IN California if you have a 647b expunged ,
how long does OCSD courts keep records of a647b arrest (that has been expunged)& how easy is it for background searches to find those details?

In California the only “record” that can be expunged is the court record.  The arrest record where you are fingerprinted is never expunged.  The arrest record is supposed to be confidential and to be used as a tool by LE.  Once you are fingerprinted for any reason, criminal or not, the record of your fingerprints is filed in the local and the FBI data base. If you have ever been in the military, had many civil service jobs, obtained a security clearance or been arrested, your fingerprints are on file even after your death.  With the exception of high security jobs, many employment applications ask if you have ever been “convicted” of a crime.  The application doesn’t ask if you have ever been arrested because a person could be arrested for a crime and then released before ever going to court.  The arrest record is permanent even though the arrestee was never formally arraigned for the crime for which he/she was arrested. The reason arrest records are confidential is because a person is presumed innocent until they have been found guilty by a court of law.  Therefore, if arrest records were public record available to the general public like court records are, then for all intents and purposes you could be assumed to be guilty by just being arrested and never convicted.  Even though arrest records are confidential and are to be used by only by LE for investigative purposes; that is not to say people like private investigators don’t find access through a “leak” in the system.

In California the only court records that can be routinely expunged are juvenile records.  In some very unique situations adult court records can be expunged but not if the petitioner had been convicted of the charge(s). If you are convicted, plead guilty, plead nolo contendere, agree to pre-trial probation, or to a diversion program it is the same as being convicted. Unless there was a serious flaw in the conviction, e.g. the defendant was exonerated via DNA after the conviction, court record cannot be expunged.  As far as §647b CPC (solicitation of prostitution or prostitution) goes, it is almost impossible to have that charge expunged if convicted of the charge.  There is no shortage of attorney’s who will prepare and file a petition for expungement and appear in court on your behalf knowing it is a waste of time.  They charge a feel of course for their services. They never guarantee results; that is why they call it a practice. A reputable attorney, if one exists, will be honest and tell you your chances are nil. Of course, they will charge you for the

has been feeling burnt by people who posted benign things only to later go back and spice up their posting with non-conforming statements, thus obviating the whole moderating thing.

I suggested that the edit button only be allowed for non-moderated members so that we won't look like the illierate slobs that we are.

so If you have a 647b  "court records expunged"

what would a  background search reveal?

would it show you were arrested & dismissed?
to me that alone "looks bad",,even if you are NOT guilty

for anyone to give a proper answer to your question and I don't think you've even asked the right question.

      In particular, you did not state whether you were convicted or pled to the charge, whether you were simply arrested but no accusatory pleading filed, whether you were arrested and an accusatory pleading was filed and the charges dismissed or nol prossed, whether for any reason the state took a DNA sample, and whether you were innocent. It is also unclear why you are concerned about expungment of “court records” of the arrest, as opposed to the destruction of the "arrest records" kept by the law enforcement agency.

     Without addressing your particular charge, however, I would note that California permits the destruction of arrest records by the law enforcement agencies in any case where a person has been arrested and no accusatory pleading has been filed, after three years from the date of the arrest, if the person is found to be factually innocent:


a) In any case where a person has been arrested and no accusatory pleading has been filed, the person arrested may petition the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the offense to destroy its records of the arrest. A copy of the petition shall be served upon the prosecuting attorney of the county or city having jurisdiction over the offense. The law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the offense, upon a determination that the person arrested is factually innocent, shall, with the concurrence of the prosecuting attorney, seal its arrest records, and the petition for relief under this section for three years from the date of the arrest and thereafter destroy its arrest records and the petition. The law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the offense shall notify the Department of Justice, and any law enforcement agency that arrested the petitioner or participated in the arrest of the petitioner for an offense for which the petitioner has been found factually innocent under this subdivision, of the sealing of the
arrest records and the reason therefor. The Department of Justice and any law enforcement agency so notified shall forthwith seal their records
of the arrest and the notice of sealing for three years from the date of the
arrest, and thereafter destroy their records of the arrest and the notice
of sealing. The law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the
offense and the Department of Justice shall request the destruction
of any records of the arrest which they have given to any local, state,
or federal agency or to any other person or entity. Each agency, person, or entity within the State of California receiving the request shall destroy its records of the arrest and the request, unless otherwise provided in this section.

Cal Penal 851.8. Other sections of the statute deal with arrests where an accusatory pleading is filed.

"Investigative police reports" are a different matter. In most states, these are kept permanently and simply marked exonerated if the petition for destruction is granted. Not sure how California treats those.

just trying to get info of how to procede & worst case scenario,

I think what you are saying if "not guilty' you can have the arrest info destroyed.

what if you have plead (not guilty) & case is (dismissed) & Not guilty is accepted &  court records expunged...

then can you go a step further  still get the arrest destroyed? as afinal step to clear your name???

From the experience of a close friend of mine, even if a conviction is expunged, e.g. through successfully completing a diversion (rehabilitation) program, the arrest record stays forever.

In California is is relatively easy to look arrest records up.

Now, here  is the strange part.  In my friend's case he got a letter from the State of California that informed him that it is legal for him to state that he had never been arrested or convicted of the crime in question.  He received this after completing his rehabilitation program.  However, the arrest record is right there in plain sight.  We found this out when we ran a standard employer background check on him.  The official record listed his arrest and his agreement to enter the diversion program.

How this circle is squared in the mind of the courts is a mystery to me (and my friend).

California expungement law, Penal Code section 1203.4, permits someone convicted of a crime to petition the court to re-open the case, set aside the plea, and dismiss the case. In order for one to qualify for expungement he or she must have completed probation, paid all fines and restitution, not served a sentence in state prison for the offense, and not currently being charged with a crime. If the requirements are met for eligibility, a court may grant the petition if it finds that it would be in the interest of justice to do so. A successful expungement will not erase the criminal record. However, the finding of guilt will be changed to a dismissal. The petitioner can then honestly and legally answer to a question about his criminal history, with some exceptions, that he has not been convicted of that crime.

Whenever a person is acquitted of a charge and it appears to the judge presiding at the trial wherein such acquittal occurred that the defendant was factually innocent of the charge, the judge may order that the records in the case be sealed, including any record of arrest or detention, upon the written or oral motion of any party in the case or the court, and with notice to all parties to the case.  If such an order is made, the court shall give to the defendant a copy of such order and inform the defendant that he may thereafter state that he was not arrested for such charge and that he was found innocent of such charge by the court.

...The Department of Justice and any law enforcement agency so notified shall forthwith seal their records of the arrest and the notice of sealing for three years from the date of the arrest, and thereafter destroy their records of the arrest and the notice of sealing....

(a) In any case where a person has been arrested and no accusatory pleading has been filed, the person arrested may petition the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the offense to destroy its records of the arrest.  A copy of such petition shall be served upon the district attorney of the county having jurisdiction over the offense...

(c) In any case where a person has been arrested, and an accusatory pleading has been filed, but where no conviction has occurred, the defendant may, at any time after dismissal of the action, petition the court which dismissed the action for a finding that the defendant is factually innocent of the charges for which the arrest was made. A copy of such petition shall be served on the district attorney of the county in which the accusatory pleading was filed at least 10 days prior to the hearing on the petitioner's factual innocence.  The district attorney may present evidence to the court at such hearing.  Such hearing shall be conducted as provided in subdivision (b).  If the court finds the petitioner to be factually innocent of the charges for which the arrest was made, then the court shall grant the relief as provided in   subdivision (b).

(e) Records of arrest which are contained in investigative police reports shall bear the notation "Exonerated" whenever reference is made to the arrestee.  The arrestee shall be notified in writing by the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the offense of the sealing and destruction of the arrest records pursuant to this section.

(f) In any case where a person who has been arrested is granted relief pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b), the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the offense or court shall issue a written declaration to the arrestee stating that it is the determination of the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the offense or court that the arrestee is factually innocent of the charges for which   the person was arrested and that the arrestee is thereby exonerated.  Thereafter, the arrest shall be deemed not to have occurred and the person may answer accordingly any question relating to its occurrence.


(j) Destruction of records of arrest pursuant to subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) shall be accomplished by permanent obliteration of all entries or notations upon such records pertaining to the arrest, and the record shall be prepared again so that it appears that the arrest never occurred.  However, where (1) the only entries on the record pertain to the arrest and (2) the record can be destroyed without necessarily effecting the destruction of other records, then the document constituting the record shall be physically destroyed.


l) For arrests occurring on or after January 1, 1981, and for accusatory pleading filed on or after January 1,1981, petitions for relief under this section may be filed up to two years from the date of the arrest or filing of the accusatory pleading, whichever is later.  

suppose person has sucessful expungemnet
& then hires an atorney to  file (851.8)under the Grounds of factually innocent.. this would be "discretionary  decision of the Judge".. to give relief, the person has nothing else in their life that is of deragatory nature & this blemish destroys the persons life. seems like it would be reasonble to grant such relief

I was told this is possible by an attorney

April of 2006. Let's hope the prosecuting atty does not figure that out as it is a bit inconsistent with the innocent librarian personae you are trying to project.


Something is not quite right here...

Not a California attorney, but the term 'factually innocent' seems to me to say that you need an acquittal at trial.  So any plea of "no contest" or "nolo contendere" or "guilty" anywhere or anytime would prevent you from getting your arrest records sealed, and then subsequently destroyed.

So I don't think you want any type of plea deal, unless maybe the deal was for a dismissal without a plea from you.  But even then, you're going to have to prove you're factually innocent at some point to get your records sealed.  Better to have a jury decide that issue now, in order to help persuade the judge later to give you his "discretionary" relief  when you petition for a records seal.

Sounds like it's in your best interests to go to trial.  What've you got to lose?  If they're offering you the maximum sentence in a plea deal, might as well go to trial.

recently bc it was on 20/20 with membership on TER dating back to April of 2006.

I thought I was the only TER member who had never been kissed.
And I'm a bit surprised that there are female non-provider non-hobbyist members

Im starting to think Ga Gamble had it right from the beginning.  
At a minimum, I think she is a cross-examiner's dream.

As to the legal point Bruce I read the statute the same way if she goes to trial -anything short of acquittal (or possibly a mistrial) will prevent the arrest records from being sealed/destroyed bc she can never show factual innocence .

If they nol pros, however, that is where the statute comes in handy and she could obtain this relief without an acquittal if she can show factual innocence.

This, however, would appear to be a greater problem than obtaining an acquittal since you can be acquitted when you are guilty.

& I am on my 3rd attorney , you will also find no reviews of me or ads or anything , I  praticed celbacy for many  many years....
the big doggie TER or what ever this is called has been in the newspapers in Tampa for years & on the news shows for years & again recently, they even discuss the nomenclature
of this board

we know i am telling the truth because I have been fighting this & paying lots of $$$$$$$$.

I also have the ad that was used, My Attorney #3
wants to blow up the Ad huge to show the jury,
1) what type of person looks the that & thinks hooker????
2) it is not illegal to meet someone for lunch & why did Mr Cop eat prime rib & drink beer(s) & also try to get me to drink

3) behave as a gentlmen then suggest I should wait 30 minutes before I dirve at his place(next door)?
4)then as soon as I get in a vulnerable situation,,  turn into a perverted monstor.
5) after I refuse to respond,,just arrest her anyway

6) why no evidence??? they should have evidence..they went to the trouble to set up a sting
7) my lIfe,,gee.. I am 40 /professional/meedical records show celibacy..why on earth would I be a"provider" term you all use?????

and can benefit, when we find out the extremity LE goes to..
my case is truth if you don't want to learn that is your choice,
I tried to focus on the main details rather than the minutia, I just saw 20/20 or one of those shows do a feature about this site,, The biggie doggie board has been in the papers in Florida & other shows for years....If You look at my post from 2006 it was the exact same case,, I am still fighting.. I am shocked that it takes so long..around were I am from ,,,murders go through in a few months.. I don't care if you believe or not.. But,, I appriciate the sincere & kind & caring thoughts from everyone that takes thing seriously,,even though they are in fact unbelievable..this case is simple..a cop wanted to have fun at work,,& selected someone to prey upon..it has nothing to do with crime

I am not an attorney either but a friend of mine just when through the nightmare ordeal of trying to have a misdemeanor arrest expunged.  She was arrested about 10 years ago for driving under the influence, a misdemeanor.  She agreed to a diversion program where she attended AA meetings, paid a fine and did some community service.  That was the only time in her life she had ever been arrested.

She applied for a job at LAX, airport which required a security clearance from Homeland Security.  The background investigator told her she had an arrest record and that could disqualify her for the job she had applied for.  On advice from one of her friends she contacted an attorney who said he might be able to get her “record” expunged.  She paid him $5,000.00 in advance for his services.  He “worked” on the case for a couple of months.  She called him several time and he seldom returned her phone calls.  Finally, he called her and told her that her record had been expunged.  She contacted the investigator from Homeland Security and told him about the expungment. The investigator told her the court record had been expunged automatically when she completed the terms of her diversion, but there was still a record of her arrest.  

I called a criminal defense attorney who I have known for years.  He told my friend she had been legally scammed.  The attorney who took her case knew her court record would have probably been expunged and it would be nearly impossible to expunge her arrest record.  He never explained the difference between the two records to her when he took her case. Her arrest record is confidential and only available to law enforcement, so for all intents and purposes it is sealed.  However, Homeland Security has access to those “sealed” records.  

My attorney recommended she contact an attorney who handles cases where someone is denied employment due to a prior arrest. The attorney contacted Homeland Security and prepared the necessary documents required by Homeland Security to overlook her arrest record. Homeland Security agreed to not disqualify her for the arrest record and she was eventually hired.

I asked my attorney how Homeland Security discovered her arrest record in the first place.  He said that when a person is fingerprinted for any reason a record of those prints is kept in a national database.  The only information the data base, which is operated by the FBI, will acknowledge is the existence of a person’s finger prints, they will not specify why the person was fingerprinted.  All government employees, anyone applying for a security clearance, people applying for a clearance to work with children are all fingerprinted.  The only exception is if LE makes the request.  In her case the FBI told Homeland Security she had been arrested for DUI and the agency that made the arrest.

Arrest records are not available to the general public in California.  In her case she was correct when she stated on her application that she had never been “convicted” of a crime.  If she was applying for a job in the private sector that did not require a government security clearance, her arrest record would not have been discovered. If an employer in California obtains a copy of an arrest record of a job applicant, the employer could be sued regardless of whether the applicant is hired or not.  It is considered an invasion of privacy in California.

My attorney pointed out that reading a statute in one thing and knowing how it is applied is quite another.  

great info , thank you Balboa

My case is Old & I have been scared to death just to go to see a gentlemen for coffee
Or even to see someone I am dearly fond of (even though the contact is innocent)

I see the difference in the issues,,

I am wondering if soemthing is expunged in CA
& someone is snooping (for an unrelated  injury case) & they look into records to see if they can find dirt to embarrass the person,, would they find an old expunged arrest?????

If "arrest records are not available to the general public in California," -and this would mean there is an express exemption for all arrest records in the California Public Records Act - I'm perplexed as to why anyone against whom charges had been dismissed or who was acquitted would petition a LE agency for the sealing and, after three years, destruction of arrest records pursuant to the statute I quoted in my first post on this issue.


What does the sealing/destruction add if the records are not open the public anyway?

In many states these records (other than investigative police reports) are available to the public and whenever a new celebrity hits the scene - see Joe the Plumber Exhibit A - the media files a public record request to get this info.

I must be missing something here.

and when the escort agency busts occurred last August all persons arrested were listed on the website along with their mug shot and the charges.


Odd that California has such a different approach.

but I can smell bullshit from a mile away, and this smelled like BS from day one.

I am sorry, but this sounds like an academic exercise in total bullshit and conjecture. As with most tall tales she keeps on shifting the "facts" with circumstances that keeps the readership involved with her drama. I have known enough "drama queens" to recognize the signs. CathyB is far from the first person to have yanked our collective chain. At least it was cheap entertainment for those of us who chose to participate in her little tale of woe.

What you need to understand is that it takes more than simply reading a statute to understand how the law is applied.  You are very good at finding laws and then cutting and pasting the text onto your posts but do you really understand what the entirety of the law means?  

As I said before, I am not an attorney so I can only pass along information I have obtained from reliable sources.  Laws vary from state to state so what applies in one state does not necessarily apply in another state.  Another factor to consider is what the law says and what happens in the real world.  Arrest records, not court documents, are not public record in California and are deemed confidential by law.  Does that mean information never leaks out?  I have no doubt you can find California arrest records somewhere online and other venues as well.  There are all kinds of illegal documents floating around in cyberspace.

According to the attorney who explained the system, arrest records are confidential because people are arrested and released without charges being filed.  They are released for a number of reasons including, but not limited, to the fact that the police determined they were not guilty of the crime for which they were arrested.  There is a letter the arresting agency issues to the arrestee explaining the circumstances of the arrest and that the arrestee was released without being charged for a crime.  However, once a person is fingerprinted a copy of the finger prints is forwarded automatically to the national data base maintained by the FBI.  A copy of the arrest report is maintained by the arresting agency and is to be used as an investigative tool only.  If you apply for a security clearance and the background investigator runs your fingerprints through the data base and he is informed that your prints are on file and your prints were submitted by a police department wouldn’t you want the background investigator to know you were arrested for a minor misdemeanor rather than a serious felony?  

Again, laws vary from state to state so what applies in one state doesn’t necessarily apply in another state especially when it comes to procedural law. California has more codes, more statutes and more volumes of case law than any other state with the exception of New York.  California was the second state to adopt an evidence code in the 1920’s and is only one of a handful of states that has an evidence code.  The Federal evidence code wasn’t adopted until the 1970’s.

I hear people say a lot of things regarding the law including stories of arrests.  However, I don’t pass anything along unless I am reasonably sure the information is true.  I doubt the authenticity of most of the stories I read on this board about stings and how someone got “busted.”  However, I refrain from disputing a story because I might be giving someone a false sense of security.  If you enjoy looking up laws and then cutting and pasting the text, that is fine.  However, in all fairness to the reader you shouldn’t attempt to give legal advice or explain the law.  

Maybe you should have a caveat like the guy who says he is still not a lawyer.  You could say what you posted was verbatim text but it does not explain how the law in applied.

. . .on this board, I have to agree with marikod that cathyb might not do so well under cross-examination. In her first post on this board, on 4/28/2006 (see link below), cathyb told a story remarkably similar to the one she's telling now, except that then, in addition to arresting her, the LE officers "force[d] [her] to take nude photos as they made sexual remarks. . . ." (Hmmm, just when did the clothes come off?) She said, in a post dated 5/3/2006, in the same thread, that she had already then been "forced to plead guilty and serve a huge sentence. . . ." In another post also dated 5/3/2006, apparently speaking of expungement, she stated that she "di [sic] later get an epoughment [sic] as soon as i [sic] saved enough $$ to reopen the case. . . ." So at best, the story cathyb now relates is a little bit stale.

In other old posts, cathyb takes a surprising interest, for someone who is neither hobbyist nor provider, in avoiding the appearance of prostitution. See, for example, her post of 11/26/2006 (advising a newbie to "meet [his] provider for coffee or lunch," and on that occasion to "bring a small gift . . . [and] put in a cash donation for 1 hour in a cute friendship card"); post of 1/29/2007 (also advising a man to meet a provider for lunch, buy her gifts, and "not book a single hour," thereby to "establish a relationship" with her so that "then it is just a girlfriend"). See also her post of 11/2/2007 (asking whether "the law consider[s] [it] prostitution" when a man reimburses travel expenses when she drives 500 miles to see him and also suggesting (I hasten to add) that he was the only "man in [her] life"). In fairness to cathyb, it's possible that her traumatic experience with LE prior to 4/28/2006 gave rise to a great interest in avoiding the appearance of prostitution. Or, on the other hand, maybe we should have listened to GaGambler at the outset.

legal advice to a particular person and, in fact, a disclaimer to this effect is posted above. But what all of us do on this board and other boards where legal issues are posed is say "here is what we think" based on our general knowledge of the law and a quick look at the statute. It's like meeting someone at a cocktail party and chatting about the law.

      Nothing is offered as a definitive opinion and, indeed, I have been wrong on several issues, most recently on my reading of a Nevada statute as Bruce pointed out. And, of course, I do not know how the law is applied, particularly in foreign jurisdiction. But to me all of this is kind of a given on this board. Moreover, the questioning of my views on legal issues on other issues - as well as yours - provides some degree of vetting.

      If we just post statutes without commentary, that is not very helpful to the reader. So I disagree with you on that. And there are many discussion boards on the internet where legal issues are debated and posters attempt to explain the law just as we do here.

         I find I learn a lot by trying to solve these problems and when I read someone else's opinion I do not hesitate to express by agreement or disagreement.   I was perplexed when I read in your post that arrest records are open to the public since I cannot understand why anyone would go thru the destruction of records procedure -hence, my question to you.

         As to disputing someone's factual story, I rarely do that but as to Cathy's story I think it was fair to raise the question in light of her representation that she had just recently discovered the TER site.

"I was perplexed when I read in your post that arrest records are open to the public since I cannot understand why anyone would go thru the destruction of records procedure"

should read

"I was perplexed when I read in your post that arrest records are NOT open to the public since I cannot understand why anyone would go thru the destruction of records procedure"


This no editing is killing me.

the purpose of this board is to learn,
My case is old , I took it as far as I fincially could had to take a break & re-open ,it has been reopened about 2 yrs... this board is all over the news for years.. & recently they showed reruns about this board.
I don't know if you don't believe that 1) actually some people are celbate & hence non providers Or 2)that LE could behave in a disturbing way..
it does not matter & your choice if you would rather look the other way.. I support this "hobby" although I do not participate,, I believe consenting adults have the right to make adult choices....I also believe LE needs to focus on real crime...not drinking beer, eating prime rib & trying to say & create a legal case stemming from   " labeling a lonely prude as a hussie"

I have never done the "envelope thing or book rates or hours ...but I saw it on many ads??? and that is far from my... just meeting for lunch or coffee etc...so if that is OKay then meeting for coffee or lunch is even more benign..
this case was waaaaaaaaaaaaay before,,, before my travel question & reopend just under 2 yeras ago.
Yes you are correct,,, It did traumatize me.
and yes unfortinatly as you say "stale" but it still continues to ruin lives no matter how old of a case

also, FYI...I know a platonic male friend from way back  "a pilot"  that par takes in this hobbie even though I do not..yet I do support freedom of choice

that is great if they are not availlble to general public...however, in this time of information,,,stuff gets out anyways & once it is out it can do the damage you are trying to prevent in the first place,,once the damage is done it leaves behind a stigma..eps if you are a professional person & things are very strict & conservative...more than the average person you are held to a higher moral accountabilty..
hence ruin one's life.....time does not heal that wound......

thanks for your help Bruce, My attorney has already got my case dismissed via /expu.  & about 2 years ago re-opened , (he said he would prove "factual innocence" it took a long time to hear back from the court that he could procede, it is like starting over from day 1,,, which is why it is important to show that the entire case "illegal in the first place"  we have all the  records etc...he siad there is big problems with the conduct of LE.....also my behavioris actually not an issue given that LE clearly used over aggresive inappropriate means to try force me to do something..going further than entrapment much ...it is illagal to badger & harass & threaten to try to coheirce soemone..
any reasonable person/women would have been frightened for their life..LE behaved simliar to a date rape defence.....

Court records are open to the public.  Even with an expunction, the public can see that record. In most expunged cases, it will show a dismissal, but employers can still see that.

Arrest records are not open to the public.  LE and the DA are supposed to keep them confidential, but things do leak--intentionally or not.   You may see reports of local arrests in your newspaper, but you don't get to see the whole arrest record of any particular individual.

Sealing an arrest record is much more difficult than an expunction of your court record--because you have to show "factual innocence".

When a judge orders a law enforcement agency to seal and destroy your arrest records, and they fail to do so, it is a violation of a court order and subject to sanctions, and even prosecution.  In Texas, the failure is a jailable Class B misdemeanor offense, and such failure is also a civil tort for which you can sue if you can show damages.

That is why someone would want to seal their arrest records even though those records are supposed to be confidential.

in California.

        We seem to have two completely different opinions as to whether arrest records in California are open to the public

Balboa “Arrest records, not court documents, are not public record in California and are deemed confidential by law.”

Ludlow “In California is is relatively easy to look arrest records up.”

       This motivated me to take a quick look at the Public Records statute to see if law enforcement agency arrest records are open to the public in California. As I suspected, arrest records falling within this statute they are indeed open to the public subject to the exception:




(f) … Notwithstanding any other provision of this subdivision, state and local law enforcement agencies shall make public the following information, except to the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation:

 (1) The full name and occupation of every individual arrested by the agency, the individual's physical description including date of birth, color of eyes and hair, sex, height and weight, the time and date of arrest, the time and date of booking, the location of the arrest, the factual circumstances surrounding the arrest, the amount of bail set, the time and manner of release or the location where the individual is currently being held, and all charges the individual is being held upon, including any outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions and parole or probation holds.


        This in the only way that the destruction of records statute makes sense. If all arrest records are confidential, there would be no point in petitioning to have the records sealed and destroyed after three years.

Here we go again...

A confusing area of the law in California...

Here's what I think might be the problem. Court records are different from arrest records which are different from "rap sheets".

An individual's rap sheet(records of arrests and prosecutions) is  a summary of all his arrests.  See California Penal code sec. 11075, 11076, 11077, and that can't be disseminated except to specified entities.  This criminal history compilation by local and state criminal justice departments is not public in California. "Rap sheets" can only be accessed by:

 -- Law enforcement agencies
 -- Attorneys working on a case involving the   individual
 -- The subject of the information
 -- Probation or parole officers
 -- A state agency which needs the information to license an individual


Arrest records are public records. They may include detailed information about the person arrested, the incident leading to the arrest and the victim. These records can be closed if their release would endanger an ongoing investigation or public safety.  See Open Records Statute you cited.

With the increasing computerization of records, however, information brokers are able to compile what amounts to a "rap sheet" by searching arrest records and court files that are public records. This information is sometimes used by employers to run background checks on prospective employees. Such records can be obtained from Internet-based information broker services.

So, I guess all of us are correct to an extent.

The only way to understand the law is to read the statute, and try to interpret it based on  principles of sound legal analysis.  So I like it when you cut and paste pertinent statutory excerpts.  Keep up the good work.

You may be referring to the "criminal information history" and I did note several statutes that shield that from the public.


Just to be sure this time this time -since Balboa scolded me for not knowing "how the statute is applied" - I went to the LA Sherriff's home web page. If you type in "arrest records" it takes you to a page that lists precisely what parts of the arrest record the public can get and what the public can not get.

         So if you want the basic info and charges about Paris Hilton's arrest, they clearly will give it to you and the atty who told Balboa without qualification that arrest records are confidential was dead wrong or Balboa misunderstood him.

       What really surprised me is that if you read another subsection of the statute, it reqires them to give an arrestee's current address if you certify you are writing a scholarly article.
So get arrested once in CAlifornia and you can have people knocking on your door asking "why."

      Not sure how any of this applies to "Cathy" who now says her case was dismissed and now "re-opened." Hard to see such LE zeal on a simple soliciation charge.