PRR DA Minors

Dear Maxine Doogan –

The following is in response to your request pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA), received by this office via email on January 15, 2023, for the following:

1. Documents sufficient to identify the Superior Court Docket Number for any criminal matter handled by your Department in which a defendant was arrested for, or charged with a violation of California Penal Code §§ Code [sic] 266(h) and or 266(i) and or 236.1 between January 1, 2020 and February 28, 2022 where there [sic] the minor was a victim.
2. For each criminal matter identified in request number 1 above, please provide charging documents. If possible including affidavits of probable cause, criminal referral documents from the investigating agency, or other documents which include a case narrative.

Our office does not have a document or index that contains the records you seek. The CPRA applies to existing records and does not require a public agency to create a record that does not exist. (Gov’t Code sections 7920.530, 7920.545.)

On the other hand, we could conduct a search of our computerized case management system to identify cases by docket number in which we charged a violation of California Penal Code sections 266h, 266i (I believe these are the statutes you meant, as there are no subdivisions of (h) or (i) within Penal Code section 266) or 236.1 between January 1, 2020, and February 28, 2022. This would encompass all such cases and not necessarily be specific as to just those involving minor victims, with the exception of any cases where we charged a violation of Penal Code section 236.1(c) (alleging the person trafficked was a minor) or sections 266h(b)(2) or 266i(b)(2) (where it is alleged the other person was a minor under 16 years of age). We would not include any other victim demographic information, nor would we provide documents from the investigating agency or other documents with probable cause or case narratives, as those would require information that is contained within our investigatory files. Government Code section 7923.600(a) exempts from CPRA disclosure records of complaints to or investigations conducted by any local police agency, investigatory files compiled by any local police agency, and investigatory files compiled by any other local agency for law enforcement or licensing purposes. Under the California Constitution and by statute, the District Attorney is vested with broad authority to investigate violations of the law, and prosecute such matters in criminal, civil, or administrative actions, as may be appropriate. The District Attorney’s employees include peace officers, attorneys, and other staff who perform such investigations. There can be no question that the District Attorney’s Office is a local agency that conducts police or law enforcement investigations and has complaints and investigatory files within the meaning of section 7923.600(a). Case law supports this conclusion. (See Rivero v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1048; Rackaucas v. Superior Court (2012) 104 Cal.App.4th 169; Fagan v. Superior Court (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 607; County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1099.) This exemption applies not only to documents generated by the agency, but also to records gathered from victims, witnesses, and others. (See Haynie v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1061.) This exemption continues to apply even if the case is complete and the investigation closed. (See Rivero v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1048; Williams v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 337.)

Because this is not an existing computer report we have nor is it one we produce on a regular basis, under the CPRA, you would be responsible for paying the costs associated with preparing the computer inquiry to retrieve the data (California Government Code section 7922.575(b)). If you are interested in such a list, please let me know and I will contact our IT department to determine an estimate of the cost for the programming time. You would need to pay that cost before we proceed. Filed charging documents would be included as part of that production.

Sincerely,
Michael Blazina

[cid:image001.png@01D93013.785FDAC0]
Michael Blazina | Assistant District Attorney
Sacramento County District Attorney's Office
901 G Street | Sacramento, CA 95814

OK. I’m getting an estimate from our IT Department. So to clarify, you only want the list of cases for the more specific code sections you identified? Also, it looks like a digit got left off the opening date – I’m assuming you meant 1/1/2020, consistent with the previous requests. And do you still want the charging documents for these cases?

[cid:image001.png@01D93556.70042640]
Michael Blazina | Assistant District Attorney
Sacramento County District Attorney's Office
901 G Street | Sacramento, CA 95814

The search of our computerized case management system to identify cases by docket number and produce the charging documents in which we alleged a violation of California Penal Code sections 266h(b)(1), 266h(b)(2), 266i(b)(1), 266i(b)(2), 236.1(c)(1) or 236.1(c)(2) for the time period between January 1, 2020, and February 28, 2022, would take approximately one hour of programming time for our IT manager to conduct. If you wish to proceed with your request, please remit a check in the amount of $132.19 made payable to the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office. Once we receive that check, we will proceed with the search.

[cid:image001.png@01D941EA.A99A6180]
Michael Blazina | Assistant District Attorney
Sacramento County District Attorney's Office
901 G Street | Sacramento, CA 95814

We received your check dated September 28, 2023, in the amount of $132.19. We have processed your request and the responsive information is attached.

[cid:image001.png@01DA1189.91E64530]
Michael Blazina | Assistant District Attorney
Sacramento County District Attorney's Office
901 G Street | Sacramento, CA 95814