WALNUT CREEK POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. [And five other cases.*] (2019)

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, California.

WALNUT CREEK POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF WALNUT CREEK et al., Defendants and Respondents; First Amendment Coalition et al., Interveners and Appellants. [And five other cases.*]

A156477

Decided: March 12, 2019

Counsel for plaintiffs and appellants: Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, Michael L. Rains, Rockne A. Lucia, Jr., Timothy K. Talbot and Zachery A. Lopes, Pleasant Hill Counsel for defendants and respondents: ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Christine P. Sun, Alan Schlosser, Kathleen Guneratne, Sean Riordan; Law Office of Michael T. Risher, Michael T. Risher; ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Peter Bibring, Melanie P. Ochoa, Rekha Arulanantham; ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties and David Loy Counsel for interveners and appellants: David E. Snyder; Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Tenaya Rodewald and James M. Chadwick , Palo Alto.

The petitions for writ of supersedeas filed in these consolidated matters are denied. Appellants have not shown that “substantial questions will be raised on appeal.” (Smith v. Selma Community Hospital (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1, 18, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 416.) The appeals center around amendments enacted this year to Penal Code section 832.7 that expand public access to certain peace officer records maintained by a state or local agency. (See Pen. Code, § 832.7, subd. (b)(1).) Appellants assert that applying the 2019 amendments to compel disclosure of records created prior to 2019 constitutes an improper retroactive application of the new law. For the reasons stated by the trial court, appellants’ argument is without merit. Although the records may have been created prior to 2019, the event necessary to “trigger application” of the new law—a request for records maintained by an agency—necessarily occurs after the law's effective date. (People v. Grant (1999) 20 Cal.4th 150, 157, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 295, 973 P.2d 72 [“the critical question for determining retroactivity usually is whether the last act or event necessary to trigger application of the statute occurred before or after the statute's effective date”].) The new law also does not change the legal consequences for peace officer conduct described in pre-2019 records. (See ibid. [application of new law is retroactive “only if it attaches new legal consequences to, or increases a party's liability for, an event, transaction, or conduct that was completed before the law's effective date”].) Rather, the new law changes only the public's right to access peace officer records.

The temporary stay issued by this court on February 15, 2019, will expire at 5:00 p.m. on March 19, 2019.

Interveners’ motion for calendar preference and expedited briefing is denied.

A petition for a rehearing was denied Marsh 12, 2019.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.

THE COURT **: FN** Pollak, P. J., Tucher, J., and Brown, J. participated in the decision.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network