BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1682
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2010
Counsel: Nicole J. Hanson
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 1682 (Torres) - As Amended: April 14, 2010
FOR VOTE ONLY
SUMMARY : Authorizes the board of supervisors or a city council
to authorize the sheriff or the chief of police to establish a
procedure to protect confidential personal information contained
in a police report, arrest report, or investigative report
regarding a victim or alleged victim, and said victim or alleged
victim has requested the information to be kept confidential.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Allows the board of supervisors of a county or the city
council of a city may, by resolution, authorize the sheriff,
in the case of a county, or the chief of police, in the case
of a city, to establish a procedure to protect confidential
personal information contained in a police report, arrest
report, or investigative report regarding a victim where
access to that information would reveal the identity of a
victim or alleged victim of a crime, and where that victim,
alleged victim, or the parent or guardian of a victim or
alleged victim who is a minor has requested the information to
be kept confidential.
2)Defines "confidential personal information" to include the
address, telephone number, driver's license or California
identification card number, social security number, date of
birth, place of employment, employee identification number,
mother's maiden name, demand deposit account number, checking
or savings account number, or credit card number.
3)Declares legislative intent to make the following findings to
demonstrate the interest protected and the need for protecting
that interest: In order to protect the victim of a crime from
further suffering that results when that person's identity
becomes public and retaliation, intimidation, and harassment
AB 1682
Page 2
may be inflicted by the very perpetrators who committed the
crime, it is necessary to empower local government to protect
confidential personal information contained in a police
report, arrest report, or investigative report.
4)Exempts the aforementioned from the restrictions set forth
under the Public Records Act.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires in each county, the district attorney and the courts,
in consultation with any local law enforcement agencies that
may desire to provide information or other assistance, shall
establish a mutually agreeable procedure to protect
confidential personal information regarding any witness or
victim contained in a police report, arrest report, or
investigative report if one of these reports is submitted to a
court by a prosecutor in support of a criminal complaint,
indictment, or information, or by a prosecutor or law
enforcement officer in support of a search warrant or an
arrest warrant. [Penal Code Section 964(a).]
2)Provides that "confidential personal information" includes,
but is not limited to, an address, telephone number, driver's
license or California Identification Card number, Social
Security number, date of birth, place of employment, employee
identification number, mother's maiden name, demand deposit
account number, savings or checking account number, or credit
card number. [Penal Code Section 964(b).]
3)Prohibits any law enforcement officer or employee of a law
enforcement agency to disclose to any arrested person, or to
any person who may be a defendant in a criminal action, the
telephone number or address of any person who may be a victim
or witness in the action. [Penal Code Section 841.5(a)]
4)Allows the current address of every individual arrested by the
agency and the current address of the victim of a crime, where
the requester declares under penalty of perjury that the
request is made for a scholarly, journalistic, political, or
governmental purpose, or that the request is made for
investigation purposes by a licensed private investigator.
However, the address of a victim of the following crimes shall
be kept confidential: assault with the intent to commit
mayhem, rape, sodomy, or oral copulation, human trafficking,
AB 1682
Page 3
rape, unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under 18 years
of age, rape of a spouse, penetration or rap by a foreign
object, abduction for marriage or defilement, inveiglement or
enticement of an unmarried minor female under 18 for
prostitution, unlawful sexual intercourse, sexual penetration,
oral copulation or sodomy with the intent to create fear, sale
of a person for immoral purpose, pandering a minor, abduction
for purposes of prostitution, aggravated sexual assault of a
child, willful harm or injury to a child, corporal punishment
or injury of a child, willful infliction of corporal injury,
incest, sodomy, lewd or lascivious acts, oral copulation,
harmful matter sent with intent of seduction of a minor,
contact with a minor with the intent to commit a sexual
offense, continual sexual abuse of a child, sexual intercourse
or sodomy with a child 10 years of age or younger, forcible
acts of sexual penetration, interference with the exercise of
civil rights because of actual or perceived characteristics of
the victim, hate crime, stalking, or annoying or molesting a
child under 18. Address information obtained pursuant to this
paragraph may not be used directly or indirectly, or furnished
to another, to sell a product or service to any individual or
group of individuals, and the requester shall execute a
declaration to that effect under penalty of perjury. Nothing
in this paragraph shall be construed to prohibit or limit a
scholarly, journalistic, political, or government use of
address information obtained pursuant to this paragraph.
[Government Code Section 6254(f)(3).]
5)Forbids an attorney from disclosing to a defendant, members of
the defendant's family, or any other person, the address or
telephone number of a victim or witness whose name is
disclosed to the attorney as part of the discovery process.
[Penal Code Section 1054.2(a)(1).]
6)Establishes procedures for filing records under seal and state
that the court may order that a record be filed under seal
only if it expressly finds that: (a) there exists an
overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access
to the record, (b) the overriding interest supports the
sealing of the record, (c) a substantial probability exists
that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record
is not sealed, (d) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored,
and (e) no less restrictive means exist to achieve the
overriding interest. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 124.)
AB 1682
Page 4
7)Provides that under specified circumstances a public entity
has a right to disclose official information, and a public
entity also has a privilege to refuse to disclose the identity
of a person who has disclosed information under specified
circumstances. The law also establishes a procedure to
contest a claim of privilege. (Evidence Code Sections 1040 to
1042.)
8)Makes court records generally accessible unless there is a
compelling need shown. [See e.g., U.S. Const. 1st Amend.;
Cal. Const., art. I, subd. 2(a); Press Enterprise v. Superior
Court (1984) 464 U.S. 501; Press Enterprise v. Superior Court
(1986) 478 U.S. 1; NBC Subsidiary v. Superior Court (1999) 20
Cal.4th 1178.]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "Victims of
crime are increasingly susceptible to being re-victimized as a
result of retaliatory violence, intimidation or harassment.
Developments in technology and the internet have made it
relatively easy for an assailant to acquire all of their
victim's private information, including home address,
telephone number, driver's license, social security number,
date of birth and place of employment.
"In 1995, law enforcement and the newspaper associations worked
together to create a law that would address a then growing
problem of so called 'boilerplate' requests to law enforcement
agencies under the Public Records Act. These 'boilerplate'
requests were used to obtain the name and addresses of victims
and arrestees for the purpose of solicitation of all sorts of
services, making law enforcement agencies a one stop shop for
telemarketers, defense attorneys seeking clients and others to
obtain confidential personal identifying information about
crime victims and arrestees. A compromise was crafted that
limited access to crime victims and arrestee personal
information to those who needed it for 'scholarly,
journalistic, political, or governmental purpose.'
"In 1995, defining a 'journalistic' purpose was fairly easy to
define. A journalist was someone who worked for a known
'traditional' media outlet such as a newspaper, radio or
AB 1682
Page 5
television network.
"The website www.whoisarat.com posts the personal information of
law enforcement agents, informants and even victims.
"Currently, victims' confidential information is a click away.
Victims should not lose their rights to privacy just because
they became victims. On the contrary, they should be given
the right to protect their information if they think doing so
will protect them and their families."
2)The Publicity of Personal Information and the First Amendment :
Governmental agencies, including the courts, have a special
obligation to protect the public's interest in individual
privacy. Government records and court records are being
harvested for personal information about individuals that
disclose personal details about them. This information is
being published through various forms of media. The
California Constitution, Article I, section 1, guarantees all
persons the inalienable right to privacy. Nonetheless, the
public and the press have a right to review the government's
conduct of its business. The Legislature, mindful of the
right of individuals to privacy, has deemed the public's right
of access to information concerning the conduct of public
business a fundamental and necessary interest of citizenship.
Consequently, in enacting the Public Records Act (See
Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), the Legislature
balanced the individual's privacy interest with the right to
know about the conduct of public business. The specific
exemptions from this general requirement of disclosure, which
are listed in Government Code Section 6254, are construed
narrowly to insure maximum disclosure of the conduct of
governmental operations. [New York Times Co. v. Superior
Court (1990, Cal App 2d Dist) 218 Cal App 3d 1579.]
a) Constitutional Right to Access of Judicial Records :
There is an underlying presumption of public access to
court files and open trials which is based on both the
First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article I,
section 2(a) of the California Constitution. [U.S. Const.
1st Amend. ("Congress shall make no law, respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press . . . . ") and Cal. Const., Art. I, 2, subd. (a)
("Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or
AB 1682
Page 6
her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the
abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge
liberty of speech or press.").]
Courts analyzing the question of closed trials have referred
at the historical precedent of open criminal trials and the
value to openness. [See NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV) v.
Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178; Press-Enterprise Co.
v. Superior Court of California (1984) 464 U.S. 501.] Open
trials have provided a means "akin in purpose to the other
checks and balances that infuse our system of government"
by which citizens scrutinize and "check" the use and
possible abuse of judicial power and finally, with some
limitations, open trials serve to enhance the truth-finding
function of the proceeding. [Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v.
Virginia (1980) 448 U.S. 555, 596-597.] Justice Brennan
concluded: "Popular attendance at trials, in sum,
substantially furthers the particular public purposes of
that critical judicial proceeding. In that sense, public
access is an indispensable element of the trial process
itself. Trial access, therefore, assumes structural
importance in our 'government of laws.'" (Richmond
Newspapers, supra, 448 U.S. at p. 597.)
However, the right of access to court proceedings and records
is not absolute and can be overcome when: (i) there is an
overriding interest; (ii) there is a substantial
probability that the interest will be prejudiced absent
closure; (iii) if the restrictions are narrowly tailored to
meet those interests; and, (iv) if there is no less
restrictive alternative. (KNBC-TV., supra. and Code Civil
Procedure Section 124.)
b) Is there an Overriding Interest to Redact the Personal
Information Contained in Reports ? The background from the
author indicates that this bill is designed to safeguard
the privacy about victims and alleged victims named in
police reports, arrest reports, or investigative reports
regarding a victim where access to that information would
reveal the identity of a victim or alleged victim.
Concerns about making victims vulnerable to violence,
retaliation and harassment are stated. However, there is
an opposite and equally justified fear that without public
forum defendants will be convicted and/or set free based
upon stories of anonymous, phantom victims.
AB 1682
Page 7
Statistics show that the percentage of state felony cases
dismissed after arrest in major urban centers ranges from
10% for driving-related offenses to 40% for assault cases.
[Rainville & Reaves, U.S. Dep't of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of
Justice Statistics, Felony Defendants in Large Urban
Counties, 2000 (Dec. 2003) p. 24 (as of Apr. 19, 2010).]
The percent of cases dismissed for other types of crime
included: murder, 28%; rape, 33%; robbery, 35%;
motor-vehicle theft, 27%; drug trafficking, 20%. (Ibid.)
In federal court, prosecutors decline to prosecute some 35%
of suspects they investigate for violent offenses, 42% of
those they investigate for property offenses, and 17% and
34% of those they investigate for drug and weapons
offenses, respectively. [U.S. DOJ, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Federal Criminal Case Processing, 2001, with
Trends 1982-2001 (Jan. 2003) p. 9 tbl.3. (as of Apr. 19,
2010).] Among those suspects federal prosecutors do
prosecute, nearly 8% of defendants charged with felonies
and over 23% of those charged with misdemeanors find their
cases dismissed at some point in the process. (See id. at
11 tbl.5.) Statistics compiled by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), meanwhile, have for years put the
average rate of "unfounded or false" complaints of serious
crimes at 2%. [FBI, U.S. DOJ, Crime in the United States
1996 (Sept. 28, 1997) p. 24.]
This bill has the possibility of allowing the board of
supervisors or city council to authorize the sheriff or
chief of police to establish a procedure to protect
confidential personal information contained in an agency
report regarding a victim. It is possible that
the procedure created would be one that would give the public
insufficient facts upon which to determine whether or not
prosecutors and judges are appropriately using the
discretion the people have given them. Thus, an
infringement upon the public's right to information looms
upon what procedure is implemented by individual counties
and cities.
c) Substantial Probability that the Victim's Interest will
be Prejudiced ? In order to determine whether a victim's
privacy interest at the investigative stage of a criminal
AB 1682
Page 8
matter could be deemed a compelling reason to restrict
access, it is important to consider the precise nature and
scope of the victim's privacy interest in his or her
identity after he or she reports an incident to the police.
A victim's privacy interest in crimes at the early
investigative stage may be too ambiguous to be compelling.
However, rape victims who have sued over the publication of
their names have a cause of action for the publication of a
private fact. [Ross v. Midwest Communications, Inc. (5th
Cir. 1989) 870 F.2d 271.] This tort relies upon the view
that persons should not be subject to public disclosure of
facts that would be "highly offensive and objectionable to
a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities." [Keeton,
et al., Prosser & Keeton on the Law of Torts (5th ed. 1984)
117, at p. 852.] Thus, the disclosure of the victim's
name is not, in itself, a violation of privacy; rather, the
disclosure of a victim's name in conjunction with details
of a crime that are highly offensive, intimate, or
embarrassing violates the victim's privacy interest.
This tort-related reasoning could be used by a government to
justify its protection of the identity of any victim of a
gruesome personal assault, although it does not provide a
compelling argument for nondisclosure of the names of most
victims of purse snatching, burglary, or robbery. [See,
e.g., Tex. Op. Att'y Gen. Open Rec. Dec. 409 (1984)
(concluding that name of burglary victim is not "highly
intimate or embarrassing" and thus is not protected from
disclosure).]
An individual victim's choice to disclose his or her identity
to the public could be considered a highly personal one.
This would especially be true if such a disclosure would
reveal facts about the victim's body -- that it was
penetrated, for example -- or involve descriptions of areas
of the body about which the victim has a high expectation
of privacy. [See, e.g., United States ex rel. Latimore v.
Sielaff (7th Cir. 1977) 561 F.2d 691, 694 ("Rape
constitutes an intrusion upon areas of the victim's life,
both physical and psychological, to which our society
attaches the deepest sense of privacy.").]
On the other hand, however, one may argue that it is unfair
AB 1682
Page 9
to publish an alleged assailant's name but not to publish
the alleged victim's name. Such protection heightens the
stigma attached to being an accused rapist, thereby
chipping away at the accused's presumption of innocence.
[Cohen, Double Standards on Rape Charges, Wash. Post (Apr.
18, 1991) p. A21.] Such protection functions as a
validation of the victim's story and also allows the victim
to be an "anonymous accuser" empowered to damage the
accused's public reputation without having to reveal his or
her own identity. The suspect or arrestee's interest in
disclosure of the victim's identity at the investigative
stage is one of basic fairness. It is unfair to protect
the victim's name when the suspect's is disclosed to the
public. (Ibid.) Furthermore, the accused criminal is in a
far more vulnerable position than is the accusing victim.
The accused must submit to the coercive powers of the state
and stands to lose the privileges of freedom. At the very
least, the accused will suffer from the lasting public
stigma of having been an accused criminal. It is only fair
that a victim who is willing to subject a person to the
ordeal of a criminal trial be willing to stand publicly by
his or her accusations.
Current California law provides address protection for
victims of sex crimes. As demonstrated above, these types
of crimes constitute an intrusion upon areas of the
victim's life, both physical and psychological, to which
society attaches the deepest sense of privacy. This bill,
however, privatizes the personal information all crime
victims. As discussed above, victims of what may be
considered less personal offenses may not have a compelling
interest to support the nonpublic disclosure of personal
information. This is further evidenced by the specified
list of sex crimes whereby the victim's address may be
withheld from the public under Government Code Section
6254(f)(3).
d) Is the Proposed Redaction of Information Under this Bill
Narrowly Tailored ? This bill authorizes the board of
supervisors or a city council to authorize the sheriff or
the chief of police to establish a procedure to protect
confidential personal information contained in a police
report, arrest report, or investigative report regarding a
victim or alleged victim if said victim or alleged victim
has requested the information be kept confidential.
AB 1682
Page 10
The Supreme Court in Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court
(1982) 457 U.S. 596, ruled that if the government wishes to
deny public access to a criminal proceeding to which the
right applies, "it must be shown that the denial is
necessitated by a compelling governmental interest, and is
narrowly tailored to serve that interest," and is supported
by specific findings that the compelling interest would be
jeopardized by public disclosure. (Id. at 607 & 609.)
Interests that courts have deemed compelling enough to deny
public access include: protecting a defendant's right to a
fair trial, protecting sexual assault victims, juvenile
proceedings and preserving the impartiality and viability
of a jury. [See, e.g., Copley Press, Inc. v. San Diego
County Superior Court (Ct. App. 1991) 278 Cal. Rptr. 443
(holding that defendant's right to fair trial justified
delayed release of questionnaires given to venire persons
in capital case); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court
(1982) 457 U.S. 596, 607-608 (deciding that state interest
in protecting minor victims of sex crimes justifies court
order permitting full media access conditioned on media's
promise not to make public victims' identities); see, e.g.,
United States v. Edwards (5th Cir. 1987) 823 F.2d 111
(holding that interest in preserving the jury justified
excluding public from mid-trial hearings on possible juror
misconduct). Courts have also held that certain interests
justify restrictions on the public's access to identifying
information such as the names of suspects for whom search
warrants but no indictments have issued, or the names of
unindicted but suspected co-conspirators. [See, e.g., John
Does I-V v. Pulitzer Publishing Co. (8th Cir. 1990) 895
F.2d 460, 466 (holding that privacy interests justify
denying access to names).] In each case, the state had to
make substantial showings that the interest at stake would
be jeopardized by public disclosure; none of the above
interests are per se compelling.
This bill goes beyond what has been deemed by courts to
protect a compelling interest. Thus, this bill is not
narrowly tailored. As stated above, courts have upheld
statutes which protect minors, a defendant's right to a
fair trial, the impartiality of a jury, victims of sex
crimes, and suspects named in a warrant. Again, this bill
allows for the confidentiality of all victims in all crimes
if the victim elects to keep his or her information
AB 1682
Page 11
private. In addition thereto, this bill is not narrowly
tailored because it allows for the creation of a blanket
restriction without a substantial showing that the
particular victim's interest in a particular case would be
jeopardized by the disclosure.
e) Does this bill provide the least restrictive
alternative ? It is doubtful this bill provides the least
restrictive alternative. As already stated, this bill
provides for the confidentiality of "personal information"
for all crimes upon the election of the victim with or
without a substantial privacy interest. Government Code
Section 6254(f)(3) provides a list of sex crimes for which
the address of the victim shall not be released. As
discussed above, these types of crimes constitute an
intrusion upon areas of the victim's life, both physical
and psychological, to which society attaches the deepest
sense of privacy. This bill goes beyond the confines of
Government Code Section 6254(f)(3) by including all crimes,
and more information than just the victim's address. This
bill would also be less restrictive if the victim's right
confidentiality was made upon a case-by-case basis, rather
than a blanket restriction to information. Lastly, this
bill allows for each county and or city to develop its own
methods and procedures regarding the release of a victim's
personal information. It would be prudent to have
uniformity throughout the state regarding the release of
information.
3)No Confidentiality for Witnesses : Penal Code Section 964
allows for the implementation of confidentiality procedures
for victims as well as witnesses. This bill does not provide
protection toward witnesses. It would seem that a witness to
a crime would seek confidentiality for the same reasons as a
victim, i.e. retaliation, violence, intimidation, or
solicitation.
4)Argument in Support : According to the Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Department , "Under current law, subject to certain
exceptions, state and local law enforcement agencies are
required to provide the current address of every individual
arrested by the agency and the current address of the victim
of a crime, where the requested declares under penalty of
perjury that the request is made for scholarly, journalistic,
political, or governmental purpose, or that request is made
AB 1682
Page 12
for investigation by a private investigator as specified.
"This bill would provide the victim with the option to keep
their information private. The potential for this type of
information to be abused could be great and poses a risk to
public safety. With electronic advancements and the advent to
the internet, obtaining and disseminating information has
become as easy as a key-stroke on a computer.
"Releasing the address and other information of crime victims,
specifically involving gang related crimes, could result in
further violence. Victims of crime have a right to privacy,
and their address and other information should not be released
by law enforcement agencies if the victim wants privacy.
Having state law that allows the release of a victim's
personal information may even dissuade victims from reporting
crimes.
"In the interests of privacy and safety for victims, a victim
should have the right to make the decision regarding the
release of their information."
5)Argument in Opposition : According to the California Newspaper
Publishers Association (CNPA), "Through a bit of legislative
sleight of hand, sponsor Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca
amendment's would authorize a county board of supervisors or
city council to give its law enforcement agency the ability to
create 'policy' to protect public access to the following
information about a victim, which: includes, but is not
limited to, the address, telephone number, driver's license or
California identification card number, social security number,
date of birth, place of employment, employee identification
number, mother's maiden name, demand deposit account number,
checking or savings account number, or credit card number.
But here's the kicker: with the exception of the victim's
address (which, itself is restricted), none of this
information is required to be disclosed under the public
records act. In other words, through the use of extreme
camouflage, the amended version of AB 1682 targets only a
single piece of information targeted by the introduced
various; the address of the victim.
"These amendments represent the continuing effort of the sponsor
to destroy the public's right, through the press, to basic
information about crime and violence under the public records
AB 1682
Page 13
act. Assuming a compliant local governing body, AB 1682 would
give local law enforcement a powerful shield to public
inspection of its operations and would allow it to dribble out
only the information about crime that puts the agency in a
positive light. 'Nothing to see here folks, move along.' By
anonymizing crime victims, AB 1682 would make it impossible
for the public to protect itself and hold public agencies
accountable.
"Under current law, the California Public Records Act (CPRA),
while generally exempting from public disclosure investigatory
and intelligence records of law enforcement agencies, requires
disclosure of the basic facts associated with crime (i.e.,
certain basic information gathered in incident and arrest
reports). The law allows the public to be informed about the
details of crime in the community so that, armed with this
information, it can protect itself. The law gives journalists
and others access to address information of arrestees and
victims so the public can be fully informed about crime and
violence in its midst.
"CNPA believes AB 1682 would have a huge negative impact on
crime and public safety in California. Information about
crime that precisely identifies the people involved - both
victims and those accused of crime - is accessed from law
enforcement agencies every day by hundreds of newspapers and
others to inform the public of the basic facts associated with
crime. Precise address information allows individual members
of the public to determine for themselves just how safe or
dangerous their neighborhood, school, place of business or
public park is, and allows them to make individual decisions
about their personal public safety, the safety of t heir
families and their property. There is no way anyone can
safeguard their person or property if they cannot determine
with certainty the identity of persons arrested or victimized
by crime.
"The bill would create further bad outcomes. It would seriously
harm the ability of the public to assist law enforcement
agencies to solve crimes and prevent their future occurrence.
Accurate and complete reporting about crime deputizes the
public to assist law enforcement in solving and preventing
crime. When the public is made aware that an identified
individual is victimized, it creates increased vigilance in
the community, in the workplace, and the neighborhood, and
AB 1682
Page 14
gives rise to all kinds of beneficial behavior, including
increased tips and other communications to law enforcement
agencies and the creation of Neighborhood Watch groups and
other collective program. Making crime victims anonymous and
allowing law enforcement agencies to dribble only general bits
of information to the public will numb the public to real
threats to its safety and further the notion that crime in the
community is 'someone else's problem.'
"Records associated with crime are gathered at tremendous
taxpayer expense and are the property of the public. Law
enforcement agencies are mere custodians of the public's
records, not paternalistic protectors that get to decide for
their subjects just what information they think the public
needs and what information it doesn't need, as this bill
suggests. Access to public records is a fundamental right of
every Californian. Nearly 83% of the public recently voted to
make access to the records and meetings of government a
constitutional right. Article 1 Sec 3 (b) of the California
Constitution broadly states: The people have the right of
access to information concerning the conduct of the people's
business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and
the writing of public officials shall be open to public
scrutiny. The Ralph M. Brown Act's preamble is also
instructive here, when it declares: The people, in delegating
authority, do not give their public servants the right to
decide what is good for the people to know and what is not
good for the people to know (Government code Section 54950).
CNPA submits the public has an overriding interest in
obtaining all the basic facts associated with crimes so that
it can act, individually and in concert, to protect itself.
"While crime does not create individual victims, all crimes are
committed against the state (the people), and the state,
through its prosecutors, is solely authorized to pursue
criminal cases. Because the state, not the individual, has a
paramount interest in prosecuting crime, the public has a
paramount interest in understanding the details - the most
basic facts - about crime. If, however, on the facts of a
particular case, release of address information (or any other
of the generally releasable factual information about an
incident or arrest) would harm the investigation or place any
individual in jeopardy, the law already allows a law
enforcement agency to withhold it. Likewise, the law already
protects the identities of juvenile victims, victims of sex
AB 1682
Page 15
crimes, domestic violence and elder abuse.
"Finally, AB 1682 would create potentially hundreds of different
policies, the very ill the Legislature remedied when it
created the California Public Records Act. 'The Act, enacted
in 1968, replaced a confusing mass of statutes and court
decisions relating to disclosure of governmental records.
(See Shaffer, et al., A Look at the California Records Act and
Its Exemptions (1974) 4 Golden Gate L.Rev. 203, 210-213.)'
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern
California, Inc. v. Deukmejian, 32 Cal. 3d. 440, 447 (1982).
The public records act is a comprehensive scheme that creates
real rights for the public and real remedies. AB 1682 would
give hundreds of local subdivisions of government the right to
give local law enforcement agencies the ability to adopt
'policy' governing the public's right of access. The 'two
off' approach will result in hundreds of unaccountable and
unenforceable rules. It is hard to envision a worse public
policy."
6)Prior Legislation : SB 58 (Johnson), Chapter 507, Statutes of
2004, requires county district attorneys, the courts, and law
enforcement to establish a mutually agreeable procedure to
protect personal confidential information regarding a victim
or witness contained in a police report submitted to a court.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California District Attorneys Association
California Peace Officers Association
California Probation Parole and Correctional Association
Crime Victims United of California
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Opposition
California Newspaper Publishers Association
United Reporting Crime Beat News
Analysis Prepared by : Nicole J. Hanson / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744
AB 1682
Page 16