Collondrez v. City of Rio Vista, No. A159246 (D1d3 Mar. 16. 2021)
Cop sued a City to challenge the release of a report related to a disciplinary action under the Public Records Act. Cop claims the City didn’t gave him appropriate notice to contest the release. City filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which the court partially granted and partially denied, finding on the latter issue that Cop showed a probability of prevailing.
The Court of Appeal reverses, in part, finding that the whole motion should have been granted. The Court finds that the claims arose from protected activity because they entailed a release of information to the media on an issue of public interest—police misconduct. Cop tries to draw an analogy to cases finding no “arising from” when public officials are just carrying out mandatory duties. For example, serving an arrest warrant isn’t protected activity even though submission of an affidavit in support of it is a statement in a judicial proceeding. But the Court doesn’t agree with that analogy. The PRA requires agencies to make discretionary calls when releasing records and invoking exceptions. The Court finds that discretion to have sufficiently expressive value to implicate City’s free speech rights.
So far as the chance of success, recent amendments to the Penal Code specifically subject police discipline records to disclosure when they relate to a sustained finding of dishonesty against a police officer. Here, a City employee made such a finding against Cop after a Skelly hearing, but that finding wasn’t ultimately appealed because City and Cop settled the personnel action. As the Court of Appeal reads the new provision, however, that is enough to count as a sustained finding requiring disclosure.
Reversed in part.