High Court Rules Press Can Inspect Concealable Weapons Permit Data

The public and press are entitled to inspect applications of people who obtain permission from law enforcement agencies to carry concealable weapons, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

In a 5-2 decision, the justices upheld a claim by CBS Inc. to access to concealed weapons records held by Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block. CBS sought the data for a news report by station KCBS-TV on possible abuses in the system involving issuance of permits to Block’s friends or political contributors.

CBS has also sued Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Brad Gates, claiming that he has illegally refused to disclose applications and permits for persons licensed to carry concealed weapons.

But it was not clear how the state Supreme Court’s decision Thursday will affect the Orange County case.

The court said that the privacy rights of applicants must yield to the “fundamental and necessary” right of the public under state law to make sure that the permits were being issued properly.

Opinion by Bird

“If the press and the public are precluded from learning the names of concealed weapons’ licensees and the reasons claimed in support of the licenses, there will be no method by which the public can ascertain whether the law is being properly applied or carried out in an evenhanded manner,” Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird wrote for the majority.

The justices brushed aside Block’s contention that the permits were carefully limited to those who legitimately feared harm and rejected his concern that making public such data would increase their risk of serious injury or death.

The court noted that at one point, only 35 such licenses had been issued in Los Angeles County, while the sheriff of Orange County had issued more than 400.

“The apparent discrepancy indicates that something may be amiss,” Bird said.

The Orange County and Los Angeles cases are parallel but not identical, said Assistant County Counsel Arthur C. Wahlstedt, who represents Gates.

“The basic issues are very similar, but in particular they wound up being very different,” Wahlstedt said. Wahlstedt said he could not predict the impact of the high court decision on the case in which he is involved.

CBS litigation counsel Herbert Schoenberg, who has represented the network in both matters, said he had not seen the decision and could not be sure either.

“It is difficult to know whether or not the Supreme Court decision in the Los Angeles case means that Gates loses the Orange County case,” Schoenberg said.

Mosk, Panelli Dissent

In a sharp dissent, Justice Stanley Mosk, joined by Justice Edward A. Panelli, said the court was improperly allowing the “curiosity” of a news organization to outweigh the privacy rights of people whose applications expressed “fear of harassment and bodily harm.”

Mosk said the fact that Block had issued only 35 permits suggested that the sheriff “should be commended for his obvious determination to prevent a proliferation of dangerous weapons in the community.”

The case arose in July, 1983, when CBS filed a request under the state Public Records Act to inspect and copy applications and permits authorizing possession of concealed weapons.

Block refused to turn over the data and CBS went to court, seeking a preliminary injunction granting access. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Harry L. Hupp ordered disclosure of most of the licenses, with home addresses deleted.

Appeal Court Decision

But a state Court of Appeal in Los Angeles found the records were entirely exempt from disclosure under the act. Granting public access to the material would violate the privacy of permit holders and increase their risk of danger, the appellate court said.

In Orange County, oral arguments were heard Sept. 25 by the 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana in CBS’s appeal of an Orange County judge’s 1984 ruling that Gates was legally entitled to refuse access to the records.

Gates’ lawyers argued successfully that disclosure could endanger the lives of persons holding permits--federal and state judges, undercover police investigators, jewelers, prosecutors and coin dealers, among others.

Disclosure “would provide potential criminals a concise list of available handguns, money, jewels and drugs together with the names and addresses, both business and personal, of the owners,” according to Gates’ appeal brief.

Gates was allowed to deny access under an exception protecting law enforcement investigative material from the 1968 California Public Records Act.

CBS lawyers said they wanted the information as part of an inquiry into “possible abuses of power by Sheriff Gates in the issuance of the permits to either friends or political contributors,” according to network arguments.

Gates’ lawyers contended that the privacy of permit holders--totaling 401 in 1983--was more important than CBS access.

“If a sheriff is corrupt,” Gates’ lawyers argued, “it should certainly be more readily ascertainable from the substantial performance of his major duties rather than from the issuance of 300 to 400 permits.”

Bird’s majority opinion Thursday was joined by Justices Allen E. Broussard, Cruz Reynoso and Joseph R. Grodin and Appellate Justice Eugene McClosky, sitting temporarily by appointment.

The chief justice wrote that while there was an “important interest” in protecting the privacy of people whose affairs are recorded in government files, that interest must yield in this instance to the need to “verify accountability” by officials.

Bird described as “conjectural at best” the sheriff’s concern that disclosure would increase the vulnerability of licensees. She noted that under the law information on applications and licenses that indicated “times or places” where the licensee was vulnerable to attack--presumably, for example, his home address--could be withheld from the public by authorities.

Other Exemptions

Similarly, certain information that might entail a “substantial privacy interest”--such as medical or psychological data--also could be withheld, she said.

Deputy Los Angeles County Counsel Gary E. Daigh, who represented Block in the case, expressed disappointment with the ruling. But he declined to assess the impact of the ruling--and what exceptions to disclosure might still be made--pending further review of the court’s opinion.

He said a decision on whether to ask the justices for a rehearing would be made later.

Attorneys for CBS were not immediately available for comment.

The names of those holding concealed weapons permits in Los Angeles County are not expected to be made public immediately. Officials from several law enforcement agencies, including the Sheriff’s Department, said that the high court’s decision would first have to be studied before any files are released.