×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
California Doesn’t Require Parole Board to Disclose Letters from Those Interested in Parole Applications
Fred Runyan, a private citizen, sued the California Parole Board (Board) in state court under Cal. Code § 1032, to compel disclosure of letters written voluntarily to the Board regarding parole applications. The trial court dismissed the case, and Runyan appealed.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal of California, 1st Appellate District, Division 1, found that in some instances § 1032 allowed access to information which is not required by law to be filed with an agency. But the Court also found that the letters at issue should remain confidential to ensure the Board would continue to get important information about parole applicants. Therefore, the trial court's dismissal of the case was affirmed. See: Runyan v. Board of Prison Terms and Paroles of the State of California, 26 Cal.App.2d 183, 79 P.2d 101 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 1938).
On appeal, the Court of Appeal of California, 1st Appellate District, Division 1, found that in some instances § 1032 allowed access to information which is not required by law to be filed with an agency. But the Court also found that the letters at issue should remain confidential to ensure the Board would continue to get important information about parole applicants. Therefore, the trial court's dismissal of the case was affirmed. See: Runyan v. Board of Prison Terms and Paroles of the State of California, 26 Cal.App.2d 183, 79 P.2d 101 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 1938).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Runyan v. Board of Prison Terms and Paroles of the State of California
| Year | 1938 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 26 Cal.App.2d 183, (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 1938) |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
| Injunction Status | N/A |