On Thursday, the California Supreme Court ruled that emails and texts on officials’ private accounts are public records.
The court ruled: “We hold that when a city employee uses a personal account to communicate about the conduct of personal business, the writings may be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.”
The case arose from 2009, when Ted Smith, a local environment activist, petitioned the City of San Jose, its redevelopment agency and the agency’s executive director for 32 categories of public records.
The court wrote, “Are writings concerning the conduct of public business beyond CPRA’s reach merely because they were sent or received using a nongovernmental account? Considering the statute’s language and the important policy interests it serves, the answer is no.”
The court noted that CPRA defined “public record” as “any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.” The court felt that as opposed to 1968, because of the advent of electronic communication, “the line between an official communication and an electronic aside is sometimes blurred.”
The court stated, “to qualify as a public record under CPRA, at a minimum, a writing must relate in some substantive way to the conduct of the public’s business.”
The court wryly opined, “It is no answer to say, as did the Court of Appeal, that we must presume public officials conduct business in the public’s best interest,” adding, “ . . . is for the public to make that determination, based on information to which it is entitled under the law. Open access to public records is essential to verify that government officials are acting responsibly and held accountable to the public they serve.”