_________________________ 

 

________________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
 

State of California
 

JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP
 

Attorney General
 

:
 

OPINION : No. 85-903
 

:
 

of : JUNE 18, 1986 

:
 

JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP :
 

Attorney General :
 

:
 

RODNEY O. LILYQUIST :
 

Deputy Attorney General :
 

:
 

THE HONORABLE J. E. SMITH, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT 

OF THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, has requested an opinion on the 

following question: 

Are the motor carrier records of the Department of the California Highway 

Patrol exempt from disclosure to the general public? 

CONCLUSION 

The motor carrier records of the Department of the California Highway 

Patrol are not exempt from disclosure to the general public. 

ANALYSIS 

The Department of the California Highway Patrol ("CHP") is developing a 

statewide information system to monitor the safety performance of motor carriers 

1
 

85-903
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 

operating in California, with particular emphasis upon those who transport hazardous 

materials and hazardous wastes. 

The following information is being gathered: (1) the carrier's name, 

address, and telephone number; (2) the carrier's principal cargo—hazardous materials, 

hazardous waste, explosives, CHP regulated load, general freight, permit load, less-thantruckload or bulk; (3) the carrier's classification—private (transports only own property), 

common (for hire by anyone), contract (transports under specific contract), or state or 

local agency; (4) three emergency contact persons with day and night telephone numbers; 

(5) operating authority listings assigned by the Interstate Commerce Commission or the 

California Public Utilities Commission; (6) prorate registration and inter- national 

registration plan information with assigned number and base state; (7) license and permit 

information—number, type, and expiration date of CHP issued licenses held by the 

carrier (hazardous materials transportation or inspection and maintenance station), history 

of actions taken regarding these two licenses (suspension, probation, revocation), and 

hazardous waste hauler registration number and expiration date; (8) an inventory of 

vehicles used—power units, towed units, cargo tanks, hazardous waste vehicles and 

containers; (9) the number of drivers employed and under contract; (10) the location of 

terminals in California; (11) fleet miles operated for the past calendar year; (12) accident 

involvement for the past three years—dates, times, and locations of accidents involving 

the carrier's vehicles, number of persons killed or injured, and identification of the CHP 

investigating officers; (13) citations issued to the carrier's drivers for the past three 

years—dates, times, drivers' license numbers, Vehicle Code section cited, and 

identification of the CHP investigating officers; (14) inspection dates and terminal safety 

compliance ratings for the past three years; and (15) hazardous materials spill data— 

dates, times, locations, product identifications, and number of persons killed or injured. 

The question presented for analysis is whether the information being 

obtained by the CHP is exempt from disclosure to the general public. The CHP has 

determined that such is not the case. We believe that the CHP's determination would be 

upheld in court. 

Preliminarily, we note that the information is being gathered as part of the 

responsibility of the CHP to monitor the carriers of hazardous materials. Vehicle Code 

section 320001 requires the CHP to license and conduct an inspection program for motor 

carriers transporting hazardous materials. The licensing program is initiated when a 

motor carrier submits an application under subdivision (e) of section 2502: 

1 All references to the Vehicle Code prior to footnote 3 are by section number only. 

2 

85-903
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 

"Each application shall be made upon a form furnished by the 

commissioner. It shall contain such information concerning the applicant's 

background and experience as the commissioner may prescribe, in addition 

to other information required by law." 

Items of information (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) are part of the license application 

data obtained under the authority of section 2502. 

The inspection program involves "maintenance facilities, terminals, or other 

public or private property to ascertain the quantity and kind of hazardous material and to 

ensure compliance with the provisions of this code and regulations adopted pursuant to 

this code." (§ 32001, subd. (a); see Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 13, § 1160 et seq.) Items of 

information (1), (2), (5), (8), (9), (10), (11) and (14) are gathered as part of the inspection 

program authorized by section 32001. 

The CHP also acts as the "statewide information, assistance and notification 

coordinator for all hazardous substances spill incidents occurring on highways within the 

State of California." (§ 2453; see 65 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 32, 35 (1982).) Items of 

information (4) and (15) particularly further this statutory function. 

The Legislature has specifically directed the CHP to give "special 

attention . . . to the negligent operators or repeat violators" in the hazardous materials 

transportation program. (§ 32000.) Items of information (7), (12), (13), (14), and (15) 

are gathered to meet this statutory directive.2 

Nothing in the statutory scheme for the licensing and monitoring of carriers 

of hazardous materials prohibits the CHP from disclosing to the general public the 

information being recorded; nothing in the scheme requires disclosure. Hence, we 

necessarily look to other provisions of law in analyzing the disclosure issue. 

I. THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 

The California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, §§ 6250-6265; "Act")3 

requires state agencies to have their "public records" (§ 6252, subd. (d)) available for 

public inspection (§ 6253) and for copying (§ 6256) unless a particular record is 

2 The information being obtained and stored by the CHP involves the use of forms and the 

internal management of the CHP while complying with legislative grants of authority and 

mandates. (See Cook v. Craig (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 773, 785- 786.) 

3 All references hereafter to the Government Code are by section number only. 

3 

85-903
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 

"exempt" from disclosure (§ 6254) or the agency demonstrates that "the public interest 

served by not making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by 

disclosure of the record" (§ 6255). (See generally American Civil Liberties Union 

Foundation v. Deukmejian (1982) 32 Cal.3d 440; Citizens for a Better Environment v. 

Department of Food & Agriculture (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 704; San Gabriel Tribune v. 

Superior Court (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 762; 68 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 73 (1985).) 

The purpose of the statutory scheme is to provide "access to information 

concerning the conduct of the people's business" while being "mindful of the right of 

individuals to privacy." (§ 6250.) Although the Act contains provisions against 

disclosure of certain records, such provisions are to be narrowly construed. (Citizens for 

a Better Environment v. Department of Food and Agriculture, supra, 171 Cal.App.3d at 

p. 711; South Coast Newspapers, Inc. v. City of Oceanside (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 261, 

270; San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court, supra, 143 Cal.App.3d at pp. 772-773; Cook 

v. Craig, supra, 55 Cal.App.3d at p. 781; Black Panther Party v. Kehoe (1974) 42 

Cal.App.3d 645, 653, fn. 7.) 

Records containing both exempt and nonexempt information must be 

disclosed if a reasonable segregation may be made and the exempt portions deleted. (§ 

6257; see American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. Deukmejian, supra, 32 Cal.3d at 

p. 453; fn. 13; Citizens for a Better Environment v. Department of Food & Agriculture, 

supra, 171 Cal.App.3d at pp. 717-718; South Coast Newspapers, Inc. v. City of 

Oceanside, supra, 160 Cal.App.3d at p. 270; Braun v. City of Taft (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 

332, 344; Johnson v. Winter (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 435, 440; Northern Cal. Police 

Practices Project v. Craig (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 116, 123-124.)4 

Significantly, "the Act imposes no limits upon who may seek information 

or what he may do with it." (American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. Deukmejian, 

supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 451; see San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court, supra, 143 

Cal.App.3d at p. 780.) Moreover, disclosure of exempt material to any member of the 

public waives any further claims of exemption. (§ 6254.5.) 

When a public agency refuses to disclose information on the basis of 

sections 6254 or 6255, the person seeking access may institute legal proceedings. 

(§ 6258.) The court "shall order the public official to make the record public" if it "finds 

that the . . . decision to refuse disclosure is not justified." (§ 6259.) 

4 Since we are dealing with information in the CHP's computer files, we note that section 

6256 states: "Computer data shall be provided in a form determined by the agency." 

4 

85-903
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 

With this background in mind, we turn to the specific provisions of the Act 

that arguably may prevent public disclosure of the carrier records. 

A. Section 6254, subdivision (c) 

Subdivision (c) of section 6254 provides for an exemption from disclosure 

for "[p]ersonnel, medical or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy." It may be argued that a motor carrier has a privacy 

interest, however minimal, in all of the data being gathered by the CHP concerning the 

carrier. 

We first note that the carrier information is not being contained in what 

may be characterized as "personnel" or "medical" files. (See American Civil Liberties 

Union v. Deukmejian, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 447, fn. 5.) As for "similar files," Braun v. 

City of Taft, supra, 154 Cal. App.3d at pp. 343-344, relied upon language in Sims v. 

Central Intelligence Agency (D.C. Cir. 1980) 642 F.2d 562, 575, that the "similar files" 

provision is limited to the protection of "'intimate details of personal and family life, not 

business judgments and relationships.'" (See 68 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 73, 76 (1985). 

In 62 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 436, 439 (1979), we concluded that the State 

Treasurer's records specifying the owners of state registered bonds were subject to 

disclosure since they "reflect the actual conduct of the Treasurer's public business, while 

personnel and medical files concern more private revelations collected for other than 

what is normally viewed as 'recorded official action.'" (See also 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 

46, 48 (1980); 62 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 595, 600 (1979); 53 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 136, 145-

146 (1970).) 

Item (4) of the carrier information, the names and telephone numbers of the 

three emergency contact persons, appears to be the most "intimate" and "private" of the 

information being stored by the CHP. Yet the Court of Appeal said in Braun v. City of 

Taft, supra, 154 Cal.App.3d at p. 345: 

"One's telephone number and address, although personal, are seldom 

secret. There is nothing to show that such information was not available 

through a city directory or telephone book." 

Having expertise in dealing with an emergency involving hazardous materials is not an 

embarrassing quality. It would not appear to be within one of the "sensitive areas of 

personal information" requiring protection. (See Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 

Cal.3d 291, 306 (conc. opn. of Bird, C.J.); Willis v. Superior Court (1980) 112 

5
 

85-903
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 

Cal.App.3d 277, 297); 67 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 415, 418 (1984); 64 Ops.Cal. Atty.Gen. 

575, 582 (1981).) 

More importantly, transporting hazardous materials over the highways of 

the state concerns the rights of the public, and being responsible for a highway 

emergency cannot be shielded as the disclosure of "private and personal revelations." 

(See 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 46, 48 (1980); 62 Ops. Cal.Atty.Gen. 595, 600 (1979); 53 

Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 136, 145-146 (1970).) 

We thus believe that a court would uphold the CHP's determination that 

neither the names and telephone numbers of the three emergency contact persons nor any 

of the other carrier information is exempt from disclosure under subdivision (c) of section 

6254. 

B. Section 6254, subdivision (f) 

Subdivision (f) of section 6254 provides an exemption from public 

disclosure for "[r]ecords of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or records of 

intelligence information . . . of . . . any state or local police agency . . . ." Does any of the 

CHP's carrier information come within the scope of subdivision (f), for example the 

histories of actions taken regarding the carrier licenses (suspension, probation, 

revocation), accident involvement for the past three years, citations issued to the carrier's 

drivers for the past three years, terminal safety compliance ratings for the past three 

years, and hazardous materials spill data? 

As previously discussed, all motor carriers transporting hazardous materials 

over the public roads of California are subject to licensing and inspection by the CHP. 

(Veh. Code, §§ 2502, 32000, 32000.5.) The CHP is required to monitor its enforcement 

program in a detailed manner due to the possibly serious consequences of an accident 

involving hazardous materials upon the public highways. (See Veh. Code, § 32000.) 

The records under consideration herein do not arise because of 

"complaints" having been filed with the CHP. Nor can it be said that they are 

"investigatory" in nature since they involve all carriers of hazardous materials without 

regard to "concrete and definite enforcement prospects." (See American Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation v. Deukmejian, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 449, fn. 10; South Coast 

Newspapers, Inc. v. City of Oceanside, supra, 160 Cal.App.3d at pp. 267- 269; Younger 

v. Berkeley City Council (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 825, 833; Uribe v. Howie (1971) 19 

Cal.App.3d 194, 212-213.) Moreover, the records are not "records of intelligence 

information" inasmuch as they are not obtained in confidence with respect to specific 

6
 

85-903
 
 

 

 

 


 


 

criminal activity. (See American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. Deukmejian, 

supra, 32 Cal.3d at pp. 449-453.)5 

Finally, we note that subdivision (f) of section 6254 specifically provides: 

"Other provisions of this subdivision notwithstanding, state and local 

law enforcement agencies shall make public the following information, 

except to the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information 

would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would 

endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related 

investigation: (1) The full name, current address, and occupation of every 

individual arrested by the agency, the individual's physical description 

including date of birth, color of eyes and hair, sex, height and weight, the 

time and date of arrest, the time and date of booking, the location of the 

arrest, the factual circumstances surrounding the arrest, the amount of bail 

set, the time and manner of release or the location where the individual is 

currently being held, and all charges the individual is being held upon, 

including any outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions and parole or 

probation holds. (2) The time, substance, and location of all complaints or 

requests for assistance received by the agency and the time and nature of 

the response thereto, including, to the extent the information regarding 

crimes alleged or committed or any other incident investigated is recorded, 

the time, date and location of occurrence, the time and date of the report, 

the name, age and current address of the victim, except that the address of 

the victim of any crime defined by Section 261, 264, 264.1, 273a, 273d, 

286, 288, 288a, or 289 of the Penal Code shall not be disclosed, the factual 

circumstances surrounding the crime or incident, and a general description 

of any injuries, property, or weapons involved." 

We thus conclude that the CHP would be upheld in court in finding that the 

exemption of subdivision (f) of section 6254 is inapplicable to the motor carrier records 

in question. 

C. Section 6254, subdivision (k) 

Subdivision (k) of section 6254 provides an exemption from public 

disclosure for "[r]ecords the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to 

5 Of course to the extent the CHP is conducting an ongoing investigation with respect to 

specific violations of law by a particular hazardous materials carrier, investigative records 

relating thereto would be temporarily exempt from disclosure as specified in subdivision (f). 

7
 

85-903
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 

provisions of federal or state law, including but not limited to provisions of the Evidence 

Code relating to privilege." Are there any statutes outside the Act that would bar 

disclosure of the records at issue? 

1. Evidence Code section 1040 

Evidence Code section 1040 provides a privilege against disclosure of 

"official information" where, among other things, "[d]isclosure of the information is 

against the public interest because there is a necessity for preserving the confidentiality of 

the information that outweighs the necessity for disclosure in the interest of justice." 

First we note that an agency may not change non- exempt records into 

exempt records merely by assuring the source of the information that it will remain 

confidential. (San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court, supra, 143 Cal.App. 3d at p. 776; 

Johnson v. Winter, supra, 127 Cal.App.3d at p. 439.) Mere allegations of future possible 

harm will not sustain the privilege; the government must demonstrate some plausible 

justification for protecting the information. (Uribe v. Howie, supra, 19 Cal.App.3d at p. 

210.) The issue is whether disclosure will impair the government's ability to obtain 

similar information in the future. (See City and County of S.F. v. Superior Court (1951) 

38 Cal.2d 156, 162- 163; Runyon v. Board etc. of Cal. (1938) 26 Cal.App.2d 183, 185; 

Note, The California Public Records Act: The Public's Right of Access to Governmental 

Information (1976) 7 Pacific L.J. 105, 121-125; see also American Civil Liberties Union 

Foundation v. Deukmejian, supra, 32 Cal.3d at pp. 446-447, fn. 6.) 

Here the motor carriers must furnish certain information in order to obtain a 

license to transport hazardous materials; this information is also being given by other 

carriers on a voluntary basis. The remaining information is being gathered by the CHP 

with respect to accidents, citations, safety compliance ratings and spill data, none of 

which requires confidentiality in order to be procured. We thus conclude that a court 

would agree with the CHP that Evidence Code section 1040 is inapplicable to these 

records. 

2. Evidence Code section 1060 

Evidence Code section 1060 provides a privilege against the disclosure of a 

"trade secret" where "the allowance of the privilege will not tend to conceal fraud or 

otherwise work injustice." Under the statute the owner of the secret must claim the 

privilege in order to protect another from disclosing it. 

Much of the information being gathered by the CHP from the motor 

carriers involves their individual business affairs—type of cargo, inventory of vehicles, 

8
 

85-903
 
 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 

number of employees, fleet miles operated, and terminal safety compliance ratings. Does 

any of this information constitute a trade secret exempt from disclosure under Evidence 

Code section 1060? 

In Uribe v. Howie, supra, 19 Cal.App.3d 194, the Court of Appeal 

examined the trade secrets exemption with respect to pesticide spray reports in the 

possession of a county agricultural commissioner. It applied the definition of trade 

secrets found in the Restatement of Torts: 

"'A trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or 

compilation of information which is used in one's business, and which gives 

him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not 

know or use it. It may be a formula for a chemical compound, a process of 

manufacturing, treating or preserving materials, a pattern for a machine or 

other device, or a list of customers. It differs from other secret information 

in a business (see § 759) in that it is not simply information as to single or 

ephemeral events in the conduct of the business, as, for example, the 

amount or other terms of a secret bid for a contract or the salary of certain 

employees, or the security investments made or contemplated, or the date 

fixed for the announcement of a new policy or for bringing out a new 

model or the like. A trade secret is a process or device for continuous use 

in the operation of the business. Generally it relates to the production of 

goods, as, for example, a machine or formula for the production of an 

article. It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in 

the business, such as a code for determining discounts, rebates or other 

concessions in a price list or catalogue, or a list of specialized customers, or 

a method of bookkeeping or other office management.'" (Id. at p. 207.)6 

The subject matter of a trade secret necessarily must not be a matter "'of public 

knowledge or of general knowledge in an industry.'" (Ibid.) The court concluded in 

Uribe that the information in the reports could be obtained "by a number of people 

outside the pesticide application industry" and did not result from "any substantial 

investment in research and development to be protected by a policy of nondisclosure." 

(Id. at p. 209.) 

6 A trade secret is also defined for various purposes in sections 6254.1, 6254.7, Health and 

Safety Code section 25173, and Civil Code section 3426.1. The Uniform Trade Secrets Act 

(Civ. Code, §§ 3426-3426.10) specifically provides that its enactment "does not affect the 

disclosure of a record by a state or local agency under the California Public Records Act." (Civ. 

Code, § 3426.7, subd. (c).) 

9 

85-903
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 

The trade secrets exemption was also analyzed in San Gabriel Tribune v. 

Superior Court, supra, 143 Cal.App.3d at pp. 775-778. The court found that corporate 

financial data could be disclosed because, among other reasons, the corporation had 

failed to present compelling proof of economic damage if disclosure were allowed. 

None of the information being obtained by the CHP appears to constitute a 

trade secret as discussed in the Uribe and the San Gabriel Tribune cases. It is of a 

general nature known to various persons both within and without the hazardous materials 

transportation industry. We thus conclude that a court would agree with the CHP that 

Evidence Code section 1060 is inapplicable to the motor carrier records. 

3. Vehicle Code sections 16005, 20012 

Vehicle Code sections 16005 and 20012 require that certain specified 

accident reports filed by persons involved in accidents be kept confidential unless the 

person seeking access has a "proper interest." 

These confidentiality statutes are to encourage full and accurate accounts 

and cover only the required reports where the interests of the reporting private parties 

might otherwise be compromised. The facts of the accidents themselves are not 

confidential. As stated by the Supreme Court in Davies v. Superior Court, supra, 36 

Cal.App.3d at p. 299: 

"Since highway accidents are public occurrences, and are often the 

object of press reports, it seems unlikely that the legislative purpose was to 

keep confidential either the fact of the accident or information about its 

nature and causation. Nor is there any reason to protect the identity of the 

investigating officer since that information is also readily available from 

other sources. It seems probable, therefore, that the Legislature intended to 

protect the privacy of the reporting parties by keeping confidential their 

identities and information that might disclose identity." 

In People v. Ansbro (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 273, 277, the Court of Appeal concluded: 

"Vehicle Code sections 20008 through 20010 indicate that required 

reports are those filed by drivers and passengers of vehicles involved in 

accidents resulting in death or bodily injury, and by witnesses to such 

accidents. Hence, it is these reports which are privileged under Vehicle 

Code section 20012. Reports of accidents made by investigating officers 

are not so privileged. (Hodges v. Severns (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 99, 106; 

Carroll v. Beavers (1954) 126 Cal.App.2d 828, 837.) It is important to 

10 

85-903
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 

understand that it is the required reports which are covered by the 

confidential privileges in sections 20012 and 20013, and not the fact of the 

accidents themselves. (State of California ex rel. Department of 

Transportation v. Superior Court (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 25; Edgar v. 

Superior Court (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 430.)" 

The accident information contained in item (12) is gathered firsthand by the 

CHP investigating officers. We thus conclude that a court would agree with the CHP that 

Vehicle Code sections 16005 and 20012 do not prohibit disclosure here. 

4. Civil Code section 1798 

The Information Practices Act of 1977 (Civ. Code, §§ 1798-1798.76) 

prohibits the release of certain "personal information" contained in the files of state 

agencies under given circumstances.7 This statutory scheme, however, expressly 

provides with respect to whether personal information should be disclosed to the public: 

"This chapter shall not be deemed to supersede [the California Public Records Act] 

except as to the provisions of Sections 1798.60 and 1798.70." (Civ. Code, § 1798.75.) 

Civil Code section 1798.60 states: "An individual's name and address may 

not be distributed for commercial purposes, sold, or rented by an agency unless such 

action is specifically authorized by law." Civil Code section 1798.70, on the other hand, 

does not restrict disclosure but concerns the release of personal information to the subject 

of the information notwithstanding "any exemption in Section 6254 or 6255 of the 

Government Code." 

Accordingly, the motor carrier records of the CHP containing the names 

and addresses of individuals may not be sold, rented, or distributed by the CHP for 

financial gain, since the latter activities are not specifically authorized by the Legislature. 

(See 64 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 575, 587-588 (1981); 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 46, 49-50 

(1980).) No other provision of Civil Code section 1798 prohibits disclosure of the carrier 

records by the CHP. We thus conclude that the CHP's determination in favor of 

disclosure to the public under the requirements of the Act and Civil Code section 1798 

would be upheld by a court. 

7 The legislation also prohibits the storage of personal information, such as a person's home 

telephone number, that is irrelevant or unnecessary to accomplish a statutory purpose. (Civ. 

Code, § 1798.14.) Here, the information is being gathered by the CHP in order to perform its 

statutory duties and responsibilities. (See Veh. Code, §§ 2453, 2502, 32000, 32001.) For 

example, the emergency contact telephone numbers are necessary so that the CHP may identify 

materials spilled at an accident and summon the appropriate emergency services. 

11 

85-903
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 

D. Section 6255 

Section 6255 provides an exemption from disclosure for a record "that on 

the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not making the record public 

clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record." 

While section 6255 provides an independent basis for nondisclosure, many 

of the same considerations are present in determining its applicability that are found in 

applying the language of subdivisions (c), (f), and (k) of section 6254, as well as other 

subdivisions of the latter statute. (See American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. 

Deukmejian, supra, 32 Cal.3d at pp. 447-454; Citizens for a Better Environment v. 

Department of Food & Agriculture, supra, 171 Cal.App.3d at pp. 714-715; Braun v. City 

of Taft, supra, 154 Cal.App.3d at p. 345; San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court, supra, 

143 Cal.App.3d at p. 780; 64 Ops.Cal. Atty.Gen. 575, 584-587 (1981).). In particular, if 

the balancing test under Evidence Code section 1040 does not favor disclosure, the test 

for disclosure under section 6255 will generally not be met. (See American Civil 

Liberties Foundation v. Deukmejian, supra, 32 Cal.3d at pp. 446-447, fn. 6; 53 

Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 148, 148-149 (1970); Note, The California Public Records Act: The 

Public's Right of Access to Governmental Information, supra, 7 Pacific L.J. at pp. 123-

125.) 

The factors considered in the cases where nondisclosure was authorized 

under the section 6255 balancing test are not present here. (See American Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation v. Deukmejian, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 453 [burden of segregating 

exempt from nonexempt information]; Eskaton Monterey Hospital v. Myers (1982) 134 

Cal.App.3d 788, 792- 793 [preventing violations of law].) 

The public's interest is indeed great regarding the disclosure of information 

with respect to using and the qualifications for using public highways to transport 

hazardous materials. We conclude that a court would agree with the CHP that its carrier 

records are disclosable under the provisions of section 6255. (See Citizens for a Better 

Environment v. Department of Food & Agriculture, supra, 171 Cal.App.3d at pp. 714-

715; Braun v. City of Taft, supra, 154 Cal.App.3d at p. 345; San Gabriel Tribune v. 

Superior Court, supra, 143 Cal.App.3d at p. 780.) 

12
 

85-903
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 

II. THE CONSTITUTION
 

The constitutional right to privacy8 requires analysis when considering 

whether the state may disclose information to the general public which it has obtained 

through official channels for governmental purposes. (See American Civil Liberties 

Foundation v. Deukmejian, supra, 32 Cal.3d at pp. 449-450; 68 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 73, 78 

(1985); 67 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 414, 419-421 (1984).) 

Section 1 of article 1 of the Constitution protects "people," not fictional 

persons such as corporations. (Roberts v. Gulf Oil (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 770-793.) 

While a corporation has a general right to privacy under the United States Constitution, it 

is not a "fundamental" right requiring the showing of a "compelling state interest" to be 

overridden. (Id. at pp. 784-797.) 

In Braun v. City of Taft, supra, 154 Cal.App.3d at p. 347, the Court of 

Appeal discussed at length the constitutional right to privacy: 

"We believe that the constitutional right to privacy must be balanced 

against the public's interest in its business in much the same way that the 

courts have sought accommodation of the reputational interests of the 

individual and the United States Constitution's First Amendment's 

protection of press freedoms. (See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 

(1964) 376 U.S. 254.) . . . . 

"The balancing test employed by the trial court in its determination 

that the records were not exempt under section 6254, subdivision (c) 

because they do not constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy is the 

same one which should be utilized in weighing the right to privacy against 

the right of the public to oversee the actions of governmental employees. 

The trial court carefully considered the clash between the need for public 

disclosure of its business and the need of the individual to privacy when 

making its determination under section 6254, subdivision (c); no more is 

required under article 1, section 1, of the California Constitution." 

As with our analysis of subdivision (c) of section 6254, we agree with the 

CHP that no violation of the constitutional right to privacy occurs by release of the CHP's 

8 Section 1 of article 1 of the Constitution provides: 

"All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these 

are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and 

pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." 

13 

85-903
 
 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

records in question. The information concerns the use and qualifications for use of the
 

public highways. No reasonable expectation of privacy may be found where the 

information relates directly to a public activity pervasively regulated by the state due to
 

the potential for serious harm to members of the public. No "compelling state interest"
 

need be found here since the information relates to business relationships rather than to
 

intimate details of personal and family life. (See Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp., supra, 147
 

Cal.App.3d at p. 797; People v. Elder (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 731, 737-738; 60
 

Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 73, 78 (1985).) We thus conclude that a court would uphold the 

release of the carrier records by the CHP to the general public.
 

***** 

14
 

85-903