California Court of Appeal Clarifies Law Enforcement Agency Liability for Safeguarding Peace Officer Personnel Information (AKA “Pitchess”) and Duties to Investigate Citizen Complaints

July 2025

By Kevin R. Dale, Sarah J. Martoccia, John H. Bakhit

On February 28, 2025, in Santa Ana Police Officers Association, et al, v. City of Santa Ana, the California Court of Appeal’s Fourth District ruled on a challenge by the Santa Ana Police Officers Association (“SAPOA”) and several of its officers who filed anonymously. The Court was asked to review the Superior Court’s dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the SAPOA and the officers alleging that the Santa Ana Police Department (“SAPD”) violated numerous state laws governing confidentiality of peace officer personnel records, investigations of citizen complaints, and labor rights to access information upon request.  The Court of Appeal’s decision rejected most of SAPOA and the officers’ arguments and clarified some of the important duties of law enforcement agencies to protect personnel information of officers and to investigate allegations of misconduct.

The dispute arose in 2021 when a media outlet requested records from the SAPD relating to discipline and costs incurred for officers placed on paid “administrative leave.”  The request came under the California Public Records Act.  State law mandates that personnel records of peace officers are, unless specifically authorized for release by law, prohibited from disclosure absent a judicial or administrative law official’s specific finding that there is “good cause” and relevance to ongoing litigation.  This is commonly referred to as the “Pitchess” process, which is governed by Penal Code section 832.7 and provisions of the Evidence Code.  SAPD released these records to the media, identifying several officers by name, contrary to the Pitchess process.  SAPOA filed a “citizen” complaint and later submitted requests under labor laws for records identifying those responsible for the records’ release.  SAPD did not investigate the matter further and did not provide the records SAPOA sought.  SAPOA and several anonymous officers filed suit.

The Court of Appeal rejected a number of SAPOA and the officers’ claims and found that the officers had no statutory or privacy right to proceed anonymously.  Additionally, the Court ruled that violations of the Pitchess process do not allow for suits claiming monetary damages, following a similar ruling in a 2000 appellate decision.  The Court also held that requests by SAPOA and its officers for records identifying the officials who released the records to the media were not actionable in court because SAPOA failed to exhaust the administrative process through the Public Employment Relations Board (“PERB”) prior to filing suit.

The Court of Appeal held, however, that SAPD and the City of Santa Ana had statutory duties to investigate citizen complaints involving law enforcement employees and to notify the complainant of the outcome of any investigation.  Although Penal Code section 832.5 only requires law enforcement agencies to “establish” procedures to investigate citizen complaints, the Court held that SAPD had a “ministerial duty” to comply with its own policies to investigate such complaints.

The Court’s decision clarifies and highlights several important principles.  Despite some statutory exceptions to Penal Code 832.7, law enforcement agencies must safeguard the personnel records of peace officers and may only release these records if ordered to by a court or hearing officer.  Unauthorized handling and release of personnel records often sour relations with labor organizations and leads to expensive litigation.  The decision also explains that law enforcement agencies must not only “establish” processes to investigate personnel complaints submitted by citizens, but must also follow the procedures and complete investigations.

As always, please don’t hesitate to contact the authors of this Blog alert or your usual AALRR attorney with any questions.

This article has been posted with permission.

This AALRR publication is intended for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in reaching a conclusion in a particular area of law. Applicability of the legal principles discussed may differ substantially in individual situations. Receipt of this or any other AALRR publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Firm is not responsible for inadvertent errors that may occur in the publishing process.

© 2025 Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo