the [PRA] 21 is not absolute.” (L.A. United School Dist. v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 222, 238 22 (LAUSD), citing Copley Press Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1272, 1282.) Indeed, the 23 PRA “bespeaks legislative concern for individual privacy as well as disclosure ‘concerning the 24 conduct of the people’s business.’” (Black Panther Party v. Kehoe (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 645, 25 652 (Black Panther Party).) To this end, the PRA contains specific disclosure exemptions 26 “designed to protect the privacy of persons whose data or documents come into government 27 possession.” (Ibid. [“The objectives of the Public Records Act thus include preservations of 28 islands of privacy upon the broad seas of enforced disclosure”].) 8 Oppn. To Mot. & Petn. For Writ of Mandate; Mem. of P’s & A’s (CPF-20-516978) 1 As the following analysis details, several PRA disclosure exemptions apply here to protect 2 the privacy rights of the 3,200 individuals whose personal information Brodheim seeks. 3 II. IDENTIFIABLE INMATE RACE AND ETHNICITY DATA WAS PROPERLY WITHHELD UNDER SECTION 6254, SUBDIVISION (K) OF THE PRA, WHICH INCORPORATES 4 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY DISCLOSURE PROHIBITIONS. 5 Under section 6254, subdivision (k) of the PRA, a state agency is not required to release 6 information or public “[r]ecords, the disclosure of which is exempt or prohibited pursuant to 7 federal or state law[.]” 2 In effect, the PRA “incorporates other [disclosure] prohibitions 8 established by law.” (Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach (2014) 59 Cal.4th 9 59, 61, internal quotations and citations omitted.) 10 Here, as explained below, inmate race and ethnicity data in identifiable form constitutes 11 criminal offender record information not subject to disclosure under the Penal Code. (Pen. Code, 12 §§ 11076, 13202.) This data also constitutes personal information not subject to disclosure under 13 CCR § 3261.2, which reflects privacy protections accorded to current and former inmates under 14 the Information Practices Act. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3261.2 3; Civ. Code, § 1798 et seq.) 15 Given these statutory and regulatory disclosure prohibitions, CDCR properly withheld the sought 16 data under section 6254, subdivision (k) of the PRA. 17 2 This section provides in full: “Except as provided in Sections 6254.7 and 6254.13, this chapter does not require the disclosure of any of the following records . . . (k) Records, the 18 disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege.” (Gov. Code, § 6254, subd. (k).) 19 3 This provision reads in full: “(a) Only an employee designated by the institution head shall inform the media regarding a facility incident or newsworthy event. (b) Except as provided 20 by applicable federal and state law, no person shall disclose any protected health information that identifies an individual without a valid written authorization from the individual. (c) Information 21 pertaining to a Division of Juvenile Justice ward shall not be released to the media or the public, except as provided in subsection 3261.7(c)(3). (d) Information derived from a person’s Criminal 22 Identification and Investigations Report shall not be provided to the media or to the public. (e) Including the limitations of (c) and (d) above, the only inmate or parolee data which may be 23 released without a valid written authorization from the inmate/parolee to the media or to the public includes the inmate’s or parolee’s: (1) Name. (2) Age. (3) Birthplace. (4) Place of 24 previous residence. (5) Commitment information obtained from their adult probation officer’s report. (6) Facility assignments and behavior. (7) General state of health, given in short and non- 25 medical terms such as good, poor, or stable. (8) Cause of death. (9) Sentencing and release actions. (f) The only employee data which may be released to the media or to the public by other 26 than the employee concerning their involvement in a facility incident or newsworthy event includes: (1) Name. (2) Civil service classification. (3) Age. (4) Work assignment. (5) Length 27 of service with the department and/or current division or unit. (6) Past work assignments. (7) Role or function in a newsworthy event. (g) Information endangering an employee or concerning 28 an employee who is a crime victim shall not be released to the media.” 9 Oppn. To Mot. & Petn. For Writ of Mandate; Mem. of P’s & A’s (CPF-20-516978) 1 A. The Sought Data Constitutes Criminal Offender Record Information Under the Penal Code, and Thus, CDCR Was Barred From Releasing It. 2 3 CDCR was compelled to withhold the identifiable inmate race and ethnicity data because it 4 constitutes criminal offender record information. As codified in the Penal Code, the Legislature 5 has established “a comprehensive legislative scheme or pattern of criminal record dissemination 6 which preempts . . . general legislation such as the Public Records Act.” (Younger v. Berkeley 7 City Council (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 825, 832, emphasis added.) The Penal Code strictly governs 8 the collection and dissemination of criminal offender record information, and imposes criminal 9 penalties for its unauthorized dissemination and possession. (Pen. Code, §§ 11075 et seq., 11105 10 et seq., 13200 et seq.; Housing Auth. of the County of Sacramento v. Van de Kamp (1990) 223 11 Cal.App.3d 109, 112 (Van de Kamp) [holding “the Legislature has narrowly defined the instances 12 in which [criminal offender record] information may be disseminated”].) The term “‘criminal 13 offender record information’ means records and data compiled by criminal justice agencies for 14 the purposes of identifying criminal offenders” and documenting their criminal history. (Pen. 15 Code, §§ 11075, subd. (a), 13102.) A person’s race or ethnicity is among the basic personal 16 identification data that a criminal justice agency, such as CDCR, must collect as criminal offender 17 record information. (Id. at §§ 13125, 13101, subd. (a).) 18 Indeed, the PRA specifically provides that “criminal offender record information” may be 19 withheld given the restrictions on the dissemination of such information under the Penal Code. 20 (Gov. Code, §§ 6276, 6276.12, citing Pen. Code, §§ 11076, 13202.) Penal Code section 11076 21 specifically provides that criminal offender record information “shall be disseminated, whether 22 directly or through any intermediary, only to such agencies as are, or may subsequently be, 23 authorized access to such records by statute.” (Pen. Code, § 11076, emphasis added.) 24 Additionally, Penal Code section 13202 states that a public agency or bona fide research body 25 may obtain criminal offender record information for criminal justice research “provided that any 26 material identifying individuals is not transferred, revealed, or used for other than research or 27 statistical activities and reports or publications derived therefrom do not identify specific 28 individuals[.]” (Id. at § 13202, emphasis added.) In short, under the Penal Code’s 10 Oppn. To Mot. & Petn. For Writ of Mandate; Mem. of P’s & A’s (CPF-20-516978) 1 “complementary and interlocking” provisions, only certain agencies or persons may access 2 criminal offender record information. (Loder v. Municipal Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 859, 876; 3 Younger v. Berkeley City Council, supra, 45 Cal.App.3d at pp. 830-833 [invaliding city ordinance 4 that allowed individuals to access their own arrest records because it conflicted with Penal 5 Code].) 6 Here, Brodheim seeks identifiable race and ethnicity data of about 3,200 current or former 7 inmates. (Petn.) But because CDCR collected this data along with the individuals’ criminal 8 history for the purpose of identifying them, it constitutes criminal offender record information not 9 subject to disclosure under the Penal Code. (Exh. 1, Decl. by. J. Campbell at ¶¶ 4-5; Pen. Code, 10 §§ 11075, subd. (a), 13102.) To obtain and verify this information, CDCR staff reviewed several 11 sources. (Exh. 1 at ¶ 5.) They reviewed the individuals’ Life Cycle and Criminal Identification 12 and Information rap sheet, which was generated and provided by the California Department of 13 Justice through its California Law Enforcement Telecommunications Systems database. (Ibid.) 14 Case records staff also reviewed the individuals’ probation reports, abstracts of judgment, and jail 15 records to confirm their race and ethnicity and criminal history data. (Ibid.; see Pen. Code, 16 § 1203.05, subd. (a) [probation reports are confidential and not publicly available after 60 days 17 from the date judgment is pronounced].) This data was then inputted into CDCR’s electronic 18 database (Strategic Offender Management System, or SOMS), so that correctional staff could 19 readily identify the inmates. (Exh. 1 at ¶ 5.) Thus, the sought data constitutes basic criminal 20 offender record information that CDCR was required to collect for identification purposes, and 21 the Penal Code precluded its disclosure. (Pen. Code, §§ 11076, 13101, 13125, 13202.) And 22 sections 6276 and 6276.12 of PRA specifically provide that such information may be withheld 23 given the dissemination restrictions under the Penal Code. (Gov. Code, §§ 6276, 6276.12, citing 24 Pen. Code, §§ 11076, 13202.) 25 Indeed, Brodheim is not an agency employee authorized under the Penal Code to receive 26 criminal offender record information for the purpose of “fulfilling employment, certification, or 27 licensing duties.” (Pen. Code, §§ 11105, subd. (b), 11076.) And releasing the sought data in the 28 manner requested by Brodheim would reveal the identities of the 3,200 individuals, in 11 Oppn. To Mot. & Petn. For Writ of Mandate; Mem. of P’s & A’s (CPF-20-516978) 1 contravention of Penal Code section 13202. (Id. at § 13202 [barring release of any criminal 2 offender “material identifying individuals” or otherwise revealing their identities].) Releasing the 3 data to Brodheim, therefore, could subject the responsible CDCR employee to criminal liability. 4 (Id. at §§ 11141, 11142 [it is a misdemeanor for any person authorized to receive criminal 5 offender record information to knowingly furnish such information to a person not authorized to 6 receive it].) Brodheim could also be held criminally liable for the unauthorized receipt or 7 possession of such data. (Id. at § 11143 [it is a misdemeanor for an unauthorized person to 8 receive or possess criminal offender record information].) In short, criminal offender record 9 information is “virtually treated as contraband,” as only authorized agencies or persons can 10 receive and exchange such information. (Loder v. Municipal Court, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 873.) 11 Further, as the court held in Younger v. Berkeley City Council, “the restrictions upon the 12 release of [criminal offender record information] are so carefully set out in the Penal Code . . . 13 that it is inconceivable that the general terms of the Public Records Act were intended to render 14 them void.” (Younger v. Berkeley City Council, supra, 45 Cal.App.3d at p. 832; Van de Kamp, 15 supra, 223 Cal.App.3d at p. 116 [holding that “nondisclosure of criminal records is the general 16 rule,” “exceptions [under the Penal Code] are to be narrowly construed,” and “all doubts are 17 resolved against disclosure”].) Consequently, under section 6254, subdivision (k) of the PRA, 18 CDCR properly withheld the sought data as constituting criminal offender record information. 19 B. Identifiable Inmate Race and Ethnicity Data Constitutes Personal Information Under the Information Practices Act, and Thus, It Was Also 20 Properly Withheld Under CCR § 3261.2. 21 CCR § 3261.2 provides a separate basis for nondisclosure of the sought data under section 22 6254, subdivision (k) of the PRA. This PRA disclosure exemption, as specified under sections 23 6276 and 6276.34 of the PRA, applies to “[p]ersonal information” under the Information 24 Practices Act when subject to “prohibitions against disclosure by state agencies[.]” (Gov. Code, 25 §§ 6276, 6276.34, citing Civ. Code, §§ 1798.24, 1798.75.) 26 Here, CCR § 3261.2 constitutes an agency regulatory prohibition on the disclosure of 27 personal information, as this regulation embodies privacy protections granted to current and 28 former inmates under the Information Practices Act. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3261.2; Civ. 12 Oppn. To Mot. & Petn. For Writ of Mandate; Mem. of P’s & A’s (CPF-20-516978) 1 Code, § 1798 et seq.) This Act provides that a state “agency shall not disclose personal 2 information in manner that would link the information disclosed to the individual to whom it 3 pertains[.]” (Civ. Code, § 1798.24.) Under this Act, personal information includes a person’s 4 social security number, home address, and “physical description,” such as the person’s race or 5 ethnicity. (Id. at § 1798.3, subd. (a).) 6 Pursuant to the Information Practices Act’s privacy protections, CCR section 3161.2 7 limits what categories of personal information about current and former inmates can be disclosed 8 to the public. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3261.2, subds. (d), (e).) While CCR § 3161.2 9 authorizes CDCR to disclose these individuals’ names when inquired by the public, it does not 10 list or otherwise authorize CDCR to release other personal information, such as these individuals’ 11 social security numbers or their race and ethnicity. (Ibid.) Under CCR § 3261.2, therefore, 12 CDCR withheld disclosure of the sought data to protect the personal information of the 3,200 13 individuals concerned. (Ibid.) Because CCR § 3261.2 constitutes an agency prohibition on the 14 release of personal information, it is specifically authorized under sections 6276 and 6276.34 of 15 the PRA. (Gov. Code, §§ 6276, 6276.34.) Given this regulatory disclosure prohibition, CDCR 16 properly withheld the data under section 6254, subdivision (k) of the PRA. 17 III. UNDER SECTION 6254, SUBDIVISION (C) OF THE PRA, THE IDENTIFIABLE INMATE RACE AND ETHNICITY DATA WAS ALSO PROPERLY WITHHELD BECAUSE