In this proceeding, petitioner seeks to enforce a request it made under the Public Records Act¹ for fourteen police reports regarding incidents at the University of California, Davis medical Center.² Respondent denied the request pursuant to Government Code section 6254 (f) as interpreted in County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Kusar) 18 Cal. App. 4th 588.³

The Court finds that respondent's denial was in accordance with law. Government Code section 6254 (f) clearly provides that "[r]ecords of complaints to, or investigations conducted by any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency..." are not required to be disclosed under the Public Records Act. The police reports petitioner seeks in this proceeding are within the terms of this exemption from disclosure.

Petitioner correctly points out that Government Code section 6254 (f) requires a state police agency to disclose specified information derived from its investigatory records. This requirement does not, however, extend to the underlying records themselves. (See Williams v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4^th 337, 349-350.)

Furthermore, even the disclosure of information derived from the records is limited to"...current information and records of the matters described in the statute which pertain to contemporaneous police activity." (County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Kusar) 18 Cal.App.4^th 588, 601.) At least seven of the police reports sought here (those requested on November 3, 2000)⁴ relate to matters that are no longer active.⁵ The Court is not persuaded by petitioner's argument that the reports, which span a period of approximately five years, reflect a pattern of possibly related and ongoing criminal activity at the Medical Center that should be viewed as "contemporaneous". Petitioner accordingly is not entitled to information from such files under Kusar. As to the remaining seven police reports (those requested by petitioner on December 8 and 11, 2000), as of January 25, 2001, the U.C. Davis Police Department was still in the process of determining their status.⁶ To the extent that petitioner seeks a writ to compel respondent to disclose information derived from those reports pursuant to Government Code section 6254(f), the petition is denied on the ground that it is premature. The Court cannot determine at this time that any of those seven police reports relate to contemporaneous police activity, or that respondent will refuse to disclose the required information if it is determined that they do.

Petitioner argues that it is entitled to request copies of police reports notwithstanding the exemption from disclosure contained in Government Code section 6254 (f), because that exemption is superceded by the provisions of Education Code section 67380 (a). Section 67380 (a) is part of the Donohoe Higher Education Act⁷. It provides in pertinent part that the Regents of the University of California "...shall...require appropriate officials at each campus...to compile records..." of specified forms of criminal activity on campus and to "...make the information concerning the crimes compiled pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) available within two business days following the request of...the media... ."

Petitioner's argument suffers from two significant flaws. First, despite the statute's express reference to the Regents of the University of California, section 67380 (a) is not applicable to respondent. Education Code section 67400, also contained within the Donohoe Higher Education Act, states: "No provision of this part shall apply to the University of California except to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, make that provision applicable." Petitioner has provided no evidence that respondent has enacted such a resolution. Respondent, on the other hand, has provided evidence that no such resolution has been enacted.⁸

The second flaw in petitioner's argument is that, even if respondent had adopted a resolution making section 67380 (a) applicable, the statute does not mandate disclosure of police reports.⁹ Instead, like Government Code section 6254(f), it requires disclosure of information derived from police reports rather than the reports themselves. Indeed, section 67380(a) expressly incorporates the exemption from disclosure set forth in section 6245(f). Immediately after providing that "information concerning the crimes" shall be made available to the media on request, section 67380 (a) (3) states unequivocally: "...unless the information is the type of information exempt from disclosure pursuant to subdivision (f) of section 6254 of the Government Code, in which case the information is not required to be disclosed." As discussed above, police reports are exempt from disclosure under Government Code section 6254 (f). Police reports accordingly are exempt from disclosure under Education Code section 67380 (a) as well.¹⁰

Petitioner argues that Education Code section 67380 (a) is ambiguous as to whether the reports themselves or merely information extracted from them is subject to disclosure, and cites materials in the legislative history of the statute to show that the Legislature intended to make the reports themselves available.¹¹ The Court finds no ambiguity in the statute. Its reference to the exemption under Government Code section 6254 (f) is clear and unequivocal, as is the statutory mandate to make available the "information concerning the crimes", as opposed to the underlying reports. Legislative history materials accordingly are unnecessary to construe the statute. (See J.A. Jones Construction Co. v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4^th 1568, 1575.) Even if they were proper aids to construction here, the Court finds, on balance, that the legislative history materials submitted in this matter tend to support respondent's argument that the statute contemplates disclosures only of statistical or other derivative information rather than police reports.¹²

Petitioner further argues that respondent must disclose the requested police reports pursuant to the holding of Uribe v. Howie (1971) 19 Cal.App.3^rd 194. Specifically, petitioner asserts that respondent uses its police reports for purposes other than investigations, namely, as the source of information used to meet respondent's legal obligations to report crime statistics and other data pursuant to Education Code section 67380 (a), under federal, or otherwise.¹³ Petitioner contends that respondent's use of the police reports for this purpose removes them from the reach of the section 6254 (f) exemption.

Petitioner's argument is based on a misunderstanding of the holding of Uribe. in that case, the Court of Appeal did not hold that the section 6254 (f) exemption from disclosure was inapplicable to police reports otherwise within its scope simply by virtue of the fact that the reports also might serve as the source of data used for another purpose. Instead, the Court held that the exemption was not applicable to records (such as pesticide applicator spray reports) that were not compiled for the primary purpose of investigation or licensing as provided by section 6254 (f), unless such records were being used for an active investigatory or licensing purpose at the time of the request.¹⁴ (See also the discussion of Uribe in Williams v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4^th 337, 359.)

Here, the Court finds that the primary purpose for which the requested police reports were created was investigatory, a use specifically contemplated by section 6254 (f). Accordingly, the reports were immediately within the scope of the section 6254 (f) exemption from disclosure. That exemption did not dissolve simply because respondent later used information extracted from the reports for other purposes. Petitioner's argument would virtually destroy the section 6254 (f) exemption since, as both parties concede, police agencies use their reports as the source of information reported to a variety of state and federal agencies for various purposes.

For these reasons, the petition for writ of mandate is denied. Petitioner's request for an award of damages pursuant to Education Code section 67380 (a) is denied.

Counsel for respondent is directed to prepare an order and judgment in conformity with this ruling and submit them to the Court for signature and filing after obtaining approval of counsel for petitioner as to form.

¹ Government Code section 6250 et seq.

² See Stipulation and Order Re Issuance of Alternative Writ and Briefing Schedule for Hearing on Order to show Cause filed January 23, 2001, for a list of the police reports at issue in this action.

³ See Declaration of Stephen J. Burns in Support of McClatchy Newspapers Inc.'s Petition for Writ of Mandate, filed January 16, 2001, Exhibits A and C.

⁴ See Declaration of Steven A. Drown in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate filed January 26, 2001, Exhibit A.

⁵ See Declaration of Steven A. Drown , paragraphs 9-12 and Exhibits E and H.

⁶ See Declaration of Steven A. Drown, paragraph 11.

⁷ Education Code sections 66002 et seq.

⁸ See Declaration of Anna L. Shaw filed February 1, 2001.

⁹ In light of this conclusion, the court denies petitioner's request for a continuance to conduct discovery on the issue of whether respondent has adopted any of the provisions of Donohoe Higher Education Act. (See McClatchy Newspaper, Inc.'s Reply to Respondent's Opposition to Petition for Write of Mandate, p. 5, fn 1.)

¹⁰ The Court's ruling would be the same regardless of whether respondent formally adopted section 67380 (a) by resolution or, as petitioner argues in the alternative, "voluntarily" chose to comply with its mandates in order to obtain state funding.

¹¹ See, for example, Respondent's Request for Judicial Notice, Exb. B-15, p. 2.

¹² See, for example, Respondent's Request for Judicial Notice, Exb's A-11 and A-12; Petitioner's Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate, Exb. C.

¹³ Alternatively, petitioner contends that respondent "voluntarily" has opted to comply with Education Code section 67380 (a) by reporting crime statistics and other data.

¹⁴ Government Code section 6254 (f) also exempts from disclosure "...any investigatory or security filed compiled by any other state or local agency for licensing purposes... ."