The Voice of OC – an online nonprofit media source—made a Public Records Act (PRA) request for certain peace officer documents to the City of Santa Ana. The City later realized the it had inadvertently disclosed confidential peace officer documents and requested the Voice of OC to return the confidential documents. The Voice of OC refused. The City notified the officers that confidential records had been disclosed, but did not tell the officers what types of confidential records had been disclosed, or what the City planned to do in response.
The Santa Ana Police Officer’s Association (SAPOA) filed a written “citizen’s complaint” with the City’s Human Resources Director, requesting that the disclosure of confidential records be investigated. The SAPOA claimed that Penal Code sections 832.5 and 832.7 required the City to investigate their complaint. They alleged the City neither conducted an investigation nor provided the SAPOA written notification of the disposition of the complaint.
The SAPOA requested copies of any and all communications regarding the disclosure of the confidential personnel information, including all e-mails between representatives of the City, Police Department, and/or Voice of OC, copies of all records that were produced to the Voice of OC, and a list of the officers affected by the disclosure. The City denied SAPOA’s request and did not produce any of the documents or information requested.
The SAPOA and certain anonymous City police officers (Doe Officers) sued, alleging the City had wrongfully disclosed the confidential personnel records, failed to conduct an investigation in response to their citizen complaint, and denied their request for copies of communications regarding that disclosure. The first amended complaint included causes of action for: violation of Penal Code section 832.7 and Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045; negligent disclosure of records; failure to investigate under Penal Code sections 832.5 and 832.7; and denial of information in violation of the Meyers-Milias Brown Act (MMBA).
The Superior Court of California for Orange County sustained the City’s demurrer to the first amended complaint without leave to amend, leading to the dismissal of the case. The court found that the Doe Officers could not proceed anonymously without statutory authority or court authorization. It also concluded that the SAPOA lacked standing and that there was no private right of action for the alleged violations of the Penal Code and Evidence Code. The SAPOA and Doe Officers appealed.
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment as to the Doe Officers, agreeing they lacked authorization to proceed anonymously. It also affirmed the trial court’s decision regarding the first, second, and fourth causes of action, finding: no private right of action for damages under the cited statutes; and that the SAPOA failed to exhaust administrative remedies for the MMBA claim.
The appellate court reversed the judgment concerning the third cause of action, holding that the SAPOA had standing to seek mandamus relief to compel the City to investigate the complaint and notify the SAPOA of the disposition, as required by Penal Code sections 832.5 and 832.7. The case was remanded for further proceedings on that cause of action.
Santa Ana Police Officers Association v. City of Santa Ana, 109 Cal.App.5th 296 (2025)