In 2020, Open Vallejo, a local news outlet, published an article alleging a secretive group of officers within the Vallejo Police Department (Department) were bending a point of their star-shaped badge after each time they used lethal force in the line of duty. The Department retained a third party to investigate. The investigator found that the practice had occurred, but that no officer had violated the Department’s use of force policy.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (ACLU) filed a request for records related to the investigation, including the written investigation report, under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).
The Department released some records but maintained that the bulk of the materials sought—including the investigative report—were confidential peace officer personnel records that were exempt from public disclosure under Pitchess statutes. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the superior court heard and ruled on the ACLU’s Pitchess motion that sought materials relevant to its CPRA arguments. Thereafter, the ACLU filed a petition for writ of mandate in the superior court challenging the sufficiency of the Department’s CPRA response.
The superior court ordered disclosure of portions of the investigative report and related materials. The materials to be disclosed included the materials the court had ordered disclosed following the Pitchess hearing, with redactions to all identifying information pertaining to officers, witnesses and their families.
Both parties sought writ review by the California Court of Appeal. The ACLU argued that the records must be disclosed under amendments made to the Pitchess statutes in 2018 through the enactment of Senate Bill No. 1421 and, specifically, the amendment requiring the disclosure of records “relating to the report, investigation, or findings” of “[a]n incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer.” The City argued that the records at issue were confidential because they did not “necessarily and promptly” follow any specific police shooting.
The Court found that the crux of dispute was whether the investigative report and related documents on badge bending were subject to public disclosure as records “relating to” the report, investigation, or findings of an incident involving the discharge of a firearm by a peace officer. The Court considered the meaning of the phrase “relating to” and found that it should be interpreted broadly. The Court also found that the legislative history of the law was concerned with transparency regarding an officer’s use of significant force. The Court held that any report, investigation, or finding of an incident involving an officer involved shooting is a public record that must be disclosed.
The Court sent the case back to the superior court to deal with the secondary issue of whether officer names should be redacted from the records. The Court noted that the superior court ruled that officer names must be redacted because the names were part and parcel of what it deemed were confidential officer personnel records. The Court rejected that part of the superior court’s ruling as erroneous because the records sought were not confidential personnel records, but were instead publicly disclosable personnel records. But the Court determined it could not make any final pronouncement on the redaction issue because the parties had not addressed all the relevant facts and legal issues in the superior court. The Court provided a lengthy analysis of the relevant cases to guide the superior court and the parties on remand.
City of Vallejo v. Superior Court of Solano County. 112 Cal.App.5th 565 (2025).