In the ever-evolving landscape of public safety labor law, protecting the confidentiality of peace officer personnel records remains a critical issue. A recent California Court of Appeal decision, Santa Ana Police Officers Association et al. v. City of Santa Ana (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 296, limits the remedies available to public employees when such records are improperly disclosed. This ruling exposes the rising tensions between CPRA transparency goals and the erosion of public employees' due process rights to protect their privacy. For public employee labor organizations, this ruling sets forth the procedural hurdles they face and the need for legislative reform to balance transparency interests with a meaningful process for employees to enforce their privacy rights.
A CPRA Response Gone Wrong
The case stems from a 2021 incident where the City of Santa
Ana inadvertently disclosed confidential personnel records of over 100 police
officers to the media outlet Voice of OC in response to a CPRA request.
These records included sensitive information about prior complaints and
disciplinary investigations that were not subject to disclosure under S.B. 1421 or 16. In fact, the materials were confidential under Penal
Code section 832.7 and Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045 (the "Pitchess"
statutes).
The Santa Ana Police Officers Association (SAPOA), along
with anonymous "Doe" officers, sued the City, alleging violations of
these confidentiality laws, negligence per se, failure to investigate their
subsequent complaint about the disclosure (under Penal Code section 832.5), and
denial of a request for information relating to the disclosures in violation of the
Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. The plaintiffs sought relief including monetary damages, injunctive relief, and mandamus.
The trial court sustained the City's demurrer and the plaintiffs appealed. The Fourth District
Court of Appeal affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, delivering a
mixed bag of outcomes with significant labor implications.
Court Holdings:
The appellate court's decision, authored by Acting
Presiding Justice Sanchez, addressed several core issues relevant to public
safety unions and officers:
No Private
Right of Action for Improper Disclosure
The court held that Penal Code section 832.7 and Evidence
Code sections 1043 and 1045 do not create a private cause of action for
officers or unions seeking damages or other relief for the unauthorized release
of confidential records. Rather, these statutes primarily establish procedures for
protecting against improper disclosures but don't
authorize lawsuits against public entities who violate the statutes and improperly disclose confidential material.
Related negligence claims were also dismissed, as they relied on the same statutes for a "duty of care." This ruling effectively strips public employees of any meaningful remedy for violation of these statutes or the disclosure of sensitive materials that violate their right to privacy. The court recognized the violation of mandated confidentiality laws but limited the employees' remedies to administrative or mandamus relief rather than civil damages.
These remedies are woefully inadequate because at most they seek to prevent future violations. The CPRA does not contain any mechanism for retraction of improperly disclosed materials and once disclosed and publicized, and injection against further disclosures by the employer provides little comfort. Moreover, public employees often discovery improper disclosures once they are publicized, because public agencies often disclose the records without notifying employees or providing them an opportunity to object.
Even if afforded notice, filing an action to prevent the disclosure is costly and risky. If the court rules against the employee, the requester, typically a media entity, is often awarded attorneys' fees and cost. If successful, the employee still suffers litigation costs with no hopes of monetary damages. This system urgently needs rebalancing.
Anonymity
in Litigation: A High Bar
Officers suing anonymously (as "Does") must
obtain court approval after a hearing balancing their privacy interests against
the public's First Amendment right to access court proceedings. Here, the Doe
officers failed to seek such authorization, leading to dismissal of their
claims. Officers dealing with sensitive personnel matters can't assume
anonymity will be granted. They must proactively justify it, or risk procedural dismissal.
Mootness of
Injunctive and Mandamus Relief for Past Disclosures
Claims for injunctive relief to
prevent disclosure or mandamus to compel non-disclosure were deemed moot, as
the records had already been released years earlier in response to the CPRA
request. The court noted that once disclosure occurs, a public entity lacks the
ability to "undo" it, rendering such remedies ineffective.
Mandamus
Available for Failure to Investigate Complaints
In a win for the union, the court reversed on the cause of action for failure to investigate its complaints. Penal Code section 832.5 requires agencies to investigate citizen complaints against personnel, including staff involved in disclosures, and notify complainants of the disposition within 30 days. The SAPOA adequately alleged the City never investigated or reported on their complaint about the disclosure, creating a ministerial duty enforceable via mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085. This "win" still cannot undo the violation of the employees' privacy rights.
Exhaustion
Required for MMBA Claims
The cause of action alleging the City violated the MMBA by denying the union's information requests was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). The court confirmed the SAPOA's associational standing to represent its members but dismissed the claims. While individual peace officers are exempt from PERB jurisdiction, unions like the SAPOA are not.
Conclusion
This decision has many negative effects for public employee labor organizations. Unions must focus on prevention.
Legislation is also need to balance public employee due process rights. The state could mandate these pre-disclosure notification and process for the employee to object. The one-sided attorneys' fees structure in favor of requestors needs rebalancing so public employees can seek judicial relief without the fear of being subject to excessive attorneys' fees being awarded to deep pocketed media organizations.
Overall, Santa Ana narrows direct paths to
compensation for privacy breaches. While the SAPOA scored a partial victory on
the investigation front, the case serves as a cautionary tale regarding the limited protections of confidentiality
statutes.
