Code , now The trial court ordered Oakland to produce documents responsive to those requests. Oakland produced a redacted version of the internal affairs investigation report. The court of appeal agreed that some of the challenged redactions were not permitted under the statute. In Senate Bill amended Penal Code section The trial court improperly permitted Oakland to redact certain information under section Court of appeal holds that redactions in a police internal affairs investigation report, requested under the California Public Records Act, were improper.
Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice.
Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
Get free summaries of new California Courts of Appeal opinions delivered to your inbox! Superior Court of Alameda County Bondgraham v. Opinion Annotation. Download PDF. Primary Holding Court of appeal holds that redactions in a police internal affairs investigation report, requested under the California Public Records Act, were improper.
Toggle button Get free summaries of new California Courts of Appeal opinions delivered to your inbox! Enter Your Email. Justia Legal Resources. Find a Lawyer. Law Schools. Federal Law. State Law. Other Databases.
