Filed 1/20/16 State of Calif. v. Superior Court CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT LOS 

ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent;

COLLEEN FLYNN,

Real Party in Interest.

 B265930

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BS149154)

PETITION from an order the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Luis A. 

Lavin, Judge. Petition granted.

Kamala Harris, Attorney General, Kathleen A. Kenealy, Chief Assistant Attorney 

General, Kristin G. Hogue, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Joel A. Davis, 

Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Donna M. Dean, Deputy Attorney General, 

for Petitioner.

Donald W. Cook for Real Party in Interest.
2

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant, State of California, has filed a mandate petition challenging an order 

compelling disclosure of certain electronically stored data maintained by the California 

Department of Justice (justice department). The electronically stored data are CHP 180 

forms maintained in the justice department’s Stolen Vehicle System database. Plaintiff, 

Colleen Flynn, sought before the respondent court to compel disclosure of these and other 

records pursuant to the California Public Records Act (public records act). (Gov. Code,1

§ 6250 et seq.; see Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1272, 1281, 

1282.) 

The outcome of this appeal is controlled by the holding in County of Los Angeles 

v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 475, 481-489, hereafter County of Los Angeles. 

In addition to the analysis in County of Los Angeles, supra, we conclude the Legislature

has carefully limited access to the Stolen Vehicle System database to specified agencies 

and persons. (§ 15153; Pen. Code, § 11105, subd. (b).) Because access to materials in 

the Stolen Vehicle System database has been so limited by the Legislature, they are 

unavailable to plaintiff. (§ 6254, subd. (k).) Thus, plaintiff is not entitled to disclosure of 

lost, found or recovered vehicles in the justice department’s Stolen Vehicle System 

database.

II. PROCEEDINGS IN THE RESPONDENT COURT

Before proceeding to synthesizing the events transpiring to date, it bears emphasis 

that only a portion of the issues litigated in the respondent court are before us now. Much 

of the discussion in papers filed in the respondent court involves the California Highway 

Patrol. The respondent court ultimately ordered disclosure from two databases. The first 

database was that operated by the California Highway Patrol. There is no issue raised in 

 

1 Unless otherwise noted, all future statutory references are to the Government 

Code.
3

the present writ proceeding concerning the orders directed at the California Highway 

Patrol. But the respondent court also ordered the justice department to produce electronic

data in an electronic format which is stored on its Stolen Vehicle System. It is only the 

information stored on the justice department Stolen Vehicle System that is at issue. Thus, 

when we synthesize the pertinent proceedings in the respondent court, it should be kept in 

mind that we are only concerned with the data in the justice department Stolen Vehicle 

System.

As noted, plaintiff filed a mandate petition pursuant to section 62582seeking to 

compel disclosure of information in defendant’s possession appearing on two California 

Highway Patrol forms. In this writ proceeding, the only document at issue is known as a 

CHP 180 form. According to the verified mandate petition filed in the respondent court: 

“[Plaintiff] . . . alleges that whenever an officer of the California Highway Patrol . . . 

causes a vehicle to be removed from a public roadway or highway pursuant to. . . 

[Vehicle] Code [section] 22651, the [California Highway Patrol] officer fills out a 

document known as a CHP 180 form. [Plaintiff] is further informed and believes that the 

[California Highway Patrol] provides a copy of the filled-out form to the privately-owned 

vehicle tow company the [California Highway Patrol] uses for removing vehicles from 

the street.” 

Attached to plaintiff’s mandate petition is a CHP 180 form. The CHP 180 form, 

which is furnished to all peace officers by the California Highway Patrol, consists of two 

pages. The first page requires the impounding peace officer to identify, among other 

things: the reporting department; the location where the vehicle is stolen or is towed; the 

odometer reading; the time that “dispatch” was notified of the towing; data concerning 

the individual vehicle including the vehicle identification and engine numbers; the 

 

2

Section 6258 states, “Any person may institute proceedings for injunctive or 

declarative relief or writ of mandate in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce his 

or her right to inspect or to receive a copy of any public record or class of public records 

under this chapter. The times for responsive pleadings and for hearings in these 

proceedings shall be set by the judge of the court with the object of securing a decision as 

to these matters at the earliest possible time.”
4

condition of the vehicle and specified components ranging from radios, tape decks and 

batteries to tires and hub caps; information concerning the theft of the vehicle or any of 

its components, including license plates; and whether required notices were sent to the

registered and legal owners pursuant to Vehicle Code section 22852.3The foregoing 

sentence is not a complete listing of all of the information sought by the first page of the 

CHP 180 form. Page 1 of the CHP 180 form requests nearly 100 separate pieces of 

information. In addition, it has an extensive remarks section. The second page of the 

CHP 180 form consists of the notice of hearing sent to the “registered and legal owners of 

record, or their agents” of the stored vehicle. The notice is sent by the agency or person 

directing storage of the vehicle. (Veh. Code, § 22852, subd. (a).) 

Plaintiff’s mandate petition alleges that defendant possesses electronic data 

reflecting information originally recorded on CHP 180 forms. In addition, plaintiff 

alleges that the electronic data are public records which are not exempt from disclosure 

and she is entitled to their production. Plaintiff alleges that defendant’s wrongful refusal 

to provide the electronic data violates the California Public Records Act. Plaintiff’s 

mandate petition seeks production of the documents, her attorney fees and costs. 

Plaintiff’s mandate petition does not seek production of only portions of the requested 

data. Defendant’s answer denied that plaintiff was entitled to access to any records at 

issue. 

 

3 Vehicle Code section 22852 states: “(a) Whenever an authorized member of a 

public agency directs the storage of a vehicle, as permitted by this chapter, or upon the 

storage of a vehicle as permitted under this section (except as provided in subdivision (f) 

or (g)), the agency or person directing the storage shall provide the vehicle’s registered 

and legal owners of record, or their agents, with the opportunity for a poststorage hearing 

to determine the validity of the storage. [¶] (b) A notice of the storage shall be mailed 

or personally delivered to the registered and legal owners within 48 hours, excluding 

weekends and holidays, and shall include all of the following information: [¶] (1) The 

name, address, and telephone number of the agency providing the notice. [¶] (2) The 

location of the place of storage and description of the vehicle, which shall include, if 

available, the name or make, the manufacturer, the license plate number, and the mileage. 

[¶] (3) The authority and purpose for the removal of the vehicle.”
5

Defendant relied in material part upon the declaration of Kathryn Santillan. Ms. 

Santillan is the Criminal Identification and Intelligence Supervisor for the Stolen 

Vehicles Unit of the justice department’s Division of Criminal Justice Information 

Services. In that capacity, Ms. Santillan was responsible for supervising the day-to-day 

activities for the Stolen Vehicle System/Automated Boat System. (There are no issues in 

this case concerning any boats.) According to Ms. Santillan: “The [Stolen Vehicle 

System] is a statewide database that houses and vehicle information entered by law 

enforcement agencies which includes, but is not limited to, the data listed in CHP 180 

forms. [¶] . . . I conducted an inquiry, and have determined that the [Stolen Vehicle 

System] is the only [Justice Department] database that contains information that includes 

data listed in CHP 180 forms. [¶] . . . California Highway Patrol and other law 

enforcement agencies enter and access the data in the [Stolen Vehicle System] 

exclusively via the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System . . . . 

[¶] . . . The information accessed via [the California Law Enforcement 

Telecommunications System] is investigatory information as it concerns specific 

individuals that may be under investigation for specific crimes.”

Additionally, defendant submitted a declaration by Mark Hayward, a justice 

department employee who worked in the Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis. 

Mr. Hayward was employed as an analyst who dealt with applications for upgrades to the 

California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System network. He also helped 

identify and correct deficiencies that were are uncovered in audits working with different 

law enforcement agencies. Mr. Hayward described the California Law Enforcement 

Telecommunications System as the communication lines that access various agency 

computer system portals. He also described the California Law Enforcement 

Telecommunications System thusly: “[I]t’s the connections between the servers and the 

routers and the communication lines. It’s essentially a communication network.”

The hearing on plaintiff’s mandate petition was held on June 23, 2015. The 

respondent court ruled that defendant improperly refused to produce the requested CHP 

180 form records in an electronic format. The respondent court ruled in part: 
6

“[Defendant] argues the CHP 180 records are exempt as investigatory files. . . . . Here, 

[defendant] fails to make any showing that the CHP 180 form captures information 

relevant to an investigation or otherwise is prepared to assist law enforcement in 

determining whether a violation of the law has occurred. . . . Indeed, [defendant] does 

not provide any analysis explaining why the investigatory records exception would apply 

to the CHP 180 forms. See Williams v. Superior Court[] (1993) 5 Cal.4th 337, 356 (‘A 

public agency may not shield a document from disclosure with the bare assertion that it 

relates to an investigation’). A review of the form itself shows that most of the 

information captured by the form relates to providing the legal and registered owner with 

notice that the vehicle has been impounded, and to creating a record of vehicles 

impounded by law enforcement.” The respondent court ordered that plaintiff recover her 

attorney fees. The foregoing synthesis of the respondent court’s eight and one-half 

largely single-spaced page comprehensive ruling is limited to the issues raised by 

defendant’s mandate petition filed with this court. As noted, there were other matters 

litigated which are not the subject of the issues raised by defendant concerning the justice 

department’s Stolen Vehicle System. 

On August 6, 2015, defendant filed a timely mandate petition challenging only 

that part of the respondent court’s ruling concerning the justice department’s Stolen 

Vehicle System. On September 11, 2015, we issued our alternative writ of mandate. The 

cause was orally argued on October 5, 2015. On November 20, 2015, a differently 

comprised panel of this division issued its opinion in County of Los Angeles, supra. We 

offered the parties the opportunity to brief the effect of County of Los Angeles, supra on 

our case.

III. DISCUSSION

As noted, the outcome of this appeal is controlled by the opinion in County of Los 

Angeles, supra. In County of Los Angeles, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at pages 481-489, we

refused to order disclosure of copies of CHP 180 forms maintained by the Los Angeles 
7

County Sheriff’s Department. There, a differently comprised panel of this division held: 

CHP 180 forms are exempt from disclosure pursuant to sections 6254, subdivision (k) 

and 6254.1; this is because both section 6254.1 and Vehicle Code section 1808.21 

prohibit disclosure of a vehicle owner’s address retrieved from Department of Motor 

Vehicles records; disclosure of driver’s license personal information is prohibited by

Vehicle Code section 1808, subdivision (a) and title 18 United States Code section 2721 

et seq.; and no waiver of the duty of nondisclosure occurred. Obviously, those 

conclusions are controlling in this case which seeks disclosure of CHP 180 forms

maintained by the justice department. 

The CHP 180 forms at issue are likewise exempt from disclosure pursuant to 

section 6254, subdivision (k) on grounds other than those discussed in County of Los 

Angeles, supra. The Legislature has expressly limited the disclosure by the Attorney 

General of records concerning stolen vehicles. As noted, Penal Code section 11106, 

subdivision (a)(1)(I) requires the Attorney General to maintain a complete record of 

stolen property. Further, local law enforcement authorities are required to submit 

descriptions of serialized stolen property, which includes stolen vehicles, to the justice 

department. (Pen. Code, § 11108, subd. (a).) In a similar vein, Vehicle Code section 

10500, subdivision (a) requires that every peace officer report information concerning a 

stolen vehicle to the justice department. 

Penal Code section 11106, subdivision (a)(2) limits the disclosure of the 

information concerning stolen or found vehicles thusly, “The Attorney General shall, 

upon proper application therefor, furnish the information to the officers referred to in 

Section 11105.” Penal Code section 11105, subdivision (b) comprehensively lists a 

series of individuals and entities who are entitled disclosure of the information specified 

in Penal Code section 11106, subdivision (a)(1)(I). Individuals such as plaintiff are not 

named in Penal Code section 11105, subdivision (b). 

Further, although not dispositive, Ms. Santillan declared that all of the information 

in the Stolen Vehicle System is exclusively entered and accessed via the California Law 

Enforcement Telecommunications System. This is commonly referred to as the CLETS 
8

system. (See People v. Robinson (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1104, 1128; People v. Martinez 

(2000) 22 Cal.4th 106, 113.) The uses for the California Law Enforcement 

Telecommunications System are specified in section 15153 which states, “The system 

shall be under the direction of the Attorney General, and shall be used exclusively for the 

official business of the state, and the official business of any city, county, city and 

county, or other public agency.” Thus, although not conclusive, it is pertinent that both 

the entry and accessing of the Stolen Vehicle System data occurs on a network expressly 

reserved for official business. Under these circumstances, disclosure of the CHP 180 

forms and the data contained therein are not required by the public records act. (Gov. 

Code, § 6254, subd. (k).) We need not address the parties’ other contentions.

IV. DISPOSITION

A peremptory writ of mandate is to issue directing the respondent court to set 

aside a part of its June 23, 2015 order. That part of the respondent court’s June 23, 2015 

order directing disclosure of data contained in the Stolen Vehicle System is to be set 

aside. A new order is to issue directing that data contained in the Stolen Vehicle System 

not be disclosed. Defendant, State of California, shall recover its costs incurred in 

connection with these writ proceedings from plaintiff, Coleen Flynn.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

TURNER, P. J.

We concur:

KRIEGLER, J. BAKER, J.