Filed 3/29/19
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
WALNUT CREEK POLICE OFFICERS’
ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
A156477
v.
CITY OF WALNUT CREEK et al., (Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. N19-0109)
Defendants and Respondents;
FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION et al.,
Interveners and Appellants.
[And five other cases.*]
THE COURT*:
Good cause appearing, the request for publication is granted. Pursuant to
California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, the attached order of March 12,
2019, is certified for publication.
Date: _____________________________ P. J.
*
Richmond Police Officers’ Assn. v. City of Richmond (A156479), Contra Costa County
Deputy Sheriffs’ Assn. v. County of Contra Costa (A156480), Antioch Police Officers’
Assn. v. City of Antioch (A156481), Martinez Police Officers’ Assn. v. City of Martinez
(A156482), Concord Police Assn. v. City of Concord (A156484)
*
Pollak, P. J., Tucher, J., and Brown, J. participated in the decision.
1
Trial court: Contra Costa County Superior Court
Trial judge: Honorable Charles “Steve” Treat
Counsel for plaintiffs and appellants: RAINS LUCIA STERN ST. PHALLE & SILVER, PC
Michael L. Rains
Rockne A. Lucia, Jr.
Timothy K. Talbot
Zachery A. Lopes
Counsel for defendants and CITY OF CONCORD
respondents: Joshua K. Clendenin
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
Hannah M. Shafsky
CITY OF MARTINEZ
Mary Ann Mason
CITY OF RICHMOND
Bruce Goodmiller
Shannon Lee Moor
COLE HUBER LLP
Derek P. Cole
WALTER & PISTOLE APC
John A. Abaci
City of Martinez
Counsel for interveners and CALIFORNIA FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION
appellants: David E. Snyder
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
Christine P. Sun
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
Tenaya Rodewald
James M. Chadwick
2
Filed 3/12/19
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
WALNUT CREEK POLICE OFFICERS’
ASSOCIATION,
Appellant,
A156477
v.
CITY OF WALNUT CREEK et al., (Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. N19-0109)
Respondents;
FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION et al.,
Interveners.
[And five other cases.*]
THE COURT*:
The petitions for writ of supersedeas filed in these consolidated matters are denied.
Appellants have not shown that “substantial questions will be raised on appeal.” (Smith v.
Selma Community Hospital (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1, 18.) The appeals center around
amendments enacted this year to Penal Code section 832.7 that expand public access to
certain peace officer records maintained by a state or local agency. (See Pen. Code,
§ 832.7, subd. (b)(1).) Appellants assert that applying the 2019 amendments to compel
disclosure of records created prior to 2019 constitutes an improper retroactive application
of the new law. For the reasons stated by the trial court, appellants’ argument is without
merit. Although the records may have been created prior to 2019, the event necessary to
“trigger application” of the new law—a request for records maintained by an agency—
necessarily occurs after the law’s effective date. (People v. Grant (1999) 20 Cal.4th 150,
*
A156479, A156480, A156481, A156482, A156484
*
Pollak, P. J., Tucher, J., and Brown, J. participated in the decision.
1
157 [“the critical question for determining retroactivity usually is whether the last act or
event necessary to trigger application of the statute occurred before or after the statute's
effective date”].) The new law also does not change the legal consequences for peace
officer conduct described in pre-2019 records. (See ibid. [application of new law is
retroactive “only if it attaches new legal consequences to, or increases a party’s liability
for, an event, transaction, or conduct that was completed before the law’s effective
date”].) Rather, the new law changes only the public's right to access peace officer
records.
The temporary stay issued by this court on February 15, 2019, will expire at
5:00 p.m. on March 19, 2019.
Interveners’ motion for calendar preference and expedited briefing is denied.
Date: March 12, 2019 ______________________ P. J.
2