California Codes

Cal. Penal Code § 832.5 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)(1)Each department or agency in this state that employs peace officers shall establish a procedure to investigate complaints by members of the public against the personnel of these departments or agencies, and shall make a written description of the procedure available to the public.

(2)Each department or agency that employs custodial officers, as defined in Section 831.5, may establish a procedure to investigate complaints by members of the public against those custodial officers employed by these departments or agencies, provided, however, that any procedure so established shall comply with the provisions of this section and with the provisions of Section 832.7.

(b)Complaints and any reports or findings relating to these complaints, including all complaints and any reports currently in the possession of the department or agency, shall be retained for a period of no less than 5 years for records where there was not a sustained finding of misconduct and for not less than 15 years where there was a sustained finding of misconduct. A record shall not be destroyed while a request related to that record is being processed or any process or litigation to determine whether the record is subject to release is ongoing. All complaints retained pursuant to this subdivision may be maintained either in the peace or custodial officer’s general personnel file or in a separate file designated by the department or agency as provided by department or agency policy, in accordance with all applicable requirements of law. However, prior to any official determination regarding promotion, transfer, or disciplinary action by an officer’s employing department or agency, the complaints described by subdivision (c) shall be removed from the officer’s general personnel file and placed in a separate file designated by the department or agency, in accordance with all applicable requirements of law.

(c)Complaints by members of the public that are determined by the peace or custodial officer’s employing agency to be frivolous, as defined in Section 128.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or unfounded or exonerated, or any portion of a complaint that is determined to be frivolous, unfounded, or exonerated, shall not be maintained in that officer’s general personnel file. However, these complaints shall be retained in other, separate files that shall be deemed personnel records for purposes of the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code) and Section 1043 of the Evidence Code.

(1)Management of the peace or custodial officer’s employing agency shall have access to the files described in this subdivision.

(2)Management of the peace or custodial officer’s employing agency shall not use the complaints contained in these separate files for punitive or promotional purposes except as permitted by subdivision (f) of Section 3304 of the Government Code.

(3)Management of the peace or custodial officer’s employing agency may identify any officer who is subject to the complaints maintained in these files which require counseling or additional training. However, if a complaint is removed from the officer’s personnel file, any reference in the personnel file to the complaint or to a separate file shall be deleted.

(d)As used in this section, the following definitions apply:

(1)“General personnel file” means the file maintained by the agency containing the primary records specific to each peace or custodial officer’s employment, including evaluations, assignments, status changes, and imposed discipline.

(2)“Unfounded” means that the investigation clearly established that the allegation is not true.

(3)“Exonerated” means that the investigation clearly established that the actions of the peace or custodial officer that formed the basis for the complaint are not violations of law or department policy.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 122 cases (45 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 52 P.3d 129 (Cal. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 52 P.3d 129 (Cal. 2002). · cites it 16× “(Pen.Code, § 832.5, subd. (a).) The Pitchess procedures not only require law enforcement agencies to compile citizen complaints, but they also contemplate the destruction of such complaints after five years.”

City of Santa Cruz v. Mun. Court, 776 P.2d 222 (Cal. 1989). · cites it 6× “PANELLI, J. I respectfully disagree with the interpretation of the good cause requirement of Evidence Code section 1043, subdivision (b) offered by the majority opinion.”

Darren David Chaker v. Alan Crogan San Diego Prob. Dep't People of the State of California, 428 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2005). · cites it 4× “Specifically, California Penal Code section 832.5 provides that “[e]aeh department or agency in this state that employs peace officers shall establish a procedure to investigate complaints by members of the public .”

Sacramento Police Officers Ass'n v. Venegas, 19 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 9× “, which require, among other things, that (1) “[e]ach department or agency in this state that employs peace officers shall establish a procedure to investigate complaints by members of the public against the personnel of these departments or agencies, and shall make a written…”

Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court, 141 P.3d 288 (Cal. 2006). · cites it 2× “(Pen.Code, § 832.5, subd. (b).) In that case, disclosure could be had from the Commission under the CPRA; but if the Commission destroyed its records before the request, the copy of the record in the sheriff's department's possession would acquire confidentiality as a "personnel…”

People v. Mooc, 36 P.3d 21 (Cal. 2002). “The City Attorney also stated the Department was “willing to provide the originals under any order that the Court believes is appropriate to ensure that the custody of such records remains with the Department and the Department does not violate the provisions of California Penal…”

San Francisco Police Officers' Ass'n v. Superior Court, 202 Cal. App. 3d 183 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 5× “) Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue commanding respondent to set aside that portion of its order granting summary adjudication which declares that “[t]he OCC hearing rules that allow the complainant access to the hearing officer’s decision and/or the director’s…”

Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach, 325 P.3d 460 (Cal. 2014). · cites it 2× “(Pen. Code, § 832.5.) Litigants, upon a showing of good cause, are given limited access to records of such complaints and investigations (Evid.”

Fletcher v. Superior Court, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6545 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “1436 (1977-1978 Reg.Sess.) would have preserved complaints for three years.”

Adams v. City of Fremont, 80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 196 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs may still pursue a legal action when police misconduct constitutes an intentional tort or a violation of an individual's constitutional or other federally protected rights.”

Pasadena Police Officers Ass'n v. Superior Court, 44 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1083 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “Petitioners asserted that the Report is a confidential personnel record entirely exempt from disclosure under the Pitchess 5 statutes (Pen. Code, §§ 832.5, 832.7, 832.8) and the privilege exemption of the PRA (Gov.”

Dibb v. Cnty. of San Diego, 884 P.2d 1003 (Cal. 1994). · cites it 2× “Whether the Board's use of its subpoena power amounts to illegal interference, for instance, with the sheriff's investigation into allegations of personnel misconduct (Pen. Code, § 832.5) or with the possible filing of a criminal case will depend largely upon the subject under…”

Show all 122 citing cases →

— Cal. Penal Code § 832.5(a) — 1 case

L.F. v. City of Stockton (E.D. Cal. 2020).

— Cal. Penal Code § 832.5(a)(1) — 2 cases

Darren David Chaker v. Alan Crogan San Diego Prob. Dep't People of the State of California, 428 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2005). “Specifically, California Penal Code section 832.5 provides that “[e]aeh department or agency in this state that employs peace officers shall establish a procedure to investigate complaints by members of the public .”

Est. of Alejandro Sanchez v. Cnty. of Stanislaus (E.D. Cal. 2020).

— Cal. Penal Code § 832.5(b) — 1 case

— Cal. Penal Code § 832.5(c) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.