Police Association Counts As “Citizen” Under Citizen Complaint Scheme

Written on 08/08/2025
LRIS

A reporter from Voice of OC, an online nonprofit media source, made a public records request to the Santa Ana City Attorney’s office in February 2021. The request sought information about Santa Ana Police Department employees placed on paid administrative leave between 2016 and 2021, including the reasons for the leave and the associated costs. In response, the City allegedly disclosed confidential personnel records of certain police officers without complying with legal requirements. The City later acknowledged the wrongful disclosure and requested the return of the records, but Voice of OC refused. The City then notified some of the affected officers but failed to provide details about what specific information had been released or what rights the officers had.

The Santa Ana Police Officers Association (SAPOA) fled a written complaint with the City, requesting an investigation into the disclosure of the confidential records. According to the SAPOA, the City failed to conduct an investigation or notify the SAPOA of the disposition of the complaint within 30 days. Additionally, the SAPOA requested copies of communications related to the disclosure, but the City denied the request, which the SAPOA claimed was part of a broader pattern of anti-police actions by City officials.

After the City’s denial, the SAPOA and several anonymous officers fled a First Amendment complaint with four causes of action: (1) violation of Penal Code sections 832.7 and Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045 for wrongful disclosure of confidential personnel records; (2) negligence per se for the disclosure; (3) violation of Penal Code sections 832.5 and 832.7 for failing to investigate the SAPOA’s citizen complaint; and (4) violation of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) for denying the SAPOA’s request for information. The lower court granted motions to dismiss all causes of action, ruling, among other things, that SAPOA lacked standing on the third cause of action.

The California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, addressed each of the four causes of action.

First, the Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to sustain the motion to dismiss on the first cause of action, which alleged wrongful disclosure of personnel records. The Court relied on Rosales v. City of Los Angeles, which held that the statutory scheme governing the disclosure of peace officer personnel records does not create a private right of action for damages. The Court also found that the plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive or mandamus relief were moot because the disclosure had already occurred, and there was no evidence that future disclosures were likely.

Second, the Court affirmed the grant of the motion to dismiss on the second cause of action for negligence per se, as the plaintiff’s failed to present any argument or evidence to support this claim. The Court noted that the plaintiffs had either forfeited their argument or failed to demonstrate error in the trial court’s ruling.

Third, the Court reversed the trial court’s decision to sustain the motion to dismiss on the third cause of action, which alleged that the City failed to investigate the SAPOA’s citizen complaint. After concluding that Penal Code § 832.5 created a private right of action, over the City’s objection, the Court held that SAPOA qualified as a “citizen” under Penal Code § 832.5’s citizen complaint scheme, granting it standing to enforce the City’s duty to investigate its complaint. Rejecting the City’s argument that SAPOA lacked standing, the Court ruled that the statute’s requirement for police departments to investigate public complaints applies equally to complaints fled by police unions. By treating SAPOA as a citizen complainant, the Court affirmed that police associations can legally demand investigations into alleged misconduct. With that finding, the Court then concluded that the SAPOA had adequately alleged that the City failed to investigate its complaint or notify it of the disposition, as required by law.

Finally, the Court affirmed the grant of the motion to dismiss on the fourth cause of action, which alleged a violation of the MMBA. The Court held that the SAPOA, as an organization, was required to exhaust administrative remedies by fling a complaint with the Public Employment Relations Board before bringing an MMBA claim in court. Since the SAPOA had not done so, the Court found that the claim was barred.

Santa Ana Police Officers Association v. City of Santa Ana, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 115 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025).