A temporary restraining order is a "public record" for purposes of Gov. Code, § 6201 (altering public record). Thus, defendant's conviction of violating § 6201 was not improper, where he had obtained an ex parte order enjoining his former girlfriend from contacting or harassing him, and had added false requirements to the order before filing it with the marshal. The signed, genuine order defendant obtained from the judge was, when obtained, part of a court file. Defendant altered an original court record which had been stamped with a case number and the day and date and signed by a judge, although thereafter it was to be returned to the clerk's office for filing and obtaining of conformed copies of the original for further use. Court records are public records, and the documents in a court file are public records. People v Parks (1992, 4th Dist) 7 Cal App 4th 883, 9 Cal Rptr 2d 450.
Under prior case authority, "there can be no doubt that HN4court records are public records" ( Estate of Hearst (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 777, 782 [136 Cal.Rptr. 821]) and the documents in a court file are "public records." ( People v. McKenna (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 207, 211 [255 P.2d 452].) n3 When Parks obtained and then falsified this public record he committed the offense proscribed by Government Code sections 6200- 6201. For this reason we reject his contention to the contrary.
------Footnotes------
n3 See also The Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 106, 111- 115 [7 Cal.Rptr.2d 841].
Although the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, §§ 6250ff.) does not apply to court records (see § 6252, subd. (a)), there can be no doubt that HN1court records are public records, n2 available to the public in general, including news reporters, unless a specific exception makes specific records nonpublic. (See Craemer v. Superior Court[**824] (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 216, 220-222 [71 Cal.Rptr. 193].) To prevent secrecy in public affairs public policy makes public records and documents available for [***7] public inspection by newsmen and members of the general public alike. ( Craemer, supra, at p. 222;Bruce v. Gregory (1967) 65 Cal.2d 666, 677 [*783] [56 Cal.Rptr. 265, 423 P.2d 193].) Statutory exceptions exist (see e.g., exemptions under Gov. Code, § 6254; see also list of statutory exceptions in Craemer, supra, at pp. 220-221, fn. 4), as do judicially created exceptions, generally temporary in nature, exemplified by such cases as Craemer, supra, and Rosato v. Superior Court (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 190 [124 Cal.Rptr. 427], which involved temporary sealing of grand jury transcripts during criminal trials to protect defendant's right to a fair trial free from adverse advance publicity. Clearly, a court has inherent power to control its own records to protect rights of litigants before it, but "where there is no contrary statute or countervailing public policy, the right to inspect public records must be freely allowed." ( Craemer, supra, 265 Cal.App.2d at p. 222.) The court in Craemer suggested that countervailing public policy might come into play as a result of events that tend to undermine individual security, personal liberty, or private [***8] property, or that injure the public or the public good.
Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court, 6 Cal. App. 4th 106
The fact that there is no specific statutory requirement for access to court documents does not, of course, permit exclusion of the public from same. Both the federal (First Amendment to the United States Constitution) and the state (article I, section 2(a), California Constitution) Constitutions provide broad access rights to judicial hearings and records. A lengthy list of authorities confirms this right in general, and in particular as it pertains to the press, both in criminal and civil cases. n4 The leading case [***8] on the subject in California, Estate of Hearst, supra, 67 Cal.App.3d 777 confirms that HN3notwithstanding the statutory exception in the California Public Records Act[*112] (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.) court records are public records open to inspection. ( Estate of Hearst, supra, at p. 782.) While the courts have an inherent right to control their own records, preclusion from public inspection should be permitted only upon a showing that revelation would "tend to undermine individual security, personal liberty, or private property, or ... injure the public or the public good." ( at p. 783.)