TO: RULES AND OPEN
GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
FROM: Sarah Zárate
SUBJECT: Public Records Appeal –
San Jose/Silicon Valley
NAACP
DATE: August 7, 2024
Approved Date:
8/8/24
RECOMMENDATION
Partially deny the appeal from the San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP regarding the City’s response to its Public Records Act request as the City has provided part of the requested information.
BACKGROUND
On December 8, 2023, San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP (NAACP) requested: “the names (names only) of all current or retired members of the San Jose Police Department who received racist text messages (or racist messages in whatever written or electronic form) from former San Jose Police Officer Mark McNamara subsequent to McNamara shooting K’aun Green, a young Black man, four times on March 27, 2022, at La Victoria Taqueria near San Jose State University”. This request is attached as Attachment A.
The City located documents containing the requested information and confirmed there are two individuals involved in the referenced text messages—one is a current City police officer, and the other is a former officer/employee. On December 20, 2023, the San José Police Department closed out the Public Records Act request by initially referring to the publicly released records related to the referenced incident, available on the Police Department website, and subsequently withholding remaining responsive records as personnel records under California Penal Code § 832.7 and California Government Code § 7927.705. The Police Department also withheld these records as being records of investigation under California Government Code § 7923.600. This response is attached as Attachment B.
On February 2, 2024, the NAACP appealed the Police Department’s response to the Open Government Manager. This appeal is attached as Attachment C.
RULES AGENDA: 8/14/24
ITEM: C.1
RULES AND OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
August 7, 2024
Subject: Public Records Appeal – San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP
On April 16, 2024, the Open Government Manager closed the appeal, confirming that the information requested was contained within “personnel records” as defined under California Penal Code § 832.8 and thus must be kept confidential and remain exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act under California Government Code § 7927.705. This letter also advised these records are exempt under the Public Records Act under California Government Code §7923.600, as records of investigation. As such, this appeal was denied. This correspondence is attached as Attachment D.
On June 14, 2024, the NAACP submitted an appeal of the Open Government Manager’s decision to the Rules and Open Government Committee. This appeal is attached as Attachment E.
On August 8, 2024, the Open Government Manager contacted NAACP and provided the name of the officer who is no longer employed with the City.
ANALYSIS
As noted above, the City has provided the name to the NAACP of the officer who is no longer employed by the City. What remains at issue in this appeal is the City’s continued withholding of the current officer’s name, with which there is a pending investigation. The located records are confidential personnel records of peace officers under California Penal Code § 832.7 and remain exempt from public disclosure under California Government Code § 7927.705. These records are also investigatory files exempt from disclosure under Government Code § 7923.600. NAACP contends that because its request is limited to the name of the involved party, these statutory requirements are not applicable, as NAACP only seeks information and not the records themselves.
The information requested—the name of the involved party to the referenced incident— is contained within “personnel records” as defined under California Penal Code § 832.8 and “investigatory files” as referenced in California Government Code § 7923.600.
These statutory exceptions permit the withholding of qualifying records. The related investigation has not closed; as such, the requested “name” contained within the relevant records is exempt from disclosure at this time. Disclosure of these records, which would reveal the requested information, would compromise the active investigations conducted by City staff.
Based on the foregoing, the Administration recommends the Rules and Open Government Committee uphold the Open Government Manager’s decision on appeal to continue the Police Department’s withholding of the relevant records pertaining to the police officer who remains employed by the City of San José, to protect the integrity of the ongoing investigation. As noted above, the City has complied with releasing the name of the officer no longer employed by the City.
RULES AND OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
August 7, 2024
Subject: Public Records Appeal – San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP
COORDINATION
This memorandum was coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office and the Police Department.
Sarah Zárate
Director, City Manager’s Office of
Administration, Policy, and
Intergovernmental Relations
For questions, please contact Jessica Lowry, Senior Executive Analyst, Open Government Manager at [email protected].
ATTACHMENTS
A. Request from the NAACP dated December 8, 2023
B. San José Police Department’s Response dated December 20, 2023 C. Appeal Notice to San José Police Chief dated February 2, 2024 D. Open Government Manager’s Response to February 2, 2024 Appeal dated April 16, 2024
E. Correspondence from Fenwick on behalf of NAACP Appealing the Open Government Manager’s Response dated June 14, 2024
December 8, 2023
Chief Anthony Mata,
201 W Mission St,
San Jose, CA 95110
Dear Chief Anthony Mata,
ATTACHMENT A
�AACP.
San Jose Branch
Re: California Public Records Act Request
I am writing to bring to your attention the issue of freedom of information and transparency within the San Jose Police Department. As a concerned member of the community, I believe that the ability for civilians to access information regarding police activities is crucial for fostering trust and accountability.
I understand that the San Jose Police Department is committed to upholding the highest standards of professionalism and transparency, and I commend the efforts made thus far to maintain open lines of communication with the public. However, I am also aware that there have been instances where access to information has been limited or delayed, leading to concerns about transparency and accountability.
It is my belief that a transparent and accountable police force is essential for maintaining public trust and ensuring that the department is able to effectively serve and protect the community. Therefore, I urge the San Jose Police Department to take proactive measures to enhance the accessibility of information to the public.
California Public Records Act Request
Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, the San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP requests the names ( names only) of all current or retired members of the San Jose Police Department who received racist text messages ( or racist messages in whatever written or electronic form) from former San Jose Police Officer Mark McNamara subsequent to McNamara shooting K'aun Green, a young Black man, four times on March 27, 2022, at La Victoria Taqueria near San Jose State University. Note: Thus far, despite pressure from the public and the press, the City of San Jose, the San Jose Police Department, and SJPD Chief Anthony Mata have all refused to release the names of the officers who received the vile racist text 1 �AACP.
San Jose Branch
messages sent by former SJPD officer Mark McNamara. Other than a general refusal to release the names of the officers who received the racist text messages from McNamara, the parties employed by the City of San Jose have articulated no specific reason(s) for their refusal to release the names of the officers.
Statutory Law in support of this CPRA request
The California Legislature in 1968, recognizing that " access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state," enacted the California Public Records Act. The act grants access to public records held by state and local agencies. The purpose of the Act is to give the public access to information that enables them to monitor the functioning of their government.
In 2004, California voters passed an initiative measure that added to the state Constitution a provision directing the courts to broadly construe statutes that grant public access to government information and narrowly construe statutes that limit access. (See: California Article 1, Section 3)
Penal Code & 830.10: Any uniformed peace officer shall wear a badge, nameplate, or
other device which bears clearly on its face the identification number or name of the officer .. The legislature generally considers it important for the public to know the identities of the officers serving the community is reflected in the statutory provision requiring a uniformed officer to display either a name or an identification number (Pen. Code, 830.10)." Long Beach Police Officers Association v. City of Long Beach et al.: 59 Cal. 4th 59 (2014)
Case Law supporting the release of police officer's names In Long Beach Police Officers Association v. City of Long Beach et al.: 59 Cal 4th 59 (2014), the court stated: .... " A serious question arises as to whether the names of peace officers involved in particular law enforcement incidents can be characterized as personnel. ... or similar files. Moreover, when it comes to the disclosure of a peace officer's name, the public's substantial interest in the conduct of peace officers outweighs, in most cases, the officer's personal privacy interest. As we noted in the Commission on Police Standards, "Peace officers 'hold one of the most powerful positions in our society; our dependence on them is high and the potential for abuse of power is far from insignificant. 2 Rev. Jethroe Moore II
RE: California Public Records Act Request
December 20, 2023
201 W. Mission St. San José, CA 95110 tel (408) 277-5200 fax (408) 277-3198 www.sjpd.org For questions regarding this response, please contact Diana Martinez, Office of the Chief Executive Officer, Research and Development Unit at (408) 277-5200 or [email protected]. Should you desire to appeal this response, please submit your appeal to:
Open Government Manager
City of San Jose, Office of the City Manager
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
[email protected]
Or City of San Jose, Office of the City Clerk
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
[email protected]
Sincerely,
Anthony Mata
Chief of Police
By: Diana Martinez
Research and Development Unit
AM:DM
[External Email]
From: Jethroe Moore
Sent: Friday, February 2, 2024 11:34 AM
To: Mata, Anthony <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Fw: NAACP - SJ Police Department Public Records Request RE: Appeal of California Public Records Act Request Denial Dear Office of the City Manager/Office of the City Clerk:
I write to respond to the San Jose Police Department’s (the “Department”) December 20, 2023 letter concerning the San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP’s Public Records Request, dated December 11, 2023, and to appeal the denial of that request. The San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP has sought disclosure of the names of San Jose Police Department personnel who received certain text messages or other communications, and those “names only.” Your letter provides no basis for refusing this simple request, and none of the authorities that the Department raises in any way shield the information that the San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP seeks from public disclosure. Please disclose the names immediately.
As your letter notes, the SJPD has produced some records related to this matter, including some racist text messages involving former San Jose Police Officer Mark McNamara after he shot K’aun Green, a young Black man, four times on March 27, 2022.[1] But it has refused to provide the names of any current or former SJPD members who received those texts or other similar racist messages from McNamara. Providing that name information (for instance, by unredacting officer names in the text messages records that the SJPD has published) would not by any stretch call for disclosure of “personnel records” or “records of investigation,” as your letter argues.
First, the San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP does not seek “personnel records” and thus neither California Penal Code Section 832.7 nor Government Code Section 7927.705 presents any obstacle to San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP’s
ATTACHMENT C
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
request. “Personnel records” are defined as “any file maintained under that individual’s name by his or her employing agency …” Cal. Penal Code § 832.8. A request for “names only” does not call for disclosure of any records that the SJPD’s human resources maintains about current or former officers. It simply asks who received McNamara’s racist text messages. Accordingly, any restrictions that may exist for disclosure of personnel files under these provisions do not and cannot apply.[2]
Second, the request for “names only” does not call for disclosure of “records of investigation” under Government Code Section 7923.600 either. That section is inapplicable for similar reasons, as the San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP is not seeking disclosure of any investigation records or records of complaints, or anything of the sort. It seeks only the name of the officers who received certain text messages, and not records of SJPD’s information.
In short, your letter fails to provide any basis for refusing to disclose the information that the San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP seeks. Please respond to this letter no later than ______. If SJPD fails to disclose the names of the officers that received racist text messages from McNamara, the San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP will consider and take whatever appropriate action is necessary.
Sincerely,
Rev. Jethroe Moore II
[1] https://www.sjpd.org/home/showpublisheddocument/842/638347093336870000 [2] Indeed, even if the San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP had sought “personnel records” (and it has not here), Section 832.7 would permit their disclosure, as records related to the SJPD’s public finding that McNamara made racist statements. See Cal. Penal Code § 832.7(b)(1)(D). And, even to the extent that the SJPD could redact certain information from such records, it still could not redact the names of the officers involved. Cal. Penal Code § 832.7(b)(6)(A); see also BondGraham v. Superior Court, 95 Cal. App. 5th 1006, 1020 (2023) (redacting officer names was improper). 200 East Santa Clara Street San José, CA 95113 tel (408)535-8100 fax (408) 920-7007 www.sanjoseca.gov Office of the City Manager
April 16, 2024
Rev. Jethro Moore II
NAACP
t
** Sent Electronically
Dear Rev. Moore:
This letter is in response to the Public Records Act (PRA) appeal you sent the Open Government Manager and City Clerk on February 2, 2024 as it relates to a PRA request made by the San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP, received by the City of San Jose Police Department (SJPD) on December 11, 2023. The original PRA request (attached as Exhibit A) asked for: “the names (names only) of all current or retired members of the San Jose Policy Department who received racist text messages (or racist messages in whatever written or electronic form) from former San Jose Police Officer Mark McNamara subsequent to McNamara shooing K’aun Green, a young Black man, four times on March 27, 2022, at La Victoria Taqueria near San Jose State University.” On December 20, 2023, the SJPD provided you with a final response and closed out your PRA (attached as Exhibit B). In this response, SJPD first referred you to the publicly released records related to the referenced incident, available on the SJPD website. Second, SJPD withheld remaining responsive records as personnel records under California Penal Code § 832.7 and California Government Code § 7927.705. SJPD also withheld these records as being records of investigation under California Government Code § 7923.600. Your appeal is specific to the request for the names of the recipients from the SJPD who may have received text messages from former San Jose Police Officer Mark McNamara.
In your February 2, 2024 appeal correspondence (attached as Exhibit C), you argued that San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP does not seek “personnel records”, and the information sought under the PRA “does not call for disclosure of records of investigation”. Your arguments are discussed in greater detail below.
In speaking with the SJPD, I was informed the information sought is contained within “personnel records” as defined under California Penal Code § 832.8. These personnel records are part of an ongoing investigation of complaint and thus must be kept confidential pursuant to California Penal Code § 832.7.
Such records remain exempt from disclosure under the PRA pursuant to California Government Code
ATTACHMENT D
April 16, 2024
200 East Santa Clara Street San José, CA 95113 tel (408)535-8100 fax (408) 920-7007 www.sanjoseca.gov § 7927.705. These records are also exempt under the PRA pursuant to California Government Code § 7923.600, as records of investigation.
The City of San Jose stands by SJPD’s decision.
This letter concludes the City’s response to your Appeal and your request is now completed.
Any person who believes that he or she has been inappropriately denied access to City of San José public records, may appeal to the City Council Rules and Open Government Committee. For more information on the appeals process, see www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departmentsoffices/office-of-the-city-manager/official-city-records/appeals. Thank you.
Jessica Lowry
Open Government Manager | Office of the City Manager
City of San Jose
Rev. Jethroe Moore II
RE: California Public Records Act Request
December 20, 2023
201 W. Mission St. San José, CA 95110 tel (408) 277-5200 fax (408) 277-3198 www.sjpd.org For questions regarding this response, please contact Diana Martinez, Office of the Chief Executive Officer, Research and Development Unit at (408) 277-5200 or [email protected]. Should you desire to appeal this response, please submit your appeal to:
Open Government Manager
City of San Jose, Office of the City Manager
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
[email protected]
Or City of San Jose, Office of the City Clerk
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
[email protected]
Sincerely,
Anthony Mata
Chief of Police
By: Diana Martinez
Research and Development Unit
AM:DM
[External Email]
From: Jethroe Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 2, 2024 11:34 AM
To: Mata, Anthony <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Fw: NAACP - SJ Police Department Public Records Request RE: Appeal of California Public Records Act Request Denial Dear Office of the City Manager/Office of the City Clerk:
I write to respond to the San Jose Police Department’s (the “Department”) December 20, 2023 letter concerning the San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP’s Public Records Request, dated December 11, 2023, and to appeal the denial of that request. The San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP has sought disclosure of the names of San Jose Police Department personnel who received certain text messages or other communications, and those “names only.” Your letter provides no basis for refusing this simple request, and none of the authorities that the Department raises in any way shield the information that the San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP seeks from public disclosure. Please disclose the names immediately.
As your letter notes, the SJPD has produced some records related to this matter, including some racist text messages involving former San Jose Police Officer Mark McNamara after he shot K’aun Green, a young Black man, four times on March 27, 2022.[1] But it has refused to provide the names of any current or former SJPD members who received those texts or other similar racist messages from McNamara. Providing that name information (for instance, by unredacting officer names in the text messages records that the SJPD has published) would not by any stretch call for disclosure of “personnel records” or “records of investigation,” as your letter argues.
First, the San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP does not seek “personnel records” and thus neither California Penal Code Section 832.7 nor Government Code Section 7927.705 presents any obstacle to San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP’s This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
request. “Personnel records” are defined as “any file maintained under that individual’s name by his or her employing agency …” Cal. Penal Code § 832.8. A request for “names only” does not call for disclosure of any records that the SJPD’s human resources maintains about current or former officers. It simply asks who received McNamara’s racist text messages. Accordingly, any restrictions that may exist for disclosure of personnel files under these provisions do not and cannot apply.[2]
Second, the request for “names only” does not call for disclosure of “records of investigation” under Government Code Section 7923.600 either. That section is inapplicable for similar reasons, as the San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP is not seeking disclosure of any investigation records or records of complaints, or anything of the sort. It seeks only the name of the officers who received certain text messages, and not records of SJPD’s information.
In short, your letter fails to provide any basis for refusing to disclose the information that the San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP seeks. Please respond to this letter no later than ______. If SJPD fails to disclose the names of the officers that received racist text messages from McNamara, the San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP will consider and take whatever appropriate action is necessary.
Sincerely,
Rev. Jethroe Moore II
[1] https://www.sjpd.org/home/showpublisheddocument/842/638347093336870000 [2] Indeed, even if the San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP had sought “personnel records” (and it has not here), Section 832.7 would permit their disclosure, as records related to the SJPD’s public finding that McNamara made racist statements. See Cal. Penal Code § 832.7(b)(1)(D). And, even to the extent that the SJPD could redact certain information from such records, it still could not redact the names of the officers involved. Cal. Penal Code § 832.7(b)(6)(A); see also BondGraham v. Superior Court, 95 Cal. App. 5th 1006, 1020 (2023) (redacting officer names was improper).
Armen N. Nercessian | [email protected]
650.335.7281
June 14, 2024
VIA EMAIL < [email protected]; [email protected]> Rules and Open Government Committee
c/o Office of the City Clerk
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 14th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Phone: (408) 535-1260
Open Government Manager
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 17th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Phone: (408) 535-8120
Re: Appeal of City of San Joses California Public Records Act Request Denial Dear San Jose Rules and Open Government Committee:
We represent the San Jose/Silicon Valley branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP). I write to appeal the City of San Joses denial of San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACPs request under the California Public Records Act (the CPRA), dated April 16, 2024, for disclosure of the names of current and/or former San Jose Police Department (SJPD) personnel who received certain text messages or other communications, and those names only. Please find the Citys denial of San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACPs CPRA request enclosed as Attachment A to this letter.
In November 2023, SJPD produced racist text messages involving former San Jose Police Officer Mark McNamara following his shooting of Kaun Green, a young Black man, four times on March 27, 2022.1
But to date the City has refused to publicly disclose the names of any current or former SJPD members who received those texts or other similar racist messages from Officer McNamara.
The City offers no cognizable basis for withholding these names and still fails to address San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACPs showing that the asserted exemptions from disclosure do not apply.
First, the San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP seeks names only, not personnel records under California Penal Code §§ 832.7 and 832.8. Personnel records are file[s] maintained under [an] individuals name by his or her employing agency and not a mere identification of names themselves. See Cal. Penal Code § 832.8 (emphasis added). San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACPs request does not call for disclosure of any records that the SJPDs human resources maintains about current or former officers. It simply asks who exchanged racist text messages with Officer McNamara. Accordingly, any restrictions that may exist for disclosure of personnel files under these provisions do not and cannot apply. And, in any event, even if the San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP had sought personnel records (and it has not here), Section 832.7 would still expressly 1 https://www.sjpd.org/home/showpublisheddocument/842/638347093336870000
ATTACHMENT E
June 14, 2024
permit their disclosure, because they constitute records related to a sustained finding that Officer McNamara made racist statements:
Notwithstanding subdivision (a), Section 7923.600 of the Government Code, or any other law, the following peace officer or custodial officer personnel records and records maintained by a state or local agency shall not be confidential and shall be made available [under the CPRA] . . . Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in conduct including, but not limited to, verbal statements, writings, online posts, recordings, and gestures, involving prejudice or discrimination against a person on the basis of race . . .
Cal. Penal Code § 832.7(b)(1)(D) (emphasis added); see also BondGraham v. Superior Ct., 95 Cal.
App. 5th 1006, 1019 (2023) (redaction of officer names was improper). The City entirely fails to address this statutory language, which expressly precludes any assertion of confidentiality under Cal. Penal Code § 832.7(a)or any other lawwhere, as here, there are public findings of racist statements by officers.
Second, the Citys reliance on Government Code Section 7923.600 also fails, for similar reasons.
The San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP is not seeking disclosure of any investigation records or records of complaints at all; it asks only for the names of other police personnel that Officer McNamara exchanged racist text message with. And, even if San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP did seek such investigation records (and it does not), California Penal Code § 832.7(b)(1)(D) would still expressly prohibit withholding such materials from disclosure. That provision require[s], notwithstanding any other law, certain peace officer or custodial officer personnel records and records relating to specified incidents, complaints, and investigations involving peace officers and custodial officers to be made available for public inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act. Becerra v. Superior Ct., 44 Cal. App. 5th 897, 921 (2020) (quoting Legis. Counsel's Dig., Sen. Bill No. 1421 (20172018 Reg. Sess.)) (emphasis in original). Thus, Government Code Section 7923.600 provides no valid basis for withholding the information sought.
In short, the City cannot refuse to disclose the names of the officers that exchanged racist messages with Officer McNamara. San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP respectfully asks the Committee to reverse the Citys unlawful denial and provide the requested names immediately.
Please respond to this letter no later than Friday, June 28, 2024. San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP is also prepared to take appropriate action, including filing a petition for writ of mandate and declaratory relief under California Government Code § 7923.000, should the City and SJPD continue improperly withholding the requested information.
ATTACHMENT A
200 East Santa Clara Street San José, CA 95113 tel (408)535-8100 fax (408) 920-7007 www.sanjoseca.gov Office of the City Manager
April 16, 2024
Rev. Jethro Moore II
NAACP
t ** Sent Electronically
Dear Rev. Moore:
This letter is in response to the Public Records Act (PRA) appeal you sent the Open Government Manager and City Clerk on February 2, 2024 as it relates to a PRA request made by the San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP, received by the City of San Jose Police Department (SJPD) on December 11, 2023. The original PRA request (attached as Exhibit A) asked for: “the names (names only) of all current or retired members of the San Jose Policy Department who received racist text messages (or racist messages in whatever written or electronic form) from former San Jose Police Officer Mark McNamara subsequent to McNamara shooing K’aun Green, a young Black man, four times on March 27, 2022, at La Victoria Taqueria near San Jose State University.” On December 20, 2023, the SJPD provided you with a final response and closed out your PRA (attached as Exhibit B). In this response, SJPD first referred you to the publicly released records related to the referenced incident, available on the SJPD website. Second, SJPD withheld remaining responsive records as personnel records under California Penal Code § 832.7 and California Government Code § 7927.705. SJPD also withheld these records as being records of investigation under California Government Code § 7923.600. Your appeal is specific to the request for the names of the recipients from the SJPD who may have received text messages from former San Jose Police Officer Mark McNamara.
In your February 2, 2024 appeal correspondence (attached as Exhibit C), you argued that San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP does not seek “personnel records”, and the information sought under the PRA “does not call for disclosure of records of investigation”. Your arguments are discussed in greater detail below.
In speaking with the SJPD, I was informed the information sought is contained within “personnel records” as defined under California Penal Code § 832.8. These personnel records are part of an ongoing investigation of complaint and thus must be kept confidential pursuant to California Penal Code § 832.7.
Such records remain exempt from disclosure under the PRA pursuant to California Government Code April 16, 2024
200 East Santa Clara Street San José, CA 95113 tel (408)535-8100 fax (408) 920-7007 www.sanjoseca.gov § 7927.705. These records are also exempt under the PRA pursuant to California Government Code § 7923.600, as records of investigation.
The City of San Jose stands by SJPD’s decision.
This letter concludes the City’s response to your Appeal and your request is now completed.
Any person who believes that he or she has been inappropriately denied access to City of San José public records, may appeal to the City Council Rules and Open Government Committee. For more information on the appeals process, see www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departmentsoffices/office-of-the-city-manager/official-city-records/appeals. Thank you.
Jessica Lowry
Open Government Manager | Office of the City Manager
City of San Jose