Personal Cell Phones Subjected to Public Records Requests

Personal-Cell-Phones-Subject-to-Public-Records-Requests

On March 2, 2017, the California Supreme Court issued S218066, in which it held that city officials were required to publicly disclose work-related electronic communications over their personal electronic accounts and devices. The case involved a private citizen who formally requested numerous records, including emails and text messages "sent or received on private electronic devices used by" the mayor, city council mem­bers, and their staff. The City disclosed only communications made using official city telephone numbers and email accounts but did not disclose communications using the individuals' personal accounts and devices.
The Supreme Court overruled the appellate court's determi­nation that electronic communications relating to the conduct of public business on private accounts were not "prepared, owned ... or retained" by the governmental agency and hence subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act ("CPRA"). In so doing, the Court looked at the language and intent of the CPRA and concluded ( at p. 10) that the CPRA includes not only the governmental entity, but also its individual officers and employees. Moreover, the Supreme Court found that a document is retained by the agency within the meaning of the CPRA, "even if the writing is retained in the employee's personal account:' (at p. 13.)

The Impact of the Decision on Public Employees

This decision will have a significant impact on all public employees in the State of California, and most assuredly, peace officers. Pursuant to the CPRA, the public agency now has an obligation to search, collect, and disclose material located in an employee's personal account or on a personal device ( e.g., cell phone). Although the CPRA does not prescribe specific meth-ods of searching for documents, the California Supreme Court explored several. For instance, the Court indicated that agencies could develop internal policies for conducting such searches, or could rely on employees to search their own personal files and devices for responsive materials. Alternatively, the Court also suggested that public agencies could develop policies that would reduce the likelihood of public records being held in employees' private accounts. The Court cautioned, however, that any per­sonal information not related to the conduct of public business or falling under a statutory exemption under the Act could be redacted, (Gov. Code,§ 6253(a)) but that such privacy concerns would need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

Conclusion

This decision should cause every public employee to serious­ly consider when, how and whether to use their personal cell phones for work related communications. Public agencies will likely examine their policies and practices regarding electronic communications, which may impact the reasonable expecta­tion of privacy a public employee has in a personal device that is used for official business. In turn, labor organizations and individual employees should closely monitor any new or revised policies and be vigilant to exercise all applicable meet and con­fer rights under collective bargaining statutes to ensure privacy rights established by the United States and California Constitu­tions are protected.

By Brian Ross

TERMS OF SERVICE           PRIVACY POLICY

Copyright © 2018 San Bernardino County Sheriff's Employees' Benefit Association

Website managed and maintained by New Equity Productions

SEBA Logo135

SEBA Logo85SEBA Public E-Mail List

To subscribe to the SEBA E-Mail list, please fill out the information below and select "Subscribe To List".