In Collondrez v. City of Rio Vista (2021) 2021 WL 973420, the First District Court of Appeal held that the city’s disclosure of former police officer John Collondrez’s records of dishonesty was lawful. In reaching that conclusion, the court used the definition of “sustained” as set forth in Penal Code section 832.8 and held that, where Collondrez appealed the police chief’s Notice of Intent to Discipline to the City Manager, had a Skelly Hearing before the City Manager, and appealed that decision to arbitration but forewent arbitration in order to resign in-lieu of termination, the City Manager’s decision was a “sustained finding.” Finally, the Court held that the City’s anti-SLAPP motion should be granted in whole because the disclosures constituted protected speech and Collondrez had no probability of prevailing on the merits.
Kronick attorneys were proud to represent the City of Rio Vista in this matter and secure a total victory for their client, inclusive of attorney’s fees and costs.
Legal Background
The California Public Records Act (CPRA) provides a right of access to public records unless the record is expressly exempt. Peace officer records are generally exempt from public inspection pursuant to Government Code section 62554(f) and Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8.
Effective January 1, 2019, Senate Bill 1421 (“SB 1421”) amended Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 to provide that public records related to officer-involved shootings, officer use of force resulting in great bodily injury or death, or a sustained finding of officer dishonesty or sexual assault are no longer confidential and must be made available for public inspection pursuant to the CPRA, with limited exception.
Factual Background
In August 2017, police officer John Collondrez (“Collondrez”) responded to a report of a hit-and-run and later drafted an incident report. An internal investigation revealed, in relevant part to this case, that Collondrez had falsified the report. The Police Chief issued a notice of intent to discipline that recommended termination (“NOID”). Collondrez appealed the Police Chief’s determination. The City Manager conducted a hearing in accordance with Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194 and sustained the NOID, finding that Collondrez falsified the police report and had been dishonest (“Skelly hearing”). Collondrez appealed the Skelly hearing and the matter was set for arbitration.
In September 2018 and prior to the arbitration, the parties entered into a settlement agreement where Collondrez resigned in-lieu of termination and promised never to seek employment with the City again. One term of the settlement agreement provided the City would only release Collondrez’s disciplinary records related to the August 2017 incident (“Collondrez records”) if required by law or court order and “upon receiving a request to unseal and release [the records], City will notify [Collondrez] of such request in writing in order to provide [Collondrez] with an opportunity to object to the release of the sealed records.”
In January 2019, multiple media outlets submitted CPRA requests to the City for records disclosable pursuant to SB 1421. The City provided Collondrez notice of some but not all of the requests and produced all responsive, disclosable records. Some media outlets reported on the Collondrez records. In February 2019, Uber, Collondrez’s then employer, fired him, citing the media reports.
Collondrez sued the City for (1) breach of the settlement agreement, (2) invasion of privacy, (3) interference with prospective economic advantage, and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Trial Court
The City filed an anti-SLAPP motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The City alleged that Collondrez’s complaint was premised on the City’s protected speech and Collondrez failed to show a probability of prevailing on the merits as to any cause of action. The trial court held in favor of the City on the first prong – the gravamen of the entire complaint arose from the City’s protected activities, here, the Police Chief’s disclosures to the news media. On the second prong, Collondrez had shown a probability of prevailing on the merits for breach of the settlement agreement and invasion of privacy. Therefore, the trial court denied the motion as to these causes of action and granted it as to the other two. All parties appealed.
Appellate Holding
The Court of Appeal concurred with the trial court in finding that the entire complaint was premised on protected activity and thus survived the first prong of the anti-SLAPP test.
As to the second prong of the anti-SLAPP motion, the Court held that Collondrez failed to show a probability of prevailing on the merits of any cause of action because the City’s release of Collondrez’s records was compelled by operation of Penal Code section 832.7(b)(1)(C). The records pertained to a “sustained finding…by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer…directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime.” The Court stated a “sustained finding” is where an officer is given “an opportunity” for appeal. There is no requirement in law or the Legislature’s intent that an appeal be conducted or completed. The Court noted to require otherwise “would render superfluous” the Legislature’s intent in SB 1421 and allow officers to thwart public disclosure by settling or abandoning the appeal.
Here, Collondrez was given an opportunity for appeal following the Skelly hearing but forwent it in light of the execution of the settlement agreement. Thus, the records related to a sustained finding of dishonesty pursuant to Section 832.7(b)(1)(C) and the City was compelled to disclose them.
The Court further held that the City did not have a responsibility to redact or omit certain of Collondrez’s records. “Penal Code section 832.7(b)(1)(C) broadly requires the disclosure of any qualifying records ‘relating to an incident in which a sustained finding’ of officer dishonesty was made.” (Italics by Court.) All of the disclosed Collondrez records related to the August 2017 incident, an event for which there was a sustained finding of dishonesty.
The Court of Appeal reversed in part and affirmed in part, all in favor of the City, and permitted the City to collect attorneys’ fees.
Questions
If you have any questions regarding this Legal Alert, please contact the following attorneys from our office, or the attorney with whom you typically consult.
Mona Ebrahimi
mebrahimi@kmtg.com | 916.321.4597
Olivia Clark
oclark@kmtg.com | 916.321.4290