# International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21 v. Superior Court

> California Supreme Court · August 27, 2007 · 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 693

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9782233

## Case

- **Full name:** INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, LOCAL 21, AFL-CIO Et Al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, Respondent; CONTRA COSTA NEWSPAPERS, INC., Et Al., Real Parties in Interest
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 27, 2007
- **Citations:** 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 693; 42 Cal. 4th 319; 165 P.3d 488; 26 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 940; 35 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2590; 2007 Cal. LEXIS 8918
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Baxter
- **Judges:** George, Kennard, Baxter, Chin
- **Cited by:** 92 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9782233

## Opinion text

BAXTER, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
Except as to peace officers, I agree with the majority that the names and salaries of public employees earning $100,000 or more per year are not exempt from public disclosure under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.).
With regard to peace officers, I also agree with the majority’s conclusion that the salaries of peace officers earning $100,000 or more per year, as a general matter, are not exempt from public disclosure under the CPRA. However, I have joined Justice Chin’s dissenting opinion in Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 278, 306 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 661 , 165 P.3d 462 ] (dis. opn. of Chin, J.), which, contrary to the majority view in that case, recognizes that peace officers’ names themselves fall into the category of confidential “[p]ersonal data,” within the meaning of Penal Code section 832.8, subdivision (a), when the names are recorded in peace officer personnel records. 1 Accordingly, I agree with Justice Chin here that where a request is made for disclosure of peace officers’ names in connection with a request for disclosure of peace officer salary information, “names may not be disclosed to the extent the source of that information is a ‘file maintained under [the peace officer’s] name by his or her employing agency.’ (Pen. Code, § 832.8.)” (Conc. & dis. opn. of Chin, J., post, at p. 350.)
Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 are part of the statutory scheme mandating confidentiality of peace officer personnel records. (Stats. 1978, ch. 630, §§ 5, 6, p. 2083.) Peace officer “personnel records” made confidential by subdivision (a) of Penal Code section 832.7 are defined in subdivision (a) of section 832.8, the companion statute, as any file kept by the employing agency under the name of the officer and containing records relating to “[p]ersonal data, including marital starns, family members, educational and employment history, home addresses, or other similar information."
All further unlabeled statutory references are to the Government Code.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9782233. Public record. Not legal advice.