As California public agencies increasingly experiment with generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools like ChatGPT, a critical question is no longer theoretical: are AI prompts and outputs subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”)?
Recent reporting and public records requests suggest the answer may soon be tested in real time—and that agencies should
Public agencies often find themselves caught between two important obligations: protecting confidential information and fulfilling legal requirements for transparency. Questions commonly arise about when—and how much—sensitive information can be redacted without running afoul of the law. This blog post addresses some of the most common redaction scenarios involving California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) requests, union
Senate Bill 1421 (“SB 1421”) went into effect on January 1, 2019. As a result, under Government Code section 832.7 as amended, certain types of peace officer personnel records became subject to disclosure pursuant to a California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) request. Shortly after the effective date of SB 1421, Kern High School District received
The California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) strikes a balance between the need for privacy in certain records and the people’s interest in transparent government. The reality of the balance is that it may – and often does – weigh heavily upon agencies that must respond to CPRA requests. This blog post discusses several topics related
On January 7, 2020, Assemblyman Jordan Cunningham (R-San Luis Obispo) reintroduced Assembly Bill 1599, which proposes to expand upon Senate Bill 1421 by making more records relating to officer-involved sexual assault available to the public. SB 1421 changed the status quo by amending Government Code section 832.7 to generally allow disclosure of records related to