Director denies requester’s demand for guardian address; classifies parents’ information as private

The director denied an appeal by a petitioner seeking a guardian's address from the Unified Police Department, finding the requested information is properly classified as private and that disclosure would be a "clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy." The director said the information is not protected under life-or-safety or enforcement exceptions but that alternatives exist, including requests through the juvenile court or victim-advocate channels; a written decision will follow within seven business days.

Petitioner (introduced in the record as Mister Mahesi) told the committee he sought one item — the address — to pursue a civil remedy and argued UPD had otherwise provided records. "I'm seeking 1 thing. That's an address," he said, adding that he believed other records had been disclosed and that he needed the address to serve process. UPD counsel Saval countered that once the district attorney filed and the matter was before the juvenile court, disclosure of certain identifying information is governed by juvenile-court statutes and the Victims' Rights Act and is not UPD's role to release.

Saval emphasized safety concerns and explained the office's position that the juvenile-proceedings and victim-protection framework should control whether and how identifying details are disclosed. The director concluded that the disclosure here would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy under the statutory privacy provision (3022d) and denied the appeal; the director noted the petitioner may pursue court processes to obtain information where appropriate.